Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Sack this plan

Denver council should steer clear of bag tax

The Rocky

Published February 18, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Let's charge most grocery shoppers 10 cents for every plastic and paper bag they use - that's the idea being kicked around at Denver City Hall. And representatives of the grass-roots group behind this initiative, Better- BagsColorado.org, say they've received encouraging responses from most of the council members with whom they've met.

Among them is Chris Nevitt, who told us he's generally in favor of the idea. "This is the way the world is going, the way we need to go," he said.

Allow us, however, to inject a discouraging word. While we're generally supportive of efforts to reduce waste, this particular proposal should be buried deep in the nearest landfill.

The problem this plan aims to address is the vast amount of paper and plastic that finds its way into landfills and the world's oceans, where plastic bags, in particular, may pose a threat to the environment and wildlife as they slowly decompose.

One way to fix this, says BetterBagsColorado, is to force supermarkets with annual revenues of $2 million or more to charge their customers who use plastic or paper bags to carry purchases home.

At first blush, the proposal would seem to have merit: If you want to cut down on the number of plastic and paper bags, what better way than to make their use hurt a little?

But there are many problems.

First, 10 cents is probably too little to make much of a difference to most shoppers - they'll just chalk it up to the ever-increasing cost of buying food. So, families will end up paying an additional $40 to $60 or more per year and society at large will have little to show for it. And while affluent and middle-class shoppers might be willing to overlook the program's basic ineffectiveness and swallow the cost in order to palliate their eco-consciences, it would be a clear burden on many others.

However, Deborah Hart and Dana Miller - the driving forces behind BetterBagsColorado - insist the plan would be effective and point to the success in Ireland of that country's tax on plastic shopping bags. There, they say, bag use has been reduced by 90 percent.

Not so fast, says Serge Lavoie, president and CEO of the Canadian Plastics Industry Association. Writing in the Toronto Star, Lavoie says Irish consumers "responded to a 'plastax' by switching to other types of bags not subject to the tax, particularly heavier plastic 'kitchen catcher' bags, to carry their groceries. And while there was a 90 percent reduction in bags handed out at checkout, sales of these heavier plastic bags have gone up 400 percent and the overall amount of plastic resin used in Ireland has actually increased 10 percent."

Second, what's to prevent many Denverites from shopping in neighboring communities where the fee would not be imposed, thus driving business out of Denver?

Moreover, why target grocers alone? Is there some reason other enterprises that use vast quantities of paper and plastic bags are exempted? Think, for instance, of the billions of bags and other plastic and paper goods used each year by the fast-food industry - and, yes, newspapers. (We don't doubt the sincerity of the measure's proponents, but in fairness it should be mentioned that Miller is co-owner of BaggyShirts, a company that sells reusable bags made out of recycled flannel shirts.)

In fact, though Hart and Miller told us they see the supermarkets as "a good starting place," they nevertheless would "love to have [the surcharge] go all over the place." But where will it end? Is there any packaged product that some activist somewhere wouldn't like to see taxed into oblivion?

Look, we're all in favor of cutting down on waste. Raising the everyday level of awareness about our responsibilities as good stewards of our planet is a fine idea. And if people can be persuaded to limit their use of paper and plastic bags, or recycle, all the better. But that's the key: persuasion, not coercion.

Comments

  • February 18, 2008

    6:46 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    vudumom writes:

    I wonder if Denver did pass this,what would they do with the revenue?Waste it probably.

  • February 18, 2008

    6:48 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    VVVV writes:

    Wow. No wonder Denver is having critical problems with schools, voting, plowing roads, air emissions, and a host of other issues. They're spending all their time listening to crackpots spout off about the horrors of plastic bags. Throw in a resolution to end the war in Iraq, and they could probably legitimately claim to have accomplished absolutely nothing productive all year.

  • February 18, 2008

    7:46 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    CoolGroceryBags writes:

    Using reusable grocery bags is one of the easiest ways to make a difference . . .

    www.CoolGroceryBags.com

  • February 18, 2008

    10:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Darwin writes:

    As has been previously pointed out, "one has to wonder if they were sitting around a table filled with plastic bottles of water while discussing their scheme", and as is often the need in such schemes, "follow the money".

  • February 18, 2008

    11:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    blh1616 writes:

    I don't think that anyone has mentioned this yet, but I hope that grocery chains spending so much less on plastic and paper bags could lead to decreased grocery prices as well. I don't have any knowledge of how much they spend per day/year, but it must be substantial.

    Secondly, this is a deterrent for consumers. The idea is not revenue. It is to discourage the easy route of using the plastic and paper bags. It isn't difficult to actually use reusable bags, but most consumers do not go out of their way to purchase one. I carry 2-3 reusable bags in my car at all time, and many grocery stores already give you a credit for using one.

  • February 18, 2008

    2:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    vudumon @ 6:46 am,
    There is nothing in the editorial that indicates in any way, shape, or form that this would be a city-collected tax. According to the editorial, the proponents are asking that certain merchants impose a 10 cent surcharge or bag fee. For all we know, the affected merchants could keep the 10 cents per bag for themselves.
    I'm not saying I agree with the idea. I think education and voluntary encouragement of the public to BYOB (bring your own bags) is a much better approach. We use cloth bags at our house. Whole Foods and others have this nifty cloth shopping bag that folds and zips up into something the size of a wallet. I think it's great that even mainstream stores like King Soopers, and probably Safeway, now offer cloth bags.
    And the newspaper industry should go back to their original use of plastic bags and use them only when it's raining or snowing.

  • February 18, 2008

    4:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Acemon writes:

    Nobody seems to point out the obvious fact that we already pay for bags, whether paper or plastic. Nothing is free in a supermarket: the cost of groceries cover the bags, the heating, the lights, and even the "free" parking. Additionally, there are no existing rules or laws preventing shoppers from bringing their own bags -- in fact, some stores already offer a credit for people doing just that. Perhaps a better approach than a tax might be a "deposit," similar to that on aluminum cans. With that, we might see homeless people picking up abandoned bags the same way they collect empty cans, as well as denying the nanny state another way to help empty our wallets.

  • February 18, 2008

    10:18 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

    This has probally been mentioned, what will stop the store from putting less in each bag?

  • February 19, 2008

    8:53 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Carolyne writes:

    Most of the comments above indicate a lack of interest in the environment, shortsightedness or - let's face it - laziness. When countries most of the commenters above think are "less civil" than the US, like China, South Africa and Rwanda have banned plastic bags because of environmental concerns, are we in the US going to once again be the the world-wide holdouts and the last to see the writing on the wall? When we get to the point where gas is $5/gallon or more, maybe choosing to reuse bags created from petroleum products or use cloth or net bags will interest the nay sayers if it means an extra gallon of gas for their SUV.
    I've been reusing paper and plastic bags for ten years. It's easy. Try it!

  • February 25, 2008

    5:10 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    TonyB writes:

    Let the city council require that Waste Management accept plastic bags for recycling as part of their franchise. Surely, there is a technology for recycling plastic bags.

    Of course the city council is giving "encouraging responses" to this idea. Ten cents to over a dollar each time a grocery shopper goes through a checkout lane in Denver County makes visions of sugar plums dance in their heads . . . . particularly the Democrat council members, I imagine.