Transue 1 Michael Transue EMS 612A Environmental Assessment Pratt Institute April 2012 NYC Bag Fee Implementation: Plastic Bag Manufacturer Perspective In New York City, disposable bags consist of 3% of the total residential waste stream, including street basket collection; and although the approximate annual collection of 5.2 billion plastic bags contributes to this percentage, the plastic bag remains a functional aspect of everyday life in New York City (NYC 2011). Dense urban areas in particular inherently offer increased potential to utilize plastic bags beyond the initial trip of the plastic bag from point-of-sale to the consumer’s home. It is the functional versatility and frequent use of the plastic bag that heightens its abundant presence in communities. Does this mean a bag fee should be implemented in New York City to reduce plastic bag demand, waste and subsequent litter? In 2009, Mayor Bloomberg’s administration proposed such a fee requiring 5-cents per plastic bag; however this bag fee faced opposition and eventually failed to become law (M+R 2012). Among those in opposition were individuals with invested interest in the plastic bag industry, like plastic bag manufacturers. We at Plastic Bagufacturers believe any plastic bag fee proposal is a misguided strategy with unintended economic and environmental effects which would accompany a significant reduction in the presence of plastic bags. Plastic bags themselves do not require virgin materials and can be fabricated with recycled plastic. In response to the opportunity for the reduction of plastic bags, statewide and citywide recycling standards have been implemented as law. The incorporation of post-consumer plastic bags as a component of the fabrication process offers a greater potential to achieve an efficient, closed-loop system. The 2008 New York State Plastic Bag Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Act is a statewide initiative that “requires large retail stores and medium to large chain stores that sell products and provide plastic carryout bags to accept clean plastic bags for recycling,” (DOS 2012) in distinct recycling bins. The separation of the plastic bags ensures the clean stream required to effectively recycle the content, evading contamination from organic matter and other wastes. In response to the statewide regulatory Act, the City of New York implemented the Plastic Carryout Bag Recycling Law shortly after. The law “requires any retail or wholesale establishment that sells products and provides plastic carryout bags, and either has over 5,000 square feet of retail space or 5 or
Transue 2 more stores located in the City to establish an in-store recycling program for plastic carryout bags” (DOS 2012). To promote consumer participation, the stores are also required to use bags printed with a reminder to consumers to “please return this bag to a participating store for recycling” (DOS 2012). The success of disposable bag recycling programs directly affect the volume of plastic bags, and can offset any reduction accrued via a bag fee program. However, individuals who may not participate in plastic bag recycling programs will likely reuse the bags for other purposes. 90% of Americans already reuse plastic grocery bags as trashcan liners, school lunch bags, and for convenient storage of household items (Smith 2012). Enacting a bag fee could force the individuals who reuse plastic bags to buy retail trash bags and therefore inherently add to the waste stream with another type of plastic bag. Although bag fees can harness governmental capital funds that could be utilized to beautify communities blighted by plastic bags, they may have hidden costs. Bag fee implementation will definitely increase the use and sales of reusable bags like polypropylene. In fact reusable tote bag sales have already skyrocketed without the addition of bag fees; reusable totes were the nation’s fastest growing fashion accessory, with sales increasing by 76% from 2007 to 2008. Additionally, an online-based Phoenix company selling nonwoven polypropylene bags experienced a 1,000% increase during the same year (Gamerman 2008). Further increases in reusable bag sales will have a decreasing effect of disposable bag usage and will greatly impact the local bag manufacturing sector of New York City, as well as the individuals employed within the industry. Regulatory disposable bag fees should target paper rather than plastic bags. The fabrication process of a paper bag is more harmful to natural resources and the environment compared to the plastic bag. Paper bags rely on massive tree harvests to extract the pulp which contributes to clear-cutting; the harvests of the trees also require heavy emitting machinery that adds to the degradation of the environment. Then the pulp is washed and bleach, with both stages requiring large amounts of clean water, “1 part pulp to 400 parts water,” (Dunn 2008). That intensive fabrication process only creates the paper product, future “energy inputs -- chemical, electrical, and fossil fuel-based -- used to transport the raw material, turn the paper into a bag and transport the finished paper bag” must also be considered in the initial costs of paper bags (Dunn 2008). Plastic bags, however, are fabricated with polyethylene; ethylene is made from ethane which is a waste by-product from the refinement of natural gas (Save 2012). The ethane must be
Transue 3 removed from the process regardless of the need for plastic bag manufacturing to “lower the BTU value of the natural gas to an acceptable level” (Save 2012). If the ethane is not utilized to make plastics, it must be burned off because ethane can only be used to make ethylene and has no other functional value (Save 2012). A Franklin Associates, Ltd evaluation of 10,000 bags, at 1.5 plastic bags for every one paper bag, found that “plastic bags require 9.7 million Btus, vs. 16.3 [million Btus] for paper bags [assuming] zero percent recycling; even [when assuming] 100% recycling rates, plastic bags still require less -- 7.0 [million Btus] to paper's 9.1 [million Btus] (Dunn 2008). Therefore, less energy is required in the process to create plastic bags than paper bags. Due to the difference in extraction techniques, the fabrication processes of paper bags require a much higher volume of water resources than plastic bags, potentially jeopardizing the clean water capacity for future generations. A Seattle based study found the production of 1,000 paper bags utilizes 1,004 gallons of clean water while plastic needs only 58 gallons per 1,500 bags (Doughton 2009). In addition to the use of natural resources, paper bags generate massive amounts of water, air and greenhouse gas pollution during the manufacturing process. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the Seattle study found the water pollution of paper bags to be 1.6 gallons compared to 0.3 gallons for plastic, the air pollution at 3.3 pounds for paper and 0.9 for plastic, and greenhouse gas impacts at 160 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalents and only 80 for plastic bag generation (Doughton 2009). Once taken home and consumed, or utilized, the negative impacts of paper bags continue to outweigh those of plastic bags. The previously mentioned study by Franklin Associates, Ltd also found that: Plastic bags create fewer airborne emissions and require less energy during the life cycle of both types of bags per 10,000 equivalent uses -- plastic creates 9.1 cubic pounds of solid waste vs. 45.8 cubic pounds for paper; plastic creates 17.9 pounds of atmospheric emissions vs. 64.2 pounds for paper; plastic creates 1.8 pounds of waterborne waste vs. 31.2 pounds for paper. (Dunn 2008) Much of the disparity of the emissions values can be attributed to the end life decomposing process of the two materials, assuming the bags have not been recycled. Decomposing paper in landfills releases methane greenhouse gases that have 23 times the heat trapping power of carbon dioxide gas (Save 2012). Conversely, “the best material to put in a landfill is ordinary non-degradable polyethylene,” or plastic bags, because plastics inherently sequester carbon dioxide (Save 2012).
Transue 4 To recycling process of paper is as complicated as the fabrication of the raw good. First the paper must be “re-pulped, which usually requires a chemical process involving compounds like hydrogen peroxide, sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide that bleach and separate the pulp fibers” (Dunn 2008). The paper is then thoroughly washed and readied for manipulation into future forms of use. It is important to note that conditional tolerances to wetness, and contamination assist in making plastic the easier material to recycle; it is impossible to recycle wet paper bags, yet wet plastic bags can still be broken down. Many environmentalists argue that reusable tote bags are the answer to plastic bags and should be utilized by consumers instead. However, the fabrication process requires more energy and materials to produce reusable bags like the popular polypropylene “green bag.” These “ecofriendly bags are manufactured in China, shipped thousands of miles overseas, and made with plastic and could take years to decompose” (Gamerman 2008). The fabrication of the plastic polypropylene “requires about 28 times as much energy to produce as the plastic used in standard disposable bags and eight times as much as a paper sack” (Gamerman 2008). In addition, some reusable bags are misleading in representation; bags marked as “biodegradable” are not always actually as safe as advertised. These bags comprise of recycled plastic content mixed with cornstarch, which biodegrades leaving the plastics to remain and create a “yucky polymer mess” (Grynbaum 2010). Another popular reusable bag type – “I used to be a plastic bag” tote – is misleading as well. The bags in that fashion line are also “made in China from nonwoven polypropylene and [contain] no recycled content” (Gamerman 2008). Although reusable bags have lower long term environmental impacts per consumer than any type of disposable bag after just four uses, it is a fallacy of thought to infer those individuals will use that single bag for all their future shopping endeavors. The bag could naturally degrade over a short period of time or can become misplaced which would force reusable bag advocates to repurchase another bag and all its negative impacts. Based on consumer surveys, “roughly the same number of people reuse their bags as bring disposable bags back to the grocery store for recycling -- about 10% of consumers” (Gamerman 2008). A reusable tote carrying New York City resident quipped “green is a trend and people go with trends, […] People get them as fashion statements and they have, like, 50 of them” (Grynbaum 2010). The majority of individuals may not have an understanding of the purpose of reusable bags, and this understanding is paramount for the success of such product innovation.
Transue 5 Bag fees will undoubtedly create ripple effects within the retail industry, the manufacturing industry and consumer sector. Plastic bag fees will increase the usage of non-plastic bag types implying further negative impacts on the environment. We at Plastic Bagufacturers recommend more stringent and organized recycling programs for New York City over bag fees. More effective incorporation of plastic bag recycling programs can contribute to our manufacturing industry; the post-consumer plastic is brought to the Plastic Bagufacturers facility to be recycled into future plastic bags. This cycle could remove a portion of plastic bags from the waste stream (those bags not reused for trash liners) and promote a closed-loop system for plastic bag fabrication.
Daniel Dyson, a 22 year old clerk for the U.S. Marshalls Service explains his opinion on the 5-cent plastic bag fee implemented in Washington D.C., “It's stupid, I don't want to pay for bags. It's too much� (Koch 2010).
Transue 6 Resources Doughton, S. et al. (2009) “How Bad Are Disposable Grocery Bags?” The Seattle Times. Retrieved from: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/08/12/2009651807.pdf Dunn, C. (2008) “Paper Bags or Plastic Bags? Everything You Need to Know,” Treehugger, Discovery Communications. Retrieved from: http://www.treehugger.com/culture/paper-bags-or-plastic-bags-everything-you-need-toknow/page5.html Gamerman, E. (2008) “An Inconvenient Bag,” The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238422541876879.html Grynbaum, M. (2010) “Even Reusable Bags Carry Environmental Risk,” The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/nyregion/15bags.html?_r=1&ref=plasticbags Koch, W. (2010) “Washington, D.C. Shoppers Face Nation’s First Fee for Using Plastic Bags,” USA Today. Retrieved from: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/01/washington-dcsnew-law-charges-5-cents-for-each-paper-plastic-bag/1 M+R Strategic Solutions (2012) “New York City Proposes a Citywide 5-cent Fee on Plastic Bags,” M+R Strategic Solutions. Retrieved from: http://www.mrss.com/clients/plastic_bag_facts.pdf NYC collaborative effort (2011) “PlaNYC Update April 2011: Solid Waste Chapter,” The City of New York. NYC DOS (2012) “NYC Plastic Carryout Bag Recycling Law,” New York City Department of Sanitation. Retrieved from: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/laws/local_plasticbags.shtml NYC DOS (2012) “NY State Plastic Bag Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Act, New York City Department of Sanitation. Retrieved from: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/laws/local_plasticbags.shtml NYC DOS (2012) “Plastic Bag Mandatory Take-Back Recycling Program: Info for Residents,” New York City Department of Sanitation. Retrieved from: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/stuff/takeback_plasticbaglaw.shtml Save the Plastic Bag (2012) “The Oil Myth,” Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. Retrieved from: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/ReadContent667.aspx Save the Plastic Bag (2012) “Paper Emits Methane,” Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. Retrieved from: http://www.savetheplasticbag.com/ReadContent601.aspx#Blog605 Smith, P. (2012) “Telling Plastic to ‘Bag It,’” Scholastic , Inc.