The Plastic Bag Debate
Caribbean and international perspectives on bans on plastic and styrofoam
In July of this year, the Trinidad & Tobago government approved a ban on styrofoam products which will take effect in 2019, but which will see an almost immediate ban on the importation of styrofoam products into the country.
(The Guardian, July 28th, 2018).
The announcement was made by Planning and Development Minister Camille Robinson-Regis during a conference at one of the country’s popular eco-destinations, the Caroni Bird Sanctuary, following approval by Cabinet two weeks prior.
Robinson-Regis has assured local polystyrene manufacturers that they will be given time to make their products environmentally-friendly, and to provide them financial protection in the transition. She said a team has been set up “that is working with the current producers of styrofoam so that they will not be totally out of pocket.”
Policy change needed for T&T
Government has also been encouraging citizens to begin recycling other waste such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles, drink cartons, aluminium cans and glass bottles. Polystyrene foam products are already being phased out in Tobago after the THA passed a motion to do so in 2017.
A policy change needs to be effected to support government’s call for change. According to THA official Linford Beckles, while there are currently “no taxes on styrofoam products coming into Trinidad and Tobago,” there are taxes on “environmentally friendly alternatives,” which he said did not “align with environmental ideals.”
By January 2019, Dominica, home to 70,000 people, plans to fully ban all common plastic and styrofoam single-use food containers. The decision builds on an earlier initiative to restrict imports of non-biodegradable containers, an attempt to cut off their flow into the stores and restaurants that distribute them.
Climate-change resilience for Dominica
According to National Geographic writer, Sarah Gibbens, “Dominica plans to become the world’s first climate resilient nation, and banning single-use containers is one step they’re taking to get there.” She says, “In the coming years, the country wants to become the world’s first climate resilient nation. In addition to protecting its valuable tourism industry, the government hopes sustainable policies will make the island more resilient to hurricanes like the one that devastated the island’s infrastructure in 2017.”
A 2016 IMF study identifies Dominica as one of five Caribbean territories most at risk for impacts of climate change. The study names Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines at the “extreme level of vulnerability” to natural disasters. For the Dominica government it is a race against time as the country works to make the island climate-change resilient.
In a publication of November 2017 entitled, ‘Unleashing Growth and Strengthening Resilience in the Caribbean’ which reviewed the principal economic and financial challenges facing our region and attempts to suggest policy prescriptions, it was posited that reducing disaster damage by one-half, could lead to significant growth gains for Dominica. This in turn “could help to break the negative debt-growth cycle and improve debt dynamics.” Studies show that for every dollar spent on disaster risk reduction, anywhere between five and ten dollars are saved in disaster response. This is the rationale on which the Dominica government is basing its policies and programs, prudent spending and investment that protect our future.
Plastic bans are a windfall for supermarkets
Gary Mortimer, Associate Professor at Queensland University of Technology in Australia, sees the elimination of plastic bags as a windfall for supermarkets but it won’t do much for the environment.
Moves by major supermarkets to stop providing free plastic bags could earn these businesses more than A$1 million a year, but may only have a small impact on the environment.
Australia’s two supermarket giants, Woolworths and Coles, have announced that their stores will stop offering their regular plastic bags within 12 months. Instead, customers will be able to buy a more durable plastic bag at 15 cents apiece, or simply bring their own.
These bags are factored into the cost of doing business for these supermarkets. There are costs beyond just the bags themselves, such as the costs associated with sourcing and negotiating with packaging suppliers, procuring them, shipping and warehousing them, and distributing them to stores only to then give them away.
Supermarket margins are already feeling the strain of price deflation. These businesses are generally making less than 6c on the dollar, so the opportunity to phase out this cost certainly makes good business sense. The table below provides an estimate of current costs.
Estimated costs for Australian business
While retailers stand to pocket this saving, the switch to stronger, multi-use plastic bag brings with it its own costs. To begin with, the bags alone cost more (9c each) and also have associated procurement costs. However, the new scheme will immediately reduce customers’ bag usage. Being optimistic, it would be reasonable to see an 80% decline in plastic bag use as shoppers actively search for alternatives to free bags.
Most shoppers will probably reuse the 15c bag, or look to other options like canvas bags, polyethylene bags or cardboard boxes. In turn, while the new re-usable bag may cost more than the thinner single-use bag, fewer will be used and therefore ordered. Retailers can expect to see a reduction in these packaging costs.
It’s estimated that Australian retailers give away 6 billion plastic bags each year. Woolworths alone say they provide 3.2 billion each year. Coles has not provided an estimate of bag use, but claims to process 21 million transactions each week. With fewer stores than Woolworths, I estimate that Coles may give away up to 2.7 billion bags annually.
With each bag costing almost 3c, retailers stand to save more than A$170 million a year in direct costs. Selling these new bags at 15c each effectively creates another revenue stream potentially adding up to A$71 million in gross profit (6c x 1.18 billion units).
Vacillating in the US and the UK
In 2013, Target reverted to providing free plastic bags after three years of charging 10c per bag. Other than hardware retailer Bunnings, no other large retailer has initiated a voluntary ban on single-use plastic bags.
In Australia, the past impact of applying a charge to the use of plastic bags has provided positive, but mixed results. In Australia, Bunnings reported an 80% reduction after implementing a charge for plastic bags, while a 2008 trial undertaken in three Victorian regional towns by Coles, Woolworths and IGA resulted in a 79% reduction.
In 2002, Ireland applied a 15 pence (22c) charge to single-use plastic bags, claiming a 90% reduction within 6 months (this was before the transition to the euro currency in the same year). Then in 2007 it increased the charge to 22 euro cents (32c) in response to increased bag usage. Sadly, shoppers had become conditioned to the 15p charge and returned to their old habits.
The UK government likewise reported an 85% reduction in single-use plastic bags in the first 6 months after a 5p charge (8c) was implemented in 2015. Similar results have been reported in the US, with a 94% reduction in Los Angeles County from the introduction of a charge for bags.
In the above cases (excluding Australian examples), single- use bags were still available, however a levy was applied, creating revenue for governments to channel back into environmental programs. This model is not the planned approach for Australia, where all single-use bags will be replaced with either the heavy duty (>35 micron, LDPE) option at 15c or the “green” polyethylene bag.
Charges for bags should go to environmental programs
Unfortunately, introducing a charge for bags doesn’t help the environment in isolation. While plastic bags represent only about 2% of landfill, there is certainly sufficient scientific evidence that plastic bags do present risks to marine life and clog waterways.
However, simply charging for a plastic bag, without directing these funds into environmental programs, does not necessarily resolve the problem. Shoppers slowly return to old habits, governments and retailers stop educating consumers and re-usable bags soon make their way into waterways and landfills.
Some shoppers simply forget to bring re-usable bags with them. The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found that the average UK household had 40 plastic bags stashed away around the home. Also a South Australian parliamentary review found that only about 30% of shoppers actually recycled their re-usable bags.
In the US, studies indicated 40% of shoppers continued to use disposable bags, despite a 5 cent levy.
Moving to a reusable option also doesn’t stop people discarding these new bags either. Another US study found many people still threw away reusable bags.
Ultimately, “banning the bag” is only the beginning. Retailers will need to remedy customer complaints as the phasing out of plastic bags begins.
Like UK retailers, Australian supermarkets could choose to funnel some of the profits derived from the 15c reusable bag into community programs or environmental groups. Australian governments will also need to fund ongoing education campaigns to draw attention to bans, alternatives and outcomes.
This article draws from articles by The Conversation – “Getting rid of plastic bags: a windfall for supermarkets but it won’t do much for the environment” (July 2017), National Geographic – This Island Nation Is Banning Plastic (August 2018), and “From Survival, To Sustainability and Success: A Resilient Dominica” (The National Budget of The Commonwealth of Dominica Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019.)
