Plastic bags

There is a reason why we do not let primary school children make policy or vote.  They are children, precious and growing but prone to all the enthusiasms of children, easily influenced, and not responsible (as taxpayers or anything else) for their expressed preferences.   And yet, as the Prime Minister was reported, it seemed that the fact that lots of school children had written to her about plastic shopping bags was almost enough in itself to justify a decision to ban them.  And how many of those letters in turn were subtly –  or not so subtly –  prompted by teachers, themselves disproportionately likely (at least based on the sample I’ve seen over 10 years and four schools) to be Labour and Greens supporting?  Has a child in central Wellington ever came home enthused by a teacher regaling them with the creative wonders of the market, of innovation, or prosperity?  (Let alone any other traditional virtues.)

Having now read the government’s consultative document on the planned ban on plastic shopping bags, I was pretty staggered by how bad it was.   Since the document is actually released under the name of the Ministry for the Environment, has the New Zealand public service now sank to such a low level of “analysis” and evaluation?  Or were they simply overruled by ministers with an agenda, and no analysis?  Either way, there is little positive that can be said for it.

Just for clarity –  since this didn’t really come through in the media reporting I saw – this is what it is proposed to ban:

A new plastic bag (including one made of degradable plastic) which has handles and is below a maximum level of thickness. The terms ‘plastic’ and ‘degradable’ (including ‘biodegradable’, ‘compostable’ and ‘oxo-degradable’) would be defined in regulations with reference to international standards.

Thus, oddly, of the 31 bags I brought home from the supermarket the other day, only 15 will be outlawed.  But there is no hint in the document as to why one sort of bag –  that one might put beans or apples in, or in which bread rolls might come wrapped –  is less problematic environmentally than the bags (with handles) that I might then carry the groceries home with.

Since one tends to notice these things once attention is drawn to them, I’m also relieved to find that the two newspapers a day that arrive at our house will still be able to be wrapped in plastic (definitely never re-used after it is ripped open), and that the various magazines that arrive each week wrapped in plastic will also still be okay.  But why?  What is the difference?    Will the bag my newspaper was in be less likely to blow round than the bags the groceries were in?  No evidence or argument is offered.

It is a simply incoherent approach, apparently grounded on no analysis whatever (at least none they have sufficient confidence in to expose to scrutiny –  perhaps it will biodegrade in sunlight?)

As it is, the document highlights just how small a problem – if “problem” they are – plastic bags are.   Here is total use

Industry estimates of current consumption in New Zealand of standard supermarket single-use shopping bags are 154 bags per person per year. This is about 750 million bags per year, or about 0.01 per cent by weight of total waste in levied landfills.

0.01 per cent of landfill waste.

There is more

Published urban litter count data does not differentiate plastic shopping bags from ‘unclassified packaging’, which makes up 10.8 per cent by count in ‘visible litter’. Takeaway food and drink packaging makes up an estimated 40.2 per cent, and non-packaging litter makes up 42.4 per cent.

And recall that the proposed ban isn’t going to ban all plastic shopping bags, only the ones with handles, which must make up quite a small proportion of even that 10.8 per cent of total “unclassified packaging”.

Or take these (unverified) estimates from various “coastal clean-up events”

Figure 1: Coastal clean-up data, New Zealand, top litter categories by … weight

plastics 2

(the orange bars are items wholly/largely made of plastic).

So even if you were wanting to focus policy on the potential impact of plastic litter on marine life etc, it is far from clear why you would make a start on plastic bags (again, recall that the class of plastic bags the government proposes to ban is only a fraction –  no estimates from them as to what fraction –  of total plastic bags).  Rope and buoys/floats do rather stand out, as do plastic drink bottles.    As I read the consultative document, it is all plastic, and will also break down over time into stuff that might do bad stuff to marine life or even humans.   But the government is just coming for our shopping bags.

I used the word “might” a couple of sentences back.  I don’t claim any expertise in the science: here instead I’m quoting the Associate Minister for the Environment, Eugenie Sage in her Message at the front of the consultative document.

There is early evidence of the toxicity of these plastic particles to marine species, and potentially the human food chain.

I was quite surprised by her rather modest claims (“early evidence”, “potentially”).  Surely that uncertainty would then be reflected in the cost-benefit analysis for any regulatory intervention?  Oh, silly me.  That assumes there is a cost-benefit analysis, but in this document there is nothing even remotely resembling such a standard part of the policy analysis toolkit.   And that is even though they explicitly acknowledge of what evaluation they did do

This assessment was based on information from overseas experience, which has many gaps in relation to these goals.

So what is the rush?  Why not do your evaluation rigorously and robustly, clearly identifying your assumptions when there is (as there always is) inevitable uncertainty?  And how about pricing the option of waiting, or incentivising the development of genuinely biodegradable bags?

But actually the clue to what is going here is actually repeated several times in the document, this from the Executive Summary.

plastics 3

In other words, we want to be in your face about it, and we can inconvenience almost everyone.

It isn’t about marine pollution or the potential toxicity of plastics, but a stake in the ground for a strategy which, if pursued, would up-end the way we do things across the spectrum of economic life, all based on the new dogma known as “the circular economy”.

I’d noticed a reference to this concept a few months ago in a speech by a senior Labour minister (this stuff isn’t just Greens flakiness) but hadn’t paid it much attention.  But here is what the government says in the latest consultative document.

plastics 4

With not a single reference, at all, to the role of the price system in signalling the best uses for resources, best productive processes etc etc, it looks a lot like economic illiteracy hallowed by a major government ministry.  There is, for example, no hint in any of this –  presented as some easy alternative –  about the labour costs in each of these approaches.   No one doubts that the earth has finite resources –  heck, even the sun will burn itself out one day –  but on this standard of analysis, government would never have let the Industrial Revolution (or all the huge improvements in material living standards that flowed from it) occur.

If there are unpriced externalities, identify them, estimate the significance of them, and look at the options for pricing them.  That would be pretty standard economic analysis.  You might even focus first on the most significant sources of marine pollution, not the feel-good ones, deliberately designed to inconvenience almost everyone.

Because this isn’t just some new analytical framework for academics to play with. It seems to be a policy agenda

Actions to phase out aspects of a linear ‘throwaway culture’ are part of a transition to a circular economy.

If the Prime Minister, James Shaw, Eugenie Sage and the rest of them haven’t come for your water bottle, your disposable coffee cup, your newspaper wrapper, your fresh produce bag at the supermarket, the tray supermarket meat comes on, or the carton your Chinese takeaways come in, this document suggests it is only a matter of time.  Standard economic analysis would suggest that provided the true economic cost of landfill provision is charged for (eg) these are cheap and efficient technologies improving the living standards of New Zealanders.

As I’ve already noted, there is no cost-benefit analysis in the document.  Specifically, there is no overall summary estimate.  But there is also no attempt to put a dollar value on any one of the various potential costs and benefits (some identified, others ignored completely).  How do we value the potential reduction in the poisoning etc from marine life? I have no idea of the appropriate number, and the documents suggests (by silence) that MfE and the government have no idea either.  Since that is, purportedly, the main benefit of the policy, it seems like quite a gap.

And if there is no cost-benefit analysis, there is also no decent distributional analysis. But there is this stark statement

Some consumers on low incomes may nonetheless find the up-front cost of multiple-use bags unaffordable. One possibility is to provide support, such as offering discounted bags to holders of Community Services Cards and Gold Cards.

So yet another policy proposal –  from the party the campaigned that it was on the side of the poor and the marginalised – that will hit the poorest hardest (as the net-zero climate proposal will).  And that on the government’s own reckoning.    But it does rather highlight the point about why supermarket shopping bags with handles exist: because they are cheap and efficient.

Strangely, there is also no real analysis of where the savings to retailers (from not providing bags) are likely to go.   Again, from a left-wing government, the first option listed in a “windfall profit” to retailers –  transferring value from poor people to supermarket shareholders?  My starting point would be that, over time, any savings to retailers would be competed away, but I know that serious people have concerns about the degree of competition in the New Zealand supermarket sector.  On which note, it would be interesting to know –  and tempting to OIA –  whether the supermarket chains have lobbied for this ban, including in its very particular form.    Quoting again from the Associate Minister,

Government working alongside industry can be very powerful

No doubt, but there should be no presumption –  perhaps especially from left-wing parties, if they seriously care about consumers and the poor –  that such working together will generally be in the public interest.

I have noted already that some costs are not even identified at all.   At present, if I go to the supermarket I give no thought to what I will bring my purchases home in.  Supermarkets provide plastic bags (as do many other retailers).  If every trip to the supermarket were in future to involve 30 seconds to collect reusable bags before heading out, then across tens of millions of trips to the supermarket each year, the value of that time alone will be non-trivial.

The authors of the consultative document also seem conveniently oblivious to how people actually live.  This is from a post by Eric Crampton this morning.

We have a few reusable bags at home. The ones we have get reused a lot, because we use them on planned trips to the store. But most of our trips aren’t like that. Most of them are grabbing a few things on the way home after getting off the bus. Maybe other people are happy to carry around reusable grocery bags every day on the off chance that they might need to grab milk, bread, eggs and butter on the way home. I’m not. On those trips, we use the disposable plastic bags. Because what else are you going to do? Walk home, get a bag, walk back to the shop? It’s absurd.

Or my own experience as a semi-retired suburban homemaker.   I go for an hour-long walk most days.  About three-quarters of the way round, I pass the local supermarket, and perhaps most days I pop in and get one or two things.  A light supermarket shopping bag, with handles, equips me for the walk back up the hill home again.   Zealots will no doubt argue that I should carry a reusable bag with me all the way round my walk.  By why would I want that inconvenience?  Or this morning, when I went out I planned to pick up just one small thing, that I might have carried home without a bag at all. But passing the supermarket I noticed a generous discount on something I stock up on whenever it is on sale.  I bought five of that item.  With a supermarket shopping bag, with handles, it was not a problem.  Without that option, I am more likely to use the car and drop back down to the supermarket later in the day, extra carbon emissions and all.  All these sorts of forced changes of behaviour should be identified, and efforts made to price them, weighed up against serious estimates of any possible benefits.

The consultative document does, at least, include a table showing estimates of how many times different types of alternative bags have to be used to have less environmental impact (over 14 different measures) than a standard supermarket shopping bag.  At the absurdist end of the spectrum –  and yet these the sorts of options Greens like to talk up in other contexts –  an organic cotton bag would, we told, need to be reused 20000 times: roughly once a day for each of 60 years.  In a sense that difference is one of the marks of how much progress society has made in identifying products as cheap and useful as the supermarket shopping bag.  Organic cotton, after all, was all the cotton there was a few hundred years ago.

Lest you be unable to believe that there is no evaluation framework at all, MfE do offer one up in the document.    It is captured in this subset of their table.

plastics 5

This framework is not designed to assess whether there is a policy problem that can be cost-effectively addressed.  Rather, it assumes there is a major policy problem  (note that triple-weighting on the first criterion, and how broadly and loosely defined it is) and then it set up to demonstrate the superiority of the option the government plans to ram through.  There is no obvious reason (from a public perspective) why the ability to impose a ban without new legislation should be favoured over an option that requires new legislation (in fact, rather the contrary given the pervasive –  deliberately so –  effect on this proposed ban).  And on the other hand, the evaluation framework gives no weight at all to issues around personal freedom and choice.  Thus, some of the other options – tax or mandatory-charge based –  would be likely to generate substantial reductions in plastic bag use, while allowing those for whom use of such bags was particularly convenient or valuable to continue to do so.  It is, for example, the approach adopted in the UK.   The consultative document offers no good economic reason not to take that path here.

Finally, it is perhaps worth noting that some media outlets have reported there being 104 countries to have adopted such a ban.  In fact, the consultative document is quite clear that there are 104 jurisdictions –  anything from local councils to national governments.  Recall that there are 70 odd territorial local authorities in New Zealand alone.  And that local councils –  here and (no doubt) abroad –  do all sorts of daft and damaging things without adequate scrutiny and evaluation (see, for example, our housing markets).   Going by the table in the document, the number of countries that have actually and enforced imposed bans (especially as far-reaching as our government plans) seems able to be counted on the fingers of one hand.   We deserve much better analysis; it is not a case of New Zealand simply copying what every other advanced economy is already doing.

It is a shockingly poor document, perhaps summed up best in this question for submitters

plastics 6

Perhaps it is mostly a fair enough question, but given all the analytical resource and money (from taxpayers) the government and MfE have at their disposal, surely they could have at least made a stab at estimating the costs and benefits themselves, setting down their workings as a basis for submitters to agree or not.

But that perhaps assumes that this is a real consultation.  I suspect the school children can be counted on to write in assuring the Prime Minister and her colleagues that it is a wonderful plan and everyone will feel better for it.  Such a sound way to make policy.

19 thoughts on “Plastic bags

  1. When Jacinda gets upset because things are not going well, she bans something. First it was oil and gas exploration after the Waihi Labour youth camp scandal. Now it’s plastic bags as a pick-me-up after the Haumaha fiasco. That’s all you need to know about the rationality of the plastic bag ban.

    Like

    • You’re right that shopping bags are being used as a political intervention. Now I think about it, that’s probably why the process resembles window dressing rather than anything more robust.

      Labour and the Greens almost certainly think they need to shift the Overton window to get people to accept the big changes we need to make to save the environment. I wish they were more candid about it, but they probably have a better idea of what will work than I do.

      Of course, anything that New Zealand can do will amount to a drop in the bucket globally, and I’m wary of attempts to claim the moral high ground, as there is always a price to pay for it, but I’m quite certain this is a done deal. I doubt National will mount anything more than a token resistance, as they risk looking curmudgeonly.

      Any savings from not providing plastic bags will probably be very minor compared to the profit derived from selling reusable and specialised bags, but that is likely to be negligible too – I bought 25 high-quality resealable food bags for $1.70 yesterday, and I estimate they will be enough for well over a month.

      Like

    • My reply above was intended to reply to the article, not to your comment.

      re your comment: I doubt there is enough political capital in this for it to be the price of the waka bill, as Winston would probably not want to be seen as opposing it. His constituency probably thinks we should all still be using string bags as plastic are wasteful.

      Like

      • Who knows, but I’d see this as a huge (short-term at least) tangible win for the Greens, net neutral to perhaps slightly positive for Labour, but quite a political risk for NZF whose voter base aren’t (to put it mildly) likely to be greatly enthused by initiatives like this. By being in govt NZF is very vulnerable to any new right wing party that might open up, especially if it was “populist”- tinged.

        Like

  2. Michael
    Very good analysis of a very poor document. If this is indicative of the level of thinking in their well thought out policies, imagine how bad the rest will be.

    Like

  3. The energy cost of producing bags and the disposal cost of putting them in landfills are red herrings, they are too minuscule to be worth considering. It’s all about keeping as much plastic as possible from finding its way into the ocean. If a ban can do that then that is good, but I’m sceptical that that would be the best thing to do. Fishing vessels and other ships dumping waste at sea is a much bigger problem (relatedly most stuff that goes into a landfill comes from commercial and industrial sectors, not consumers).

    The goal should be to make people put value on their bags so they don’t end up just dumping them at some inappropriate place, putting a price on them (as little as 10 cents) will get people to change their thinking.

    A plastic bag ban would be all about the optics and making everyone feel better, just like recycling plastic is.

    Liked by 1 person

    • This is what happened in the UK thanks to David Attenborough’s TV series, and at 10p a pop, the number of plastic shopping bags now used via shops has dropped 90%. New Zealand can’t keep saying it is not worth us doing anything about climate change because we are so insignificant: so is one UK household who does the right thing. It is how the world changes…

      Like

      • It isn’t clear that “the world” needs to change, but even if one granted that point a levy or a tax (compulsory minimum charge) is almost always a more efficient less distortionary instrument than an outright ban. As in the UK….

        Like

  4. Still remembered to this day …

    Some time ago travelling down the Southern Motorway in Auckland – traffic was medium – when suddenly a huggies-disposable nappy was biffed out of the passenger side window of a car either in front or 2 in front, splatting on my windscreen – nice

    Like

  5. The consultation document sounds awful, but that’s because I think, we are hooked on/demand a positivist approach to accompany policy development. We want to knows the facts in detail, but rarely explore the values behind our decision-making.

    It’s a fact that plastic waste is accumulating in our oceans and its effect on marine life is serious (lethal in many cases). And maybe that’s all we need to know – as that’s really all that children know. They see pictures of turtles mistaking plastic bags for jellyfish – and pictures of the ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch – and so on.

    So for them, it’s not so much that supermarket bags with handles equate to only 0.01 percent of what ends up in our landfills – it’s the very visible message that banning bags sends about a willingness by adults to change our consumptive behaviour. They (and we) will have to do a lot more of this as time goes forward.

    Yes, the facts tells us it is a minuscule step, in relation to a massive problem, but from a values perspective, it is a really visible/noticeable action to children – as most take part in grocery shopping and watch all these plastic bags come into their households.

    The banning action, therefore, communicates an ethics/ value premise that is understood by a five year old.

    Perhaps that in itself makes it a good thing.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I don’t know if i just missed it but there have been a few negative articles overseas about “overtourism”

    Anger Over Tourists Swarming Vacation Hot Spots Sparks Global Backlash

    The latest surge is different, say experts such as Simon Milne, who has researched tourism around the world, and says frustrations have been boiling at an unprecedented level, especially the past 18 months. “We can’t ignore the fact that tourists don’t have a good rap in many places,” said Mr. Milne, director of the New Zealand Tourism Research Institute at Auckland University of Technology.
    ……………….
    China’s emergence as a tourist source is adding to crowds. Outbound Chinese tourists rose to more than 60 million last year from fewer than 20 million a decade earlier, according to Chinese data.
    The Chinese spent $261 billion vacationing abroad in 2016, more than travelers from any other country, and China has accounted for roughly 80% of the growth in global tourism in dollar terms since 2008, according to the U.N. New Zealand’s former prime minister, Bill English, last year declared during a visit by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang that 2019 would be the “China-New Zealand Year of Tourism.”
    Yet the boom in Chinese visitors has added to traffic at some tourist hot spots, such as the white-sand tropical beaches and coral reefs of Southeast Asia, that were already under strain from throngs of visitors.
    [has picture of bus Chinese bus outside Crown Plaza Queenstown]

    “I’ve lived here for 36 years and the place is a whole lot better than when I came here,” says Jim Boult, the town’s mayor. “Some New Zealanders have the idea that because it isn’t like it was in 1965, it’s not good anymore.”

    Locals complain traffic has become a problem, and residents who can’t afford homes feel squeezed out. Jason Medina, an events manager, says he moved to Queenstown in 2004 and found a sleepy mountain town where houses rented for about $1,000 a month. Now, he says people are lucky to get single rooms for that.

    john kim
    SUBSCRIBER
    2 months ago
    Toured South Island for 5 weeks. I was in Queenstown for about 4 hours before driving off.
    …………
    ‘“I’ve lived here for 36 years and the place is a whole lot better than when I came here,” says Jim Boult, the town’s mayor. “Some New Zealanders have the idea that because it isn’t like it was in 1965, it’s not good anymore.”’

    That’s hilarious – the mayor loves the tourists and can’t fathom why anybody else wouldn’t. I guess he loves crowds and the extra money to play with. But maybe – just maybe – some of his constituents came for the remote beauty of there place, not in hopes of transforming it into Times Square.
    Vote that guy out!

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/anger-over-tourists-swarming-vacation-hot-spots-sparks-global-backlash-1527000130

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-16/americans-sleep-in-maori-hall-as-tourists-overwhelm-new-zealand

    In New Zealand’s case (at least) Chinese service the Chinese market and compete with (what I think of as) New Zealanders. Chinese now own most motels in Christchurch but also icons like The Merino Cafe at Omarama.

    Like

  7. Congrats on making great background to Leightons show this morning.
    Fascinating that a kiwi company is on the verge of a big breakthrough using plastic waste.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s