As I said eleven years ago, when the idea was first mooted in Wales:
4. [If the tax is] anything more than [0.1p per bag] we'd have a situation like in Ireland where people buy more, thicker bin-liners, nappy bags etc, so the overall environmental benefits are questionable to say the least.
I was correct in principle, although my guesses on what substitutes people would buy were off the mark. From the BBC, today:
Sales of "bags for life" rose to 1.5bn last year as the amount of plastic used by supermarkets increased to 900,000 tonnes, Greenpeace research has found.
Campaigners are calling for higher charges for the bags or a complete ban as the research showed households bought an average of 54 a year... Bags for life must be used four times to be better for the environment.
On a human level, I really don't get it. I was caught out twice after the tax came in and paid the 5p for a disposable bag. Damn. Since then, I usually remember to take proper cloth bags with me to the supermarket. If I do a big shop, I'm with the* car anyway, so worst case I unload the stuff from the trolley straight into the boot, no biggie. If I pop in to the corner shop on the way home, I don't buy more than I can carry with two hands. (And what the hell does an average household do with their piles of bags for life?)
On the other hand, on a human level, I can understand it. If you're at the checkout with £50 of shopping for the family for the next few days, who cares about another 20p or 30p for the bags/convenience? Obviously, not very many.
So, the question is, should the whole thing be abandoned as a bad job, or should the tax be hiked ever higher? We can rule out a "complete ban", that's cloud cuckoo.
* Strictly speaking "with a car" as I have more than one, but that sounds odd.
-----------------------------------
This bit winds me up as well:
Waitrose was ranked top for cutting its packaging and trying out refill stations for products such as coffee, rice, pasta, wine and detergent.
Morrisons came second and was praised for setting a quantified target to increase reusable and refillable packaging, as well as making its loose and refillable products 10% cheaper than packaged alternatives.
Sure, they sell stuff 'loose'. Does that reduce the amount of plastic used? Does it heck. You are expected to put your 'loose' items into a flimsy plastic bag!
Being me, I don't bother with the flimsy plastic bag, I just hand the check out assistant three loose carrots (or whatever it is I only need a few of), they weigh up and charge me for the carrots. If you put them in a flimsy plastic bag, they weigh the plastic bag with contents and charge you for the bag as well.
And there is a trade-off between food waste and packaging waste. To a large extent, the packaging is there to reduce food waste. Think egg boxes. Just because the packaging is thrown away does not mean that it hasn't served a useful purpose.
Debate Magazine
