1. PLASTIC BAG LEVY NYC
The purpose of this report is to understand the efficacy of
enacting a levy of $.10 for every single-use plastic bag (SUPB)
used by consumers at grocery stores in New York City. “Covered
store” is defined as a vendor, retail or wholesale establishment that
sells personal, consumer or household items. This includes drug
stores, pharmacies, grocery stores, supermarkets or convenience
stores. It does not include mobile food vendors, liquor stores that
sell alcohol for consumption outside of the establishment, and
emergency food providers. Exceptions to the fee are made for those
on certain federal food-assistance programs such as WIC and
SNAP, bags that are reusable up to 130 times, paper bags that are
made of at least 40% recyclable material, and thicker plastic bags
such as those used in packaging meat and poultry (thicker than ~30
microns). The goal of the report is to show how enacting such a
levy would reduce SUPB usage in the City and the City’s Carbon
Footprint, and save the City millions of dollars per year in operating
failures in the City’s sanitation infrastructure associated with plastic
bags, such as jams and clogs. The report analyzed comparable bans,
fees, and levies of plastic bags in the United States and around the
world to understand what has been the most successful and
productive policy to consider in the City. Upon examining these
precedents, as well as the social and demographic factors specific to
New York City, it becomes clear that enacting a levy would be a
good start towards becoming a City that is less dependent on
plastics and is more environmentally conscience. However, many
limitations abound, and a levy would not be a panacea for the City’s
environmental problems.
Exploring the efficacy
of enacting a levy on
plastic bag use in New
York City

2. 1
Article I. Contents
Acknowledgments:.............................................................................................................................2
Introduction:......................................................................................................................................3
Article II. Plastic Bag Bans and Fees around the World......................................................................4
Section2.01 The development of the Ban .....................................................................................4
Section2.02 Bangladesh...............................................................................................................4
Section2.03 South Africa..............................................................................................................5
Section2.04 India ........................................................................................................................5
Section2.05 The Powers of the plasticsindustry toinfluence policy................................................6
Article III. Anti-Plastic Sentiment in Developed Countries-Development of the Levy............................8
Article IV. Anti-Plastic Sentiment and Policy Responses in the United States .......................................9
Section4.01 Plastic Bag fee in Washington D.C..............................................................................9
Section4.02 Plastic bag fee in Dallas, Texas.................................................................................11
Section4.03 Plastic bag tax in Boulder, Colorado.........................................................................11
Article V. Plastic Bag Proposal in NYC.............................................................................................12
Article VI. Opposition to the Levy....................................................................................................14
Article VII. Opposition toNew York City’s proposed fee.................................................................16
Article VIII. Response to Opposition..............................................................................................16
Article IX. Limitations.....................................................................................................................18
Article X. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................19

3. 2
Acknowledgments:
I firstlywouldliketothankAssemblywomanNilyRozic,whoallowedme togainthe invaluable
experience of interningatherdistrictoffice.ItisthroughthisinternshipthatIbecome acquaintedwith
the inner-workingsof adistrictoffice,aswell asthe interplaybetweenthe Assemblywomanandlocal
civic,religious,andpoliticalactors.Thisreport,however,wouldalmostassuredlybe lessthoroughand
limitedif notforthe (sometimesbrutally) honest andmeaningful feedbackIreceivedfrom Mrs. Erin
Rogers,DistrictDirector.She gave me both the motivationtopushmyself toproduce the bestpossible
researchpaperI can as well asthe guidance andmentoringneededtomeetthose standards. MarillaLi,
KevinCho,andMeagan Molinaalsohelpedme ina subtle butsignificantway.WhenErinwason
vacationon myfirstweekinterning,itwastheywho“showedme the ropes”-withgreathumor,
understanding,andhelpfulness-howtobegintowrite myproposal as well asfamiliarizingme withhow
the office isrun.Lastly,it ismy fellow internswhoImustthankfor providingafunandcollaborative
atmosphere thatprovedinvaluable andmade me lookforwardtocomingineachday.

4. 3
Introduction:
Since its development in 1907 by Leo Baekland as an alternative to natural electric
insulators, plastic has been a staple of American consumer life. We use it in everything from
diapers and car parts to pens and keyboards. Because plastic is made from no natural materials
and can be molded for millions of different possible uses, it comes as no surprise that global use
of plastic products has swelled to several billion tons a year1 since World War II. Plastics
overtook glass, steel, wood and paper to be the most widely used component in products in
almost every market during this time. Like the Bessemer process and Cotton Gin before it,
plastic made it affordable to mass produce products at an affordable price for consumers and
producers alike. Plastic has therefore been a key part of our increased standard of living, which
relies heavily on consuming ever-better qualities of products.
While plastic has led to an increase in the quality of life for billions of people, its use has
also been the cause of environmental degradation and pollution the world over. According to the
EPA, 33 million tons of plastic waste was generated in 2013 alone2. Most of these products,
however, are left to landfills and “floating” landfills in the ocean, as only 9 percent of all plastic
products are recycled every year3. Although plastics are able to be completely recycled, they take
between 500-1000 years to biodegrade into non-toxic forms, since they never completely
decompose4. Since plastic is lightweight and low density, it floats for hundreds of miles in the
ocean before concentrating together. Because of the direction of the currents in the Pacific
Ocean, the area they concentrate in is known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is twice
the size of Texas. The Garbage Patch represents the crude reality of our reliance on plastic.
1 http://www.pardos-marketing.com/hot04.htm
2 http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/plastics.htm#facts
3 http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/plastics.htm#facts
4 http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/coastal/trash/documents/marine_debris.pdf

5. 4
As people have become increasingly aware of the environmental toll that plastics have
taken, governments around the world have responded to the peoples’ concerns and issued
ordinances that banned or fees levied on individual use of plastic bags, specifically Single Use
Plastic Bags (SUPB)5. The reason that plastic bags have come under intense governmental
scrutiny is because SUPB are an easy way to cut down on plastic consumption and have
consumers think about their plastic use.
In the United States, 150 counties and cities have enacted bans on SUPB or a levy for
individual use. These measures provide customers with a brown paper bag or a reusable bag as
an alternative to a SUPB. In cities that have enacted a ban such as Los Angeles, the enactment of
the ban was preceded by a reusable bag distribution to constituents who would otherwise not be
able to afford a reusable bag.
Considerable opposition to a levy has been raised. Plastic bag producers such as
NOVOLEX have objected that it would pose significant damages to their industry without even
doing much to help the environment. They cite EPA data that admits that SUPB constitutes only
2% of water stream litter in NYC and only around 1% of total litter nationwide. Furthermore,
they argue that SUPB’s are the most environmentally friendly option at the checkout line. They
consume less resources than brown paper bags or reusable bags, many of which are made from
petroleum overseas.
Because a levy can hurt low-income residents of NYC, and because the alternatives
provided at the checkout are not the best environmental option available, no panacea exists in
reducing SUPB use. However, a levy can be drafted that takes into account the needs of low
income residents, environmentally friendly alternatives, and other elements of bans/levies around
the world in order to reach the goal of reducing NYC’s use of SUPB.
Article II. Plastic Bag Bans and Fees around the World
Section 2.01 The development of the Ban
Around the world, 11 countries have banned the use of plastic bags with varying success.
These include South Africa, Uganda, Somalia, Rwanda, Botswana, Kenya, Ethiopia, India, Italy,
China and Bangladesh6. The bans have been a popular strategy in the Global South for various
reasons, and these particular reasons prevent duplication in New York.
Section 2.02 Bangladesh
Popular opinion against the use of plastic bags and subsequent legislation first emerged in
South Asia in the 1980’s. Lead by local NGO’s focusing on Dhaka, the capital city, the Ministry
of Environment took up the matter in earnest in 1993 after popular pressure. After plastic bags
5 http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2014/update123
6 https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=ztaMPVI5Hmsg.kbA3CI52AtWs

6. 5
clogged drainage pipes in Bangladesh, causing flooding for two months in 1998, Bangladesh
became the first country to ban the use of all plastic polyethylene shopping bags7.
Section 2.03 South Africa
In 2000 a study appeared in the South African Journal of Economics that sought to
examine waste management infrastructure and practices in the country. The study blamed plastic
bags as a culprit in country’s failing waste management systems. Specifically, it highlighted the
tendency of plastic bags to clog drainage pipes and sitting into open landfills without
decomposing, leading to expensive fixtures and an increasingly polluted waste management
infrastructure8. While New York City deals with other infrastructural issues related to SUPB’s,
the City has a much more advanced waste treatment infrastructure that does not have open
landfills and sewers that spill onto the street, like South Africa does. The fact that this threatened
the important tourist industry lead the government in 2001 to introduce legislation that
researched the efficacy of a country-wide ban on plastic bags, not just SUPB. “Plastic Bags” as
the South African government was concerned, was anything less than 100 microns in thickness.
This typically covers all shopping bags but also includes such products as packaging used in
shipping, takeout food containers, and thicker bags used in bookstores to carry books. This was
the widest ranging ban to be proposed, as measured in the amount of industries it would disrupt.
In 2002, after various rounds of debates and negotiations, the government passed the “Plastic
Bag Agreement”9. The Agreement called for a ban on plastic bags thinner than 30 microns,
which almost exclusively covers SUPB and other related shopping bags used in grocery stores.
The ban also imposed a levy on thicker bags, but that levy is only limited to supermarkets. The
levy would be charged to the consumer for every bag they use that is thicker than 30 microns.
The levy would only give consumers a choice of paying the fee for a bag thicker than 30
microns, and no alternative would be provided, as opposed to similar levies around the world,
which give consumers the choice between a SUPB and a Paper/Reusable one.
Section 2.04 India
In India anti-plastic bag opinion took hold in the 1990s with laws being passed in various
states and cities to restrict their use. Support for a plastic bag ban came about after cows choked
to death eating plastic bags in the countryside. Because India is a Hindu country that treats cows
as sacred, this resonated with a large part of the population10. Plastic bags have also been
implicated as a key factor in landsides and floods in a number of states, similar to Bangladesh, in
7 Reazuddin. 2006.“Banning polyethylene shoppingbags:a step forward to promoting environmentally
sustainabledevelopment in Bangladesh”.In Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, Dhaka:Bangladesh.
8 Hasson,R., Leiman, A. and Visser,M. 2007. The economics of plastic baglegislation in South Africa. South African
Journal of Economics, 75(1): 66–83.
9 Government of South Africa. 2004. “Media statement: plastic bagregulations –the 1stanniversary [online]”.
Availablefrom:http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2004/04051012151001.htm
10 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91310904

7. 6
addition to being an eyesore which harms the tourist industry, similar to South Africa11. Sikkim,
Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh, Ladakh, Haryana, Jammu, Kashmir as well as Delhi and
Bombay states all enacted bans on the use and distribution of plastic bags12. States varied in their
bans, with some banning bags less than 20 or 25 microns (on the grounds that thicker plastic
bags would be reused and not discarded), and others banned them all outright.
Bangladesh, South Africa, and India represent the most successful bans among the 11
countries. But even their success is difficult to trace. In the case of Bangladesh, while the ban has
widespread public support, a lack of enforcement has not lead to a significant decrease in the use
of plastic bags. The same holds true for India as well13. This rule of law issue has nothing to do
with the ban per se, but is indicative of a larger governance problem in these countries according
to the World Bank1415. With regards to South Africa, the long term effectiveness of the ban is
questioned, and therefore remains to be seen if it could be a reliable example of considering such
a ban.
The other countries mentioned that have a ban in place that were not discussed were not
mentioned by account of such a poor lack of governance that these “bans” only exist in theory.
Unfortunately, Bangladesh, India, and, to a lesser extent, South Africa have unique
circumstances that gave rise to the ban that cannot be duplicated in the United States. In the case
of Bangladesh and India, municipal waste treatment is not enforced and sewage is often spilled
in open-air streams, especially in the dense slums of Dhaka, Mumbai, and New Delhi. This
concern doesn’t resonate in the United States. Secondly, these countries have a thriving
scavenging industry, where hundreds of thousands of people make a living scrapping through
heaps of garbage to collect and recycle. Because plastic is cheap to produce and abundant, it does
not fetch a high return for the scavengers and is just litter. As a result, a ban on an unnecessary
and dangerous material such as plastic is only logical. Lastly, Hindu sensitivities relating to the
danger plastics pose to cows is unique to India. South Africa certainly has the problems of waste
management and scavengers but South Africa’s ban was sparked in part by the danger it posed to
the tourist industry. The threat it posed came in the form of open pits of garbage in both the big
cities like Durban, Johannesburg, and Cape Town, as well as in the rural areas where tourists
flock to see rare wildlife and Big Game animals.
Section 2.05 The Powers of the plastics industry to influence policy
It has been suggested that the reason that anti-plastic sentiment has taken the form of a
ban in these three countries (and theoretically several others) is the power that the plastics
industry yields in the Developed World as opposed to their lack of power Developing World,
11 http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20001215&filename=spr&sec_id=6&sid=1
12 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3132387.stm
13 https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=ztaMPVI5Hmsg.kbA3CI52AtWs
14 file:///C:/Users/Ariel/Downloads/c104.pdf
15 file:///C:/Users/Ariel/Downloads/c20.pdf

8. 7
specifically in Bangladesh16. Disparities in the strength of these powers on the part of the plastics
industry yields different policy outcomes in different countries. From having high structural
power, the plastics industry can have high instrumental power, which is the ability to effectively
organize, lobby and use legal threats against the government in response to unfavorable
legislation, both proposed and enacted. It therefore follows logically that if the industry has both
high structural and instrumental power, it has high discursive power, which is the ability to sway
the discourse around the environment to one that is promoted by the industry. The industry is
successful in wielding this type of power if recycling, environmental consciousness and
efficiency are part of the norms and culture of the country and the strength of competing interests
such as anti-littering and public health.
In Bangladesh, plastics is a growing but relatively insignificant employer or contributor
to the countries’ GDP17. It has only come into the economy in the 1980’s, and has been growing
at a rate of 20% per annum. This seems impressive but is insignificant when compared to the
well-established and influential jute industry. In the 1970’s the government of Bangladesh
nationalized the industry, creating an over-arching Ministry of Textiles and Jute. Since then, the
government has kept a firm grip on competition, discouraging any hints of competition from
private industries18. As a result of such tight control for so many decades, it contributes to one-
third of all manufacturing output, is the largest agricultural export commodity, and 25 million
people (20% of the population) rely on the industry for a livelihood, from agricultural production
to marketing, manufacturing and trade19. Since jute is the primary packaging material in
Bangladesh, it competes directly with plastics for market share. The instrumental power of the
industry of therefore very weak.
Finally, the discursive power of the industry is extremely weak and has been leading a
too-little-too-late public relations campaign. Because the catalyst for anti-plastic sentiment took
hold after mass flooding’s and environmental degradation, the narrative promoted by the
industry that portrays plastic bag as the best option for the environment amongst more egregious
offenders has not resonated with the population.
Because the factors that lead to the development of the plastic bag ban in other nations
are not applicable to New York, as well as the efficacy of the ban itself even when passed, makes
the proposal of a plastic bag ban in New York very dubious at best.
16 Fuchs,D. 2005.Commanding heights? The strength and fragility of business power in global politics. Millennium
Journal of International Studies, 33(3): 771–801.
17http://www.undp.org/povertycentre/publications/employment/GlobalisationEmploymentBangladeshKenyaEAST
ANGLIA.pdf
18 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2118009?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
19http://www.academia.edu/7898813/Source_Bangladesh_Bureau_of_Statistics_Yield_Rate_of_Jute_Crop_Total_J
ute_Production

9. 8
Article III. Anti-Plastic Sentiment in Developed Countries-Development
of the Levy
The Developed World has many different economic, political and social factors than the
Developing World in regards to plastic bags and the industry at large. This disparity has led to
the Developing World embracing outright bans and the Developed World embracing levy’s.
While not perfect, the levy is the most realistic option to pursue a decrease in the plastic bag
usage in the State.
Australia and Ireland share the most similarity to the United States in both the factors that
the levy’s/bans developed as well as the effectiveness of their responses. These countries are the
best precedents for moving forward with public policy action against the use of SUPB. In the
case of Australia, it is the powerful plastic industry stifling federal action that bears similarity to
the United States. In the case of Ireland, their levy is analyzed to highlight the promises of
duplicating a similar levy in New York.
Like South Africa, plastic bags posed a risk to pristine wildlife areas and coastline in
Australia, sparking a popular backlash against the use of SUPB in 2002. At first, the government
adopted a voluntary reduction policy aimed at giving consumers the choice to use reusable bags
or brown paper bags on their own volition. While the town of Coles Bay in Tasmania and South
Australia decided to adopt an outright ban, it was the only policy created against SUPB. Federal
or significant state action is nonexistent. This is similar to the United States, which has an
entrenched plastic industry that has limited action to the municipal, local, and, rarely, state level.
Amid growing concerns about the negative environmental effects of plastic bags, the
Irish government adopted a plastic bag levy in 2002 of 0.15 Euro per use at the point of sale.
Prior to the implementation, however, the government elicited the support of the public through
an intensive awareness campaign20. This had the effect of making the public both aware of the
levy ahead of time and making it popular when it finally came into effect. Everyone therefore
started to buy reusable cloth bags that, while they take more petroleum to produce, are more
environmentally friendly than plastic bags in the long run because they can be used hundreds of
times. The law mandates a levy not only for SUPB but for paper bags as well, which could be
just as environmentally destructive as plastic bags (see ahead). An unintended consequence of
this has been the stigma now attached to using plastic bags. According to the New York Times, it
is just as frowned upon as “wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after your dog”21. Furthermore,
the money that is raised from the levy goes directly to the Environment Ministry for cleanup
projects around the country as well as preservation efforts in national parks22. The results have
20 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/world/europe/31iht-bags.4.9650382.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
21 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/world/europe/31iht-bags.4.9650382.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
22 Frank Convery, Simon McDonnell,Susana Ferreira.The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic
bags levy. Environmental and Resource Economics. September 2007,V.38, Issue1,pp 9.

10. 9
been remarkable; within the first several weeks of the levy SUPB use dropped 94%, and within
the first year almost everyone had a reusable bag23.
There are several aspects of the levy in Ireland that make it possible to duplicate in New
York City. The success of the levy is due in part to the awareness campaign done by the
government before the law was implemented. This changed the behaviors of Irish citizens, who
wanted to avoid the disincentives imposed by a levy. The Irish also have a history of being
politically revolutionary and the vanguards of new public policy decisions, such as the decision
to enact strict non-smoking laws (a first in the European Union). Ireland has many laws limiting
the use of chewing gum, ATM receipts and other environmentally damaging products all in the
name of bringing environmental consciousness into practical action.
Article IV. Anti-Plastic Sentiment and Policy Responses in the United
States
The movement to curtail SUPB usage in America has been limited to the municipal and
city level. As of July 2015, over 100 municipalities and cities have enacted fees and, in rare
circumstances, bans. This has had a very limited effect on annual consumption of SUPB in
America. The reason no such action has been taken at the federal or state level has been, as
environmentalists acknowledge24, is because of the high structural, instrumental, and discursive
power of the plastics industry25.
However, several big cities that have enacted levy’s on SUPB usage provide good
examples for the success of implementing such a levy in NYC. Plastic bag fees in Boulder and
Dallas have been more successful in reducing SUPB usage than in Washington, D.C, which
offers more of a negative example on how to implement such a levy. Los Angeles County,
Austin, and Seattle, which have banned SUPB outright, are not analyzed, since a ban is not
proposed in NYC.
Section 4.01 Plastic Bag fee in Washington D.C.
In response to dangerous levels of pollution, raw sewage and thousands of tons of plastic
products flowing into the Anacostia River, the District Council of Washington D.C passed the
“Anacostia River Clean Up and Protection Act” in 200926. The bill required businesses selling
food or alcohol to charge a $.05 fee for each plastic bag used by a customer. This includes all
fast food establishments, as well as bars and liquor stores, considerably more far-reaching than
the proposal in NYC, which is limited to supermarkets mostly, since mandating a fee on all
SUPB’s in the City would be seen as too onerous by the majority of residents as well as difficult
23 Ibid,p.1
24 http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/16/11720480-hawaii-first-state-to-ban-plastic-bags-at-
checkout?lite
25 http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/gguelr5&div=19&id=&page=
26 http://green.dc.gov/publication/anacostia-river-clean-and-protection-act-2009

11. 10
to enforce. Oddly enough, the act does not target grocery stores, by far the biggest driver of
SUPB. Of the $.05 charged to customers, the businesses retains one cent to purchase plastic bags
so as to offset the costs to consumers while the remaining four cents help fund the Anacostia
River and Protection Fund. This fund is managed by the District Department of the Environment
and has raised almost $8 million to fund trash collection at the river, various education initiatives
with the Washington D.C. school district to promote environmental awareness amongst youth,
and other upstream restoration projects focused on cleaning up the river27. Unfortunately, an
internal audit conducted by the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor found many glaring
accounting inaccuracies in the management of the fund. It specifically highlighted the “lack of
key internal controls and compliance with the Act regarding revenue and expenditure processes.
Specifically, DDOE did not establish a sufficient system to monitor compliance with meeting the
Fund’s priorities.”28
The act has had limited success in its stated aim of reducing SUPB usage in the City.
While Environmental officials tout a 60% reduction in SUPB usage29, the Washington Post, in
conducting a more thorough analysis of the City’s increased revenue from the tax, concluded that
the fee did not in fact contribute to a widespread reduction in SUPB usage30.
Two lessons can be learned from the act so far; the first is the importance of targeting
consumers where it is most impactful in a bill and the other is to effectively manage any use of
funds raised from a levy. One of the reasons the act has been relatively inefficient in changing
consumer habits is the arbitrary nature of the act. Because the act covers most establishments that
carry SUPB’s except for grocery stores, the act does not target consumers where they use
SUPB’s the most. A more focused act that targeted mostly supermarkets rather than certain fast
food establishments and stores that sold alcohol would be easy to enforce, targeting the vast
majority of establishments that use SUPB’s, and not leave consumers flustered at a far-reaching
bill. Although NYC’s proposal would be a levy and not a fee, meaning City officials would not
keep any money raised from consumers31, any proposal that seeks to change the levy to a tax to
establish an environmental fund similar to Washington D.C’s must have specific priorities that
are managed and reviewed on a yearly basis, as per the Office of the District of Columbia
Auditor’s recommendations32.
27 http://green.dc.gov/service/anacostia-river-clean-and-protection-fund
28 http://www.dcauditor.org/sites/default/files/DCA022015.pdf
29http://ddoe.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/publication/attachments/DDOE%202013%20Bag%20Law%2
0Survey%20Final%20Report%20%282%29.pdf
30 http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/tax-data-cast-doubt-on-claims-about-declining-use-of-plastic-
bags-in-dc/2014/01/09/7b8c2302-7870-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html
31 http://nypost.com/2014/03/24/proposal-would-levy-10-cent-fee-on-paper-plastic-shopping-bags/
32 http://www.dcauditor.org/sites/default/files/DCA022015.pdf

12. 11
Section 4.02 Plastic bag fee in Dallas, Texas
On January 1st, 2015, the City of Dallas implemented a 5-cent fee on the use of SUPG, This
is limited to bags used by grocery stores and stores that sell alcohol. As it is an “Environmental
Tax”, the City would keep the funds raised by the fee, which would go towards enforcement and
educational efforts directed at raising environmental consciences in the City33. One aspect of the
bill that is particularly interesting, which could be duplicated by NYC, is the requirement for
stores affected by the fee to register with the City and report the number of bags sold. This helps
both enforcement of the ban as well as collecting data to determine its efficacy down the line.
Another lesson that could be incorporated into the proposal in NYC is the requirement for stores
to provide more environmentally friendlier alternatives to consumers at the checkout. The bill
allows stores to get around the fee by providing polyethylene reusable bags, durable paper bags
which can be used more than 100 times or paper/plastic bags made out of at least 40% recycled
content34 However, the bill was very unpopular from the beginning, with many store-owners
complaining of ambiguous and confusing provisions in the bill35. On June 3rd, 2015, after only
six months of implementation, the fee was repealed, and plastic bags became completely free in
all stores36.
Section 4.03 Plastic bag tax in Boulder, Colorado
In November 2012, the City of Boulder passed an ordinance enacting a 10-cent fee for
SUPB. Like NYC, the fee is limited to grocery stores selling SUPB and does not include fast
food establishments, restaurants, vendors, or any other bag that is thicker than 30 microns. The
City had a successful campaign to raise awareness for the upcoming fee and success at
distributing reusable bags to residents. The bill tasked the City of Boulder Environmental
Advisory Board with the role of enforcement of the bill and enacting any changes. The City of
Boulder added a section to their website called “Disposable Bag Fee” that provides specific
information about the fee and how it works, as well as a translation in Spanish, FAQ section and
email to report those who violate the ordinance37. Such a website should be created by the City
of New York to engage residents about a levy and provide information about the workings of the
fee.
The City also gave out 40,000 reusable cloth bags to residents before the fee was enacted
as well as during its implementation, no small feat in a city of 100,000. The fee does not apply to
people who present proof of participation in federal or state food assistance programs. This is
identical to the proposal in NYC, which requires low-income residents to present their WIC or
33 http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20140326-dallas-shoppers-will-be-charged-a-nickel-for-each-
disposable-bag.ece
34 http://greendallas.net/wp-content/uploads/Ordinance-29307-File-14-0564Plastic-Bags-2.pdf
35 http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/dallas-county/2015/01/20/dallas-plastic-bag-fees-tax-ordinance-
confusion/22075915/
36 http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2015/06/dallas-city-council-debates-5-cent-bag-fee.html/
37 https://bouldercolorado.gov/lead/exploring-bag-use-in-boulder

13. 12
SNAP cards at the time of purchase to be exempt from the fee. For those who did not receive
their free reusable bag or otherwise did not bring any bag to the grocery store at the time of
purchase, stores are required to provide reusable paper bags or polyethylene bags which can be
used more than 100 times38. Intro 0209 does not delineate the goals of a distribution campaign,
or which City agency be tasked with carrying out the distribution campaign.
A successful distribution campaign in New York City would have clear distribution goals
as well as engagement with as many communities as possible to educate them about the bill, with
particular focus on communities of lower socioeconomic status. While Boulder was able to
distribute reusable bags to 40% of their population, such a goal would be unrealistic in New
York City unless the bill was changed to a tax, or by targeting a lower but more vulnerable
percentage of the population. The Department of Environmental Protection should be tasked
with distribution and meeting the goals of the campaign as outlined in a future piece of
legislation.
Since it is a fee, four cents of the ten cents collected goes to store owners to provide
plastic bags without offsetting the costs to consumers. The remaining six cents going to
enforcing the fee, providing educational initiatives to promote reducing consumption of plastics,
as well as environmental projects such as restoring and maintaining the numerous hiking and
wildlife areas around the city39. One such hiking trail, Chautauqua Park, has several signs
reminding hikers to reduce plastic usage. Six months after the fee took effect, the City reported a
68%, or 5 million, drop in SUPB usage40. That certainly is too early to judge the efficacy of the
fee but that early estimate provides positive feedback to continue to watch. While Boulder is a
significantly smaller and more environmentally conscience City than NYC is, NYC could learn
from Boulder’s fee how to properly implement a successful awareness and distribution
campaign, as well as how to use it as a springboard to implement a public awareness campaign to
encourage reduction in plastic usage.
Article V. Plastic Bag Proposal in NYC
Using the Irish model of a large-scale public awareness campaign before the
implementation of a levy for usage of SUPB is encouraging. Firstly, New York has a history of
being an environmentally conscience city. Since 2007, NYC has cut its carbon footprint by
16%41. 43% of NYC residents were “very concerned” about environmental problems42. 45% of
New Yorkers also considered “pollution in waterways” to be the most serious environmental
issue facing the City43. New Yorkers also indicated “environmental benefits” as a 2nd or 3rd
38 Ibid
39 Ibid
40 http://kwgn.com/2014/03/10/boulder-sees-huge-drop-in-disposable-bag-usage/
41 http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/greenyc_behavioral_impact_study.pdf. p1
42 Ibid,p19
43 Ibid,p18

14. 13
reason to engage in more environmentally friendlier behavior. This stands in sharp contrast to
many cities, who would not indicate a willingness to change their behaviors out of environmental
altruism44.
In 2007, Mayor Michael Bloomberg launched the PlaNYC initiative to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2030. Since then, NYC has reduced emissions by 16%, no
small feat in a city of 10 million. One of the reasons the initiative was so successful is because
the Public Relations campaign utilized advertisements on mass transit (busses, subways), radio,
and digital media, allowing the City to reach its target audience more effectively. The
advertisements not only informed audiences of the initiative, but urged citizens to take “one
behavior at a time”. The results were clear; asking New Yorkers to change a simple part of their
routine (switching to a more efficient lightbulb) for their own benefit (it saves money in the long
run) helps everyone (less waste and environmental degradation)45. With a plastic bag levy, the
City should heed precedence and conduct a widespread informational campaign before
implementing any levy. The campaign must inform New Yorkers of the goal of the levy and
what role each person plays in working towards that goal. A successful campaign would ask
New Yorkers to change one behavior at a time for their own benefit so as to help the
environment.
According to the current proposal in the New York City Council, NYC would have a 10-
cent fee for every SUPB used by the consumer. The reason the levy is $.10 and not $.05 or $0.15
is because that is considered to be the perfect price that would alienate people from plastic bags
without alienating people from the levy, this causing a popular blowback to repeal the bill. This
would follow several months of awareness and distribution of reusable bags. This distribution
especially targets low income communities46. Even though they are targeted for distribution,
citizens on WIC and SNAP programs would be completely exempt from the levy when
presenting their card. Furthermore, food pantries and other “emergency food providers” would
be exempt47. Unlike Ireland or Washington DC, however, the money from the levy would go to
the grocery stores to help stock the bags. The levy only applies to grocery stores, and for SUPB.
That means that liquor stores, restaurants, and food vendors would be exempt. Furthermore, the
bags used by butchers to hold produce and meat, as well as bulk food bags, would be exempt.
While the study has mostly focused on the demand side of the debate (consumers), it is
still important to analyze how this would affect the supply side; grocery stores and plastic
manufacturers. They have raised considerable opposition to the proposed levy in NYC, and it is
44 Ibid,p18
45 Ibid,p9
46 http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/chin-lander-richards-save-planet-pay-10-bag-article-1.2015406
47 http://www.nyenvironmentreport.com/6-burning-questions-about-the-plastic-bag-bill/

15. 14
worthwhile to examine what opposition they raise, and if their opposition can be incorporated
into a future proposal.
Article VI. Opposition to the Levy
The structural, instrumental, and discursive power of the plastic industry in these is
shown in the disparity between public opinion regarding the use of plastic bags and policy
responses. While people identify environmental responsibility as a priority in their lives48, this
has not translated to any legislative action at the federal level to curb plastic bag use. Plastics are
the third largest manufacturing industry in the US, generating $379 billion worth of goods in
2007 and employing 1.1 million workers49 The industry is represented mainly by the Society of
the Plastics Industry (SPI), dating back to 1937, and the American Plastics Council, a division of
the well-established American Chemistry Council (ACC). The industry is an organized,
economically significant, and powerful force.
The pressure that the industry exerted in California is a particularly striking example. In
2014, California passed a state-wide law banning the use of SUPB in grocery stores and
supermarkets. The ban was similar to other bans such as Chicago and Seattle’s, in that it banned
bags that are single use and provides reusable bags for purchase at the point of sale50. Simply
put, it was limited in scope and had precedence. However, the American Plastic Bag Alliance,
the main plastic industry organization in California, organized a large-scale state-wide campaign
to collect enough signatures to put the motion under a referendum vote. Between October and
December, the APBA spent $3 million and collected 800,000 signatures51. According to the San
Francisco Chronicle, plastics are a $150 million industry, making the $3 million spent on this
campaign well worth it52. In New York State, the plastics and related rubber manufacturing
industry employs 16,000 people53, comprising 5.4% of the state’s manufacturing market share.
This gives them considerable leverage to disrupt a piece of legislation that they deem to be too
harmful for their economic interests in the City.
The industry, realizing defeats in many cities and municipalities in America, is gearing
up for a large-scale public relations campaign to combat any serious attempts to move Intro 02-
09 from the City Council to the Assembly, Senate, and becoming law.
After Mayor Bill de Blasio signaled his seriousness to reduce the City’s waste 90% by
203054, an ambitious proposal that necessarily requires some action curtailing the use of plastic
bags, the industry responded very forcefully indeed. Firstly, the APBA, together with several
48 http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2012/the-global-socially-conscious-consumer.html
49 http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/537206
50 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB270
51 http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1372902&session=2013&view=expenditures
52 http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Plastic-bag-industry-profits-as-it-faces-tough-
6109021.php#/0
53 http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/research/manufacturingreport.pdf
54 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/de-blasio-aims-cut-nyc-trash-90-percent-2030-article-1.2194081

16. 15
other industry organizations including the largest manufacturer of plastic bags, NOVOLEX,
created “Bagtheban.com” and “Bagthetax.com”. These websites have a very sleek design, a
testament to the funding they receive. The industry frames opposition to the deal in several
overarching ways. Some of their concerns are legitimate, while others do not stand up and are
merely talking points:
1) Plastic bags are not environmentally friendly, but it is the most environmentally
friendly option available to consumers. - The website frames this argument by shedding
light on just how environmentally damaging paper bag/reusable bag production is. According
to the website:
a) “Plastic bags require less resources to produce and transport than common
alternatives.
b) Plastic bag production consumes 4% of the water needed to make paper bags55.
c) Plastic grocery bags require 70% less energy to manufacture than paper bags56.
d) For every seven trucks needed to deliver paper bags, one truck is needed for the same
number of plastic bags57.
e) American plastic bags are made from natural gas, NOT oil. In the U.S., 85% of the
raw material used to make plastic bags is produced from natural gas.
2) Instead of promoting bans or fees, legislatures should focus instead on promoting
recycling.
a) Plastic bags are able to be completely recycled, and recycling rates have increased 55%
since 2005, and has grown nine out of the last ten years58.
b) By recycling, Americans support the growing recycling industry, which supports 30,000
Americans in 349 plants across the United States59.
3) Plastic bag manufacturers are significant contributors to the economy, directly and
indirectly providing jobs for thousands of Americans
a) In addition to the aforementioned 30,000 jobs in 349 plants, the recycling/production of
plastic bags are a rare bright spot in the increasingly woeful job market. This growth
sustains current jobs and leads to more innovative investments in technology, more jobs
becoming available, and more investment in green technology.
b) A ban or fee would hurt the local economy by forcing consumers to shop just outside of
the area affected and stores opening up just outside of the ban/fee area. This affects the
cost of carryout bags; according to a post-ban report in Seattle, carryout bag costs
increased 40%, forcing retailers to pass the cost onto consumers.
55 Boustead Consulting & Associates:“Life CycleAssessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags—RecyclablePlastic;
Compostable, BiodegradablePlastic;and Recycled,RecyclablePaper,” 2007.
56 http://www.dpw.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/www.santacruzcountyrecycles/Law/DocList/SC021-Franklin_report.pdf
57 http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/threetypeofgrocerybags.pdf
58 http://www.bagtheban.com/learn-the-facts/recycling
59 Ibid

17. 16
c) A ban would affect employment; in one study from Los Angeles County quoted on the
website, some stores in the County were forced to reduce employment by 10% in the
month following the ban, while certain stores outside of the County reporting a 2.4%
increase in employment in the same time period.
4) Reusable bags harbor bacteria and have been found to contain lead
a) A study from the University of Arizona found 50% of all reusable bags to contain food-
borne bacteria, like salmonella. 12% contained E. coli.
b) According to a study commissioned by the Plastics Industry Council, harmful bacteria
thrives in reusable bags unless cleaned after each use with soap in 140-degree water.
c) A Canadian study found bacteria on reusable bags that were 300% higher than what is
considered safe.
d) Lead, usually found inside reusable bags, can run onto food, causing irreversible damage
to the nervous system.
Article VII. Opposition to New York City’s proposed fee
Bagtheban.com is a website specifically focused on countering New York City’s ban.
While it repeats many of the counter-arguments to a fee mentioned above, it includes several
arguments specific to New York City’s proposal. The site has eleven “facts” in the “Myths vs.
Facts” section of the website, with four points being specific to New York City.
1) Plastic bags are reusable, and 90% of people do in fact reuse them. This is to counter the
notion that plastic bags are “single-use”.
2) Because they make up 1% of litter in New York and 2% of litter in the City’s water stream, a
fee would have limited effects on the environment.
3) The proposal would hurt the working poor, those who have not met the economic criteria for
SNAP or WIC but are still financially unstable.
4) As the plastic industry employs 1,800 people in NYS alone, it would hurt them while moving
production to reusable bag production, largely done oversees.
Article VIII. Response to Opposition
The industry raised some legitimate opposition that should be incorporated into any
future piece of legislation, and other points that are less-than-truthful.
1) Plastic bags are not environmentally friendly, but it is the most environmentally
friendly option available to consumers: While it is certainly true that the production of
plastic bags has the least carbon footprint compared to paper bags and reusable bags60 or
reusable bags initially, it leaves out several key factors that negate this claim. The first factor
is the lifespan of reusable bags compared to plastic bags. Reusable bags do not get left in
60 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18538484/ns/nbc_nightly_news_with_brian_williams/t/paper-or-plastic-whats-
greener-choice/

18. 17
drainage pipes and litter our environment, unlike plastic bags. Secondly, polyethylene bags
only have to be used four times before it has the same environmental impact asSUPB61, while
other bags such as cotton bags have to be used 131 times. This is why cities that have enacted
fees such as Los Angeles and Washington D.C. mandate that the reusable bags they either
give out or mandate grocery stores to provide have to be cotton62, so they are guaranteed to
be efficient. Over the course of their lifetime, therefore, plastic bags are less of an egregious
offender than paper bags. This is because of the propensity for people to reuse their plastic
bags for many different purposes, such as covering a receptacle or use as a “pooper-scooper”
for their dog(s). Paper bags are the least utilitarian of all three; they use more resources to
produce and are not generally reused. However, reusable bags are still the most
environmentally friendly option. They are reused many more times than plastic bags, use less
resources over the course of their lifetime than paper or plastic, and do not contribute to litter
like plastic does.
2) Instead of promoting bans or fees, legislatures should focus instead on promoting
recycling: This is both the industry’s most legitimate point and biggest success in New York
City. In 2014, Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh proposed legislation that would require stores
to accept plastic bags for recycling. The bill was sponsored in the Senate where it was signed
by Governor Andrew Cuomo and became law63. While this effort would increase recycling
rates in New York City, it misses the purpose of the proposed fee; to change consumer
habits. The levy seeks to make people choose an alternative to plastics in a non-intrusive
way, while making them think twice about general plastic consumption. However, the
current law requiring stores to provide recycling is important and must be continued to be
supported. Supporting a levy and recycling in stores are not mutually exclusive. Even under a
levy, there will still be those who use plastic bags in restaurants or choose to pay the 10-cent
levy on their own accord.
3) Plastic bag manufacturers are significant contributors to the economy, directly and
indirectly providing jobs for thousands of Americans. This is a very objectionable claim.
Firstly, the jobs that the plastics industry employs constitutes an economic externality; that is,
the economic contribution this industry contributes to is far outweighed by the economic
costs incurred by inaction on Climate Change64. Furthermore, the reduction in SUPB
consumption in NYC would not endanger plastics manufacturing jobs in the United States,
nor would it endanger those jobs in NYC itself that rely on the production of plastics. This is
because the plastic bag market share of NYC’s 10 million citizens is a fraction of the overall
plastic bag industry. The jobs in NYC that directly rely on the production of plastic bags is
not only negligible if it were wiped out, but that will not be the case. Rather, it would change
61 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-
e.pdf
62 http://ladpw.org/epd/aboutthebag/PDF/SocioEconomicImpactStudy_final.pdf
63 http://www.briankavanagh.org/news/?p=15840
64https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/the_cost_of_delaying_action_to_stem_climate_change.pd
f

19. 18
distribution from the greater NYC area to the rest of the United States. For example, if the
textile industry collapses in China, that does not endanger the domestic textile industry.
Rather, it forces existing factories to shift their products to suit the international market. A
levy would instead force the industry to invest in more sustainable forms of SUPB and
plastic products in general, which do exist65, by slightly reducing their market in NYC.
Lastly, because SUPB usage alone would decrease but no other forms of plastics in NYC
would, the industry would still supply other, thicker, plastic products not covered under the
proposed legislation.
4) Reusable bags harbor bacteria and have been found to contain lead. Study66 after study67
confirm the danger that reusable bags have in fostering and spreading bacteria. But instead of
keeping the status-quo, public awareness and education about the potential health effects of
reusable bags should be prioritized. In Los Angeles, a large-scale public awareness campaign
by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health promoting the ban of SUPB
included specific instructions on how to keep reusable bags clean68. The costs of such a
campaign in NYC would be assumed by the relevant Department(s), such as the Department
of Environmental Protection and the Office of the Comptroller.
Article IX. Limitations
Although there are clear environmental benefits to the levy, the levy would be seriously
limited in the benefits it could provide to the City. This is because of the inability to fund and
enact an enforcement regime and, even in the enactment of one, the limited scope of the bill in
question.
For cities like Boulder and Washington D.C., which enacted a tax, a significant
percentage of the money raised from the taxing of plastic bags went to specific funds whose
purpose is to contribute to various environmental and educational initiatives. Although many
auditing inaccuracies and management issues abounded in Washington D.C, the reasoning
behind the policy was sound; turn the burdensome fee into a constructive tax that ends up
helping everyone. With NYC, since all monies raised from the fee goes completely to the store69,
it becomes very difficult to fund a proper regime that could measure compliance, violate
offenders, and provide detailed progress reports to the Mayor. According to the bill, “the
commissioner…with the commissioners of environmental protection and consumer affairs and
the mayor’s office of long term planning and sustainability, shall report to the mayor and the
65 http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/9587/report/0
66 http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/sns-green-bacteria-in-shopping-bags-story.html
67 http://www.dpw.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/www.santacruzcountyrecycles/Law/DocList/SC064-
Univ_of_Arizona_report_on_reusable_bag_hygiene.pdf
68 http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/aboutthebag/getinvolved.cfm
69 file:///C:/Users/Ariel/Downloads/Legislation%20Text.pdf p.2

20. 19
council on the progress of carryout bag reduction”70. Even more troubling, the bill specifies the
establishment of “an outreach and education program aimed at educating residents and covered
stores on reducing the use of single-use carryout bags”71, while providing no details as to the
goals of the program, let alone how this initiative would be funded. Absent a specific fund or
governmental agency to enforce this bill, rather than the general Department of Consumer
Affairs, it becomes difficult to assess how the bill would lead to tangible changes in
supermarkets’ behaviors. To eliminate these concerns, New York City should change the
provision to a “tax” from a “fee”. The monies raised in a tax would support a newly created Fund
who goals would be to implement efforts to provide a successful reusable bag distribution
campaign as well as other educational and environmental efforts similar to Washington D.C and
Boulder’s’ Funds.
Even if such enforcement issues are forgone, the environmental impact of the bill is
limited. As the plastic industry has accurately reported, SUPB’s constitute between 1-2% of litter
found in the water stream. As the bill would cover plastic bags used in grocery stores and not all
stores, the bill would only remove a percentage of the litter that is contributed by certain grocery
stores.
Article X. Conclusion
Enacting a levy in New York City would lead to many immediate benefits in the City.
Drawing on precedents in Washington D.C., Boulder, and Ireland, amongst other places, it could
reasonably be assumed that the levy would lead to a significant reduction in SUPB consumption
in the City. The City would save millions of dollars a year from the costs related to fixing the
maintenance problems associated with clogged or jammed plastic bags. This makes the current
proposal both environmentally friendly, easy to implement, and economically efficient.
The proposal enacted by the City council draw more on national precedence and
examples from Ireland. Specifically, it should change the provision from a “fee” to a “tax”,
therefore allowing the City to fund and implement a reusable bag distribution campaign, as well
as education and environmental campaigns aimed at cleaning up the City.
Many limitations abound and it is important to remember that this bill only seeks to
change consumer behavior and make us think of the environmental impacts of our actions, which
could pave the way for future environmental action personally and politically.
However, it is important to support this piece of legislation as an easy and effective way
of beginning to curb our use of plastic bags, plastics, and all other environmental products. The
70 Ibid p.3
71 Ibid p.4

21. 20
goal of the bill will be measured by the legislation that follows it, not necessarily by its own
merits.