San Francisco:
Save Over $300 Million by using Reusable Bags at the Supermarket !

PAUL GOETTLICH Op-ed / SF Chronicle 24jan2005

This is the submitted version of the op-ed that ran on 24jan2005
See published version and more on bag fee and supporting documents
More by Paul Goettlich

San Francisco is contemplating "an ordinance requiring a 17-cent fee on each bag provided at supermarket checkout counters to reduce the proliferation of unnecessary bags and provide funds to mitigate the negative impacts caused by them." In order to remain calm about the fee one must understand the real facts.

Currently, retailers purchase plastic bags wholesale for approximately 1-cent, which is included in the price of each item you purchase. In other words, you're already paying for the bag. It would be naïve to think of this arrangement as free.

San Franciscans have been paying more than the suggested 17-cent fee for some time because tax revenues must be spent in dealing with the mountains of bag trash and litter. Direct billable charges for cleaning up the mess amount to tens of millions of dollars annually. When considering how easy it is to bring bags while shopping, cleaning up the bag mess is essentially like throwing that money into the sewer.

The great part is that it would be up to you whether or not you pay the fee. By bringing your own bags, you’d avoid the fee entirely. This requires a change in the way you shop. But it wouldn't take long to get into the habit of bringing reusable bags with you.

Seventeen-cents per bag is very conservative and includes only directly billable fees. My own guess is that a more realistic fee would be about 50-cents or more. Not included in the reckoning of the 17-cent fee are the direct affects of the bag litter on a wide range of public programs. In addition, [according to the Algalita Marine Research Foundation] there is 6 times more plastic than plankton floating around in the middle of the Pacific; there are 2 floating plastic garbage patches in the Pacific that are each the size of Texas; and the plastic fragments collect pollutants which are biomagnified up the food chain when they are mistaken for planktonic food.

The American Plastics Council advises that "This tax is going to hurt those who can least afford it." However, if the city is unable to recover the cost of dealing with the mountains of plastic bags, the money must continue to be realized through extensive cuts in desirable social, educational, and health programs that actually benefit the poor. With a quickly rising deficit of greater than $325 million, wouldn’t it be better to use all those millions on useful programs? If this fee is passed, it will at least stop the loss of programs caused by the bags.

Why does the plastics industry use such deceptive methods to maintain sales? Just follow the money. In the U.S. alone, 100 billion plastic bags are used annually. Retailers spend an estimated $4 billion on their plastic store bags, passing the costs on to consumers.

I recently ordered two large cotton bags at www.Reusablebags.com for about $29.00 including shipping. These two bags quite easily replace 4 double plastic bags each week when I grocery shop. In just the first year a San Franciscan would save $61.00. But from then on they’d pay no more for bags and save an additional $90.00 per year for as long as the bags last. That saves each household about $871.00 over 10 years, which is about how long the bags will last according to the retailer.

If all 346,527 households in San Francisco did this, the savings in the first year would be $21,138,147. For the next 9 years, the savings would be $280,686,870. [And over the ten year useful life of the bags, the savings would be over $300 million] That's a lot money that could otherwise fund some very useful public programs. And we could do this fairly easily. The San Francisco Department of the Environment has come up with a commendable solution, but some are fighting it tooth and nail. Let’s help each other to be winners by seeing the value of this proposal and support it strongly.