State of the State: Quinn's Plastic Bag Tax Might Have Cut Down on Use

NPR Illinois | 91.9 UIS | By Jamey Dunn-Thomason

Published July 1, 2010 at 12:00 AM CDT

Facing an unprecedented deficit, Illinois politicians pulling together a state budget with little public or legislative support for an income tax increase had to get creative when looking for new revenue sources.

One tax proposal could have helped Illinois make a dent in a waste problem that is getting attention across the country and overseas.

Gov. Pat Quinn floated a plan that included taxes on various items such as music and movie downloads and plastic grocery bags. Some ideas from the package made it into the final budget bill: extending the “lapse period” from August to December, giving the state more time to pay bills from the previous fiscal year; and a “securitization” plan to generate some immediate cash from a national tobacco settlement. However, the new taxes were shot down within a matter of days.

According to Quinn’s Office of Management and Budget, the plastic bag tax could have brought in $100 million, but little attention was drawn to the fact that such a tax also has the potential to cut down on the use of plastic bags.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates Americans use 380 billion plastic bags and wraps a year. While the estimated recycling rate for bags varies, all the projections are pretty abysmal. About 5 percent is the highest estimate.

China and Bangladesh have banned bags, and the United Nations has encouraged other countries to follow suit. Ireland imposed a tax on them. In America, San Francisco banned single-use bags, and the California legislature is considering a statewide ban.

Most disposable bags are made from nonrenewable resources: natural gas and petroleum. Many reusable bags that stores sell are, too. But at least they are not tossed out after one use. Disposable bags can take up to 1,000 years to decompose in a landfill, but they often end up as litter. Even after being properly disposed of, their ability to catch the wind often liberates them into fields, trees, rivers or wherever the breeze takes them.

Besides being unsightly, stray plastic bags can cause environmental damage. When they do break down, small bits of plastic can contaminate soil and water. Animals become entangled in them or mistake them for food, which can cause starvation or poisoning.

Plastic waste blowing throughout Illinois is especially disconcerting because the Mississippi River can carry it directly to the Gulf of Mexico. According to the Blue Ocean Society for Marine Conservation, bags that make it to the ocean can last up to 20 years, even in the salty water.

Concern over local rivers and an estuary led the Council of the District of Columbia to impose a 5-cents-per-bag tax on disposable bags. That plan, which went into effect in January, has seen success in cutting the number of bags used and raising money for river cleanup. It should be looked to as a model for other city and state governments seeking to encourage citizens to cut back on their plastic bag use.

The Anacostia River, which flows through D.C. and joins the Potomac to empty into Chesapeake Bay, faces serious pollution problems. So-called trash islands have formed in what has been dubbed the “forgotten river” by observers of the pollution.

So D.C. council members started to look for ways to reduce the garbage. Charles Allen, chief of staff for Democratic council member Tommy Wells, says bags made up almost half the litter in the tributaries and a quarter of it in the main river. So Wells, along with Democratic council member Mary Cheh, proposed a 5-cent tax on plastic bags.

The idea is to make people consider plastic bags as a choice, instead of just a given that comes with every purchase.

“How do we have consumers make a choice: ‘Do I need that bag or not?’ … Putting a pretty small fee on that bag gets into the consumer’s head and makes them make a choice,” Allen says.

The tax also keeps cashiers from automatically handing out bags that are not necessary, such as for a child’s junk food fix at the local convenience store. “That kid is going to take that bag of chips outside, and as soon as they cross that threshold, they are eating the chips and they are drinking that Coke. … What was the useful life of that bag? Fifteen seconds as they went from the register to the front door,” Allen says.

D.C. lawmakers worked with local businesses on the law, and that is when they were informed of something that has become a point of debate that snared an Oakland, Calif., ban into a legal battle. If customers have to pay more or can’t get plastic bags, they may just switch to paper. Paper bags cost more and can take more energy to produce. So in the end, they may not be a more environmentally friendly choice, and the plan may not encourage people to choose a reusable option. Also, the businesses’ overhead would go up if the majority of customers switch to paper, which would likely result in increased product prices.

“The intent here was to reduce trash, not increase the cost for people,” Allen says. So D.C. officials decided to tax paper bags as well. There are exemptions for some things such as carryout food from restaurants. The statewide ban being mulled in California also would include a 5-cent tax on paper bags.

The money raised in D.C., $150,000 in January according to the Washington Post, goes toward cleaning up the river and providing reusable bags for low-income and senior residents. Allen says that many bags are donated for those who cannot afford them, and stores held promotional events giving away thousands of free bags when the law first took effect.

Allen points to that fact to rebut claims that the tax is regressive. He says soup kitchens and social service providers that serve the poor testified in favor of the idea. He adds that the plan, unlike bans or much higher bag taxes, allows consumers to decide. “Unlike taxes and death, you actually have a choice here. You don’t ever have to pay the 5-cent fee. You just bring a reusable bag.”

It would seem that is what many D.C. residents are doing. Allen says every major retail outlet his office has surveyed is noting at least a 50 percent reduction in consumption of disposable bags. While some estimate the total reduction in the district as high as 80 percent, Allen says the council is calculating it at 60 percent for now but is working with independent groups to get some solid numbers. He adds that anecdotal evidence from yearly spring river cleanups is encouraging. “It reduces the amount of trash that is flowing in the Anacostia. It ultimately reduces the amount of trash that ends up in Chesapeake Bay.”

Brushing over the proposed bag tax without even considering the benefits was a missed opportunity for Illinois. Quinn, with his environmental record, perhaps could have done more to highlight the nonmonetary benefits of the tax.

Taxes and bans on this ubiquitous environmental hazard are clearly going to be a thing of the future. Lawmakers already consider increases in cigarette taxes as a way to curb smoking, especially among children. While effective, that is a regressive tax. A bag tax doesn’t have to be. Illinois has a chance to be an innovator and craft a well-thought-out plan, such as D.C. did, with input from interested parties, including businesses and social service providers that serve seniors and low-income residents.

Illinois can learn two key things from D.C. Any tax must include paper bags to effectively encourage citizens to choose reusable bags. And the tax must be low. Enough to make people stop and think about their actions but not so much that it causes widespread resentment or undue hardship. Seattle residents shot down a 20-cents-a-bag tax last summer.

The estimate for $100 million in possible revenue from an Illinois tax may be a bit steep, and the hope is that it actually would decrease each year as people stop using bags. It may be best if the money went to an environmental project, as it does in D.C. for the river cleanup, but that is a lot to ask of legislators with Illinois’ current budget situation. Besides, the concept is not really revenue-focused. That nickel buys five seconds in which people will slow down and make a choice about something that many consumers do not even consider now.

I have to admit. I am no saint when it comes to the grocery aisle. I have reusable bags that often don’t make it to the store. My guess is a lot of people do. Sometimes I am just too tired at the end of the day to care, and I robotically take the plastic bags without a second thought. I can’t imagine that most mothers shopping with three kids have plastic bags on their minds.

But a small fee on bags would likely be the push a lot of us need to make that extra effort and bring reusable bags with us. If we get into the habit, putting the reusable bags in the car will become automatic.

And for those who haven’t considered the paper, plastic or reusable issue at all, a small tax might get them thinking. Some may resent being pushed to a choice, but with a tax and not a ban, they would still have one. Legislators should also implement a statewide program, such as one first proposed in 2007, so those who choose disposable bags could return them to the store for recycling.

Hopefully, any resentment would be bested by a sense of community and a realization that this is a very small, relatively painless thing we can do to make our state a better place and make us better neighbors to states that share our water supply. Even if it only serves to cut down on the number of plastic bags we see blowing across the field or stuck to a tree or a fence along the freeway, it would be a nice improvement for everyone.