Yep. More importantly, it should be the choice of the shop whether to supply them, and at what cost if any. It’s no business of any government.
Winco discounts six cents from your bill for every reusable bag you use.
Literally. Sam’s Club sells a box of 1,000 for $13.98 (.014 each) at the retail/quasi-wholesale level. I can't imagine that a largeish chain of grocery stores isn't buying direct at vastly larger quantities and paying .005 per at the most.
The big problem with this is that it gets people to believe they are actually making a difference when plastic bags are an absolutely negligible portion of both plastic waste and energy use. If we want to promote reasonable solutions to climate change, we generally shouldn’t let people think they are helping the environment unless they actually are.
Maybe it is aesthetics. Plastic bags ain’t real pretty waving from fences, trees, clinging to sagebrush, stuck in drainage grates, etc.
As a dog owner in a city with a ban on plastic bags I do have to say that it massively reduces the amount of trash that is around. I have had to walk for half a dozen blocks in an urban area to find something to scoop with when I have been forgetful. It use to be that I could find one with ease.
I am very surprised about how much of an impact it did make.
Actually some of the stores around here give you a few cents credit if you bring your own bags.
We don’t pay for plastic bags in England yet (we will do for supermarkets from later this year) but they do in Wales, Scotland and NI so there’s a good basis for comparison between similar economies. The UK Govt has an interesting site about it.
Use of plastic bags tends to down hugely (90% according to the cite above). Plastic bags may not be the worst thing in use of oil - they’re largey a bi-product of fuel use anyway - but they do create landfill waste and they do get dumped in random places and create visible mess that makes an area look less hospitable, which increases the likelihood that people will treat the area as a dump.
Getting people used to reusing things in this minor way can also help them be more receptive to reusing and recycling in other spheres, so it’s useful in that respect too.
“Poor people can’t afford the bags” isn’t really an argument. Reusable bags, which can be any kind of bag including rucksacks, are one of the few things that really poor people tend to have in abundance due to moving around, etc.
Dallas just started doing this and I am absolutely amazed how pissy some folks get that 60 cents has been added to their $100 dollar grocery tab.
The bag tax in DC has led to a 70% reduction in the use of plastic bags, and a larger reduction in bag pollution in the Anacostia River, which was a disaster zone. Two thirds of DC residents also report seeing less litter on the streets. The tax has raised a rather consistent stream of revenue that is also being used for trash and litter cleanup. (Weirdly, some conservative groups are complaining that tax revenues ought to be increasing and bag use further decreasing. Which, really, is one of the stupidest policy criticisms I’ve ever heard, because the critics must have failed third grade math.)
What more do you want? Overall, it has been an extremely successful program.
The argument isn’t that poor people literally can’t afford them. 5 cents is affordable for even the very poorest.
The argument is that it acts like a regressive form of taxation (though, unlike actual taxation, the money goes to the retailer not the government for general use).
It is similar in motive to other types of “sin-taxes” - a financial motivator for behaviour approved of by society (only, the “sin” here happens to be an environmental one). Like all such motivators, it can work well for its intended purpose; like all such motivators, its impact is basically regressive.
5 cents a bag on shopping is nothing much, of course. It is a legitimate argument that the social benefit outweighs the fact that it is effectively a regressive “tax” paid to retailers.
It is also a legitimate argument that such methods place the burden wrongly - and that regressive measures tend to be cumulative. In those 5 cent bags may go cigarettes (heavily taxed), booze (heavily taxed), and junk food (not yet heavily taxed - though there is a movement afoot to make it so: Will a Junk Food Tax Work in Canada? – IEDM/MEI ).
These are things poor people tend to use, often disproportionately, that are bad for them in various ways - only, imposing such taxes tends to make them even poorer.
We’ve been paying five cents per bag for several years. The flimsy reusable bags the stores offered for sale were only good for two or three uses before the handles ripped off so we just ended up with more bags to throw away. :smack:
We’re down to 18.5 feet of register tape. 
My grocer installed double-sided receipt printers at the registers.
Fair enough, and SciFiSam makes a good point that improvements in aesthetics result in people treating the environment better. But society has a limited amount of energy that’s its willing to expend to solve climate change, and it’d be hard to find a more trivial, more anger-rousing subject area than plastic bags.
Not to mention there is debate over whether plastic bag bans actually decrease use of plastic at all. We all have to pick our battles, and this just seems like a terrible choice.
Those are generally fair points, but I’ll also point out that there are quite a few places in DC that go out of their way to make free reusable bags available to low income folks… and anyone, really. Link, link, link, link. Plus, once you start using reusable bags, some grocery stores actually give you discounts on top of not being charged for a plastic bag.
They should just call it a green tax and get it over with. Its clear that is what the purpose of the bag charge is. The storeowner doesn’t want to charge the bag fee, the customers don’t want to pay it. It a bag tax (in some places its only a tax on plastic bags so stores use the more expensive paper bags to keep their customers happy).
I remember a guy making a point at walmart by refusing to pay the bag tax and taking his stuff out to his car one armful at a time. It held up the line for several minutes. If everyone did this, they would get rid of the bag tax the next day but no one really cares enough to do more than bitch about it on the internet.
I had no idea that Executive Vice President Ricky Wai Ki Wong of the Hong Kong Plastic Bag Manufactuers Association had weighed in to say that disposable bags are better for the environment! Why, that just changes everything.
The bag tax is very popular here. Your mileage may vary, etc.
Are you making a point or just posting drivel? Because the guy is evidently very qualified to weigh in and you didn’t actually say anything… at all.
This times 100. I’ve always been amazed that more stores don’t at least ask you before they waste paper and ink on printing a receipt; usually the machine prints it automatically.
The only time I always get a receipt is when paying for gas at the pump; that’s because most gas stations around here still allow you to pump gas before paying, and I want to know for sure that my credit card went through before I drive away.
I think there was a Simpsons episode where one of the kids had questions about smoking, and they were urged to go straight to the source to get the best information available on the dangers of smoking: the Laramie cigarette company.
You kind of made the same argument, except not in an ironic way.
I think the issue is there being a law requiring the fee rather than the fee itself. The stores have no choice in the matter, although I suppose they could give you a credit if you paid X amount for groceries.