In 2023, the global reusable packaging market hit $125.2 billion, signaling the success of a push for reusable products. Most of this growth was in plastic reusable packaging, followed by metal items and glass. The market value of reusable shopping bags alone was $11.25 billion in 2023. Producers often market reusable items as better for the environment and more durable and cost-effective than their single-use plastic alternatives. However, the promises of ‘environmentally-friendly’ reusable shopping bags and water bottles aren’t always as true as they seem.
In the 1990s, scientists began to understand the consequences of single-use plastics. Soon after, consumers began moving to alternatives. In the late 2010s, the popular “Save the Turtles” initiative sought to ban plastic straws, which often end up in oceans and harm aquatic animals. Consequently, a multitude of states enacted legislation banning plastic straws from restaurants. As for shopping bags, 91 countries across the world have banned or taxed single-use plastic bags. In the U.S. specifically, nine states have bans on single-use plastic, and two states tax it.
Such initiatives come with major support, with 85% of people worldwide supporting a global single-use plastic ban. However, these changes have resulted in several unexpected issues, creating the same negative impact they sought to remedy in the first place. For instance, California passed a ban on single-use plastics in 2014, and consumers immediately switched to thicker plastic bags not considered single-use. However, due to their slower biodegradation, thicker plastics can also harmfully impact the environment if treated as single-use bags. The ban — and its repercussions — caused equal, if not greater, damages.
In October 2020, Canada announced its single-use plastic ban, which citizens highly supported. Though the federal court system has since overturned the ban due to concerns about government overreach, the ban also had some adverse consequences.
Fraser Institute policy analyst Julio Mejia focuses his work on energy and natural resource initiatives. When looking closer at the real meaning of the ban, it’s clear that the Canadian government found an easy target in single-use plastics, he said. The easier target, though, was not necessarily the best one for the environment or consumers.
“Ironically, when you push for those kinds of alternatives, those measures contradict other environmental goals of the current government, which are decreasing greenhouse gas emissions,” Mejia said. “If you push for alternatives, you are going to need more energy. And if you need more energy for transport, then you are going to have more emissions, not less.”
In most cases, single-use plastic bags, straws, water bottles and containers are simply more effective than their ‘sustainable’ alternatives — paper bags rip, and metal containers are much more expensive.
When customers are given the opportunity to take a paper or plastic bag at the grocery store, the former is usually marketed as more environmentally-friendly. The paper bag, despite common misconceptions, can be much less eco-friendly than its plastic counterpart. Plastic bags create 0.04 tons of CO2 each in their production process, while paper bags double that figure, releasing 0.08 tons of CO2 per bag. Paper bags also produce nearly five times more municipal solid waste than plastic bags do. Another major consequence of paper bag production is deforestation, with roughly 14 million trees being cut down annually to support the industry. To make the environmental impact of a paper bag equal to that of plastic, consumers would need to reuse the paper bag at least three times, which few do. Paper bags aren’t very durable, and their permeability tears them apart easily, especially when wet.
With a growing number of bans on plastic bags, one market product increasing in popularity is the cotton tote bag. These reusable bags have been marketed as a positive alternative to plastic grocery bags, but this too is a false reality. Tote bags and reusable cotton bags are significantly more damaging to the environment than both single-use plastic and paper bags. The production of cotton for the bag requires massive amounts of water, energy and land space, and individuals would need to reuse a cotton tote bag over 7100 times to neutralize its impact. This means that if a consumer goes shopping every single day of the year, using the same tote bag on every trip, it would still take the buyer over nine years to use the bag enough times to make it a positive alternative to plastic. The reality of this situation is that most people use more than one cotton bag to shop and don’t shop every day, making it even more difficult to even out the bag’s impact.
Bill Wirtz, a senior policy analyst for the Consumer Choice Center, is critical of Europe’s outright ban on single-use plastics.
“We have put all of our energy into trying to ban something, and not enough energy into looking for alternatives,” Wirtz said. “In a lot of public policy, we really focus on how to get rid of something, but then we spend very little time on trying to replace it with something viable for consumers.”
Indeed, little research has gone into viable alternatives. However, there are a few items that have lower environmental impacts and don’t require unreasonable reuse rates to equalize plastic’s effect. Compostable packaging is one such positive development in the industry, creating far less CO2 and virtually no long-term waste. The only significant deterrent to compostable packaging for grocery bags is their cost of production. A compostable alternative costs up to 10 cents more to produce than a plastic bag, resulting in an impact that trickles down to consumers. Additionally, consumers will need a way to compost the items, requiring compost kits that can cost up to $700. Until there is a less costly alternative, compostable packaging cannot be a viable development for everyone.
Instead, it is necessary for individuals to reuse their single-use bags. Whether paper, plastic or cotton, it is crucial that every consumer make the most out of the item that will inevitably hurt the environment. Before the government makes large-scale decisions that will impact the environment, alternatives must be researched and readily available.
“I think what is most likely is that in 10 years, we’ll circle back and say, ‘Oh, all these paper and metal straws were actually not the solution that we thought they were,’” Wirtz said. “If I can make a prediction, I think we’re gonna realize that we actually haven’t saved the world here, and we need to find something different.”
