By Nate Scherer
The fight against climate change is increasingly characterized by feel-good attempts by lawmakers to save the planet by issuing top-down regulations that do nothing to meaningfully lower global temperatures or reduce pollution. However, these “feel-good” regulations have a well-known habit of harming consumers by eliminating popular goods and services or making them more expensive.
The most recent example of such a regulation comes from California, where lawmakers recently passed a second ban on plastic grocery bags after the first attempt failed. The first ban, SB 270, which took effect in 2014, banned grocery stores from handing out single-use plastic bags at checkout. It was designed to reduce plastic waste and encourage consumers to use reusable bags.
However, a recent study published by California consumer advocacy group CALPIRG found that the ban may have inadvertently led to a 47% increase in plastic bag waste between 2014 and 2022, as consumers tend to throw away thicker reusable plastic bags after a single use. That means SB 270 didn't reduce plastic waste, but rather produced more of it, while simultaneously charging consumers 10 cents per reusable bag. Plastic bag bans in other states have produced similar results, such as in New Jersey, which found that plastic consumption tripled after the ban went into effect.
While California politicians now hope to close this glaring loophole by banning grocery stores from selling thicker plastic bags and requiring them to offer only recycled paper bags at checkout, it's not hard to imagine other unintended consequences. Policymakers attempt to control consumers' subjective behavior and preferences – a strategy that rarely, if ever, works.
Other notable examples of failures in environmental regulations include bans on plastic straws. Motivated by clichéd slogans like “The Last Plastic Straw Campaign,” which rely on viral turtle videos to garner public support, policymakers in states and cities across the country have enacted bans on plastic straws. Proponents argue that such bans reduce plastic waste – some of which ends up in rivers and landfills – while encouraging consumers to use reusable or paper straws. However, the success of such bans is questionable at best, as plastic straws make up a negligible proportion of plastic waste. In addition, supposedly green alternatives such as paper straws have been found to pose their own environmental problems, for example because they consist of large amounts of water-resistant chemicals that are slow to biodegrade.
Bans on gas appliances also appear to be a fan favorite of policymakers who see connecting natural gas and fossil fuels as antithetical to a carbon-free future. Cities such as Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco have recently implemented such bans on new construction, as has New York state. While policymakers say such bans are necessary to curb greenhouse gas emissions, they require residents to make unnecessary sacrifices, such as using less popular appliances like gas stoves that heat up more slowly, allow for less precise temperature control and often impose higher monthly bills pull yourself.
It's also worth noting that eliminating gas appliances has little impact on reducing carbon emissions if the city or state gets its electricity from oil or natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 60% of U.S. electricity generation still comes from fossil fuels, and no state relies entirely on renewable energy. Likewise, most large population centers rely on many different forms of energy to meet their needs. Bans on gas appliances, straws and plastic bags will not change consumer preferences, but they will take away their choice.
There are countless other feel-good attempts at environmental regulation by policymakers seeking to combat climate change, and many exact a similar toll on consumers, be it water-saving faucet requirements that reduce flow rates, bans on light bulbs, or restrictions on the type of garden a homeowner can have can have. While not all such regulations are bad or overly burdensome, they add up quickly and have the cumulative effect of restricting people's freedom to choose which good or service is best for them. While some Americans see these limits as a necessary sacrifice to help save the planet, chances are most would not feel that way if they knew that few would make a meaningful contribution to mitigating climate change or reducing waste .
Nate Scherer is a policy analyst at the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, visit us at www.TheAmericanConsumer.Org or follow us on X @ConsumerPal
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Like this:
Load…
