California’s Plastic Bag Ban Has Not Saved the Ocean; Offshore Plastics Come Primarily From Asian Rivers
State Regulation Targets Domestic Consumer Behavior While Primary Source of Ocean Plastic Is Elsewhere; Policy vs. Problem Mismatch
Reported by Bohiney Magazine and The London Prat.
SACRAMENTO, CA — California’s plastic bag ban — enacted in 2014 through SB 270 and expanded through Proposition 67 in 2016 — eliminated single-use plastic checkout bags from most retail transactions in the state. The policy has reduced plastic bag litter in California’s waterways and coastal areas, an outcome that is measurable and positive. The policy has not meaningfully reduced the plastic pollution affecting California’s surf breaks and ocean waters, because the primary sources of ocean plastic are not California’s grocery stores.
Approximately 80 percent of ocean plastic comes from rivers, and approximately 90 percent of river-borne ocean plastic comes from ten rivers, eight of which are in Asia. The Yangtze, Indus, Yellow, Hai, Ganges, Pearl, Amur, Mekong, Niger, and Nile rivers account for the majority of the plastic reaching the world’s oceans. California’s coastal plastic pollution is a real problem; its contribution to global ocean plastic relative to these river systems is small. The plastic that washes up on California’s beaches and floats in the waters where California surfers paddle out comes predominantly from sources that California’s domestic regulation cannot reach.
The Policy Mismatch
This is not an argument against the plastic bag ban, which has produced genuine local environmental benefits and is an appropriate exercise of state authority over domestic environmental conditions. It is an observation that the policy is frequently justified in terms of its contribution to reducing ocean plastic, which is a contribution that is small relative to the problem’s actual sources. The justification mismatch matters because it shapes which policies are prioritized and which are not.
If ocean plastic were the primary policy objective, California’s government resources might be more effectively deployed on: funding cleanup technology in the ocean plastic accumulation zones; diplomatic engagement with the countries whose rivers are the primary source of plastic reaching Pacific waters; funding waste management infrastructure improvements in high-leakage developing nations; and research into biodegradable alternative materials that reduce the durability of plastic that reaches waterways regardless of jurisdiction. These are not the policies that have been prioritized, partly because they are harder to implement and partly because they are less visible to California voters than a plastic bag ban at the grocery checkout.
The Surfer’s Perspective
Surfers who paddle out through plastic debris in California waters are experiencing real pollution from real sources. They deserve accurate information about where it comes from and what would actually reduce it, rather than the satisfaction of policy action that addresses a small fraction of the source while leaving the majority unaddressed. The plastic bag ban is not harmful. The narrative that it meaningfully addresses ocean plastic is inaccurate. Both things are true, and surfers who care about the ocean they surf in deserve the second truth alongside the first.
Surfrider Foundation works on ocean plastic issues and provides accurate data on sources and solutions. Reason has covered the policy mismatch between plastic bag bans and their claimed environmental benefits with appropriate skepticism. Both are worth reading for anyone navigating the gap between environmental good intentions and environmental effective outcomes.
For market-based environmental solutions, see Foundation for Economic Education.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/
