PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS：塑料购物袋.doc

WHY PLASTIC SHOPPING BAG BANS AND TAXES DON’T WORK There are no magic bullets or simple answers to product stewardship and protecting the environment. The idea of banning products to protect the environment is a simplistic attempt to find a solution to a very complex problem. They are not based on science or fact and have a number of negative consequences that hurt consumers, retailers and the environment. The issue of plastic bag bans and de facto bans like taxes have been studied intensely around the world. Scotland’s all-party Environment and Rural Development Committee (ERDC) spent two years in hearings on the Irish bag tax (de facto ban). They concluded that it had a number of unintended negative consequences that hurt consumers, retailers and the environment and should be rejected. These unintended consequences are what the Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw, UK Environment Minister called “disbenefits” for the environment. “I think the problem here is that although a lot of people are superficially attracted to a plastic bag tax [ban] when you do what is called a life cycle analysis of the overall environmental impact of such a tax [ban], I’m afraid it is not as clear cut as some people think.” (4 August 2006) Decisions made in the name of the environment should be based on science and fact, and a full, public discussion and analysis of their intended and unintended consequences can hurt the environment. Experience shows that deselection or limiting consumer choice particularly when it comes to plastic shopping bags not only does not work, but can have a number of unintended consequences that will actually do more environmental harm. There are a full range of questions that need to be examined when looking at bans on plastic bags. Will a bag ban actually extend the life of a landfill? Will a ban on plastic shopping bags lead to consumption of more, not less plastic? Are the alternatives really better for the environment? What do bag bans teach people about personal re