🔬 Science and technology · Beginner · Policy resolution
Resolved: States should ban single-use plastic shopping bags.
Many states and cities ban thin plastic shopping bags. Research shows bans cut plastic bag litter but can increase paper and trash-bag use. Is a ban the best policy?
Background
California banned single-use plastic grocery bags statewide in late 2016, after 139 of its cities and counties had passed local bans, and many other states and cities have followed with bans or fees. Economist Rebecca Taylor (University of Sydney) and colleagues studied California’s local bans and found they cut about 40 million pounds of plastic bag trash a year. But shoppers bought more small trash bags (sales of 4-gallon bags rose 120%), so about 30% of the plastic saved came back as thicker garbage bags, and paper bag use rose by about 80 million pounds a year. [1]
Life-cycle studies complicate the picture. A 2011 U.K. government study found a cotton tote must be reused 131 times to beat a plastic grocery bag on climate impact, and a Danish government study counting more kinds of environmental harm put the figure for an organic cotton bag far higher. Taylor’s research also found that a small fee on bags encouraged reusable bags about as effectively as a ban. [1]
Are bans better for the environment overall?
- Bans clearly reduce plastic bag litter, which harms wildlife and waterways and doesn’t biodegrade.
- When shoppers switch to paper or buy more trash bags, total greenhouse gas emissions can rise; the answer depends on what you measure.
Key terms
- Single-use bag
- A thin bag meant to be used once, usually given out at checkout.
- Life-cycle assessment
- A study of a product’s environmental effects from production to disposal.
- Bag fee
- A small charge for each bag, meant to encourage reusable bags.
- Leakage
- When banning one product shifts use to a substitute, such as thicker trash bags.
Both sides at their strongest
Each argument is written the way its best advocates would make it, followed by the strongest answer from the other side. Use them to build your case and to prepare for the other one.
Affirmative
Thin plastic bags cause lasting litter and harm; a ban removes them effectively.
A1 Bans sharply cut plastic bag waste.
Why When stores can’t give out thin bags, shoppers bring their own or use fewer, removing millions of pounds of plastic each year.
Evidence Taylor’s research: about 40 million pounds a year less plastic bag trash in California cities with bans.
Best answer The negative answers that about 30% of that came back as trash bags, and paper use rose sharply.
A2 Plastic bags are an especially harmful kind of litter.
Why Light bags blow into waterways and oceans, tangle wildlife, clog drains and break into small pieces that last for many years.
Evidence Litter surveys and studies of plastic debris; Taylor’s point that bans reduce nonbiodegradable litter.
Best answer The negative replies that better litter control and recycling target the problem without banning a useful product.
A3 A clear rule is simple for stores and shoppers.
Why One statewide rule avoids a patchwork of city laws and quickly changes habits.
Evidence California’s move from 139 local bans to a statewide law.
Best answer The negative argues that a fee is just as simple and leaves more choice.
A4 Habits change, and reusable bags become normal.
Why Once people get used to bringing bags, the change sticks, reducing all kinds of disposable bags over time.
Evidence Studies of reusable bag use after bans and fees.
Best answer The negative replies that cotton totes must be reused many times to beat plastic, and many aren’t.
Negative
Bans shift waste to paper and trash bags; fees or other policies work as well with fewer side effects.
N1 Substitutes cancel much of the benefit.
Why Shoppers who used grocery bags for trash or pet waste buy thicker plastic bags instead, and many switch to paper.
Evidence Taylor: small trash-bag sales up 120%, about 30% of plastic savings offset, and about 80 million pounds more paper waste per year.
Best answer The affirmative answers that total plastic still falls, and paper breaks down instead of persisting as litter.
N2 Alternatives can be worse for the climate.
Why Paper and cotton bags take more energy and resources to make; unless reused many times, they can cause more emissions.
Evidence The 2011 U.K. study (131 uses for a cotton tote); the Danish government study.
Best answer The affirmative replies that sturdy plastic reusable bags beat thin bags after a modest number of uses.
N3 Fees work about as well as bans.
Why A small charge nudges most shoppers to bring bags while letting those who need one buy it, avoiding the trash-bag shift.
Evidence Taylor’s research finding a small fee as effective as a ban in encouraging reusable bags.
Best answer The affirmative argues fees can be paid without thought by some shoppers, so bans cut use more reliably.
N4 Bans can burden low-income shoppers.
Why Paying for reusable bags or paper bag fees adds costs for families on tight budgets.
Evidence Analyses of bag-policy costs by income; programs giving free reusable bags.
Best answer The affirmative replies that the costs are small and programs can provide free bags.
Strawman or steelman?
A strawman is a weak copy of the other side’s view, easy to knock down and unfair to the people who hold it. A steelman is that view at its strongest. Answer the steelman, and you’ve answered the real argument. (More on steelmanning.)
Affirmative
Strawman “Ban supporters think banning bags will save the oceans.”
Why it’s unfair Supporters argue that bans cut a particularly harmful form of litter, not that they solve ocean plastic alone.
Steelman Bans remove millions of pounds of plastic bag waste and a persistent, harmful kind of litter, and quickly change habits.
Negative
Strawman “Opponents don’t care about pollution.”
Why it’s unfair Opponents point to evidence that bans shift waste and that fees work as well.
Steelman Bans shift waste to paper and trash bags and can raise emissions; a fee achieves similar results with fewer side effects.
Weak arguments to avoid
Affirmative
- “Paper bags are always better for the environment.” Life-cycle studies find paper often has higher climate impact unless reused.
Negative
- “Reusable bags spread disease, so bans are dangerous.” Washing bags addresses hygiene; this isn’t a strong argument against bag policy.
Questions for cross-examination
Ask the Affirmative
- What happened to trash-bag sales after bans?
- How many times must a cotton tote be reused to beat a plastic bag?
- Would a fee work as well?
Ask the Negative
- How much plastic bag trash did California’s bans eliminate?
- Does paper break down in the environment faster than plastic?
- Would you support a fee on both paper and plastic bags?
Reading on both sides
Read at least one source from each side before you debate. Look up each source’s author and publisher too: who wrote it is part of the evidence.
Background and overviews
- Phase-out of lightweight plastic bags, Wikipedia
Both sides in one place
- Are plastic bag bans garbage?, NPR Planet Money (2019-04-09)
Mostly Negative
- Why banning plastic bags doesn't work as intended, Chicago Booth Review
Sources for the background
- Are plastic bag bans garbage? (Greg Rosalsky), NPR Planet Money (2019-04-09). Accessed 2026-10-25.
Teddy Rook Book doesn’t take a side on this resolution. Updated 2026-10-25.