Nate Scherer
The fight against climate change is increasingly filled with feel-good attempts by lawmakers to save the planet through top-down regulations that do nothing to effectively lower global temperatures or reduce pollution. However, these “feel-good” regulations have a common habit of hurting consumers by eliminating popular goods and services or raising their prices.
The latest example of such regulations comes from California, where state lawmakers recently passed a second plastic grocery bag ban after the first attempt failed. The first ban, SB 270, took effect in 2014 and prohibited grocery stores from handing out single-use plastic bags at checkout lines. It aims 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 caused a 47% spike in plastic bag waste between 2014 and 2022, as consumers tend to throw away thicker bags after one use. Reusable plastic bags. This means that instead of reducing plastic waste, SB 270 creates more plastic waste while charging consumers 10 cents per reusable bag. Plastic bag bans in other states have produced similar results, such as New Jersey, where plastic bag consumption tripled after the ban went into effect.
While California policymakers 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 this creating additional unintended consequences. as a result of. Policymakers attempt to control consumers' subjective behaviors and preferences, but this strategy rarely works.
Other notable examples of failed environmental regulation include plastic straw bans. Policymakers have passed plastic straw bans in states and cities across the country, driven by clichéd slogans like the “Last Plastic Straw Campaign,” which relied on viral turtle videos to drum up public support. Supporters argue that such bans could 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 a ban is questionable at best, as plastic straws account for so little of the plastic waste. Additionally, so-called green alternatives such as paper straws have been found to present environmental challenges of their own, such as being composed of large amounts of permanently waterproof chemicals that biodegrade slowly.
Banning gas appliances also appears to be a favorite among policymakers, who argue that the link between natural gas and fossil fuels is antithetical to a carbon-free future. Cities such as Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco have all recently enacted such bans in new construction, as has New York state. While policymakers say such bans are needed to help curb greenhouse gas emissions, they require residents to make unnecessary sacrifices, such as using less popular appliances like gas furnaces, which heat more slowly and provide less temperature control. Precise, and often means higher monthly bills.
It’s also worth noting that if a city or state gets its electricity from oil or natural gas, eliminating gas appliances will have little impact on reducing carbon emissions. 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. Banning gas utensils, straws and plastic bags will not change consumer preferences, but it will take away their choice.
There are countless other feel-good attempts at environmental regulation by policymakers aiming to combat climate change, many of which impose similar costs on consumers, whether it's lower-flow water-saving faucet requirements, bans on incandescent The bulb also limits the type of yard area a homeowner can have. While not all such regulations are bad or overly onerous, they do add up quickly and have an overall cumulative effect that limits people's freedom to decide what goods or services are best for them. While some Americans may view these restrictions as necessary sacrifices to help save the planet, they likely would not feel that way if they learned that few people are playing a meaningful role in stopping 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, please visit our website www.TheAmericanConsumer.Org Or follow us on X @ConsumerPal
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and provided via RealClearWire.
Relevant
