Use science, even when it contradicts assumptions | Guest Opinion

How hard is it to reveal the economic, health, and environmental dangers of bad public policy?

Consider the case of Washington’s new ban on plastic grocery bags.

Earlier this year, the legislature banned the bags, arguing they harm the environment, reaching our rivers and the ocean, and harm wildlife. When the ban was signed by the governor on March 25, the state was already in lockdown due to the COVID pandemic. Concerns that reusable bags may be vectors for the coronavirus were already being raised. Several cities in Washington, including Olympia, Kent, Issaquah, and others, suspended the ban citing health concerns.

 Although COVID added a level of seriousness to health risks associated with reusable bags, those concerns were not new. Several studies demonstrated that people don’t wash the bags frequently enough, leading to a variety of foodborne illnesses.

The ban on plastic bags was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2021. But, because of the pandemic, last week Gov. Jay Inslee issued a proclamation delaying its implementation for another month. 

The stubborn refusal to acknowledge the reality of a situation is, unfortunately, not surprising to those who have worked on environmental policy. Frequently the sex appeal of image-boosting environmental choices overrides evidence that polices are ineffective or even counterproductive.

 I consider the growing amount of plastic in the ocean to be one of the planet’s most obvious environmental concerns. I contribute to amazing organizations like Plastic Bank and SeaBin that prevent waste plastic from reaching the ocean.

 It is clear to me that a plastic bag ban does more harm to the environment and marine life than good.

Studies by the governments of Denmark and the U.K. found that reusable bags, especially organic cotton bags, generate hundreds of times more air pollution than plastic bags.

 Most counterintuitively, many reusable bags create far more water pollution than plastic bags. In the United States, the most serious threat to marine life are “dead zones” created when fertilizer runs off into waterways and remove oxygen from the water. Growing the cotton for reusable bags contributes to exactly this type of pollution. Scientific analysis completed by the Danish and British governments found that some reusable bags would have to be used every week for more than six years before the environmental impacts were smaller than plastic bags.

 The problem with that evidence, however, is that it is complicated and difficult to picture. Many people aren’t familiar with dead zones and connecting someone’s use of a cotton bag to low oxygen levels in the water is unlikely. Everyone, however, has seen a picture of a sea turtle tangled in a plastic bag.

 In those circumstances, scientific analysis is no match for the power of emotional images. Even the risk of spreading COVID hasn’t been compelling enough to delay the ban.

 Washington state has locked down the economy, causing thousands of businesses to go bankrupt, an increase in unemployment rates, and permanent harm to school students. Those costs were acceptable. Simply postponing – not repealing – the ban on plastic bags was not.

 The problem of using science to highlight the risks of bad environmental policy isn’t limited to plastic bags.

 Rooftop solar panels are a politically popular form of renewable energy, and schools across the state have spent significant amounts of money to install them. The Energy Information Administration is very clear, however, that rooftop solar is the most expensive way to generate clean electricity. But, politicians continue to subsidize it because it is politically popular.

 The responsible way to help the planet – to reduce ocean plastic or promote renewable energy – is to face the science, even when it contradicts our assumptions or makes environmental stewardship more challenging. That isn’t easy. Even the risk of COVID hasn’t been enough to change the plastic bag ban. If we are going to leave a better planet for future generations and wildlife, however, facing the data is our obligation.

This story was originally published December 22, 2020 at 3:33 PM with the headline "Use science, even when it contradicts assumptions | Guest Opinion."