(The Center Square) – A recommendation from two Washington State University economists that the state end its ban on thinner, single-use plastic bags because the law is doing more harm than good isn’t sitting well with the Department of Commerce and Department of Ecology, which commissioned the study.
WSU professors Eric Jessup and Jake Wagner concluded in a study released last week that the plastic ban isn’t working as intended, as thin plastic bags are being replaced by thicker ones, resulting in an increase in the amount of plastic used by shoppers.
According to the study, the law “may not be effective at reducing environmental impacts, as the bags are often not reused, and certainly not reused enough to offset their higher contribution to plastic waste and litter and increased lifecycle costs.”
The report notes that although shoppers are using fewer bags – about half – than they did previously, the increased thickness of the bags more than offsets the reduction in use.
The state Legislature passed the single-use plastic bag ban during its 2020 legislative session, with the law signed in late 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the effective date of the ban was delayed, and it took full effect on Oct. 1, 2021.
At the same time, lawmakers required stores to charge customers at least 8 cents for a paper bag or a thicker, multiple-use plastic bag. The fee will increase to 12 cents on Jan. 1, 2026.
In the study, Jessup and Wagner “recommend removal of the plastic bag thickness requirement, allowing retailers to distribute single-use plastic bags. This recommendation avoids the environmental costs of thicker bags incurred without sufficient reuse.”
They concluded: “Together, these recommendations avoid the environmental costs of thicker bags, while continuing to discourage bag use through the pass-through charge.”
In a four-page department cover memo, Commerce and Ecology reiterated their commitment to the plastic bag ban, saying the two WSU economists didn’t have enough information to effectively evaluate the ban.
“Commerce and Ecology find that several of the recommendations outlined in the WSU Report are based upon insufficient data from within Washington State,” according to the cover memo. “Moreover, the WSU Report makes several recommendations that fail to consider larger social, economic, and environmental implications. Considering these limitations, this Cover Memo examines the WSU Report’s key findings, limitations, recommendations, alternatives, and possible next steps.”
Jessup took issue with the cover memo attached to the study.
“Commerce & Ecology [are] somewhat denigrating our study to rationalize their preferred recommendations,” he told The Center Square in a lengthy email in response to a request for comment.
“We stand by the analysis and the recommendations we provided in the report. The study did have some limitations (all studies do), but we clearly/openly provided those limitations in the report. These were primarily related to Washington state-specific data/information that we did not have access to, but went to great lengths to obtain.”
He said the study looked at prior studies in other states and nations, noting “we have no reason to believe the information from these other contexts is not applicable to Washington state.”
Jessup questioned the notion that the study did not take into account larger issues.
“It is unclear what these larger social, economic and environmental implications are in reference to,” he said. “There are extensive studies on the external costs of shopping bags, including environmental damages, damages to human health, damages to animal health, and resource utilization. The findings from these studies are included in our report and were used to inform the recommendations that we provided.”
The Center Square reached out to Kirk Esmond, innovation and industry partnerships director with the Department of Commerce’s Office of Economic Development and Competitiveness, for comment on what Jessup said. He did not respond.
During a Monday work session before the House Environment & Energy Committee, Esmond spoke about what he considers the study’s limitations.
“Generally speaking, we were able to conclude that there was a lack of robust data available,” he said. “Again, WSU had difficulty in obtaining data from Washington state bag use, distribution, and the economic indicators.”
Jessup isn’t buying it.
“What is noteworthy,” he said, “[is] they offer no substantiation/validation of their criticism of the report … nor for their preferred recommendations.”
