A Stitch in Haste

Remember, you read it here first — over two years ago, in this post.

---

Just when you thought San Francisco couldn't get any more pathetic:

San Francisco may become the first city in the nation to charge shoppers for grocery bags.

The city's Commission on the Environment is expected to ask the mayor and board of supervisors Tuesday to consider a 17-cent per bag charge on paper and plastic grocery bags. While the goal is reducing plastic bag pollution, paper was added so as not to discriminate.

"The whole point is to encourage the elimination of waste, not to make people pay more for groceries," said Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste.

Environmentalists argue that plastic bags jam machinery, pollute waterways and often end up in trees. In addition to large supermarkets, other outfits that regularly use plastic bags, including smaller grocery stores, dry cleaners and takeout restaurants, could eventually be targeted.

Officials calculate that the city spends 5.2 cents per bag annually for street litter pickup and 1.4 cents per bag for extra recycling costs.

Of course, the cost of street litter pickup is not 5.2 cents per bag, but (essentially) zero cents per bag, since the streets would be cleaned anyway. (We all remember the difference between marginal cost and average cost from Econ. 101, right?)

And did you notice that little "cigarette tax" maneuver — they want to reduce waste rather than raise money? Then why not just ban plastic bags outright? Provide those free cloth "shoppers' bags" (a la free recycling bins for every home). Of course it's about the money — it's always about the money.

I hope they pass the stupid tax — I'd enjoy seeing the black market that arises, especially among San Francisco's (quite ubiquitous) beggar population: "Psst! I got primo bags right here buddy, straight from Sausalito — just 10 cents! Oh, and you ain't no plastic bag cop, are ya? Cuz you gotta tell me if you're a cop, or that's entrapment..."

Eventually we'll even have special episodes of "COPS: Bag Patrol." Or some third-rate sitcom will rip off the (two-part) Seinfeld episode where Kramer and Newman try to smuggle 5-cent cans into a 10-cent state.

Laugh so you don't cry.

---

Fast forward to the present: The plastic bag ban passed 10-1.

San Francisco supervisors and supporters said that by banning the petroleum-based sacks, blamed for littering streets and choking marine life, the measure would go a long way toward helping the city earn its green stripes.

First off, I'm not sure "earning green stripes" (whatever that means) is a proper function of government. The purpose of government is to protect individual liberties and provide public goods. Forcing people into "correct" choices ("correct" to whom? by what standard?) based on wild supposition (i.e., mere guesses) over de minimis issues (plastic bags are simply not a global catastrophe) is warm-fuzzy-feeling nanny statism at its worst.

Second, to borrow a phrase: Plastic bags don't litter, people litter. Why not just up the fines for littering (i.e., punishing those who actually do wrong)? Is that too archaic a doctrine for "enlightened" San Francisco?

Third, paper and plastic are not perfect substitutes. The fact that some people prefer one over the other proves that. Very very close substitutes, perhaps -- but not perfect. So banning plastic bags is not costless -- it destroys utility and consumer welfare. But it is of course the calling card of politicians to see (or imagine) only the benefits but never the costs of their legislative actions. Plus ça change...

Fourth, if there are objectively demonstrable negative externalities to plastic bags, then the original stupid idea the city considered -- a bag tax or deposit similar to bottle deposits -- would have been (marginally) less stupid than an outright ban. But when it comes to activist legislators, apparently it's "In for a penny, in for a pound..."

More thoughts from Hit & Run