A Stitch in Haste

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.

UPDATE: More laughing and crying over at Hit & Run.

Since I vacation alone, I tend not to eat out much, especially for dinner. Sitting alone in a fancy restaurant, especially one where you don't speak the language, can be rather lonely boring. Instead I tend to seek out a supermarket, loot buy some basic foodstuffs and just survive on cold cut sandwiches, chips crisps, ice cream and such. And beer.

The first couple of times I did this, I kept succumbing to a slight oversight: in many countries they simply don't have grocery bags -- you're expected to bring your own.

Is this "no free bags" practice the result of market forces or government interventionism? Turns out that in one country, the answer is "both" --

In March 2002, Ireland enacted a nationwide tax of nine pence (15 cents) on the use of plastic grocery bags, to be collected by retailers. Predictably, in just five months the tax cut plastic bag use by 90 percent.

The public face in support of the tax -- the "Baptists" -- were largely Irish environmental activists, who argued that the tax was necessary to discourage plastic bag littering.

So who were ... the vested economic interests who tacitly collude[d] with the "Baptists" to push for the tax? Interestingly it appears to have been large grocery retailers, who benefited from a large increase in sales of branded "re-usable" grocery bags, something that likely gave them a competitive edge over smaller retailers unable to afford such complimentary items.

So the eco-radicals wound up helping the big greedy European equivalents of Wal-Mart. Go figure.

I'm surprised these "Baptists" didn't turn right around and demand that retailers be prohibited from giving away free totes (or, more likely, demand that the government provide totes for every household, much as U.S. cities have to do when they commence recycling programs).

As with any tax or regulation on business, some firms will be able to comply and some will not. But those who are driven out of the market never seem to figure into the taxation-regulatory calculus.

In any case, when government makes business more expensive, inevitably the customers suffer (as do the workers and investors -- i.e., everyone).

Somehow this is a good thing?

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

More self-appointed warm-fuzzy-feeling do-gooders see only what they want to see:

Paper or plastic? It is a question that has long dogged grocery shoppers. But the debate may soon be settled for [Annapolis], where a bill aimed at protecting marine life would ban plastic bags from all retail stores.
...
Alexandra Cousteau, granddaughter of Jacques Cousteau and director of EarthEcho, an environmental education group in Washington, said, "Banning plastic makes sense for the simple reason that it takes more than 1,000 years to biodegrade, which means that every single piece of plastic we've ever manufactured is still around, and much of it ends up in the oceans killing animals."

Ignore for the moment the facially absurd claim that "much" of our plastic bag refuse ends up in the oceans. Our trash ends up in landfills. There is simply no oceanic "tragedy of the commons" here as there might be with whale hunting or tuna fishing.

Focus instead on the all-too-real economic consequences:

Instead of taking away plastic bags, which cost 2 cents each compared with 5 cents for paper bags, Annapolis should enforce its litter laws, [a supermarket spokesperson] said.

He added that Giant already offered a 3-cent credit for every plastic bag that customers return to the store and that 2,200 tons of bags a year were recycled and turned into backyard decks and park benches.

Paper bags are bulkier to transport than plastic bags, [he] added, and more trucks, fuel and pollution are involved in delivering them to stores.

So not only do these environmentalists hate the poor, by making them pay more for their groceries, but they also apparently hate the environment, advocating policies that would contribute to global warming. Go figure.

The way to deal with litter is with anti-littering laws. The way to deal with trash generally is to make it fee based. The way to deal with externalities — if you can objectively demonstrate that they even exist — is with carefully crafted Pigou taxes.

And the way to maximize "social welfare" is, always, to leave people alone as much as possible to pursue their individual welfare. That is the optimal environment, and therefore the optimal environmental policy.

More thoughts at Hit & Run.

As taboo as this might be in certain circles, I will now be critical of Elizabeth Edwards:

Elizabeth Edwards raised in passing the importance of relying on locally-grown fruit.

"We've been moving back to 'buy local,'" Mrs. Edwards said, outlining a trade policy that "acknowledges the carbon footprint" of transporting fruit.

"I live in North Carolina. I'll probably never eat a tangerine again," she said, speaking of a time when the fruit ... reaches the price that it "needs" to be.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

"Eating locally" is a variation of that other utter nonsense, "buying locally." The best way to preserve the environment (whatever that means) is to consume as efficiently as possible, in terms of utility as well as cost.

If "long-distance food" is a better offering to a consumer (in terms not only of price but of utility), then it is the optimal purchase, not just for the consumer herself but for the environment as well.

The mere fact that transporting food (or anything else) over longer distances may require burning incrementally more fossil fuels merely suggests a properly crafted Pigou tax to correct the supposed externality (i.e., to make the price reflect the true cost). Abstinence is not only unnecessary but also counterproductive.

Consider: What next-best item will you spend your money on if not a tangerine? What "carbon footprint" will it leave? You're not eliminating the total carbon footprint of the tangerine, merely the marginal footprint between the tangerine and the next-best item. While making yourself worse off in terms of utility in the process. You're simply trading one cost (carbon emissions) for another (lost utility). In a way that, by definition, makes you worse off.

All this, somehow, makes the world a better place?

Think of it this way: Getting the biggest bang for your buck also means the fewest bangs on the environment.

Incidentally, one wonders, as do the commenters at Politico, whether Mrs. Edwards will also be giving up things like orange juice and bananas, neither of which are grown in North Carolina. Giving up tangerines is hardly the express lane to selfless asceticism.

More thoughts at Marginal Revolution.

---

By the same token and for the same reasons, the best path to economic prosperity is not to "buy American" or "buy local" or "buy black" or "buy gay," but simply to "buy cheap." To deliberately make yourself worse off economically by limiting your choices only empowers those who cannot successfully compete freely and fairly -- the same kind of collectivists who insist that "we" (i.e., they) need quotas and tariffs and subsidies. See, ironically, "farmers."

---

Note also that if Mrs. Edwards is merely bemoaning the fact that there is not yet such a Pigou tax on her tangerines (or anything else), then she could simply "tax herself" and agree to donate money to an environmental group every time she "eats transported." Just like how when Bill Clinton or Warren Buffett lament that they are not taxed enough, they could simply cut a check to the Treasury any time they felt like it. But they don't. Go figure.