HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/27/2012 - REDUCING DISPOSABLE BAGSDATE: November 27, 2012
STAFF: Susie Gordon
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Reducing Disposable Bags
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Options for reducing the number of single-use bags consumed in Fort Collins have been researched.
Taking action at the municipal level to restrict disposable bags would contribute to the community’s
culture of sustainability and waste reduction, in alignment with its goals to reduce waste generation,
increase re-use, divert (50% of) trash from landfill disposal and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Should staff continue to pursue any of the options that are presented for reducing the use of
disposable bags?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Like many communities around the country and throughout the world, people in Fort Collins have
expressed concerns about shopping bags that are designed to be used once before they are thrown
away. On November 27, the City Council will review options for decreasing the amount of
disposable shopping bags that are used in Fort Collins. Staff conducted analyses of options that have
been taken in other communities and hired a local consulting firm to write a Triple Bottom Line
Evaluation on four courses of action as a reference for the City Council to use.
Issues of Concern Regarding Disposable Bags
During the past 20 years, public awareness has grown about the detrimental effects of disposable
bags on the environment, specifically the common plastic grocery bags that are a highly visible
source of litter. For coastal states and communities, impacts to marine wildlife and ecosystems can
be vivid and heart-rending. A dozen countries around the world, as well as scores of cities, have
regulated plastic bags usage.
Although plastic bags are not accepted in single-stream recycling programs, the public either doesn’t
understand this recycling guideline or chooses to overlook it. As a result, plastic bags cause a severe
strain on recycling plants when the bags tangle up processing equipment to the point of forcing
hours of closure for maintenance. This occurs throughout the country.
While detractors point to plastic bags’ numerous faults, not all consumers wish to lose the option
of bagging their purchases in disposable bags. Plastic bags often provide two or three subsequent
November 27, 2012 Page 2
uses in households. Furthermore, in staff’s review of the research on plastic bags, it is apparent that
using paper bags as an alternative to plastic is not necessarily a better choice in terms of Life Cycle
Analyses. The manufacture of paper bags is more water, energy, and pollution-intensive (and
costly) than the process for making plastic bags. See Attachment 4 for more information.
Many types of retailers use disposable bags, including supermarkets, restaurant take-out services,
convenience stores, and department stores. However, since 60% of bags are generated by grocery
stores, communities usually initiate their exploration into disposable bags by focusing on this type
of retailer. For the purpose of the discussion with the Council on November 27, staff has also
focused on grocery bags.
Using recently established data about disposable bags (both paper and plastic) from Aspen, Boulder,
and Telluride, staff estimates that an average of 342 grocery bags are used annually by each citizen
of Fort Collins, a total of nearly 50 million bags. At a conservative manufacturer’s price per bag
of two cents, this represents closer to $1 million worth of grocery bags being distributed in Fort
Collins.
From the perspective of a sustainability-minded community like Fort Collins, actions to reduce
disposable bags may represent a critical first step to take for new habits that help reduce waste at
a personal level, by citizens who can contribute to waste reduction and reuse. The data from other
communities show that customers become used to bringing their own durable shopping bags to
stores; it would follow that this accustoms people to applying other re-use and waste reduction
actions throughout their daily lives.
Other Communities
Various initiatives have been taken in over 50 US cities and several approaches to regulating
disposable bags (most often focused on grocery sacks) have been adopted.
• Plastic bag bans
- San Francisco
- Portland, OR
- Maui County, HI
• Charging a fee on both plastic and paper bags
- Washington DC
- Basalt, CO
- Montgomery County, MD
- Boulder, CO
• Ban plastic bags plus a fee charged on paper bags
- Seattle, WA
- Marin County, CA
- Aspen and Telluride, CO
November 27, 2012 Page 3
Several Options to Reduce Single-use Bags
1. Education/outreach approach that includes working with the retail industry to provide
more plastic bag recycling opportunities to the public
If the City determines that a dedicated education campaign would be an appropriate tact, the City
would need to either budget additional money to conduct this outreach, or modify other on-going
waste reduction campaigns. If the campaign would include the purchase of durable bags to
distribute to the public, as many communities elect to do, the costs would significantly increase.
Following this approach would result in a nominal reduction in disposable bags consumption (an
estimated 5%).
Staff considers that more recycling opportunities and guidelines for recycling plastic “film” are also
needed. Information is critically important to help people understand how to appropriately separate
and recycle not just grocery sacks, but also shrink wrap, dry cleaner bags, and other miscellaneous
plastic wrap and bags. While each grocery store in Fort Collins offers a drop-off bin for plastic
grocery bags, the container may be hard to find, is often too full to use, and does not seem to
welcome the customer to bring other types of “film” plastic. In this education and enhanced
recycling approach, staff suggests raising expectations for the retail industry to provide better plastic
“film” drop-off opportunities for the public.
2. Ban disposable bags
Simply banning plastic and/or paper bags is the most effective course of action in terms of waste
reduction. It would require the City to adopt an ordinance and provide relatively nominal
enforcement, with very little administrative overhead. In other cities, bans achieve dramatic
reductions in disposable bag consumption.
Members of the affected industries, however, consider bans to be a disservice to customers and an
attack on the manufacturers that produce the bags. The plastic bag industry, in particular, has raised
strong objections and law suits in other communities that have adopted bans.
3. Fees or taxes on disposable bags
When fees or taxes are applied, an administrative collection system is needed to manage the money.
A portion of the money (generally 20%) is kept by the retailer to pay the costs of training check-out
clerks and administering the accounting system. The store then passes the remaining 80% of the fee
or tax to the City, or in some instances, to the County. Where a fee or tax is applied, the local
government agency then uses the money to cover costs incurred for activities that may include:
public education and advertising to promote reusable bags; provision of durable bags to low-income
citizens; maintenance at recycling plants to remove plastic bags from equipment; and, stormwater
drainage maintenance.
Boulder recently adopted a $0.10 per bag (paper and plastic) fee. Staff in the Sales Tax Office
determined it was not necessary to add new personnel to handle the fee revenues. The stream of
revenues is projected to dramatically decline in the next five years as customers become accustomed
to using their own durable shopping bags.
November 27, 2012 Page 4
4. Credit/reimbursement when customer brings their own bag
Many people in Fort Collins have already switched to routinely bringing their own bags when they
shop, thereby avoiding the need to answer the check-out clerk’s question, “Paper or plastic?”
Several grocery chains offer to credit the customer a small amount of money for each of the store’s
bags that are thus avoided. For instance, Sprouts Markets in Fort Collins deduct a nickel/bag from
the total costs of a customer’s purchases.
This action on the part of grocers could be potentially considered as a requirement by the City. At
the very least, the City could conduct outreach to retailers and strongly encourage them to provide
some type of financial incentive to customers who bring their own bags.
ATTACHMENTS
1. List of outreach measures completed
2. Summary of public comments
3. Triple Bottom Line Evaluation: Plastic Bag Policy Options (October 2012)
4. Research Summary: Life Cycle Analyses of Plastic Bags (November 2012)
5. PowerPoint presentation
Attachment 1
Reducing Disposable Bags
Council Worksession November 27, 2012
Public Outreach – Disposable Bags Initiatives
October 1, 2012 – fcgov.com/plasticbags website installed to inform public about options for reducing
single‐use shopping bags and to collect public comments.
Late September/early October – staff met individually with each of Fort Collins’ licensed trash haulers to
discuss restrictions on single‐use shopping bags.
October 15, 2012 – fcgov.com/recycling/ ‐ Spotlight on City’s webpage
October 24, 2012 – City Calendar listed information on open house and website
October 24, 2012 – Press Release distributed to local media on two recycling initiatives
October 29, 2012 – PDF Invitation to the open house distributed via e‐mail and in print
October 30, 2012 – Staff’s “Green” Column published in the Coloradoan
November 1, 2012‐CityNews article about single‐use bags options
November 1, 2012 – TBLAM Online Publication Released
Published online study about plastic bag options, linked through fcgov.com/recycling.
November 1, 2012 – Social Media Campaign
Placed invitation/announcement on various social media websites including City’s Facebook page.
November 4, 2012 –Coloradoan polled readers via its Facebook Page (over 125 comments).
November 4, 2012 ‐ Neighborhood News article
November 5, 2012 –Coloradoan publishes article and online reader survey; “Time to Sack the Bag”.
November 5, 2012 –Denver Business Journal article “Fort Collins Contemplates Action on Grocery Bags”.
November 6, 2012‐CTV Student Media Channel 11
CSU television station newscast on the plastic bag initiative; “Possible Plastic Bag Ban.”
November 6 and 7, 2012 ‐ print ad in the Coloradoan
November 7, 2012 –Online interstitial ad on the Coloradoan’s website photo gallery
November 8, 2012 –print ad in the Coloradoan Ticket special section to the newspaper
November 8, 2012 – Open House, 4:30 to 7:00 pm
Public open house held to allow community to share comments on reducing disposable bags.
Attachment 1
Reducing Disposable Bags
Council Worksession November 27, 2012
November 9, 2012 ‐ Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Committee – staff presentation
November 13, 2012 – Denver Channel 4 News
Interview and story broadcast: “Fort Collins Joining List of Cities Considering Plastic Bag Ban”.
November 14, 2012 – Tri 102.5 Radio on‐air commentary and article
November 15, 2012 – K99 Radio on‐air commentary and article
November 15, 2012 ‐ Coloradoan News Article
November 16, 2012 – City of Fort Collins Economic Newsletter article
November 16, 2012 – Coloradoan Facebook Page featured the two initiatives (16 comments).
November 19, 2012– Tri 102.5 Radio on‐air commentary and article
Attachment 2
1
Reducing Disposable Bags
Council Worksession November 27, 2012
Summary of Public Comments – Reducing Disposable Bags
“Survey Gizmo” Public Poll Results
Forty-nine responses to the online question: Which option would you prefer for reducing our use of
disposable bags?
Respondents were asked to rank their preference, in order of most favorable, to least.
An overall rank of “1” means most favored option.
Item Total
Score1
Overall
Rank
Charge a fee for both plastic and paper bags 208 1
Ban just plastic bags and charge a fee on paper bags 196 2
Charge a fee on just plastic bags 189 3
Create an educational campaign to promote reusable bags 159 4
Ban both plastic bags and paper bags 143 5
Take no action 113 6
Total Respondents:
1 Score is a weighted calculation. Items ranked first are valued higher than the
following ranks; the score is the sum of all weighted rank counts.
Council W
Reducin
Worksession N
Attachm
ng Disposable
November 27,
ment 2
2
e Bags
, 2012
Attachment 2
3
Reducing Disposable Bags
Council Worksession November 27, 2012
Written Comments on Reducing Disposable Bags
Open House November 8, 2012
Poster 1 – “Your input is welcome”
1. The people want freedom and government off our backs!!! We don’t want to be another
“Boulder”. We want the use of plastic bags and cardboard boxes to continue. Don’t pass these
laws against us. Leave us alone! This whole thing is part of “Agenda 21” from the United
Nations. They pay cities money and perks to force us into “Agenda 21”.
Poster 2 – “Two Recycling Initiatives – draft proposals from staff”
1. No plastic bags in Fort Collins
2. Prohibit plastic bags
3. I favor a fee for bags preceding an outright ban.
4. Fees on paper and plastic bags a good idea – disincentive without a ban. People can do the
math.
5. Don’t take away my freedom (disposable bags). Is it time to take our shopping outside of Fort
Collins (the No Choice City)
6. Love idea to drop plastic bags from shops! They are littering our city.
Poster 5 – “Three Bag‐Reduction Strategies”
1. Charge small fee per bag. Include take‐out from restaurants.
2. Prohibit plastic bags for groceries and all other shopping (Macy’s, Penny’s, etc.)
3. Don’t exempt any shopper. Allow to purchase a re‐usable bag with food stamps.
4. Why exempt food stamp shoppers other than poverty. Why are they special? Don’t my limited
funds count?
5. Paper bags leave a large carbon footprint. Between transportation and being only single use.
Education, more recycling.
6. Charge a fee for paper or plastic. I think poor people can participate.
7. Fee seems from studies to be most effective.
8. I hate dealing with plastic bags from a recycling standpoint. Plastic bags mixed in with just
about anything we collect contaminates the load at worst and at best create many additional
man‐hours to remove and separate, which diminishes the value of recyclables. I would
personally like to see a fee attached to the bags. If someone wants the option of using that type
of bag they can pay for all of the downstream expense everyone else incurs. However, before
putting into place, an exhaustive educational program needs to take place focusing not only on
the problems of the bags but also on OPTIONS. Could the City apply for a grant to provide
anybody that wanted re‐usable bags with 2‐3 bags for free to the user? Maybe bags 4‐5 would
Attachment 2
4
Reducing Disposable Bags
Council Worksession November 27, 2012
be at a small cost. City would then be reducing bags but would also be giving interested citizens
a product that when used, actually can generate a rebate or a credit at most stores. If this were
all in place, exhaustive education had been implemented and people still choose to use plastic,
then let them pay a small fee for that service.
Poster 6 – “Reducing Waste: Plastic Bag Initiative (Option 1‐ No Action)”
1. Doing nothing is simply not an option.
2. We need to act. No action is not an option.
3. Not an option and still (be able to) claim green or sustainable city.
4. No action means more and more plastic bags clog and pollute (potentially) the environment.
Need to do something.
5. Unfortunately, many people do act like a “child”. Thus we have plastic bags around the
countryside.
6. This is a problem. We’re late adapters here. Ban or restrict plastic.
7. Much preferred. I am an adult don’t treat me like a child!
8. People can learn to be responsible but some need a BIG push.
9. We need more education city wide.
Poster 7 – “Reducing Waste: Plastic Bag Initiative (Option 2‐ Fee or tax on plastic & paper bags)”
1. 1) Education about recycling 2) education about what other uses bags can be put to 3) list of
existing bag recycling locations: to make a realistic difference, implement a fee, probably 10
cents per bag for either plastic or paper.
2. I would prefer no plastic but second choice is tax/charge for plastic at stores.
3. No fees. More education. People can’t afford it as it is now.
4. It’s more important to phase out single use plastic bags entirely. There may be too much
opposition to this option.
5. My first choice.
6. Me too (my first choice)!
7. Too hard to manage.
8. Need to keep working on this issue. It would be wonderful to end plastic bags in Fort Collins.
9. If there’s a fee, give to a specific group to make bags that work and are degradable. Education is
a great idea…we’re one of the brightest communities in the country!
10. I’d like to see either a fee charged by stores for plastic and paper bags, or a requirement that
they provide a bag credit to their customers for bringing either cloth or durable bags.
11. I don’t see why this is so hard. Bring your own bag to the store. It seems like a simple,
inexpensive solution to an environmental problem. Start with a bag fee if you have to. But
work into a total ban on plastic bags. There are better uses for petroleum.
12. Could the City or retailers provide bags as one‐time offer to low income population?
13. We don’t need another tax. Stop promoting poverty!
Attachment 2
5
Reducing Disposable Bags
Council Worksession November 27, 2012
14. Option 2 is the second best option.
15. Please make connections with GHG and trash in oceans and natural areas.
16. What would the tax be used for?
17. Like better than ban – make fee significant like $.25 or more per bag.
18. It would be nice if grocery stores took responsibility for this like Vitamin Cottage does.
Poster 8 – “Reducing Waste: Plastic Bag Initiative (Option 3‐ Ban on Plastic & Paper Bags)”
1. Plastic bags are the #2 pollutant in the ocean.
2. We should not be bettered by Bolder – we can do this here!
3. This would be my last choice – people like to be nudged in the correct direction, not jerked or
shoved.
4. Natural Grocers has done this. Bring your own bags or put stuff in a box.
5. Ban Bags! We’ll learn to bring our own cloth bags.
6. I think the ban is unnecessary regulation for a very small portion of the waste stream. Focus on
bigger waste streams like yard waste and construction waste.
7. Best option. We’ll adjust
8. What is the carbon footprint of a “cloth” bag? Would be interesting to compare. Cloth (cotton)
is farmed. Agriculture is one of the biggest polluters. How much cotton goes into one bag?
How many pounds of gas used to farm, etc.?
9. Oh for heaven’s sake, they cost a dollar! The cheepie ones with a store logo.
10. A plastic bag ban should include paper as well. How hard is it to bring your own bag? I support
a ban!
11. Sponsor or co‐sponsor the documentary “Bag It”
12. Savings passed on to customers? What might that be?
13. We are not Boulder. Don’t like bags, don’t use them. Stop treading on me!
14. Plastic only.
15. If we ban, it needs to be coupled with an extensive education campaign.
Poster 9 – “Reducing Waste: Plastic Bag Initiative (Option 4‐ Education Campaign)”
1. Not effective enough. Not a big enough change.
2. Might as well do nothing.
3. Plastic bags are only part of the problem. What about other types of film products that get
thrown out? They are recycled in other cities. Please look at expanding plastic recycling.
4. “Edumaction do not werk”
5. Education does not work.
6. Help people to understand the consequences of more plastic bags and then encourage them to
use re‐usable bags.
7. Won’t work
8. I agree (won’t work)
9. Place fee on bags from all shopping including restaurants. Proceed with education.
Attachment 2
6
Reducing Disposable Bags
Council Worksession November 27, 2012
10. Education is fine. No loss of freedom. No new law. No more regulation. No need to take my
tax dollars outside of city.
11. Has to be paired with some concrete incentive to be effective – we can do more of this.
12. People should have choices. More education. More drop‐off roll‐offs at major stores. Let
people know where to drop off recyclables.
13. People should have the choice.
14. What about a combination of options? Begin education campaign in the beginning (6‐8
months); continue education campaign, begin fee for plastic bags to encourage people to stop
using them. City can use fee revenue for education (1 year). After 1.5 – 2 years, begin ban on
bags, continue education campaign.
15. Would like first to see and education campaign – this has been successful in other cities/states
in increasing recycling while leaving the choice to the consumer. Education the consumer on
the facts about each bag (paper, plastic, reusable) and the carbon footprint of each.
16. Plastic bags; I seldom throw a plastic grocery bag in the trash. About once a month I take my
collection to a retailer that has a recycle bin. (More stores should be required to have such.)
We use our newspaper bag for dog poo and “bathroom” disposals (get about 700 or them/year
from Coloradoan and Denver Post). Let’s education only and not be an annex of Boulder.
Other Comments (e‐mail, phone)
Subject: Recycling plastic bags
We use cloth bags much of the time from grocery stores, but we also like the availability of some plastic
bags, and would pay a nickel or something for them, because we use them for garbage bags
and dog poop bags. Please don’t ban them entirely.
Subject: Plastic bags
I have mixed emotions regarding the plastic bag issue. My wife and I use reusable bags always at
the grocery stores. This cuts our bag use by about 85%. At Outpost Sunsport, we do provide larger
plastic bags for customers when they are purchasing predominantly winter clothing. It wouldn’t be
appropriate to put a new white ski jacket in the bag that you have used at the grocery store the
past 20 or 30 trips. I would prefer to offer more of a reusable product, but we couldn’t afford to
give them away and I am not sure someone would want to pay 4 or 5 dollars for one when they are
purchasing something from us.
Should the city decide to ban plastic bags, I would hope that there would be a fairly long time to
implement this. I am sure that I have somewhere between 12 and 24 months’ worth of bags in
stock at this time. I would imagine a lot of small retailers would be in a similar position.
Subject: Consideration of Fort Collins disposable bag policy
The Coloradoan recently reported on the City Council's upcoming consideration of policies to reduce the
use of disposable shopping bags. I am unable to attend the public “open house” on November 8th, but I
wish to convey three points on the matter:
1. Paper is worse than plastic. As the Brendle Group's review notes, banning or taxing plastic bags while
omitting paper bags would amount to foolish public policy. With respect to greenhouse gas (GHG)
Attachment 2
7
Reducing Disposable Bags
Council Worksession November 27, 2012
emissions – the environmental impact of most concern to me – the production and disposal of a paper
bag results in four times more pollution than a plastic bag. Contrary to public perception, shifting from
plastic to paper actually decreases environmental quality. If the City Council is intent upon pursuing this
matter, it must incentivize a shift from disposable bags (whether paper or plastic) to reusable bags –
preferably made of non‐woven polypropylene, which is durable and requires only about a dozen uses to
confer a net GHG benefit over conventional plastic bags.
2. The cost‐to‐benefit ratio is high. The Brendle Group's review draws no conclusions regarding the
likely overall balance of social costs and benefits. A rough calculation using figures based on Boulder's
proposed bag fee program suggests such a policy would reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions at
a cost of $100 per ton CO2eq. This is exceptionally high given the multitude of low‐cost abatement
options available to the City, particularly energy efficiency incentives for buildings. Further, it is not clear
why a contentious policy should be pursued – likely harming future efforts for more meaningful
environmental reforms – when the benefits are relatively small and cost comparatively high.
3. Is this about results or appearance? That ostensibly “green” cities like San Francisco and Portland
have banned plastic bags should have no bearing on the City Council's decision. Those cities were guided
by erroneous (though well‐meaning) public pressure rather than rational research and policymaking.
Make no mistake: I am 100% in favor of durable, reusable bags – my wife and I have used them for years
– but only if the associated policy can deliver tangible (rather than imagined or “feel good”)
environmental benefits and is cost‐effective compared to alternative sustainability efforts. Further,
citizens should not be given the impression that forgoing a plastic bag equates to “saving the Earth”. The
average consumer produces twice as much pollution driving their car to and from the supermarket as
they do using and throwing away a plastic bag. Let's be sure to direct environmental emphasis and
education where it belongs and ensure our public policies are optimal rather than fashionable.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 1
PreparedforCityofFortCollinsbyBrendleGroup,Inc.
www.BrendleGroup.com
October2012
Thecontentsofthisreportareofferedasguidanceonly.BrendleGroup,Inc.andallsourcesreferencedinthis
reportdonot:(a)makeanywarrantyorrepresentation,expressedorimplied,withrespecttotheaccuracy,
completeness,orusefulnessoftheinformationcontainedinthisreport,orthattheuseofanyinformation,
apparatus,method,orprocessdisclosedinthisreportmaynotinfringeonprivatelyownedrights;or(b)assume
anyliabilitieswithrespecttotheuseof,orfordamagesresultingfromtheuseof,anyinformation,apparatus,
methodorprocessdisclosedinthisreport.Referencehereintoanyspecificcommercialproduct,process,or
servicebytradename,trademark,manufacturer,orotherwisedoesnotnecessarilyconstituteorimplyits
endorsement,recommendation,orfavoringbyBrendleGroup,Inc.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 2
Contents
ExecutiveSummary.......................................................................................................................................4
Introduction..................................................................................................................................................5
Approach.......................................................................................................................................................6
Sources......................................................................................................................................................6
TripleBottomLineEvaluation...................................................................................................................6
StakeholderReviewandInput..................................................................................................................6
Background...................................................................................................................................................6
ConsumptionofDisposableBagsinFortCollins.......................................................................................6
CurrentRecyclingMarketinFortCollins..................................................................................................7
PolicyChoicesandEffectivenessinOtherCommunities..........................................................................8
TBLEvaluation:GeneralPolicyAimofReducingConsumptionofSingleͲUsePlasticBags.........................9
Strengths...................................................................................................................................................9
LifeCycleImpacts..................................................................................................................................9
StrayLitterandAestheticImpacts........................................................................................................9
SolidWasteManagementCosts.........................................................................................................10
ReuseMindset....................................................................................................................................10
City’sWasteDiversionandGHGReductionGoals..............................................................................10
PerceptionofFortCollinsasaSustainableCommunity.....................................................................11
Weaknesses............................................................................................................................................11
CosttoLocalRetailers.........................................................................................................................11
SecondUsesofSingleͲUsePlasticBags..............................................................................................11
ReusableBagsandHealth...................................................................................................................12
PolicyDesignConsiderationsandScenarios...............................................................................................12
SectorsandRetailersIncluded................................................................................................................12
CostsandPotentialFeeStructures.........................................................................................................12
UsesofGeneratedRevenue...................................................................................................................12
Scenarios.................................................................................................................................................13
NoAction............................................................................................................................................14
FeeonPlasticandPaperBags.............................................................................................................15
BanonPlasticandPaperBags............................................................................................................17
EducationCampaignOnly...................................................................................................................19
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 3
AppendixA:RegionalReusableBagSuppliers...........................................................................................20
ReferencedSources....................................................................................................................................21
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AttherequestofCityStaff,andresultingfromthedirectionofCityCouncil,BrendleGroupconducteda
triple bottom line – economic, environmental, and community – evaluation of a range of plastic bag
policyoptionssuggestedbyStaff.Forthemostpart,thisevaluationdrawsontheresearchandwork
already completed by other communities that have developed and implemented bag policies which
include 29 states and 80 communities nationwide and in Canada.i However it does include original
research where feasible given the preliminary nature of the policy consideration and timeframe to
complete.ThisevaluationisafirstͲsteptobegindialoguewiththecommunityandCityCouncilandto
inform policy design should the city choose to proceed.Future steps could include more original
researchandanalysisforimplementationinFortCollins.
The evaluation was conducted on two levels.The first level considers the general TBL impacts of
reducing the consumption of singleͲuse plastic bags.These impacts would be shared by any policy
scenario thatachievedthisaim.The second level considers the specific impactsandeffectivenessof
fourproposedpolicyscenariosforachievingthisaim.
The first level evaluation identified the potential strengths of reducing singleͲuse plastic bags to be
reducedlifecycleimpacts(assumingthepolicydoesn’tturnconsumerstoadifferenttypeofsingleͲuse
bag), less stray litter, improved community aesthetics, reduced solid waste management costs,
encouragingamindsetofreuseinthecommunity,supportingtheCity’ssolidwastediversionandGHG
reductiongoals,andenhancingtheperceptionofFortCollinsasasustainablecommunity.Thepotential
weaknesses are the cost to implement a program and less availability of singleͲuse plastic bags for
common second uses such as trash can lining and picking up pet waste. The cost to implement the
programwoulddependonprogramdesign, but could have cost impacts to retailers, city operations,
and/orresidents.
Thesecondlevelevaluationconsideredthecommunity,environmental,andeconomicstrengths,
weaknesses,opportunities,andthreatsforeachoffourpolicyoptionsreviewed.Asummary
comparisonofthepolicyoptionsbasedonthetriplebottomlineimpactsforindividualpolicyscenarios
ispresentedinTable1.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 5
Table1.TripleBottomLineSummary(ǡweaknessesinitalicred)
Scenario Community Environment Economic
1. Noaction baseline baseline baseline
2. Feeon
plastic
and
paper
bags
Lesslitter,retainscustomer
choice,retailersand
industryfavoroverban,
difficulttoimplement,lots
ofeducationrequired
Moderatereduction
indisposablebag
consumption
Costrecoveryoptionfor
Cityandretailers,
“polluterpays”model,
mayaffectlowͲincome
households,retailer
costshigher
3. Banon
plastic
and
paper
bags
Relativelyeasytoenforce,
lesslitter,requiresmore
education,Citymayhaveto
supplyreusablebags,
removesconsumerchoice,
notusuallysupportedby
industryorretailers
Largestreductionin
disposablebag
consumption
Reducedretailercostfor
bags,nocostrecovery,
consumersmust
purchasereusablebags,
possiblelostbusiness
4. Education
campaign
only
Lesslitter,integrateswell
withCityprograms,
preferredbyretailers,
retainsconsumerchoice
Smallreductionin
disposablebag
consumption
Minimizescostto
consumersand
businesses,nocost
recoveryforCityand
retailers
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 6
APPROACH
SOURCES
To maximize the efficiency of this evaluation, Staff recognized that many communities have already
developedandimplementedplasticbagpolicies.Asaresult,CityStaffdirectedBrendleGrouptofocus
itseffortsonevaluatingtheresearchandworkalreadycompletedbytheseothercommunities.As
such,thisevaluationisbasedprimarilyontheresearchandpolicyanalysisalreadycompletedbythese
othercommunities.BrendleGroupdidconductsomeanalysisspecifictoFortCollinswherefeasible.This
evaluationalsoidentifiesotherareaswhereadditionalstudyisrecommended.
TheresearchandpolicyanalysisconductedbytheCityofBoulderbetweenMayandOctober2012to
informtheircommunity’sadoptionofaplasticandpaperbagfeeiscitedfrequentlyinthisevaluation.
AsacommunitythatissimilartoFortCollinsinanumberofrespects(e.g.location,size,etc.)thework
donebytheCityofBoulder,whichisconsideredthorough,islikelytobeareasonablygoodproxyforthe
CityofFortCollins.TheCityofBoulderalsoconductedapublicprocessindevelopingtheirpolicy.
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE EVALUATION
BrendleGroupcompletedatriplebottomline(TBL)evaluationofpolicyoptionsontwolevels.Thefirst
levelconsidersthegeneralTBLimpactsofreducingtheconsumptionofsingleͲuseplasticbags.These
impactswouldbesharedbyanypolicyscenariothatachievedthisaim.Thesecondlevelconsidersthe
specificimpactsandeffectivenessoffourproposedpolicyscenariosforachievingthisaim.
STAKEHOLDER REVIEW AND INPUT
The time and resources allocated to this preliminary consideration did not allow for the gathering of
broad stakeholder input on the general policy aim of reducing plastic bag consumption, nor the
individualpolicyoptionspresentedherein.Abroadercommunityquestionnaireisbeingdevelopedby
CityStaffatthetimeofthispublication.
ThefollowingCitystaffmemberswereconsultedaboutplasticbagpolicyandpolicyimplementation:
x JoshBirks,EconomicHealthDirector
x LucindaSmith,EnvironmentalServicesDirector
x JoeFrank,SocialSustainabilityDirector
x CarrieDagget,DeputyCityAttorney
BACKGROUND
CONSUMPTION OF DISPOSABLE BAGS IN FORT COLLINS
ToprovidecontexttotheevaluationofplasticbagpolicyoptionsinFortCollins,anumberofother
communitieshaveestimatedtheuseofdisposablebags(bothplasticandpaper)annuallyonaperͲ
personbasisasshowninTable2.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 7
Table2.DisposableBagUseEstimatesii
Location
PlasticandPaper
BagsPerPersonPerYear
Seattle,WA 630
SanJose,CA 452
Washington,DC 449
Aspen,CO 398
Boulder,CO 342
AsimilarestimatewasattemptedforFortCollinsbasedonthemostrecentwastecompositionstudy
fromtheLarimerCountyLandfill.iiiUnfortunately,thewastesortingcategoryinthestudythatincludes
disposableplasticbagsalsoincludesstandardhouseholdtrashbags.Assuch,thisisanoverestimateof
thenumberofsingleͲuseplasticbagspercapitaat1,440.
Boulder’spercapitaestimateof342disposablebagspercapitaperyear,ofwhichabout88percentor
301bags/capita/yearareplastic,isappliedasaproxyfortheCityofFortCollins.
Many retailers in Fort Collins offer the choice of singleͲuse paper or plasticbagsandmakereͲusable
bags forsaleatthepointofcheckͲout.ExceptionsincludeWholeFoods,whichdoesnotofferplastic
bagsandVitaminCottage,whichdoesnotofferanysingleͲusebags.Thesourcesofdisposablebags,as
used in the analyses completed by Seattle, San Jose, and Boulder, are portrayed in Figure 1.As
indicated,themajorityofdisposablebags(60percent)aregeneratedbysupermarkets.
Figure1.DisposableBagGenerationbyRetailerTypeii
CURRENT RECYCLING MARKET IN FORT COLLINS
The recycling rate for singleͲuse plastic bags is less than 5 percent nationally.ii The City of Boulder
estimatedtheircommunity’srecyclingratetobe20to24percent.iiThereisinsufficientdataonplastic
bag consumption and recycling quantities to estimate a recycling rate for the City of Fort Collins.In
forthcoming outreach to retailers, City Staff will be requesting data on plastic bag consumption and
recyclingsothattheratecanbeestimated.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 8
Thereareover19retaildropͲoffsitesforrecyclingsingleͲuseplasticbagsinFortCollins.Theseinclude
mostmajorsupermarketsandotherlargeretailersthatsellfood.Manyofthesebagsarerecycledinto
landscapingandcompositelumberproductssuchasdeckingmaterial.
POLICY CHOICES AND EFFECTIVENESS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES
Over29statesand80communitiesnationwideandinCanadahaveimplementedapolicyorprogram
related to retail bag consumption.ivTable 3 provides a few examples of communities implementing
variousofpolicytypes.
Table3.ExamplesofPolicyinOtherCommunitiesii
Policy
Jurisdictions
(yearenacted)
FeeLevel
(cents)
FeeRetained
byBusiness
(cents)
TypeofRetailersCovered
(numberofcommunities)
FeeonPlastic
andPaper
Washington,DC(2009)
Toronto,Canada(2009)
MontgomeryCounty,MD
(2011)
5 1Ͳ5 Grocery(1)
AllRetail(2)
Banon
Plasticand
FeeonPaper
SanFrancisco,CA(2007)
Seattle,WA(2011)
SanJose,CA(2010)
LosAngelesCounty,CA(2010)
Telluride,CO(2011)
Carbondale,CO(2011)
Aspen,CO(2011)
Austin,TX(2012)
5Ͳ20 5Ͳ10 Grocery(4)
AllRetail(4)
Banon
Plastic
Portland,OR(2011)
PaloAlto,CA(2009)
Westport,CT(2008)
MauiCounty,HI(2008)
Outright
Ban,No
Fee
Collected
OutrightBan,
NoFee
Collected
Grocery(1)
Allretail(3)
Theestimatedeffectivenessofarangeofpolicytypes, frommaintainingthestatusquotoeducation
onlytoanoutrightbanisshowninTable4.Asindicated,educationprogramsaloneareestimatedto
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 9
TBL EVALUATION: GENERAL POLICY AIM OF REDUCING
CONSUMPTION OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAGS
This section includes a discussion of the estimated TBL impacts of the general policy of reducing
consumptionofsingleͲuseplasticbags.Otherthanthe“noaction”orstatusquooption,theseimpacts
wouldbesharedbyallofthepolicyoptionspresentedinthenextsection;somemayinformthedesign
ofthosepolicyoptionsasnoted.
STRENGTHS
LifeCycleImpacts
IfsingleͲuseplasticbagsaretobeconsumedlessitwillbenecessaryforsomeothertypeofbagtotake
theirplace.ThreelifeͲcycleanalysis(LCA)studiesoftheimpactsofvarioustypesofbagswerereviewed
tounderstandtheenvironmentalimpactsofthesechoicesinthecommunityandglobally.Thereare
twosignificantconclusionsmadebyeachofthesestudies:
1. TheLCAimpactsofsingleͲusebagsmadefromothermaterialssuchaspaperorcompostableplastics
canbeequaltoorlargerthanthatofsingleͲuseplasticbags.vi,viiForpaperbagsmadefrom30
percentrecycledfiber,thisincludedgreatertotalenergyusage,fossilfueluse,municipalsolidwaste
generation,GHGemissions,andfreshwaterusagecomparedtoplasticbags.
2. ReusablebagsmadefromcottonsornonͲwovenplastichavelowerLCAimpactsacrossthese
categoriesthananysingleͲusebag(assumingthebagisusedmanytimes,inthisstudyitwas
assumedatleast1tripperweekfortwoyears).viiiReusableplasticbagshavelowerlifeͲcycleimpacts
thancottonbagsbecauseofthewaterconsumptionrequiredtogrowcotton.
ThesestudiesindicatethatreducedLCAimpactscanbeconsideredastrengthofapolicythataimsto
reduceconsumptionofsingleͲuseplasticbagsaslongassubstitutionwithothertypesofsingleͲusebags
doesn’toccur.Inotherwords,aplasticbagpolicywiththeintentofreducinglifeͲcycleimpactsshould
bedesignedsothatconsumersarenotencouragedtousepaperbagsinstead.
Santa Monica, CA sought to enhance the LCA benefits of reusable bags by sourcing them locally to
reduce the impacts from the fuel needed to transport them long distances. There are a number of
manufacturersofreusablebagsinthewesternU.S.,includingtwointheDenverarea,thatcouldmake
regional sourcing feasible for Fort Collins (see Appendix A).Some are boutique bags that are more
expensivecomparedtomorestandardreusablebags.
StrayLitterandAestheticImpacts
SingleͲuseplasticbags,particularlybecauseoftheirweightandaerodynamiccharacteristics,canreadily
becomelitterevenwhentheyaredisposedofproperly.Accordingtoastudyoflittercompositionon
America’sroadways,plasticsingeneralmakeup19.3percentofcounteditems.ixAsecondstudyfound
thatplasticbagsinparticularaccountedfor1.2percentoflargelitteritemswhileplasticfilmmaterials,
includingrippedorshreddedbags,accountedfor8.7percentofsmalllitteritems.x
Thecostoflittercleanup(notspecifictoplasticsorplasticbags)nationwidewasprojectedtobe$11.5
billionin2009.Propertyvalueswereprojectedtobe7percentlowerincommunitieswithlitter.ixThe
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 10
CityofBoulderestimatedthecostofstreetsweepingrelatedtoplasticbagsͲbasedonestimatesbySan
Jose,CA,Seattle,WA,andAustin,TXͲtobebetween$20,000and$65,000peryear.ii
No studieswerefounddirectlylinkingasingleͲuseplasticbagreductionpolicywithreducedlitteron
land.However,WashingtonD.C.hasseenareductioninbagsrecoveredfromtheAnacostiaRiverbyas
much as 50 percent.xi Litter reduction was frequently stated as justification for policies in other
communitiesespeciallyforcoastalstateswhereplasticbagsrepresentaspecialproblemwhentheyare
washedouttosea.
SolidWasteManagementCosts
Plasticbagscreateissuesforoperatorsoflandfillsandmaterialsrecoveryfacilities(MRFs,i.e.recycling
facilities) that increase solid waste management costs for the community. For example, the Larimer
CountyLandfillhasspentover$21,000ineachofthelasttwoyears(and$35,000isbudgetedin2013)
onsitecleanͲup.Abouthalfofthatcostisattributedtoplasticbags,althoughnotallofthesebagshave
theiroriginassingleͲusebagsfromretailers.xiiTheregionalMRF,operatedbyWasteManagement,also
incurscoststoaddressplasticbagcontaminationintherecycledmaterialstream.Thesecostsinclude
cleaningscreens,sorting,machinerepairs,anddisposalofseparatedbags.WasteManagementdoesnot
trackcostspecificallyassociatedwithplasticbagissuesbutestimatesthatatleasttwohoursofeach
day’s four hours of down time are spent removing plastic bags from the system.xiiiEcoͲCycle, an
organizationsupportingrecyclingeffortsintheCityofBoulder,estimatedthetotalcostofplasticbag
contaminationtoBoulder’sMRFtobebetween$200,000and$524,000peryear.ii
ReuseMindset
Encouraging or requiring consumers to use reusable shopping bags could be a “gateway” to other
consumer choices that canbenefittheenvironment, community,andeconomy.Alongwithrecycling,
drinking tap water over bottled water, buying local food, adjusting thermostats, and other related
actions,usingreusablebagsisarelativelyeasyandlowͲcostpracticeforconsumerstoadopt.Ithas
beensuggestedbyproponentsofbagpolicyinothercommunitiesthatprovidingconsumersoptionslike
these can expand awareness and engagement and lead to other similar consumer choices. This
transformationcouldleadtoincreasedcitizenparticipationinanumberoftheactivitiesidentifiedinthe
City’s Climate Action Plan, for example, such as energy efficiency programs, recycling programs, and
alternativetransportation.Inparticular,adoptingareusablebagpolicymayencourageactiontoreduce
consumption of other disposable goods.Despite this speculated link between consumer choices on
bagsandotherchoices,noresearchwasidentifiedforthisreportthatdirectlydemonstratedthelink
betweenreusablebagpolicyandtheadoptionofotheractions.
City’sWasteDiversionandGHGReductionGoals
TheCityofFortCollinsadoptedaresolutionin1999toreachasolidwastediversiongoalof50percent
by2010.In2010,thecommunityͲwidediversionratewasestimatedtobe43percent.Usingtheper
capita rate of plastic bag consumption from Boulder (301/capita/year) and an estimated current
recycling rate for plastic bags in Fort Collins of 20 percent,ii this would represent about 220 tons of
landfilled plastic bags per year, or about 0.2 percent by weight of the City’s total landfilled waste.
Therefore,reducingthequantityofplasticbagsinthewastestreamwouldimprovetheCity’sdiversion
rate, but by almost negligible amounts. The contribution to the City’sGHGreductiongoalswouldbe
similarlynegligible.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 11
PerceptionofFortCollinsasaSustainableCommunity
Forvisitorsandresidentsofacommunity,certainfeaturesarehallmarksofasustainablecommunity.
Today,theprevalenceofrecyclingbinsinFortCollinsandthebreadthofmaterialsthatareacceptedfor
recyclingarevisiblesignsofthecity’scommitmenttosustainability.Asmorecommunitiesthroughout
thenationadoptpolicieswithrespecttodisposablebaguse,thismaybecomeamorerecognizedand
highlyvisibleindicatorofacommunity’ssustainabilitycommitment.
WEAKNESSES
CosttoLocalRetailers
Dependingontheparticularbagpolicyimplemented,localretailerscouldfaceadditionalcosts,orthey
mayrealizesavings.Theimpactsoncostsforlocalretailerswillrelatetothepurchaseofdisposablebags
themselves,tooperationalchangesrelatedtosalessystemsandemployeetraining,andtothebusiness
impactsthatmayresultfromabagpolicy.Tounderstandtheeconomicimpactsofapotentialpolicy,
CityStaffarecoordinatingwiththeCity’sEconomicHealthofficeandwillincludeeconomicimpactsina
communityquestionnaireplannedforfuturedistribution.
Apolicythatreducesdisposablebagconsumptionwillreducethedirectcosttoretailersforpurchasing
bags. If the policy discourages plastic bags in favor of paper, however, costs could increase because
paperbagsaremoreexpensivethanplasticbags.
Toaccommodateafee/banpolicy,retailerswillhavetoinvestinadditionaltrainingforstafftobeable
toexplainthepolicytocustomersandhandlecustomerinteractiononthetopic.Afeesystemwould
alsolikelyrequireinvestmentinatrackingsystemormodificationstothepointͲofͲsalesystemforthe
feetobeimplemented.MostfeeͲbasedpoliciesadoptedbyothercommunitiesdirectaportionofthe
feetotheretailertocoverthesecosts.
Acommonconcernwithbagpolicyisthatitwilldriveconsumerstoshopoutsideoftheareaimpacted
bythepolicy.Atleastonesurveyhasshownthattherecouldbesuchanegativeimpactassociatedwith
plasticbagbans.xivThatsurvey,however,wasindustryͲfundedandonlyhada3percentresponserate.xv
Whensurveyedinthepast,themajorityofFortCollinsresidentshaveexpressedsupportforapersonal
obligationtoenvironmentalissues(airqualityandreducingGHGemissions)andsupportforgovernment
intervention toaddresstheseissues. xviResidentshavealsoshownacommitmenttoqualityoflifein
FortCollinsthroughthepassageoftheKeepFortCollinsGreatsalestax.Ifresidentsfeelsimilarlyabout
the environmental impacts of disposable bags, theymaynotbecompelledtochangetheirshopping
locationsinresponsetoapolicy.Furthermore,itwilllikelybemorecostlytotheconsumerinfueland
timetotaketheirbusinesselsewhere.Forexample,acustomerthatwouldpurchase10disposablebags
inashoppingtripwouldhavetotravellessthan3milestoanalternativestoretosavemoneybytaking
theirbusinessoutofthepolicyarea(assumesnocostoftraveltime,$0.05perbagfeerate,typicalfuel
economyandthecurrentcostofgas).Itisunlikelythataconsumerwillfindanalternativestorethat
isn’tpartofthepolicywithin3miles.
SecondUsesofSingleͲUsePlasticBags
Many consumers find secondary uses for singleͲuse plastic bags, besides recycling, including as lunch
bags, small trashbags,andtopickuppetwaste.Noresearchwasfounddocumentingtheimpactof
plastic bag policies on these secondary uses, but it is possible that consumers would purchasemore
plasticbagsforsecondaryusesiftheirsourceswerelimitedbyplasticbagpolicy.If,however,theplastic
bag policy only addresses a portion of the sources (e.g. food stores), as has been done in many
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 12
communities,theremaybesufficientbagsremainingincirculationtodetertheneedforpurchasingnew
bags.Reusablebagscanalsofillsomeoftheseconduseroles.
ReusableBagsandHealth
AstudyfundedbytheAmericanChemistryCouncilfoundthatmorethanoneͲhalfofthereusablebags
testedcontainedsomeformofcoliformbacteria.However,fewofthebacteriafoundposeasignificant
healthrisk,andtheprimaryconclusionofthestudywasthatconsumersshouldbeeducatedonkeeping
theirbagsclean.xvii
POLICY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND SCENARIOS
SECTORS AND RETAILERS INCLUDED
Mostofthecommunitiesimplementingplasticbagpoliciestodatehaveeitherappliedthemgloballyto
all retailersorlimitedthemtothefoodstore/supermarket sector.Thoselimitingittothefoodstore
sectorciteamoremanageablescopeforadministration,applyingthepolicyonlytothemostsignificant
sourceofdisposablebagswithadesiretonotimpactsmallerboutiqueretailersasjustificationforthe
sectorͲspecificpolicy.
Should the City pursue a sectorͲspecific policy, it is recommended that options be considered for
involvingadditionalsectorsinaphasedapproachsothatthepolicyisfairlyappliedtoallretailers.xviii
InFortCollins,theapproximatebreakdownofestablishmentsbysectorxixare:
x GroceryStores:23
x Restaurants:461restaurantsand8caterers(barsareincludedbecausetheyservefood)
x GeneralMerchandise:25(somearemoregrocerybasedthanothers)
x Apparel:274
COSTS AND POTENTIAL FEE STRUCTURES
TheCityofBouldercommissionedastudyofcostsandnumberofbagsimpactedtoestablishtheirbag
feeat$0.199/bag.xxThescopeofcostsrecoveredincluded:
x Cityadministrationofbagfeeprogram:$0.146/bag
x Otherpubliccostsatsolidwastemanagementfacilities:$0.008/bag
x Retailerimplementationofprogram:$0.044/bag
x Externalities(GHGemissionsandwaterinfrastructure):$0.001/bag
ItisrecommendedthattheCityofFortCollinsundertakeasimilarstudytoestablishthefee,ifthatis
theselectedpolicyscenario.
USES OF GENERATED REVENUE
TheCityofBoulderidentifiedthefollowingusesoftherevenuegeneratedbytheirfee:
x Developingandadministeringthepolicy
x Providingreusablebags(ormitigatingfees)forlowͲincomehouseholds
x Education,outreach,andadvertising
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 13
x Coveringcostsatsolidwastemanagementfacilitiesforremovingplasticbagsfromequipment
x Remittancetoretailerstocovertheirimplementationcosts
x PurchaseofcarbonoffsetsfortheGHGemissionsassociatedwithbagsandfundingofbagcleanͲup
projectsinthecommunity
SCENARIOS
Thefollowingpagesdescribeandevaluatefourscenariosforaplasticbagpolicyincluding:
1. Noaction
2. Feeonplasticandpaperbags
3. Banonplasticandpaperbags
4. Educationcampaignonly
Manycommunitieshaveadoptedapolicythatbansplasticandimposesafeeonpaperbags(seeTable
3).Considering that the lifeͲcycle environmental impacts of paper bags are equal to or greater than
plastic bags, paper bags are more costly for retailers, and a hybrid ban/fee is more difficult to
implement,thisscenariowasnotconsideredinthisanalysis.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 14
NoAction
Underthisscenario,theCitywouldtakenoactiontoaddresstheconsumptionofsingleͲuseplastic(or
paper)bags.ThiswouldmeanthatnoadditionalCitystaffingorresourceswouldberequiredtodevelop
anewprogramorenforcementmechanism.Inthecommunity,consumerswouldstillhavethechoiceto
selectplasticorpaperbags,ortousereusablebagsastheychoose.Retailerswouldnotberequiredto
instituteanynewprograms.
This option would not address the ongoing impacts of disposable bags to solid waste management
operations or the community.The City and Larimer County currently allocate staff time and spend
funds from their operational budgets to control litter from disposable bags.A regional waste
managementfirmcurrentlygoestoconsiderableefforttoremoveplasticbagsfromitsrecyclingsorting
infrastructure,whichregularlyiscloggedbysuchbags.Fromanenvironmentalperspective,thisoption
doesnotaddressthe“upstream”GHGemissions,energy,orwaterneededtoproducedisposablebags,
northeotherimpactsofdisposablesontheenvironment.
TripleBottomLineEvaluation
Option1:NoAction
Social Environmental Economic
CityStaff/Workforce
Strengths
x Noadditionalcity
staffingorresources
neededfornew
program
implementation
Weaknesses
x Continuedimpactsto
recyclinginfrastructure
(e.g.,plasticbag
entanglement)
x Staffandresources
continuetobeneeded
forlittercontrol,
mitigationofimpacts
(e.g.,plasticbagcontrol
atlandfill)
Community
Strengths
x Maintainsconsumer
choice(plastic,paper,
reusable)compared
topartialortotalban
options
x Maintains“status
quo”forretailersin
city
Weaknesses
x Doesnotfacilitate
broaderbehavior
changearound
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 15
FeeonPlasticandPaperBags
Byimposingfeesonplasticorpaperbagsatthepointofsale,thisoptionseekstoreduceconsumption
of disposable bags. Examples of implementation of feeͲbased approaches in other communities have
demonstrated theabilitytosignificantlyreduceconsumption–dependingontheamountofthefee.
Thiscanhelpreduceimpactsofdisposablebagsontheenvironmentandcommunity,aswellasreduce
the impact on operations associated with litter control and recycling infrastructure.A feeͲbased
structure also allows both the City and retailers to offset increased costs for program administration
with an additional funding source. By not banning any bag option outright, consumer choice is also
maintained.
While feeͲbased programs can help reduce consumption of disposable bags, case studies in other
communitiesshowthattheyarenotaseffectiveinsourcereductioncomparedtooutrightbansandmay
nothaveassignificantaneffectonconsumerbehaviorchange.Suchaprogramwouldalsorequirethe
Cityandretailerstoestablishsystemstoadministerandcollectfees,whichwouldprobablyoperatein
conjunctionwithcollectingandremittingsalestax.
IthasalsobeennotedthatfeeshavealargerimpactonlowerͲincomehouseholdsbecausethefeewill
representalargerpercentageoftheirincome.xviiiAssuming342disposablebagspercapitaandafeeof
$0.05perbagwouldresultinaconsumercostofupto$17percapitaeachyear.Itisrecommended
thattheCityconsiderthecostofprovidingreusablebagsoramechanismthatmitigatesfeesforlowerͲ
incomehouseholdsinthedesignofapolicy.
Feesinothercommunitieshaveresultedinlitigation,usuallybyantiͲtaxgroupsthatseektoclassifythe
feeasatax.Aspeniscurrentlyinvolvedinsuchlitigation.xxi
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 16
TripleBottomLineEvaluation
Option2:FeeonPlasticandPaperBags
52percentestimatedreductioninbaguse(seeTable4)
Social Environmental Economic
CityStaff/Workforce
Strengths
x Reducescontamination
atrecyclingfacilities
x Reducesimpactson
littercleanupefforts
Weaknesses
x RequiresmoreCity
resourcesto
implement,administer,
andenforcethanno
actionoptionor
outrightban
x Educationwillbe
requiredto
communicatefeeto
community
Community
Strengths
x Retainscustomer
choicecomparedto
outrightbans
x Residentshave
quicklyadaptedin
othercommunitiesto
feebyreducingbag
consumption
x Hasbeenpreferred
optionforlarger
retailersinother
communitiesamong
feeandbanoptions
x Lessoppositionfrom
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 17
BanonPlasticandPaperBags
Bybanningdisposablebags,whetherinaspecificretailsectororacrossallretailers,thisoptionseeksa
maximumeffectinreducingconsumptionofdisposablebags.Thiscanhelpmaximizethereductionof
impactsofdisposablebagsontheenvironmentandcommunity,aswellasreducetheimpactonCity
and County solid waste management operations associated with litter control and recycling
infrastructure.Relativetootheroptionsthatinvolvethecollectionoffees,thisoptionwouldlikelybe
more straightforward for the City to administer.From the perspective of the retailer, not having to
providebagsatallwouldreducetheircostsforprovidingdisposablebags.
Thisoptionwouldplacethegreatestrestrictionsontheconsumerbyrequiringthemtoprovidetheir
ownbags.Someinthecommunitymayseethisasalimitationofconsumerchoiceandmayopposeit,
anditisnotthepreferredoptionofmajortraditionalretailers.Itispossiblethatconsumersmaychoose
to shopelsewhereoutsideofFortCollins,orthatretailerscouldchoosetolocateinnearbyadjacent
communities.Thisoptionalsooffersnorevenuesourcetooffsetcostsofenforcementandeducationas
feeͲbasedoptionsdo.TheCity,however,couldseekredirectionoftheoperationalsavingsidentifiedin
global triple bottom line evaluation to education (e.g., County contributes some percent of its 2013
budgetforcleanͲup).
Likeafee,thispolicyscenarioalsohasalargerimpactonlowerͲincomehouseholdsbecausethebanwill
requirehouseholdstopurchasereusablebagsandthatcostwillrepresentalargerpercentageoftheir
income.
It should be noted that there is a precedent for banning certain items from the landfill in the City’s
existingbanondisposingofelectronicsinthewastestream.However,bansinothercommunitieshave
resultedinnumerousinstancesoflitigationbytheplasticandchemicalindustries.xxii
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 18
TripleBottomLineEvaluation
Option4:BanonPlasticandPaperBags
>60percentestimatedreductioninbaguse(seeTable4)
Social Environmental Economic
CityStaff/Workforce
Strengths
x Easiestofalloptions
(otherthanNoAction)
fortheCityto
administerandenforce
x Reducescontamination
atrecyclingfacilities
x Reducesimpactson
littercleanupefforts
Weaknesses
x MayrequiremoreCity
resourcesrelativeto
otheroptionsto
conducteducation
campaignandbag
giveaways
x Requiresstaffand
resourcesfor
enforcement,though
likelylesscomparedto
fee
x Effortsarenotoffsetby
arevenuesource,as
wouldbethecasewith
feeͲbasedoption
Community
Strengths
x Stronglevertochange
behaviorthatcan
supportotherCityand
communitysource
reductionefforts
Weaknesses
x Removesconsumer
choiceinthe
marketplace
x Currentlynolocal
reusablebag
manufacturersinthe
FortCollinsarea
(couldalsobean
opportunityforalocal
companytofillthe
gap)
x Possibleopposition
fromthegeneral
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 19
EducationCampaignOnly
WithaneducationͲonlycampaign,theCitywouldlargelyrelyonvoluntarycommunityeffortstoreduce
theuseofdisposablebagsandtoincreaseawarenesswhichcantranslatetoaction.Suchanapproach
wouldencounterlittleoppositionfromretailersorthegeneralpublic.Itwouldnotrequireretailersto
takeanyadditionalaction,otherthanperhapstoparticipateineducationcampaigns.Oneexampleof
aneducationaleffortwouldbetosupplyretailerswithparkinglotsignsthatremindcustomerstobring
theirreusablebagsintothestorewiththem:“Don’tforgetyourbags.”
WhileeducationisanonͲcontroversialandfamiliarapproachfortheCity, it alone isnotexpectedto
achieve the significant behavior change or community outcomes associated with either bans or feeͲ
basedapproaches.Thisoptionalsooffersnoalternativerevenuestreamaswouldbethecasewitha
feeͲbasedapproach.
Inadditiontoeducationonreducingtheuseofdisposablebags,educationcanalsobetiedtoexisting
effortstoencouragedisposablebagrecyclingforthosethatareconsumed.
TripleBottomLineEvaluation
Option5:EducationCampaign
5percentestimatedreductioninbaguse(seeTable4)
Social Environmental Economic
CityStaff/Workforce
Strengths
x Canbeintegratedinto
otherongoingCity
educationprograms
Weaknesses
x RequiresCityresources
toincreaseeducation
effortsthatarenot
offsetbyarevenue
sourcecomparedto
feeͲbasedoptions
x Sincedisposablebag
usereductionsarenot
expectedtobeasgreat
asfeeorbanͲbased
options,impactstoCity
andsolidwaste
operations(e.g.,
recycling,littercontrol)
notmitigatedasmuch
Community
Strengths
x Preferredapproachby
thelargestretailers
x Littleobjectionfrom
thegeneralpublic
x Minimizesimpactson
consumerchoice
Weaknesses
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 20
APPENDIX A: REGIONAL REUSABLE BAG SUPPLIERS
x EcoMountainLTD,GoldenCO,http://www.ecomountainltd.com/
o Donates1%ofnetsalestoenvironmentalconservation,education,andresearch
organizations
x ReusableBagsDepot,DenverCO,http://www.reusablebagsdepot.com/reusableͲshoppingͲ
bags.html
o Appeartodosomemanufacturingoftheirownbags,somedistributingofotherbrands
x MissionWear,DenverCO,http://themissionwear.org/products.html
o Expensive,buttrendyupͲcycledandcottonblendbags
x BonnyBags,CasperWY,http://www.bonnybags.com/shopping.shtml
o Local,but$45each;donates$1toWorldWildlifeFundforeverybagpurchased
x RedOxx,BillingsMT,http://www.redoxx.com/marketͲtote/91039/product
o $25each
CITY OF FORT COLLINS | TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE CONSIDERATION OF PLASTIC BAG POLICY OPTIONS | BRENDLE GROUP | 21
REFERENCED SOURCES
i“RetailBagsReport”,FloridaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/retailbags/pages/list_USA.htm#USA
ii“OptionsforreducingdisposablecheckoutbaguseinBoulder”,BoulderCityCouncilMeetingAgenda,May15,2012.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/05152012Agenda/AgendaFINALWeb.pdf
iii“TwoͲSeasonWasteCompositionStudy”,MSWConsultants,May2007.http://larimer.org/solidwaste/publications/WasteSort.pdf
iv“RetailBagsReport”,FloridaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/retailbags/pages/list_USA.htm#USA
v“Policyoptionstoreducepublicconsumptionofdisposableshoppingbags.”,GabrielaCarvalhoandSethGeiser,UniversityofWashington
EvansSchoolofPublicAffairs,2009.http://courses.washington.edu/pbaf513m/Carvalho%20Geiser.pdf
vi“LifeCycleAssessmentforThreeTypesofGroceryBagsͲRecyclablePlastic;Compostable,BiodegradablePlastic;andRecycled,Recyclable
Paper”,BousteadConsulting&Associates.http://static.reuseit.com/PDFs/Boustead%20Associates.pdf
vii“ReviewOfLifeCycleDataRelatingtoDisposable,Compostable,Biodegradable,andReusableGroceryBags”,UseLessStuff.http://useͲlessͲ
stuff.com/PaperͲandͲPlasticͲGroceryͲBagͲLCAͲSummary.pdf
viii“Comparisonofexistinglifecycleanalysisofshoppingbagalternatives”,SustainabilityVictoriaandHyderConsulting,2007.
http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/LCA_shopping_bags_full_report%5B2%5D.pdf
ix“ExecutiveSummary:LitterinAmerica”,KeepAmericaBeautiful,2009.http://www.kab.org/site/DocServer/Executive_Summary_Ͳ
_FINAL.pdf?docID=4601
x“RetailBagsReportFortheLegislature”,FloridaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2010.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/recycling/retailbags/RetailͲBagͲReport_01Feb10.pdf
xi“Nopaper,noplastic.Thetaxthatworkstoowell”,CharlesRiley,CNNMoney,2010.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/04/news/economy/DC_bag_tax/index.htm
xiiPersonalcommunicationwithStephenGillette,DirectorofSolidWasteDepartment,LarimerCounty,October15,2012.
xiiiPersonalcommunicationwithBradPollock,AreaDirectorofCollections,WasteManagement,October29,2012.
xiv“ASurveyontheEconomicEffectsofLosAngelesCounty’sPlasticBagBan”,NationalCenterforPolicyAnalysis,2012.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st340
xv“AbouttheBag”,LosAngelesCountyGovernment,2012.http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/aboutthebag/
xviCityofFortCollinsAirQuality&RecyclingSurvey,ReportofResults2011,http://www.fcgov.com/common/pdfs/spotlightͲpdf.php?id=65
xvii“BacteriaMayGrowInReusableGroceryBags,ButDon’tFret”,NationalPublicRadio,2010.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/06/25/128105740/plasticsͲindustryͲfundedͲstudyͲfindsͲbacteriaͲinͲreusableͲgroceryͲbags
xviiiPersonalcommunicationwithJoshBirks,EconomicHealthDirector,October29,2012.
xixPersonalcommunicationwithJessicaPingͲSmall,SalesTaxManagerCityofFortCollins,October24,2012.
xx“DisposableBagFeeNexusStudy,CityofBoulder,Colorado”,TishchlerBise,2012.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/LEAD/Waste%20Reduction/Disposable%20Bags/Disposable%20Bag%20Nexus%20Study_BoulderCO_DR
AFT_09.10.12.pdf
xxi“LawsuitsaysAspen’sbagfeeisreallyatax,”AndreSalvail,TheAspenTimes,August22,2012.
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20120822/NEWS/120829970
xxii“PlasticIndustryUsesLegalHarassmenttoIntimidateAgainstPlasticBagBans”,CaliforniansAgainstWaste,2012.
http://www.cawrecycles.org/issues/plastic_campaign/plastic_bags/local/legal
Attachment 4
1
Research Summary: Life Cycle Impact Assessments of Disposable Bags
November 2012
Several studies have been done to evaluate the life cycle impact of various types of disposable
bags. The Triple Bottom Line Evaluation: Plastic Bag Policy Options1
report, prepared by the
Brendle Group for the City of Fort Collins, evaluated three studies and prepared the following
summary, excerpted from page 9 of that report.
Life Cycle Impacts
If single‐use plastic bags are to be consumed less it will be necessary for some other type of bag
to take their place. Three life‐cycle analysis (LCA) studies of the impacts of various types of bags
were reviewed to understand the environmental impacts of these choices in the community and
globally. There are two significant conclusions made by each of these studies:
1. The LCA impacts of single‐use bags made from other materials such as paper or
compostable plastics can be equal to or larger than that of single‐use plastic bags.2, 3
For paper bags made from 30 percent recycled fiber, this included greater total
energy usage, fossil fuel use, municipal solid waste generation, GHG emissions, and
fresh water usage compared to plastic bags.
2. Reusable bags made from cottons or non‐woven plastic have lower LCA impacts
across these categories than any single‐use bag (assuming the bag is used many times,
in this study it was assumed at least 1 trip per week for two years).4
Reusable plastic
bags have lower life‐cycle impacts than cotton bags because of the water consumption
required to grow cotton.
Key details of the studies referenced in The Brendle Group report are presented below.
Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags ‐ Recyclable Plastic; Compostable,
Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper 2
The report was prepared by Boustead Consulting and Associates for the Progressive Bag
Alliance, using data provided largely by the Progressive Bag Alliance. The report evaluated the
life cycle energy, water and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of disposable bags as identified in
Table 2.
1 “Triple Bottom Line Evaluation: Plastic Bag Policy Options”, The Brendle Group, October 2012. See
http://www.fcgov.com/recycling/pdf/triple‐bottom‐line‐evaluation‐plastic‐bag‐policy‐options‐10‐
2012.pdf
2 “Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags ‐ Recyclable Plastic; Compostable,
Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper”, Boustead Consulting & Associates.
http://static.reuseit.com/PDFs/Boustead%20Associates.pdf
3 “Review Of Life Cycle Data Relating to Disposable, Compostable, Biodegradable, and Reusable Grocery
Bags”, Use Less Stuff. http://use‐lessstuff.com/Paper‐and‐Plastic‐Grocery‐Bag‐LCA‐Summary.pdf
4 “Comparison of existing life cycle analysis of shopping bag alternatives”, Sustainability Victoria and
Hyder Consulting, 2007
http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/LCA_shopping_bags_full_report%5B2%5D.pdf
Attachment 4
2
Table 1. Energy, Water, and GHG Impacts of Disposable Bags
Type of Bag Total Energy
Used (MJ)
Fossil Fuel
Used (kg)
Municipal Solid
Waste (kg)
GHG
Emissions
(Tons CO2e)
Fresh Water
(Gallons)
Polyethylene
bags*
763 14.9 7.0 0.04 58
Paper bags
(30%
Recycled
Fiber)*
2622 23.2 33.9 0.08 1004
*The impacts were calculated based on the number of bags needed to equal the carrying capacity of 1,000 paper
bags.
Review of Life Cycle Data Relating to Disposable, Compostable, Biodegradable, and Reusable
Grocery Bags 3
This analysis was prepared by the Editorial Board of The ULS (Use Less Stuff) Report,
following San Francisco’s passage of a ban on plastic grocery bags in 2007. The editors
examined three studies that compared the environmental impacts of various grocery bags and
concluded that:
The evidence does not support conventional wisdom that paper bags are a more
environmentally sustainable alternative than plastic bags. While this is certainly
counterintuitive for many people, relevant facts include the following:
Plastic bags generate 60% less greenhouse gas emissions than uncomposted
paper bags, and 79% less greenhouse gas emissions than composted paper bags.
The plastic bags generate 3,097 tons of CO2 equivalents per 100 million bags;
while uncomposted paper bags generate 7,621 tons, and composted paper bags
generate 14,558 tons, per 100 million bags produced.5
Comparison of Existing Life Cycle Analysis of Shopping Bag Alternatives 4
This report, prepared for Sustainability Victoria by Hyder Consulting Pty in January 2007
evaluated existing life cycle assessment data to compare the environmental impacts of shopping
bags alternatives for carrying goods in Australia. This study factored in sources of bags used in
Australia and estimated the amount of reuse of each type of bag. The summary did not report
actual numbers for the various life cycle impacts, but rather qualitatively compared them. An
excerpt of results is provided in Table 2 below. More X’s indicate higher impact.
Table 2. Environmental impacts of shopping bags over the full life cycle of the bag
Bag Type GHG (kg CO2e) Energy (MJ) Water Use (kL)
Single use plastic
(HPDE) bag
XX XXXX X
Single use paper bag XXXXX XXXXX X
5 Life Cycle Inventories for Packagings, Volume 1, SAEFL, 1998, Environmental Series 250/I and Eco-
Profiles of the European Plastics Industry, developed by I. Boustead for PlasticsEurope, March 2005
(www.plasticseurope.org/content/Default.asp?PageID=404&IsNewWindow=True).
Attachment 4
3
Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags6
This study was funded and commissioned by the Environment Agency, UK in February 2007.
The Environment Agency is the leading public body protecting and improving the environment
in England and Wales. The study assessed the cradle-to-grave life cycle environmental impacts
of the production, use and disposal of different carrier bags for the UK. It was conducted
according to the international standard on lifecycle assessment ISO 14040 (ISO 2006). It factors
in the issue of disposable bag re-use.
The following types of carrier bag were studied:
a conventional, lightweight bag made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE);
a lightweight HDPE carrier with a prodegradant additive designed to break the bag down
the plastic into smaller pieces;
a biodegradable bag made from a starch-polyester (biopolymer) blend;
a paper bag;
a “bag for life” made from low-density polyethylene (LDPE);
a heavier more durable bag, often with stiffening inserts made from non woven
polypropylene (PP); and
a cotton bag.
The study concluded that the conventional HDPE bag had the lowest environmental impacts of
the lightweight bags in eight of the nine impact categories. The bag performed well because it
was the lightest bag considered. The lifecycle impact of the bag was dictated by raw material
extraction and bag production, with the use of Chinese grid electricity significantly affecting the
acidification and ecotoxicity of the bag.
Key findings of the study were:
The environmental impact of all types of carrier bag is dominated by resource use and
production stages. Transport, secondary packaging and end-of-life management generally
have a minimal influence on their performance.
Whatever type of bag is used, the key to reducing the impacts is to reuse it as many times
as possible and where reuse for shopping is not practicable, other reuse, e.g. to replace
bin liners, is beneficial.
The reuse of conventional HDPE and other lightweight carrier bags for shopping and/or
as bin-liners is pivotal to their environmental performance and reuse as bin liners
produces greater benefits than recycling bags.
Starch-polyester blend bags have a higher global warming potential and abiotic depletion
than conventional polymer bags, due both to the increased weight of material in a bag and
higher material production impacts.
The paper, LDPE, non-woven PP and cotton bags should be reused at least 3, 4, 11 and
131 times respectively to ensure that they have lower global warming potential than
conventional HDPE carrier bags that are not reused. The number of times each would
6 UK Environment Agency; Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags; Report: SC030148
February 2011. See http://www.biodeg.org/files/uploaded/Carrier_Bags_Report_EA.pdf
Attachment 4
4
have to be reused when different proportions of conventional (HDPE) carrier bags are
reused are shown in the table below.
Recycling or composting generally produce only a small reduction in global warming
potential and abiotic depletion.
Table 3. The amount of primary use required to take reusable bags below the global warming
potential of HDPE bags with and without secondary reuse
Bag Type HDPE (No
secondary re-
use)
HPDE (40%
reuse as trash
can liners)
1HDPE bag
(100% reuse)
HDPE (used 3
times)
Paper Bag 3 4 7 9
LDPE Bag 4 5 9 12
Non-woven PP
bag
11
14 26 33
Cotton Bag 131 173 327 393
An Exploratory Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Study of Grocery Bags - Plastic, Paper,
Non-woven and Woven Shopping Bags
Lastly, another study, completed by the Institute of Textile and Clothing in China found
significant energy use embodied in both paper and plastic bags7.
Table 4. Life Cycle Inventory Data of Different Type of Shopping Bags
Type of Bag Weight
(gm)
Bags/Yr Material
Consumption
(kg)
GHG
Emissions
(kg CO2e)
Primary
Energy (MJ)
Plastic 6 520 3.12 6.08 210
Paper 42.6 520 22.15 11.8 721
PP fiber “Green” bag 65.6 4.15 272 grams 1.96 46.3
Woven Cotton Bag 125.4 9.1 1.14 2.52 160
Summary
In summary, the evidence does not support the common perception that paper bags are a more
environmentally sustainable alternative than plastic bags. However, both plastic and paper
checkout bags have considerable life cycle costs. Fossil fuels (petroleum or natural gas) are
required for their manufacture and transport. Neither plastic nor paper bags break down in
landfills. Outside of the landfill, plastic bags photodegrade into tiny pieces that may harm
wildlife and ecosystems. A plastic bag policy with the intent of reducing life‐cycle impacts
should be designed so that consumers are not encouraged to use paper bags instead.
7 Muthu,S.S. et. al., An Exploratory Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Study of Grocery
Bags ‐ Plastic, Paper, Non‐woven and Woven Shopping Bags, Institute of Textiles and Clothing, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China. See http://static.reuseit.com/PDFs/life_cycle_2010.pdf )
1
1
City Council Work Session
Susie Gordon, Sr. Environmental Planner
November 27, 2012
Reducing Disposable Bags
Fort Collins’ Goal: Divert 50%
of Community’s Waste from
Landfill Disposal
2
Is Limiting the Use of
Disposable Bags a Waste
Reduction Idea that Works
for Fort Collins?
ATTACHMENT 5
2
3
Why Plastic &
Paper Bags?
Citizens are expressing
concerns about shopping bags
designed to be used once before
being thrown away.
4
Decrease Single-Use Bags:
Local Options for Restrictions
• Many other community models to look at
• Shoppers become accustomed to bringing
their own bags
• Fewer resources spent on disposable bags
– both plastic and paper bags have costs
to the environment
ATTACHMENT 5
3
5
Potential Shopping Bag Restrictions
Include paper and plastic single-use bags; both have
significant environmental “footprints”
Aim at plastic/paper grocery shopping bags
from major chain stores (60% of total)
Exclude non-grocery plastic bags
(produce bags, can liners, doggie bags, etc.)
Exempt food-stamp shoppers if fee or tax is charged
6
Bag-Reduction Scenarios*
1. No Action
2. Education-Only Campaign
3. Ban Bags
4. Charge a Fee or Tax on
Single-Use Bags
* The City commissioned Brendle Group to write a
Triple-Bottom-Line report analyzing the effects of
each option.
ATTACHMENT 5
4
7
Other Bag-Reduction Ideas
• Require grocers to reimburse customers
(e.g. 15¢) for every durable bag used at
the check-out counter.
• Involve retailers to enhance recycling
opportunities for “film” plastic in addition
to plastic shopping bags.
8
Plastic “film” collected at City drop-off center
pilot project, delivered to Larimer Recycling Plant.
ATTACHMENT 5
5
9
Strong markets for plastic “film” to produce
decking material, curb-stops, but poor
markets for non-bag plastic film items.
10
Fee or Tax on Disposable Bags
Washington DC (5 cents)
Toronto (5 cents)
San Francisco (10 cents)
LA County (10 cents)
Aspen (20 cents)
Boulder - pending (10 cents)
ATTACHMENT 5
6
11
Fee or Tax on Disposable Bags
Pros
• Communities like Washington DC show
reductions of 80% + in disposable bags
• Fewer entangled plastic bags at recycling
plants and less litter
• Retailers can retain some/all of fee to offset
administration and implementation costs.
Pros
12
Fee or Tax on Disposable Bags
Pros
• Additional costs to shoppers
• Financial burden for low-income households
• Costs for city staff to administer programs
• May not reduce bag use as much
as outright bans
Cons
ATTACHMENT 5
7
13
Ban on Disposable Bags
Adopted in:
Seattle
Marin County, CA
Portland, OR
Maui County, HI
Palo Alto, CA
14
Ban on Disposable Bags
Pros
• Decreases retailer costs to purchase and
stock bags
• Greatest reduction in single-use bags
• Behavior change supports community
sustainability
• Easier than fee to administer
Pros
ATTACHMENT 5
8
15
Ban on Disposable Bags
Pros
• Removes consumer choice
• Not supported by bag manufacturers,
nor by retailers
• Potential impacts to low-income households
• Consumers or retailers may relocate or shop
elsewhere
Cons
16
Public Involvement
• Website fcgov.com/cardboard
• Five newsletter and newspaper articles
• Presentations to AQAB and NRAB
• Presentation to Chamber of Commerce
• Public Open House (35 attendees)
ATTACHMENT 5
9
17
Public Comments: Which option would you prefer
for reducing our use of disposable bags?
Item Total
Score1
Overall
Rank
Charge a fee for both plastic and paper bags 208 1
Ban just plastic bags and charge a fee on paper bags 196 2
Charge a fee on just plastic bags 189 3
Create an educational campaign to promote reusable bags 159 4
Ban both plastic bags and paper bags 143 5
Take no action 113 6
Total Respondents: 48
1 Score is a weighted calculation. Items ranked first are valued higher than the
following ranks, the score is the sum of all weighted rank counts.
18
55.1% of online survey responses came
from Fort Collins IP addresses.
ATTACHMENT 5
10
19
Questions?
ATTACHMENT 5
x Notassignificanta
behaviorchangelever
comparedtofeesor
bans
Strengths
x Maymodestlyincrease
disposablebag
recycling
Weaknesses
x Educationalone
unlikelytoresultin
significantreductionsin
disposablebaguse
comparedtobansor
fees
Strengths
x Minimizescoststo
consumers
x Minimizescoststo
businesses
Weaknesses
x OverallcostͲbenefitto
thecommunitylikely
notaspositiveasbans
orfees
public
x Notsupportedby
paperandplastic
industries
x Notpreferredoption
ofretailersatleastin
othercommunities
Strengths
x Willreducetheuseof
bothplasticandpaper
checkoutbags,and
thereforereduce
amountsoflitterthe
mostdramaticallyofall
options
x Greatestreducedlife
cycleimpactsofall
options
Weaknesses
x Noneidentified
Strengths
x Retailercostof
purchasingand
stockingbagswill
decreasedramatically
x Strengthensbusiness
opportunityfor
reusablebag
manufacturers
Weaknesses
x Norevenuestream
generatedforCity
comparedtofeeͲbased
optionstooffset
increasedenforcement
andeducationcosts
x Requiresconsumersto
purchasemore
expensivereusable
bags(greaterupͲfront
costs);potentialimpact
tolowͲincome
households
x Possibilitythat
consumersorretailers
maychoosetorelocate
orshopelsewhere
paperandplastic
industriescompared
tobans
Weaknesses
x Maynotreducebag
useasmuchas
outrightbans–notas
significantabehavior
changelever
Strengths
x Documentedreduction
inuseofdisposable
bagsͲplasticandpaper
Ͳinothercommunities
resultinginlower
overallenergy,water,
andGHGemissions
x AcknowledgesthatlifeͲ
cycleimpactsofplastic
andpaperaresimilar
(energy,water,fossil
fuels,GHGemissions)
x Supportsanoverallshift
awayfromdisposable
baguse
Weaknesses
x Doesnotdecreasebag
useasdramaticallyas
bans
Strengths
x Optiontorecover
coststocityfor
implementationand
administrationaswell
astofundother
sourceͲreduction
campaigns
x Canallowretailersto
retainsomeorallof
feetooffset
implementationand
administrationcosts
x Shiftsbagusetoa
“polluterpays”model
whereusersof
disposablebagspay
forthenegative
impacts
Weaknesses
x Increasedcostsmay
affectlowͲincome
householdsnegatively
x Retailercosts
associatedwith
employeetraining,
pointͲofͲsalesystem
upgrades,and
administrationoffees
resource
consumption
comparedtoother
options
Strengths
x Noneidentified
Weaknesses
x Environmentalimpacts
associatedwith
disposablesgreater
(GHGemissions,
potentialwaterquality
impacts,wildlife
impacts)comparedto
otheroptions
Strengths
x Noimpactto
consumersfrom
reducedchoiceor
increasedfees
comparedtoother
options
Weaknesses
x Continuedcostsfor
mitigationof
disposablebag
impactsͲparticularly
plastic
result in minimal change of consumer use of disposable bags, while fees and bans result in more
significantchange.
Table4.EstimatedEffectivenessofPolicyTypesv
INTRODUCTION
TheFortCollinsCityCouncilhasrequestedthatCityStaffconsiderpolicyoptionsforsingleͲuseplastic
bags inthecommunity.AttherequestofCityStaff,BrendleGroupconductedatriplebottomline–
economic,environmental,andcommunity–evaluationofarangeofpolicyoptionssuggestedbyStaff.
Thisreportconveystheresultsofthisevaluation.
ThoughCityCouncilhasnotindicatedthespecificmotivationsforconsideringaplasticbagpolicy,there
areanumberofpotentialbenefits,bothlocallyandglobally,fromreducingconsumptionofsingleͲuse
plasticbagsthatcouldmotivateactiononapolicy.Theseimpactsinclude,butarenotlimitedto:
x IntroducingalternativestosingleͲuseplasticbagsasawayofencouragingthecommunitytoreduce
theuseofdisposable,singleͲuseitemsinfavorofreusablealternatives.Thisrecognizes,for
example,theU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency’sresourceconservationhierarchyofReduce–
Reuse–Recycle.
x Reducing“lifeͲcycle”impactsͲwhichincludeimpactsfrommaterialextractiontoproductionand
disposalͲofplasticbagusebytransitioningtoabagtypethathaslowerlifeͲcycleimpacts.
x Reducingstraylitterinthecommunity,andglobally,includingplasticbagsintreesandwaterways.
x SupportingtheCity’swastediversionandgreenhousegas(GHG)reductiongoals.
x Reducingcostsforprocessingrecyclingattheregionalmaterialsrecoveryfacility(MRF).
x ReducingcostsforcleaningupplasticbagsattheLarimerCountyLandfillandotherpublicareas.