Back in November 2024🎉, we raised concerns about the unintended consequences of Vermont’s plastic bag ban—higher costs, questionable environmental benefits, and burdens on low-income Vermonters. At the time, the policy still enjoyed broad political support and little scrutiny. But now, just a few months later, national media is catching up.
Earlier this month, The New York Times reported on the fallout from New York City’s bag ban, exposing how so-called “reusable” plastic bags are heavier, more wasteful, and often more environmentally damaging than the thin bags they replaced. Sound familiar?
The timing is validating—but also troubling. Because Vermont isn’t just repeating New York’s mistake. We’re doing it under the banner of climate leadership, even as the data shows we’re missing the mark. And under the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), those missed marks carry legal weight.
It’s time to take another look at what this policy is really costing us—environmentally, economically, and ethically. And in light of Vermont’s climate law—the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA)—this policy may be undermining our own carbon reduction targets.
Let’s start with the science.
♻️ Paper or Plastic? The Carbon Reality
Paper bags seem eco-friendly, but their environmental footprint is far from benign. Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs)—which evaluate the full energy, water, and pollution costs of a product from manufacture to disposal—repeatedly show that paper bags:
- Emit 2–5 times more greenhouse gases during production than plastic
- Consume 4–10 times more water
- Create 70% more air pollutants and 50x more water pollutants
- Weigh 8–15 times more, increasing transportation and fuel use
For Vermont’s approximately 645,000 residents, grocery stores hand out an estimated 235 million bags per year. If we assume each paper bag generates about 20 grams of CO₂ in transport (compared to just 2 grams for a plastic bag), that means:
Vermont could reduce CO₂ emissions by approximately 4,238 metric tons annually just by switching back to plastic bags.
That’s the carbon equivalent of taking 920 gas-powered cars off the road.
📊 Stat Box: Paper vs. Plastic—The Carbon Cost of Transport
| Factor | Plastic Bag | Paper Bag |
|---|---|---|
| Average weight | ~5 grams | ~55 grams |
| Transport CO₂ per bag | ~2 g | ~20 g |
| Truckloads for 10M bags | ~1 | ~8 |
| VT annual grocery bag use | ~235M bags | ~235M bags |
| Total transport CO₂/year | ~470 tons | ~4,708 tons |
| Carbon savings if switching to plastic | ~4,238 metric tons/year |
🌍 How That Impacts GWSA Goals
Under the GWSA, Vermont is legally required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 26% below 2005 levels by 2025, and 40% by 2030. With the 2005 baseline at ~9.2 million metric tons of CO₂e, the 2025 target is about 6.8 million metric tons.
A 4,200-ton reduction from smarter bag policy may only represent 0.06% of the total goal, but it’s:
- Fast
- Politically low-cost
- Logistically simple
- Entirely within the legislature’s control
If lawmakers are serious about meeting GWSA targets, this is an easy win.
💵 Economic Impact: Lower Costs, Greater Convenience
Switching back to plastic bags wouldn’t just benefit the climate—it would save money for stores and consumers alike.
For Businesses:
- Cost per bag:
- Plastic: $0.01–$0.03
- Paper: $0.10–$0.25
- A mid-size grocer handing out 1 million bags/year could save $70,000–$200,000 annually just on bag procurement.
- Paper bags also require more truckloads to deliver, take up more storage space, and are more prone to ripping—especially in Vermont’s wet or snowy conditions.
For Consumers:
Vermont law requires retailers to charge $0.10 per paper bag handed out at checkout. That means a family making just two grocery trips a week could be paying over $100 per year in bag fees—just for the privilege of carrying food home.
For low-income Vermonters, this is effectively a regressive tax. Wealthier shoppers can afford to stockpile reusable totes. But for families living paycheck to paycheck, that extra $0.10 per bag adds up quickly—especially when grocery prices are already straining household budgets.
And here’s the kicker: they’re paying more, for a bag that produces more emissions and pollution than the one it replaced.
🛠 What Went Wrong?
The policy’s original sin was one of symbolism over substance. The thin, crinkly plastic bags we used to reuse for trash, lunches, or pet waste became a scapegoat for environmental harm, while bulkier, higher-emission alternatives were rushed in to fill the gap.
Most of the new “reusable” plastic bags are made from thicker plastics that require far more resources to produce, and just like in New York, many Vermonters treat them as disposable. As a result, we’re throwing out more plastic than before—and paying more to do it.
Meanwhile, paper bags require cutting trees, using more water and energy in production, and burning extra diesel to ship heavier loads. The net effect? Worse emissions, higher costs, and no measurable gain in sustainability.
🔄 Time to Reevaluate
Vermont doesn’t have to abandon environmental stewardship. But we do need to re-anchor it in reality. That means looking at:
- Full life-cycle emissions
- Consumer behavior
- Impact on local businesses
- Practicality for low-income families
If our climate laws matter, then every policy should be scrutinized for net carbon impact, not just feel-good optics.
✅ Conclusion
The science is in, the economics are clear, and even The New York Times is starting to acknowledge what Vermonters are living every day: our bag ban isn’t working. It’s time to rethink and revise. Because true sustainability isn’t about appearances. It’s about outcomes.
And this one’s an easy fix.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #VermontPolicy #BagBan #CarbonGoals
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply