Figure [1] picture of how many bags are used by an average grocery store purchase

Imagine the following situation: It’s a Sunday afternoon in your suburban Pennsylvania town, and you’re doing a weekly reset before a busy week. Naturally, you buy a week’s groceries at the local grocery store. When you arrive home you realize you have forgotten eggs. Because it’s only a five-minute drive away, you quickly go and buy enough eggs to last the week. At the checkout, the cashier doesn’t even ask if you’d like a bag and places your one container of eggs you purchased in a flimsy, disposable plastic bag that will go in your trash the instant you get home. You take the bag anyway because it makes the two-minute walk to the car more convenient, unfazed by the environmental footprint your single plastic bag can leave on the world.

Or imagine this situation personally resonates with me:

You are driving home from fall break after starting your post-secondary education at a place that has changed your perspective on life- inspiring you to live a more full, balanced life centered around the importance of human connections and their value in the classroom. Your friend, who has never been to your hometown, is driving you, and as you approach your hometown, they look up at the landfill, an unfortunate industry that is overwhelming your small town, in disgust. You start to rethink your opinions even though it is all you have ever known. This changes your perspective on the price we pay of pollution.

The short daily routine and personal situation described above disputes the newly found concept of “PLASTICITIS” as termed by Garima Oberoi, where people, whether the consumer or producer are infatuated and obsessed with plastics despite their bad environmental effects (Oberoi, 2024).

Figure [2] side by-side picture of a plastic and paper bag

Plastic bags have become very prevalent in our fast-paced society with their practicality at locations such as grocery stores, as depicted by the example above. Many Americans expect free, single-use plastic bags each time they buy groceries, even for purchases portable by hand. However, with their low recycling rates due to their highly mixed contents, many plastic bags will end up in landfills or bodies of water when there is potential to recycle or reuse the bags. The absence of reuse of single-use plastics in everyday life results in overproduction of plastic bags. In recent years, the additional production of plastic has contributed to the increasing percentage of global pollution attributed to plastics and single-use plastics, such as plastic bags.

 Currently, no international framework has established a global policy regarding plastic bags. To counteract this, many state and local governments have taken on the task of reducing plastic bags through legislation targeted at making their jurisdiction a cleaner place. My blog will highlight the following items based on current plastic policy:

1. The urgency for an end to the plastic bag era.

2.The importance of international policy through discussing factors affecting legislation.

3. The strategies that should be applied to reduce plastic bags production and usage.

Single-use plastic bags arose in grocery stores in the early 1980s and were subsequently picked up by large grocery stores including Kroger and Safeway after seeing the practicality of a seemingly simple invention that could take the place of paper bags, which were received poorly by the public because of their association with deforestation (Evans, 2019). Within the next decade, plastic bags became the norm, with customers expecting to receive them with their purchases due to their newfound necessity. Inevitably, with time, the problems regarding plastic bags arose with factors including the environment, cost, and health arising starting in the 21st century (Meiffren-Swango, 2024). 

Figure [2] Since the 1980s, many grocery stores have been stocked with plastic bags, just like pictured above.

Specifically, since plastics became a substantial industry, the amount produced increased from “only two million tons of plastic globally per year to over 400 million tons of new plastics created every year,” (Wagner, 2017) showcasing how their problems play a devastating role in society. Currently, data is available to support the negative effects of plastic bags. It is our job as citizens of Earth to take action towards a sustainable future. New plastics face significant criticism for their harmful disposal and degradation issues because they end up in landfills or oceans. Believe it or not, most recycled plastic still ends up in landfills, which can mislead consumers when recyclable logos are placed on products. (White, 2022).

Figure [3] Birds walking across a beach contaminated with plastic

 The majority of problems caused by plastic bags concern their end of life because there are no simple solutions to dispose of them in an eco-friendly manner, resulting in a significant amount of landfill and marine pollution. More specifically, in marine environments, approximately 70-80% of litter is attributed to plastics, according to Springer Link (Sum-Lam, 2019). This becomes dangerous when marine species mistake plastic for food, leading to blockages in their digestive systems. Microplastics—plastic particles smaller than 5 mm that form due to pollution—accumulate in the environment and travel up the food chain, with plastic bags serving as a significant contributor. Additionally, the risks associated with microplastic particles in oceans include growth inhibition, energy depletion, and respiratory stress (Lam, 2018) Hence, many species are facing consequences in various ways, with one example being the Lytechinus. For instance, Lytechinus embryos show abnormal signs of development, leading to failed reproduction, which ultimately could lead to the extinction of their species if humans don’t take action to prevent this oceanic pollution. 

Figure [4] Turtle suffocating on a plastic bag that blew into the ocean

From a holistic standpoint, the food chain is strongly influenced by multiple species being contaminated by microplastics because of the natural predator/prey pattern that occurs in nature, which can result in the mortality of several species based on their different roles in the food web. Similarly, the decomposition time for plastics is immense; the Center for Biological Diversity estimates it at approximately 1,000 years. In contrast, the typical lifetime of a plastic item’s use can be as short as a few minutes, with the average use lasting less than 6 minutes and an average reuse rate of only 1.6 times, according to ScienceDirect. On a similar note, wind often transports plastic bags to the oceans due to their ballooning/aerodynamic features where degradation of plastics also takes significantly long periods of time. Because of these long degradation times, there is great opportunity for animals to ingest the plastics, resulting in considerable deleterious effects on the food chain and marine life as a whole.  Plastic enters water at a rate much faster than it is removed due to the buoyancy of these bags and the slow rates of degradation mentioned above. Another issue arises when thinking about the composition of plastic bags: fossil fuels and petroleum. These nonrenewable resources are multipurpose, with their main functions regarding energy and transportation, making plastic bags  a suboptimal use of nonrenewable resources.

Figure [5] A landfill with a monstrous amount of single-use plastic bags

Plastics have low recycling rates due to several factors, primarily the differing recycling priorities across geographical regions (Li, 2017). These priorities are influenced by the balance each region seeks between economic considerations and efforts to reduce plastic pollution for environmental sustainability. Moreover, states collect different types of plastics based on their thicknesses and coloring with clear plastics composed of materials such as Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) being the most valuable in the recycling industry (Stephenson, 2018).

Interestingly enough, even if a person places plastic in a recycling bin the chances it is actually recycled is typically around 15% (Sullivan, 2022). The most common reason for this includes the highly occurring occasions in which plastics are severely contaminated with food waste or people are confused based on the vague line between which plastics can be recycled. It is up to the reserved powers of states or even local governments to determine requirements concerning what plastics can be recycled. Therefore, people aren’t as knowledgeable as to what they are placing in the recycling bins because recycling requirements vary from place to place with not all plastic products having recycling symbols on them that appropriately represent all places. To preserve the Earth, issues including plastic bags and recycling must have a broad worldwide policy, so confusion and uncertainty don’t impact the planet. Therefore, citizens can support each other and tackle “PLASTICITIS” together.

In agreement, food waste in plastics reduces recycling from a practical and economical point and makes it understandable why recycling doesn’t usually occur. Market value plummets when the level of purity is low, whether it’s from the composition of the plastic or the contents of food leaked onto the plastics. The economic side of plastic bags is thoroughly discussed in the process of recycling because the bags are required to be separated by contents at a specialized facility to maximize economic value on returns. Additionally, more separating leads to higher monetary return but there is a point of “diminishing return” in which the value of the segregated materials can no longer exceed the cost of separating materials (Stephenson, 2018). The limited recyclability of single-use bags roots from the long process including collecting, segregating, recovering, and transportation, (Wagner, 2017) which all require initiative and financial support to do, requiring the governments to prioritize these actions. After all, when plastic bags are made from the lowest grade plastics, costing municipalities money to sell the recycled plastic bags rather than earning money, why would this be an appropriate action to take from an economic position? Even with these steps, it seems as if the quality of recycled plastic bags is difficult to make acceptable, based on research conducted by the Polymer Comply Europe Sarl. As concluded above, recycling plastics is a hard task due to their highly mixed composition and low economic yields following the effort that must be put forth. Hence, appropriate steps are required to limit their creation in the first place since plastics used in these applications can’t be effectively recycled. Therefore, manufacturing must be constrained by methods such as global legislation and similar local legislation initiatives.

Figure [6] is a graph of where plastic waste ends up globally.

Currently, there is no strong framework for global legislation against the manufacture and/or use of plastic bags or single-use plastics in general, which is a necessity because some regions would never consider the harms of plastic bags based on their industries and other factors that will be discussed in future sections. Similarly, the same difficulties occurred with water in the past half-century, resulting in frequently referenced governing regulations including the US Clean Water Act, or Clean Air Act. These emerged from the public’s growing concern as people became aware of how newer technologies such as larger manufacturing plants and more people traveling via car affected our air and water. Now, it is our job to apply that same attitude towards the next problem we are gaining knowledge on plastics.

In the past, well-known international organizations such as the European Union have discussed ideas regarding the topic, but now is the time to take urgent action. The European Union (EU) has made small measures starting in 2015 with the first intergovernmental policy including a thickness criterion of greater than 50 microns for single-use bags because of the tendency of thinner bags to become airborne easily (Wagner, 2018). Additionally, the EU Plastic Strategy is looking to put forth dominant policies amongst members where they suggested, “a new, conventional and circular business model” which uses four detailed diagnostics including improving the quality of recycled plastics, minimizing plastic waste, increasing investments in plastics, and initiating a method to make plastic articles more reusable and recyclable by 2030. (Wagner, 2018). Despite the seeming economic loss by creating this policy, the EU affirms the importance of addressing a seemingly minor factor that plays a significant and increasingly impactful role in driving climate change by partitioning a designated fund to be utilized for research and development of policies and methods that will improve the diagnostics above. Undoubtedly, this framework will help adequately support the use and increase awareness towards using recycled plastic materials because “60% of the European plastic converting companies claimed it was a challenge for them to get a supply of Responsible Plastic Management (RPM) in an acceptable quality.”(Lam, 2018) If budgets can be used to find a better mechanism to convert recycled plastics, all four diagnostics listed above will soar, causing the policy to be a great success for the European Union.

Alongside that, the European Commission attempted to lower rates of plastic bag usage as well as control plastic leakage but was immediately criticized for their ideation due to the lack of clear directions and plans because the policy seemed very separate creating a debate of which policies should be emphasized (Nielson, 2019). This being said, the idea of the EC attempting to tackle the plastic crisis is still monumental because many governing bodies have avoided the issues, but there are still methods to be learned.

Figure [8] graph of EC plastic priorities

Although the European Union and its sectors have demonstrated their endeavors, the United Nations hasn’t had as much success but is a great platform to employ large public policy as it is the largest international organization focusing on human growth. In the past, the United Nations Clean Seas Campaign worked strongly against microbeads and plastic bags due to the various ways marine life was severely harmed, but the UN hasn’t had immense legislation passed to curb general land issues associated with plastic. However, by the end of 2024, the UN plans to pass a legal treaty, The United Nations Plastic Treaty, which will include 175 countries and “dictate the action and timeline needed to mitigate the production and consumption of high-risk plastic.”(Sarnoff, 2024) The approach will dynamically address problems from the manufacturing and end-of-life perspective while also focusing on the business aspect by “initiating a multi-stakeholder action agenda, including the private sector, to promote cooperation at the local, national, regional, and global levels.” (Sarnoff,2019) Overall, this approach seems to appropriately address the issues by focusing on many different parts of the process, using conventional methods such as bans and including the business sectors to finance such a principal goal that will contribute to the alleviation of global warming and environmental issues.

The city of San Francisco, California started tackling plastic issues through policy as early as the 2000s, while many other areas still don’t have policies in place over 15 years later. In March of 2007, the first action was set forth when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed directives banning local retailers from providing plastic bags to consumers which in the long run transitioned into a state law (Romer, 2007). However, San Francisco’s policies were not passed without a long fight, starting in the years leading up to 2007. Earlier, San Francisco’s “Commission” first brought up the idea of fees for plastic bags in the year of 2004 based on Irish law (Romer, 2007). Because the idea was far-fetched at the time, the group opted to take time to strengthen the plan and collect the necessary data. A year later, the plan was unanimously recommended that San Francisco charge a 17-cent fee. Unfortunately, this plan was not passed due to the mayor’s need for more information on the city’s single-use bag consumption. In 2007, the state of California followed the lead of San Francisco by passing the “Plastic Bag and Litter Reduction Act.” This legislation established an educational program aimed at encouraging manufacturers and consumers to reduce, reuse, and recycle, emphasizing that pollution is a “matter of statewide interest and concern.” 

Figure [7] Newspaper title regarding San Francisco’s monumental legislation

This demonstrates that no matter how small the area, individual impact matters. San Francisco, a city of less than 50 square miles, was able to make an impact on one of the largest states in the country with the strong initiative it took towards this topic, despite being turned down and questioned several times. Finally, the biggest impact hit with the introduction of the Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance, also known as “Ordinance”, which would ban all traditional single-use plastics from grocers in the city of San Francisco who sell over two million dollars of products annually (Romer, 2007). In fact, the citizens were so interested in the policies that the public confidently voiced their support for it, leading to a 10-1 approval by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2007. The unique nature of this policy is that it changes per the American Society for Testing and Materials to keep up with new policies such as changes to the materials and thicknesses allowed in reusable bags (Romer, 2007).

In conclusion, San Francisco was the perfect “Legislative Laboratory” to set a standard of how a city could go about reducing plastic consumption with the community’s support and involvement, even when not all were in agreement.  When Supervisor Mirkarimi held a press conference regarding the new bills, he stated, “Hopefully, other cities will follow suit.” Many others did, however, not typically receive the same feedback as San Francisco did (Romer, 2007). Part of the reason many cities can’t get the same extent of legislation passed as San Francisco is due to factors of geography and economics with the resources and population to work towards a green future, which will be discussed in the next section.

Figure [9] A coastline covered in plastic pollution

Figure [8] informational advertisement showing restrictions on single-use bags. If more areas could apply, plastic bag legislation would be more straightforward.

A green future depends on the power of local governments primarily, until large organizations such as the UN enforce their potential policies. Many cities, like those mentioned, weren’t as fortunate to follow in the footsteps of San Francisco with a somewhat smooth passage of policy based on their economics, location, and industry. Approximately 12 states in the U.S report having a statewide plastic ban that affects local governments (Nielson, 2019), but Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mandates a state-wide leadership approach which in some cases isn’t possible based on states’ thoughts on these factors (White and Winchester, 2022). Essentially, EPR attempts to place more power in the producer’s control over changes to plastic usage.

Geography plays a vital role because the population of coastal cities is well aware of plastic pollution due to how they understand the problem through life experience (Li, 2017). Disastrously, many plastic bags wind up in the ocean because of their ability to become airborne easily. Because of water’s ability to create wind due to its low friction, the higher winds at the coast cause movement of plastic bags which results in their frequent sight by residents, allowing them to understand how deeply this problem affects all facets of life. After all, seeing a struggling animal on the waterfront should frighten any aware citizen. In contrast, another reason coastal cities may have stronger bans is due to tourism. Because tourism brings in immense revenue, cities attempt to keep annual visitor numbers high to bring in additional income, but when plastic waste is visible in the ocean, cities must take action to save their economy by keeping visitor numbers. With both reasons in mind, ⅔ of the states that ban plastic bags are located on the coastline, originating from the process above (Li, 2017).

Correspondingly, economics plays a vital role in differences of opinion regarding new plastic bag policies. The most economically developed states can provide better jobs, providing more income to the average citizen, resulting in additional money to pay for more expensive, yet more sustainable alternatives to plastics. If more disposable income is available, citizens are more likely to rationalize paying small monetary funds for a product if it results in a better position toward solving climate change and pollution. Sometimes, legislation demands fees on plastic bags at stores, resulting in people no longer being entitled to their cheaply made plastic bags. This makes people think about their decisions before they spend money on these bags, which are now considered products. However, in areas with a better economic state and therefore higher cost of living, upper-class and upper-middle-class citizens are more welcoming to this idea, as the economic change won’t be felt by them nearly as much as lower-income families where extra expenditures are not even a thought.

Furthermore, the industries of an area also contribute to how policies are viewed. Plastic bag manufacturers represent the industry interest relating to the new legislation passed. Comparatively, Plastic Bag purchases by retailers dropped by about 50% from the years of 2008 to 2012 taking a harsh hit on the industry as they did not expect many regions to follow California’s approach (Wagner, 2017). Nevertheless, the plastic industry attempted to oppose such a ban by filing lawsuits on environmental grounds to prevent bans from taking effect, while also directly conveying a false message of stating the plastic bag bans are misguided. Obviously, most states that receive great incomes from plastics don’t want a ban to take place as it will severely hurt their economy. Overall, many factors contribute to a region’s attitude towards plastic with economics, location, and local industries.

Figure [9] map showing different legislation on plastic bags based on states. A preemption means states aren’t able to put a statewide ban on it.

Moreover, local governments do have the power to make changes in the way they use plastics. For example, even in states where local governments don’t have the authority to levy a tax, they can still place user or impact fees on products, resulting in essentially the same results based on the fact people don’t want to pay for a product that used to be given for free. This leads to the importance of an “anti-plastic bag norm” because consumers believe bags should be free after adhering to that norm for the past half-century. However, that norm suggests a long-term future filled with persistent problems unless we address it urgently. Also from the economic standpoint, plastic bags cost governments money because of the need to provide resources to reduce pollution when it blows onto roads. Thus, thickness criteria are also a great way of handling plastic bags without going to the extreme of banning bags because one of the big issues with plastic bags refers to the situation above when they blow on the road due to their flimsy composition. The heavier the plastic bag is, the less of a chance the bags will take flight and contribute to the issues requiring local governments to set up clean-up crews. Reclassification of plastic bags based on purity and environmental harm could also assist the problem because if we take measures to make plastic bags purer, they will be more easily recyclable and reused, minimizing the environmental harms associated with them without going as far as a ban. 

Conversely, plastic bag bans may not be the solution because stores can’t turn back to paper bags, as they may be the worse of two evils (National Geographic, 2024). Hence, a fee for bags might be a great solution as long as the ban is set at a price where they are still available for those in dire need of them, but most customers will avoid them by using reusable bags. For example, in Montgomery County, Maryland when a 5-cent ban was placed on plastic bags, the number of people who decided to use at least one plastic bag from the grocery store decreased from over 80% to under 50%, exemplifying how even a slim fee will change people’s views on plastic bags (Wagner, 2017). Another counterargument to banning plastics is that these bans could be misguided because convenience stores may turn back to paper bags, which also cause major harm to the environment, as plastic bags at one point in time were supposed to be the better version. One thing to consider is that paper bags don’t require fossil fuels and petroleum like plastic bags, so although they are bad, they don’t consume large amounts of non-reusable resources. According to Single-Use Plastics. A Roadmap for Sustainability?,  a paper bag needs to be used 43 times to achieve the same cumulative environmental impact as a plastic bag, exemplifying that compared to plastic, a paper bag must be used 43 times to neutralize its environmental impact in comparison to plastic, however, due to the low durability of paper bags, the likelihood of this occurring is very low, showcasing that turning back to paper bags is not a solution (Oberoi, 2024). Moreover, we must be creative with our policies on plastics.

From the research done to make this paper, a quote that stood out to me is, “Bans provide short-term solutions but are unable to deal with long-term issues and are therefore inadequate.” (Dan Nielson, 2019) This quote truly altered my mind on bans because although action needs to be taken against single-use plastic bags, unless the whole population is on board, there will have to be an alternative that is still harmful such as returning to paper bags. Reusable bags, which are defined as plastic bags with a thickness greater than 2.25mm, are a great alternative, however, not all people will use these, which makes grocery stores require an alternative.

To hear from both the good and bad sides of the ban’s effect on the population, I collected testimonies from colleagues and classmates from New Jersey and Montgomery County, Maryland, 2 places from my readings which have gone above and beyond while working towards a greener future.

Figure [12] News article about New Jersey Policy

From my understanding in New Jersey, plastic bags are not typically an option in grocery stores, resulting in consumers bringing their own reusable, thick grocery bags. From the most captivating testimony I collected, a friend who resides in Northern New Jersey stated the implications involved when you forget to bring bags. Plastic bags are not an option for her at local grocery stores, so when you forget a bag, you must buy more reusable bags, typically costing $3-$5 per bag. If this becomes habitual, people will start treating reusable bags as disposable, which doesn’t solve the problem, and can in some cases also contribute to it more with the ways plastics are discarded, even if not single-use due to the more concentrated materials utilized in making a reusable plastic bag. This would go against the sustainable nature of a reusable, thicker bag if not reusing the same bags frequently.

Figure [13] graph of Maryland’s plastic bag policies

In Montgomery County, Maryland, there is a $.05 tax per plastic bag for groceries. From my research, it was found that when this tax came into effect the number of people who took at least one disposable plastic bag decreased by about half. However, from my testimonies of 5 college students who reside in Maryland, I observed most of them ignore this tax and accept the fee for bags meaning that maybe the monetary portion doesn’t affect people’s attitudes towards plastic bags. One college student in particular said his family typically makes the fifteen minute drive across county lines in order to avoid the plastic bag tax. I’m aware that five people is a very small survey size, but all attitudes matched up when they all said they still buy plastic bags because of the convenience and ease of use.

Figure [14] Plastic bag factory

Although I am in favor of strong regulation regarding plastic bags, besides bans when the population is not entirely in favor, I understand others feel differently, but I affirm my beliefs as to a future with reduced plastic usage. From the testimonies, I understand that one issue regarding not supplying plastic bags is their convenience. Sometimes on a last-minute grocery run, it’s hard to remember your reusable bags, and in some cases, the only option is to buy several reusable bags which cost $3-$5 each which is not economically feasible if this is a common occurrence. Additionally, if people start treating reusable bags as disposable that could also be poor for the environment as the bags are very thick and would be hard to decompose, despite the positive that they don’t blow away easily (Danelski, 2024). However, if we start the “anti-plastic bag norm” where people bring their bags habitually, we can just charge slight fees for single-use plastic bags because people won’t have to use them often or want to spend money on them. 

Some people also are against the economic and social consequences of banning plastic bags including decreased revenue and job loss, but the majority of the jobs lost don’t provide a safe working environment for their employees. The manufacturing of plastics is a very dangerous process due to chemicals including PFASs and microplastics, which become a biohazard to the employee for the rest of the employee’s life, even if it’s a small-time span of inhaled fumes (Muposhi, 2022). Additionally, new industries can result from reusing plastics in different ways. As stated earlier, making plastic bags out of purified contents would result in easier recyclability, which could also make an industry out of clean energy from plastics, as the idea has been discussed loosely in recent years. However, if as a population we take into consideration the necessity to find a new way to create jobs and revenue off of plastics but in an environmentally sustainable manner, clean energy is an appropriate way to do this. 

From a harsher standpoint, Van Leeuwen affirms their belief that there are cheaper and more efficient ways to take care of the plastic problem, but throughout the article there was no discussion that a large part of the problem with single-use plastics is how to dispose and reuse them efficiently, not just finding a way to clean up litter (Van Leeuwen, 2014). Additionally, Van Leeuwen states plastics, more specifically plastic bags aren’t the largest portion of pollution, and to this, I state that plastic bags seem like an easier industry to control than others. If the number of plastic bags produced has been increasing over the past years, there is proof that at one point the problem wasn’t as bad (Van Leeuwen, 2014). Even more, at one point, less than 100 years ago citizens lived life without plastic bags, meaning if we fix the problem now, it’s a preemptive measure to halt future harm.

In conclusion, although plastic bags started as an inexpensively manufactured product that allowed consumers free and convenient transportation for items from grocery stores, their quickly rising popularity caused their presence to take a turn for the worse through their harmful effects on the environment and marine life due to their low recyclability rates and tendency to become airborne. Fortunately, cities such as San Francisco turned to movements to counter the unprecedented future of plastics, resulting in an in-depth plan that ultimately banned plastic bags in the city with other cities following in their footsteps. However, there is no worldwide legislation passed controlling countries’ plastic bag use, which could be a valuable policy for ending a bad cycle of habits. The United Nations has an important and intriguing policy that, after years of debate and committee organization, is expected to finally pass by the end of 2024.  A solution that improves the purity of plastic bags, allowing for higher recyclability and reuse rates is another possible solution, allowing customers to not worry about bringing their bags, while still not turning towards paper. Due to factors such as economics, industry, and geography, some cities are easily convinced to make changes on the subject of plastic bags while others can not afford to deal with such an issue. Therefore, local policies must follow the strategies above that work the best for their region including bans, fees, extended producer responsibilities, and reclassification so that we, as citizens, can make our world a better place to live in.

References

Li, Z. (2017). An analytical hierarchy process-based study on the factors affecting legislation on plastic bags in the USA. Sage Journals, 35(8), 15. An analytical hierarchy process-based study on the factors affecting legislation on plastic bags in the USA

White, D., & Winchester, N. (2022, August 6). The Plastic Intensity of Industries in the USA: The Devil Wears Plastic. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 28(1), 14. The Plastic Intensity of Industries in the USA: The Devil Wears Plastic

Sustainable Shopping—Which Bag Is Best? (2023, October 19). National Geographic Education. Retrieved November 7, 2024, from https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/sustainable-shoppingwhich-bag-best/

Sarnoff, L. (2024, April 19). How the UN Plastics Treaty aims to tackle the pollution crisis. ABC News. Retrieved November 7, 2024, from https://abcnews.go.com/International/plastics-treaty-aims-tackle-pollution-crisis/story?id=109262142

Evans, D. (2019, December 26). History of Plastic Bags: How Did We Get Here? Plastic Education. Retrieved November 7, 2024, from https://plastic.education/history-of-plastic-bags-how-did-we-get-here/

Wagner, T. P. (2017). Reducing single-use plastic shopping bags in the USA. ScienceDirect, 70(3-12), 10. https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271837/1-s2.0-S0956053X17X00123/1-s2.0-S0956053X17306335/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEH8aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCID22WjU9YpTcwoq36QdAYeGGqV4WgbfpakAQ2S8CjlShAiBrLTVGSFF1uCuLJO2i%2FV4NBWfNpsCLlf608Ugr%2FtWZi

Muposhi, A., Mpinganjira, M., & Wait, M. (2022). Considerations, benefits and unintended consequences of banning plastic shopping bags for environmental sustainability: A systematic literature review. Sage Journal, 40(3), 14. Considerations, benefits and unintended consequences of banning plastic shopping bags for environmental sustainability: A systematic literature review

Oberoi, G., & Garg, A. (2024). Single-Use Plastics: A Roadmap for sustainability? Hein, 24(2456-9704), 12. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/supami24&collection=journals&id=585&startid=&endid=595

Sum-Lam, C. (2018). A Comprehensive Analysis of Plastics and Microplastics Legislation Worldwide. Springer Link, 229(345), 19. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-018-4002-z

Dan Nielsen, T. (2019). Need a bag?A review of public policies on plastic carrier bags – Where, how and to what effect? Elsevier, 87(March), 428-440. 

van Leeuwen, A. (2014). Plastic Bag Bans – A Community Could Do So Much Better & For So Much Less! Fight the Plastic Bag Ban, 2014(March), 8. https://fighttheplasticbagban.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/plastic-bag-bans-e28093-a-community-could-do-so-much-better-for-so-much-less.pdf

Romer, J. R. (2007). The Evolution of San Francisco’s Plastic-Bag Ban. Golden Gate U, 439(winter), 29. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/gguelr1&id=446&men_tab=srchresults

Stephenson, W. (2018, December 17). Why plastic recycling is so confusing. BBC. Retrieved October 17, 2024, from https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45496884

Sullivan, L. (2022, October 24). Greenpeace report finds most plastic goes to landfills as production ramps up. NPR. Retrieved November 7, 2024, from https://www.npr.org/2022/10/24/1131131088/recycling-plastic-is-practically-impossible-and-the-problem-is-getting-worse

Danelski, D. (2024, November 15). Plastic bag bans have lingering impacts, even after repeals. UC Riverside News. Plastic bag bans have lingering impacts, even after repeals

Turner, R. (2024). Is the Plastic Bag History. Science History Institute, October(2024), 2.

Meiffren-Swango, C. (2024, January 18). NEW REPORT: Analysis finds bag bans effective at reducing plastic waste, litter. Environment America. NEW REPORT: Analysis finds bag bans effective at reducing plastic waste, litter