California’s proposed bag ban is a new tax on marginalized Californians

To achieve a greener and more equitable California, lawmakers need to listen to all Californians. 

In 2016, Californians voted to ban single-use plastic bags. This year, measures in the California State Senate and Assembly have been introduced to again ban plastic bags, but this time they will ban the plastic reusable bags you currently find in grocery and other stores.

For many who live in underserved communities, these reusable plastic bags, which contain 40% recycled plastic content, are extremely helpful in everyday living. Whether it’s having a sturdy bag to bring groceries home on a multi-stop public transit commute, reusing them as trashcan liners – a decidedly less expensive option than purchasing single-use trash bags – or using them to send their child off to school with their lunch, there are many uses that save time and money for those struggling to make ends meet.

I think most Californians can (and should) get behind the goal of reducing plastic pollution in the Golden State, but the devil is always in the details and these legislative bills are rife with unintended consequences that will hit low-income Californians and marginalized communities the hardest, at a time when they can least afford to pay more. Earlier this year, a study found that Californians already spend the most on groceries – $297.72 per week – surpassing the national average. And the number is even higher for families with children.

Not only are prices already sky-high, but the California Budget and Policy Center found that when basic costs go up, low-income Californians are impacted the most. Additionally, in 2022, about 50% of Latino, Black and other Californians of color shared that they struggled with affording basic expenses. When our most vulnerable neighbors are already stressed about high costs at the checkout line, unnecessarily adding to their grocery budgets will just make it more difficult for them to purchase necessities and keep their families fed.

Research earlier this year by the Freedonia Group (a division of MarketResearch.com) revealed that in states where bills similar to SB 1053 and AB 2236 were passed, consumers are paying $1-$2 per bag at checkout, 10 to 20 times what Californians pay today. That same study found that a typical store can reap $200,000 in profits – per store location – from the sales of these alternative bags. For one major retailer in New Jersey, this amounts to an estimated $42 million in profit annually.

While this new source of revenue is sure to be welcome news for grocers and retailers, they will be profiting on the backs of hard-working Californians. SB 1053 and SB 2236 amounts to a new tax on consumers, one that disproportionately harms those who can least afford it. These proposals are  a loss for California consumers, and could spell the end for the state’s promising plastic recycling industry that is investing in ways to improve the recycling of current reusable plastic bags.

A December 2023 survey by Baselice and Associates found that Californians reuse more than 60% of the plastic reusable bags they purchase as trash bags. Lower-income families find them an affordable, money-saving alternative to purchasing trash bags. This is consistent with CalRecycle data that shows a nearly doubled volume of retail bags in landfills as Californians repurposed them for trash disposal.

By eliminating the current pricing structure for grocery and trash bags, SB 1053 and AB 2236 will force Californians to pay more for bags without reducing their plastic use.

In addressing environmental issues and fighting to reduce plastic pollution, it’s incredibly important that we keep potential impacts to disadvantaged communities at the forefront of the conversation. We simply cannot afford to pass legislation that may have little to no environmental benefit and disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color in the process, as all Californians already face a steep affordability problem.

The authors of these bills have argued that the opposition comes largely from the plastics industry; however, low-income communities, whose voices have historically been underrepresented and ignored in the policy process, have legitimate concerns about how this legislation will affect their day-to-day lives and their families.

To achieve a greener and more equitable California, lawmakers need to listen to all Californians.

Julian Cañete serves as the president and CEO of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce.