Case Study D – Single-Use Plastic Bags

Context

In light of growing concern about littering and pollution, particularly from plastics, policymakers have sought to
reduce use of single-use plastics and encourage re-use. Carrier bags make up a significant proportion of urban,
rural and marine litter; for example, plastic bags account for around 9% of all litter found on the coastline (Ricardo, 2015). A range of policies, including bans, charges, and levies, have aimed to minimise use of single-use plastics. Carrier bag charging schemes have been implemented in many countries and can substantially reduce consumption of single-use plastic bags (SUPBs), with a reduction of 50% to 95% in the short-term (Ricardo, 2015). England has seen a 95% reduction in SUPBs, for example (UK Government, 2021).

SUPB charges tend to be popular with the public, particularly when proceeds are donated to charity rather than kept by retailers or government (Ricardo, 2015). Popularity also increases after charges have been implemented and benefits (e.g. reduced litter) observed; increased public support for more ambitious waste reduction policies has also been seen in the UK following the implementation of plastic bag charging (Thomas et al., 2019).

Key Elements of Change

Policy drivers for SUPB charges are reducing littering and damage to wildlife, while economic benefits are also cited (UK Government, 2015). The ‘plastic problem’ is a priority for UK environmental policy. Products which are single-use or disposable are ‘low-hanging fruit’ to address this problem. That the charge had already been successfully implemented in other countries likely also contributed to confidence in its appropriateness and effectiveness for UK countries (Ricardo, 2015).

Policy, business, and public awareness of plastic pollution and its impacts on wildlife increased substantially in
light of the BBC’s extremely popular Blue Planet II. This 2018 David Attenborough documentary graphically and emotively highlighted the threat to marine wildlife (e.g. seabirds) by plastic pollution. The ‘Blue Planet Effect’ is thought to have sparked widespread changes in public attitudes, community action (e.g. beach cleans), non-government organisations campaigns, business investment in reducing single-use plastics, and government policy to tackle plastic pollution (e.g. Dunn et al., 2020; BBC, 2019). Indeed, the documentary is explicitly referenced as a rationale for the UK Government’s SUPB charge (UK Treasury, 2018).

As an environmental communicator, David Attenborough is unusual in being almost universally trusted across all public segments (Climate Outreach, 2023).Public support for SUPB charging is likely to be in part due to the visibility of plastic litter, including carrier bags, on streets and beaches, and in rivers; and, since Blue Planet, widespread awareness of its impacts on wildlife.

This is in contrast to the less visible and indirect effects of other pollutants, such as greenhouse gases. Similarly, evidence shows that ‘reducing waste’ is a narrative with near-universal appeal amongst the public (across voter groups), in contrast to other framings or rationales for environmental policy which are more partisan (Whitmarsh and Corner, 2017).

Protecting wildlife and biodiversity is also far less politically divisive than net zero or climate change. Consequently, the galvanising issues for SUPB charging are waste and wildlife. Other characteristics of the policy also likely contributed to its public support, including its affordability (e.g. £0.10), limited impacts on lifestyles, and the revenue raised going to charity. This is in line with wider evidenceshowing perceived effectiveness, fairness and costliness are key drivers of policy support (e.g. Mitev et al., 2023). The policy has also enjoyed broad support from businesses (retailers) who have reported economic savings, as well as endorsing the environmental rationale for the policy (Ricardo, 2015). Indeed, there has been very little contestation.

Lessons for Net Zero

Policies which address visible problems (e.g. litter), with identifiable victims (wildlife), and are observably
effective (e.g. reducing waste) are more supported, as are those where the needy (e.g. charities) benefit, and
the public retain freedom of choice and do not suffer high economic or lifestyle costs. Similarly, businesses
saw economic benefits, which ensured their buy-in. Designing net zero policies in these ways is likely to boost public support, but also makes clear the challenges likely to be faced when the issues involved do not allow this.

Elements of Societal Change

Multi-factor DRIVERS OF CHANGE

• Introduction of the single-use plastic bag charge (leading to public support for more
  ambitious waste policies)
• Growing public perception of the issue of plastic pollution (esp. marine litter) in light
  of BBC documentary

Mid-level ACTORS

• Environmental non-government organisations (e.g. Greenpeace), retailers and brands offering
  alternatives (e.g. Bags for Life),

Galvanising ISSUE

• Wildlife, e.g. seabirds
• Litter in towns, rivers, beaches

JUSTICE Considerations

• Charge is low enough to be affordable to all
• Revenue goes to charity

CONTESTATIONS and CONFLICTS

• Minimal: charging (rather than regulating) preserves freedom of choice, avoiding libertarian
  critique; businesses saw economic benefits

REFERENCES

• BBC (2019). Science Focus: Has Blue Planet II had an impact on plastic pollution?
• Dunn, M. E., Mills, M. & Veríssimo, D. (2020). Evaluating the impact of the documentary series
  Blue Planet II on viewers’ plastic consumption behaviors. Conservation Science and Practice 2
  (10, e280
• Climate Outreach (2023). https://climateoutreach.org/
• Mitev, K., Player, L., Verfuerth, C., Westlake, S. & Whitmarsh, L. (2023). The Implications
  of behavioural science for effective climate policy. Report commissioned by the Climate
  Change Committee
• Ricardo AEA / Cardiff University (2015). Evaluation of the impact of the Single Use Carrier
  Bag Charge in Wales. Report to Welsh Government
• Thomas, G. O., Sautkina, E., Poortinga, W., Wolstenholme, E. & Whitmarsh, L. (2019).
  The English plastic bag charge changed behavior and increased support for other charges
  to reduce plastic waste. Frontiers in psychology 10 266
• UK Government (2021). Carrier Bags: why there’s a charge
• UK Treasury (2018). Tackling the plastic problem Using the tax system or charges to address
  single-use plastic waste
• Whitmarsh, L. & Corner, A. (2017). Tools for a new climate conversation: A mixed-methods
  study of language for public engagement across the political spectrum. Global Environmental
  Change 42 122-135