On a windy April morning in Delaware, volunteers sorted shoreline trash into neat piles. One thing jumped out—far fewer tattered grocery sacks than the year before.

Their tally mirrors a nationwide pattern. A 2025 analysis in Science found communities that regulate single-use carryout bags report 25 % – 47 % fewer plastic bags in coastal litter than places with no rules. Fewer bags mean fewer seabirds and turtles ensnared in translucent loops, and the study noted a roughly one-third drop in entangled wildlife where policies exist.

Plastic debris remains a global threat despite progress.

Do Fees Outperform Straight Bans?

Bag rules come in different flavors. Some cities outlaw thin plastic outright; others slap a checkout charge on any disposable bag. Counter-intuitively, fees may work better than bans. Researchers tracking 45,000 cleanups saw the steepest litter decline where shoppers had to pay per bag, not where free plastic vanished completely. The Cooldown reports that full bans often carve out loopholes for thicker plastic, while taxes apply to every sack that crosses the scanner—leaving less room for evasion.

The Power of Loss Aversion

Why does a nickel charge pack more punch than a prohibition? Behavioral economics offers clues. In Washington, D.C., a five-cent tax cut disposable-bag use in half, whereas an identical five-cent reward for bringing reusables left habits almost unchanged, Cornell’s Tatiana Homonoff told The Conversation.

Shoppers feel a small loss at the register more keenly than a small gain. That insight suggests lawmakers can nudge behavior without heavy-handed bans—if the fee is unavoidable and visible.

Shoppers react more to losing five cents for a plastic bag than gaining rewards.

The Substitution Trap

Policy designers face a thornier issue: leakage. People blocked from thin film often pivot to paper or thick plastic. An environmental-taxation model in the Journal of Environmental Management calculates that a plastic-only tax lowers marine litter but nudges up greenhouse gases as shoppers drift to carbon-intensive paper. The optimal fix, the authors argue, is a uniform levy on every carryout bag—plastic or paper—aligned with each material’s total environmental cost.

Weighing Carbon Against Marine Debris

Life-cycle studies show standard paper bags emit up to three times more CO₂ than high-density polyethylene sacks of equal capacity, yet the plastic version can persist for decades if it escapes collection.

Industry voices quoted by Biodeg highlight paper’s heavier transport footprint and point to oxo-biodegradable plastics as an alternative. Critics counter that degradable additives may fragment bags before municipal recyclers can capture them. The trade-off is real: climate emissions versus marine persistence. A smart fee structure prices both damages so neither impact hides in the margins.

Wildlife entanglement reports drop where bag policies exist.

Scale and Consistency Matter

Patchwork rules invite spillover. The Time summary of the Science dataset noted litter drifting from unregulated towns into regulated neighbors. Statewide rules dampen that effect, and uniform fees capture shoppers who cross county lines for errands. Revenue can bankroll recycling bins, litter patrols, or public education, amplifying the direct behavior shift.

Toward Better Bag Policy

No single ordinance will erase the 460 million tons of plastic the world produces each year, but the evidence is clear: when shoppers must pay, fewer bags reach land and sea.

To avoid simply trading turtle risk for extra smokestack emissions, economists recommend broad, material-neutral charges calibrated to environmental harm. Pair that with investment in reusable options and robust waste capture, and a modest fee can outperform blunt bans while respecting consumer choice.

Shoreline volunteers already see the difference; smart policy can make their plastic-light mornings the norm rather than the surprise.