ENSTU 300: Critical Thinking & Communication in Environmental Studies

Single-Use Plastic Bags:

California, Policy and Stakeholders
Noah Sforza, Environmental Studies Program, California State University
Monterey Bay

Introduction

Plastic waste affects the entire planet. Traces of plastic have been found on even the most remote
islands around the world (Hunt, 2017). Annually Americans use 100 billion plastic bags and only 1% of
these are returned for recycling. Additionally, each year plastic bags kill 100,000 marine animals (Center
for Biological Diversity, 2018). More specifically, in a study of 370 autopsied Leatherback sea turtles;
one out of three had plastic in their digestive system (Beans, 2013). If plastic production, use, and
disposal continues at this rate there will be more plastic than fish by weight in the ocean by the year 2050
(Kaplan, 2016).
The creation of this problem began in the mid-1960s when the single-use plastic bag was created
by a company called “Celloplast” (Laskow, 2014). The stakeholders involved in this problem include all
levels of government, grassroots organizations, waste facilities, scientists and plastic companies.
Grassroots organizations are involved in helping create bans and changing the public’s habits. The
different levels of government include local, state, and federal. Local government tends to work with
grassroots organizations and the public to create ordinances. State level is influenced by local ordinances
and federal laws. Plastic companies produce the item in question and also use money to influence political
officials (Guo, 2015).
This case study will review laws passed in California, Florida and Minnesota. California’s laws
are in favor of a ban on plastic bags. Florida and Minnesota use bans to stop plastic bags from being
banned. It will also review laws passed on local level and laws not passed of federal level. California
exemplifies the process of grassroots, to local government to state legislation.
Single-use plastic shopping bags have a negative effect on the environment; a policy must be
implemented to stop plastic from entering the natural environment and damaging ecosystems. The
problems involved in this issue include the steps to passing legislation, how to remove plastics and what
policy options best fit the needs of the normative claim. These policy options are influenced by the
stakeholders involved in the subject of single-use plastic bags. The stakeholders are government (local
and state), grassroots organizations, plastic companies and waste management facilities.

Background

History
The creation of single-use plastic bags can be traced back to the Swedish company “Celloplast.”
Between 1960 and 1965, the company created and patented “the T-shirt plastic bag” (Figure 1); this is
what we now know as the single-use plastic bag. The bags continued to be adjusted and adjusted by
different companies. Later, the “T-shirt” bags were introduced to the United States in 1979 (Laskow,
2014). By 1982, large companies such as Kroger and Safeway began using the plastic bag. During the
Society of Plastic Engineers’ Network conference in 1985, it was stated that the production of plastic bags
cost less per unit than paper bags (Laskow, 2014). By the mid-1990s, plastic bags controlled 80% of the
grocery store bag market, pushing out paper bags. The introduction of plastic bags to the market created
controversy for consumers. Many consumers preferred paper bags and many environmentalist were
concerned with the future impacts of the waste created by plastic bags (Petru, 2014).

2
Figure 1. “The sack of the future is here for you today”, the slogan of the original plastic bag created in
the 1960’s. This style of bag was dubbed the “the T-shirt plastic bag”.
Taken from: Laskow, S. (2014, October 10). How the Plastic Bag Became So Popular. Retrieved
February 21, 2018, from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/how-the-plastic-bag-
became-so-popular/381065/

Scientific Background
Single-use plastic bags are manufactured from crude oil. This resource is then turned into
polyethylene, which is a plastic polymer. These polymers have a non-natural molecular structure. This
means that standard polyethylene will not biodegrade. The structure of plastic allows it to only break
down into smaller pieces through processes such as photo-degradation, mechanical action of waves, or
heat (O’Brine & Thompson, 2010).
As plastic breaks down it, it goes through a process of separation rather than assimilation with the
natural environment. Plastic does not biodegrade, instead it degrades through other processes and breaks
down into micro-plastics (Andrady, 2011). As plastic degrades through processes such as photodegrading
and wave work it releases chemicals that are toxic to the native environment. Chemicals that work as
flame retardants, antimicrobials and plasticizers can disrupt the endocrine system of the ocean. There is
some uncertainty about the length of plastics life. Scientists have stated that it can take anywhere from
500 years to a 1,000 years for plastic to breakdown in a landfill. Even with the processes of degradation at
work the average piece of plastic will take more than 100 years to fully degrade. Due to the longevity of
plastic, scientists have begun to research compostable or biodegradable options (Lapidos, 2007).
Research has shown that bags made of compostable or biodegradable options are more likely to
break down. In a research study conducted at the University of Plymouth, two different types of single-

3
use bags (plastic and compostable plastic) were compared for their abilities to break down in a test rig
constructed to resemble the natural environment and processes. The compostable plastic bag broke down
the most quickly in 16-20 weeks. What the study found was that although some bags are marketed as
compostable or biodegradable, yet these bags will still release toxic chemicals as they breakdown
(O’Brine & Thompson, 2010).
Not only are compostable bags being researched for their potential as a plastic substitute, but
paper bags are also considered an option. According to research conducted by The North American
Boustead Report in 2007, paper bags consume 3.4 times more non-renewable energy than plastic bags.
Additionally, paper bags production releases two times more greenhouse gas emissions than plastic bags
(Canadian Plastics Industry Association, 2012).
The toxic chemicals released by single-use plastic bags have a negative effect on the overall
environment and balance of natural ecosystems, while the individual bag impacts many individual
species. Sea turtles, sea birds and marine mammals have all been found to either ingest or become
entangled in plastic debris. Location doesn’t change whether or not these animals will be impacted by
plastic bags (Shirley, 2014).

Policy Context
Policies related to mitigating the effects of single use plastic bags have been enacted at different
levels of government. An example of local policy includes Monterey County’s decision to ban plastic
shopping bags (Abraham, 2014).
Government is often influenced by public opinion. This is the case in the passing of Proposition
67 (AB 158, 2013-2014). Proposition 67 was created and put on the ballot after more than 150 cities and
counties passed ordinances banning single-use plastic bags (Californians against waste, n.d.). In 2014,
Governor Brown signed Proposition 67 affirmed SB 270, banning single-use plastic bags. In a comment,
Governor Brown stated “This bill (SB 270) is a step in the right direction – it reduces the torrent of plastic
polluting our beaches, parks and even the vast ocean itself” (White, 2014). California is one of the first
states to ban plastic shopping bags.
California may have enacted a state wide ban, but other states are doing the opposite. In 2008
Florida passed a ban on banning the distribution of plastic bags. Officials say this ban was put in place to
give researchers time to study the hazards of plastic bags on the environment (Sun Sentinel Editorial
Board, 2017).

4
 Two policy options have been brought to the federal level since 2009. Both acts, The Plastic Bag
Reduction Act of 2009 and Trash Reduction Act of 2015 were refereed to committees and then tabled
(Plastic Bag Laws, n.d.). Neither bill was passed, federal policy has not seen any new bills introduced
since 2015.

Stakeholder Perspectives
Table 1. Stakeholder Perspectives
At a glance these are the simple and clear values, contributions and concerns of different stakeholder
groups.

Stake-holder Stake-holder Values Contributions Stake-holder Concerns

Government Economics Implementing effective policy Implementing effective policy

Environment Community collaboration Health

Health
Land management and protection
Public Opinion

Plastic Profit Production Profit

Companies
Open market Access to an open Market

Grass-roots Healthy ecosystems Community collaboration Protect Environment

Environment Political support Public interests

health
Leadership Health
Environment

Public Opinion

5
 The major stakeholders on the subject of single-use plastic bags are government (local and state),
grassroots organizations, and plastic companies. These stakeholders find their influences from many
different areas, such as public opinion, funders and their own mission statements.
Government also includes the perspective of infrastructure. Considering the ability, the
infrastructure has to maintain and manage the waste that is produced and processed in the area. Different
areas have different concerns about how to handle impacts on environment, waste management and
economy.
Local governments’ priority and perspectives are often rooted in the public’s beliefs. The local
government is formed by citizens and is therefore more connected to what the general public wants. As
for local government in Monterey County this is especially true. In Year, when Monterey County was
considering a proposal to ban plastic bags, Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council held open forum meetings
with the public (Abraham, 2011). The residents were given the opportunity to express their opinions
about the ban in front of Mayor Sue McCloud and council members. Other local government officials
have made statements supporting plastic bag bans. Bruce Delgado, Mayor of Marina, made a comment on
ordinances in the Monterey area, stating that he “…hopes to bring the ordinance to this city as well”
(Abraham, 2014); in 2015 single-use bags were banned from Marina with the support of Mayor Delgado.

State government is influenced by local perspectives and actions. As an example, California was
forced to consider a plastic bag ban after multiple cities and counties passed individual ordinances and
laws. A statement was released by Governor Brown’s spokesperson about the actions taken by plastic
companies to fight the ban; “This is a cynical ploy by out-of-state interests desperate to delay a ban
already adopted in more than 100 communities across California” (Guo, 2015). In another comment
Governor Brown said “We’re the first to ban these bags, and we won’t be the last.” (White, 2014).

Not all state level government is working towards or in favor of plastic bag bans. Currently, there
are bans being put on bans. Minnesota State Senator Bill Ingebrigtsen (R, District 8), is one of the
politians who pushed to block plastic bag bans (Rodd, 2018). He defends that plastic bags have a smaller
carbon foot print than paper bags. A month before the “ban-on-ban” bill was proposed, the American
Progressive Bag Alliance (APBA) registered to lobby in Minnesota. The APBA publicly states that they
“proactively promote(s) product lines and lead(s) numerous public policy initiatives that serve as the
frontline defense against plastic bag bans and taxes nationwide” (Novato, 2017).

The ban of single-use plastic bags in Monterey county was advanced by the support of the local
grassroots organization “Communities for Sustainable Monterey County (Sustainable Monterey)”.

6
Sustainable Monterey collected signatures, attended city council meetings and worked with chamber of
commerce to create policy that worked for people, planet and profit (Communities for Sustainable
Monterey County, n.d.). Grassroots organizations like this exist around the county and are led by local
citizens.
As stated, Sustainable Monterey is working to eliminate single-use plastics. The process in which
they use to reduce the use was explain in an interview on April 8th, 2018. In an interview with Colleen
Ingram of Sustainable Pacific Grove, which is a part of Sustainable Monterey, she mentions that the steps
to changing local policy include outreach, education and working with local government. She states that
the work she does with Sustainable Pacific Grove often includes developing policy and presenting it to
the Chamber of Commerce. Ingram also mentioned that this is the most challenging part of her work,
because introducing new policy takes the support of local business and citizens for Chamber of
Commerce to be interested.
Grassroots organizations often have their perspectives rooted in public opinion, yet they do not
always speak for the general public. Their purpose is to push towards a goal, usually only showing
support for companies and organizations that align with their movement. One grassroots organization that
supported the plastic bag ban was the Surfrider Foundation. They publicly endorsed Proposition 67
affirmed SB 270, which banned single use plastic bags in California. Their support was shown through
education and funding the legislation. Other organizations that supported the ban were Heal the Bay,
Environment California and Californians Against Waste (Surfrider, 2016). They all have supported in
similar ways to Surfrider Foundation.
Plastic companies are motivated and influenced by the individuals that they employ and the
economic income. Plastic companies sell between $100 million to $150 million worth of single-use
plastic bags to retailers annually (Matier, P. P., & Ross, A., 2015). More than 24,000 people are employed
by plastic bag manufacturing companies in the United States. In a statement to Bloomberg Environment
Matt Seaholm, executive director of the American Progressive Bag Alliance, said “Policies pertaining to
auxiliary containers should be consistent within a state. It’s harmful to customers, manufacturers, broader
economic health, and American jobs to have a patchwork of rules and regulations” (Merken, 2018). The
focus of the plastic industry and individual factories is on protecting their employees and their ability to
continue business.
Plastic must be processed after use; the processing of plastic is done by waste facilities. In an
interview on April 24, 2018 with Tim Brownell, the operations manager and Angela Goebel, the public
education and outreach specialist of the Monterey Regional Waste Management District some insight was
gained for the behind the scenes of managing plastic waste (Brownell & Goebel, 2018). Brownell

7
discussed that plastic is often disposed of incorrectly, which makes it challenging for it to be correctly
recycled and processed. Brownell also mentioned that there are many different types of plastic and each
plastic has a different value in the market. Plastic shopping bags are made of a conglomerate of other
plastics and is usually categorized under the numbers of 3, 6, and 7. Brownell stated that these number
plastics essentially have no market and therefore it is very hard for recycling facilities to sell these
plastics.

Discussion

The three recommendations proposed for single-use plastic bags are to tax bags, ban bags, and/or
to ban all bags, not just plastic bags. In table 2 the different policy options are broken up based on criteria.
These criteria are environmental health, human health, and economic feasibility. These criteria were
chosen to evaluate the best policy options. Analysis of each option is based on the criteria and can be
reviewed in Table 2. This helps show the possible benefits and shortcomings of each policy option.

Table 2. Policy Options

At a glance these are the simple and clear policy options, considering environmental health, human health,
and economic feasibility.

Policy Option 1 Policy Option 2 Policy Option 3

Criteria Replace plastic with a Federal Ban Plastic Ban at local level
reusable option single-use bags (Grassroots steps)
(Tax other paper bags)
Environmental +Reduces future impact +Reduces future impact +Reduces future impacts
health +Removes plastic bags +Can incorporate future
(Marine) from market restoration plans
Human Health +Reduces future impact +Reduces future impact +Reduces future impact
+Community involvement
Feasibility – -Potential lost revenue for -Potential lost revenue for -Loss of jobs
Economic companies companies +Community lead
+Cuts future costs for +Cuts future costs for decisions about ban
Government Government

8
 Policy option one is an approach to reducing single-use plastic bags that is similar to a ban. It
removes the option of single-use plastic bags from stores. It reduces future impacts of plastic bags by not
supplying them. The issue with this is that it is not a ban, therefore stores would have to choose to stop
offering plastic bags. This puts the pressure of the stores allow and offers them no support. This option
would only work in an area that is motivated and does not want plastic bags in their community. This is
not feasible as it requires more work for stores with no motivation.
Banning single-use plastic bags is a policy option borrowed from Proposition 67 (AB 158, 2013-
2014), but in this case is being evaluated at the federal level. This proposition removes the problem of
plastic bags from circulating. Proposition 67 gave stores a year to phase out plastic bags and now are only
allowed to offer paper bags with a 10 cent tax (Merken 2018). This policy option removes the problem of
plastic bags from being distributed and used in California. This means that now law makers and citizens
can focus on how to remove contaminates from the natural environment. Placing a tax on paper bags
forces citizens to pay a 10 cent tax when requesting a bag at grocery stores. This option puts the use and
distribution of bags on the user. This is the decision that California made when Proposition 67 was passed
(Merken, 2018). This option eliminates the single-use plastic bag altogether and creates a 10 cent tax
which can be used to restore environments impacted by plastic bags. These taxes can be incorporated into
city plans or donated to organizations that have promised to do restoration work. The biggest issue with
this ban is the challenge of passing a ban at the federal level. The two past attempts to pass a policy at the
federal level pertaining to plastic bags was tabled and then no motions were made about them. To this
point, no pressure has been put on the federal government to pass a bill. It is also likely that attempts to
pass a federal bill would face challenges from the “ban-on-ban” system. The defense for the ban-on-ban
given by Minnesota State Senator Bill Ingebrigtsen (R, District 8) is that plastic bags have a smaller
carbon foot print than paper bags (Rodd, 2018), it is likely this argument would come up at the federal
level as well. Additionally, this policy option would halt all production and revenue for plastic bag
companies; this would also include potential loss of jobs. According to the American Plastic Bag
Alliance, there are more than 24,000 people employed in the plastic bag industry (APBA, 2018). The loss
of revenue could impact future US gross domestic product.
The last policy option is to use the grassroots approach. Using the ban at the local level gives
communities the freedom to write policy that works in their area. This process has worked well in
California and is especially true in the Monterey area. Grassroots organizations and citizens work to
create public interest in a ban. This work includes the many pieces described by Colleen Ingram of
Sustainable Pacific Grove. Grassroots organizations work to create a policy option that best fits their

9
communities needs and then they propose it to the local Chamber of Commerce. This policy option works
best for all of the criteria. It reduces use of plastic bag use, depending on the policy of the specific
community it could be a ban or tax or a combination of the two. This policy option also can lead to a
federal ban in the future. California is an example of how local policy changes impact state level policy.
This could work similarly for federal level. If enough local governments change their policies about
single-use plastic bags, and then these policies are adopted at a state level, there is the potential for a push
for a federal policy to be implemented. This option ensures the opportunity to review different policies
from different states, giving the federal government the chance to select the policy that would work well
nationwide. The potential issue of this policy option is a lack of interest at the local level. Yet, it has been
stated already that in different communities in different states there has been interest in policy changes.

Recommendation

Each policy option has its challenges. The plastic bag ban has been argued against. The argument
against plastic bag bans is rooted in the idea that the production of paper bags releases more emissions
and is therefore more harmful than plastic production. The following recommendations are not focused on
paper bags, but this information is important to keep in mind when creating effective and purposeful
policy decisions.
The recommendation to make a complete ban on plastic bags and an additional tax put on the use
of paper bags at the federal level will halt the use and distribution of plastic bags across the United States.
Two acts have been brought to Congress and neither made any progress. This option falls short, as it lacks
the proof working.
The concept of the federal ban, but on a local level seems more feasible and productive.
California is proof that grassroots and community officials can work together to pass local legislation that
benefits the people. Additionally, this process creates a smoother transition from local government to state
government. Again this can be seen in California’s Proposition 67. This ban on plastic bags was inspired
and encouraged by more than 150 bans across California at the local government level. The local bans
acted as a pilot for the state legislation. The interest in creating a ban at the local level exists, and
California is an example and case study of the process, which other communities and states can use.
In addition, this ban would work to include the different concerns of the many stakeholders.
Local government have different types of meetings (City Council, Chamber of Commerce) in which
grassroots, plastic companies and other stakeholders can present their concerns and support. Plastic
companies also would have the option to produce a thick enough bag to be considered “reusable”.

10
 The major issue with this recommendation is the lack of interest from certain communities. As
California is the only state to have shown this type of progression from local to state policy, the idea relies
on communities’ interest.

Conclusion
By banning plastic bags at the local level plastic production and distribution will slowly, but
surely stop. This work is put on the shoulders of the American people in this recommendation, but also
relies on the work of government officials and grassroots organizations to write effective policy. This
option allows the most people to share their opinions and create the best option for the area. This will
eliminate the big picture problem of single-use plastic bags ending up in our environment and gives the
government the opportunity to focus on efforts to clean the existing issue. Eliminating plastic bags means
that we are taking steps towards creating a healthier planet, by protecting marine environments and
human health.

11
Literature Cited
Abraham, K. (2014, July 29). County Board of Supervisors passes plastic bag ban. Retrieved March 04,
2018, from http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/blogs/news_blog/county-board-of-supervisors-
passes-plastic-bag-ban/article_d07a482c-16b7-11e4-bd2e-001a4bcf6878.html

AB 158, California Legislature, (2013-2014)

APBA. (2018). About the APBA. Retrieved from http://plasticsindustry.org/apba/about

Barry, C. (2009, August 20). Plastic breaks down in ocean, after all -- and fast. Retrieved February 21,
2018, from https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/090820-plastic-decomposes-oceans-
seas.html

Bernstein, M. (2009, August 19). Plastics in oceans decompose, release hazardous chemicals, surprising
new study says. Retrieved February 21, 2018, from
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2009/august/plastics-in-oceans-decompose-
release-hazardous-chemicals-surprising-new-study-says.html

Civic Impulse. (2018). H.R. 2091 — 111th Congress: Plastic Bag Reduction Act of 2009. Retrieved from
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2091

Cohen, D. (2017). Home. Retrieved February 21, 2018, from http://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/

Frischmuth, D. (2018). Who We Are. Retrieved February 21, 2018, from

http://www.sustainablemontereycounty.org/about-us/

Humphries, C. (2017, May 11). Freshwater's Macro Microplastic Problem. Retrieved February 21, 2018,
from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/freshwater-microplastics/

Laskow, S. (2014, October 10). How the Plastic Bag Became So Popular. Retrieved February 21, 2018,
from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/how-the-plastic-bag-became-so-
popular/381065/

12
Laws that Protect Our Oceans. (2016, December 09). Retrieved February 21, 2018, from
https://www.epa.gov/beach-tech/laws-protect-our-oceans

Mrosovsky, N., Ryan, G. D., & James, M. C. (2009). Leatherback turtles: The menace of plastic. Marine
Pollution Bulletin,58(2), 287-289. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.10.018

Parker, L. (2015, September 02). Nearly Every Seabird on Earth Is Eating Plastic. Retrieved February 21,
2018, from https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/15092-plastic-seabirds-albatross-australia/

Ryan P.G. (2015) A Brief History of Marine Litter Research. In: Bergmann M., Gutow L., Klages M.
(eds) Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer, Cham

Use of Single-Use Carryout Bags, Chapter 10.43 (2014)

HR 2091, 11th Congress, (2009-2010)

Luna, T. (2016, November 10). Californians say farewell to the plastic bag. Retrieved March 04, 2018,
from http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article113898813.html

M. (2012, May 1). No plastic challenge | Eco Toys Blog. Retrieved March 04, 2018, from
http://ecotoysblog.com/2012/05/no-plastic-challenge/

Save Our Shores. (2014, July 31). Monterey County Passes Plastic Bag Ban. Retrieved March 04, 2018,
from http://saveourshores.org/monterey-county-passes-plastic-bag-ban/

Center for Biological Diversity (n.d.). Single-use plastic bag facts. Retrieved April 23, 2018 from
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/sustainability/plastic_bag_fac
ts.html

Abraham, K. (2013, May 16). Peninsula cities explore a plastic bag ban – and hope the industry won't sue.
Retrieved March 26, 2018, from
http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/article_476244bd-2687-57c7-a423-
ad66c1431cba.html

13
Abraham, K. (2014, July 29). County Board of Supervisors passes plastic bag ban. Retrieved March 26,
2018, from http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/blogs/news_blog/county-board-of-supervisors-
passes-plastic-bag-ban/article_d07a482c-16b7-11e4-bd2e-001a4bcf6878.html

Hunt, E. (2017, May 15). 38 million pieces of plastic waste found on uninhabited South Pacific island.
Retrieved March 26, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/15/38-million-
pieces-of-plastic-waste-found-on-uninhabited-south-pacific-island

Rodd, S. (n.d.). State and Local Officials Clash Over Plastic Bag Bans. Retrieved March 26, 2018, from
http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/stl-plastic-bag-bans.html

Surfrider. (n.d.). Help Enforce The California Bag Ban. Retrieved March 26, 2018, from
https://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/help-enforce-the-california-bag-ban

Surfrider. (n.d.). Banned Plastic Bags in California. Retrieved March 26, 2018, from
https://www.surfrider.org/campaigns/yes-on-67-california-statewide-bag-ban-vote2
Guo, J. (2015, March 03). A plastic bag lobby exists, and it's surprisingly tough. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/03/a-plastic-bag-lobby-exists-and-its-
surprisingly-tough/?utm_term=.d776593db08d

Kaplan, S. (2016, January 20). By 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the world's oceans, study
says. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/20/by-2050-there-
will-be-more-plastic-than-fish-in-the-worlds-oceans-study-
says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f011350ff626

Laskow, S. (2014, October 10). How the Plastic Bag Became So Popular. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/how-the-plastic-bag-became-so-
popular/381065/

O’Brine, T., & Thompson, R. C. (2010). Degradation of plastic carrier bags in the marine
environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(12), 2279-2283. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.08.005

14
Andrady, A. L. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(8), 1596-
1605. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030

Sun Sentinel Editorial Board. (2017, March 25). Plastic bag ban: Let's not get carried away | Editorial.
Retrieved from http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/editorials/fl-editorial-plastic-bags-ban-20170324-
story.html

Californians against waste. (n.d.). List of Local Bag Bans. Retrieved from
https://www.cawrecycles.org/list-of-local-bag-bans/

Communities for Sustainable Monterey County. (n.d.). Communities for Sustainable Monterey County –
A Transition Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.sustainablemontereycounty.org/
Merken, S. (2018, January 17). Plastics Industry Opposes Patchwork of Rules as Bag Bans Expand.
Retrieved from https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/plastics-industry-opposes-patchwork-
of-rules-as-bag-bans-expand

Guo, J. (2015, March 03). A plastic bag lobby exists, and it's surprisingly tough. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/03/a-plastic-bag-lobby-exists-and-its-
surprisingly-tough/?utm_term=.fec08e3f9cf6

Canadian Plastics Industry Association. (2012). Paper vs. Plastic Bags - The Studies. Retrieved from
http://www.allaboutbags.ca/papervplasticstudies.html

Plastic Bag Laws. (n.d.). Federal Laws. Retrieved from

https://www.plasticbaglaws.org/legislation/federal-laws/

Beans, L. (2016, June 27). Silent Killers: The Danger of Plastic Bags to Marine Life. Retrieved from
https://www.ecowatch.com/silent-killers-the-danger-of-plastic-bags-to-marine-life-1881783599.html

White, J. B. (2014, September 30). California plastic bag ban signed, setting off sweeping changes.
Retrieved from http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2616122.html

15
NOVATO, A. D. (2017, December 18). Plastic Industry Lobbyists Prevent Communities From Reducing
Pollution. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemi.org/politics/plastic-lobbyists-prevent-reducing-pollution/

Petru, A. (2014, November 4). A Brief History of the Plastic Bag. Retrieved from
https://www.triplepundit.com/2014/11/brief-history-plastic-bag/

Lapidos, J. (2007, June 27). Do plastic bags really take 500 years to break down in a landfill? Retrieved
from
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/06/will_my_plastic_bag_still_be_here_i
n_2507.html

Shirley, S. (2014, February 25). Home. Retrieved from https://www.factorydirectpromos.com/blog/what-

animals-are-hurt-most-by-single-use-plastic-bags/

Brownell, T. & Goebel, A. (2018). Personal communication. April 24, 2018. Phone interview
with Monterey Regional Waste Management District office.

Ingram, C. (2018). Personal communication. April 8, 2018. In person interview at Juice ‘n Java.

Matier, P. P., & Ross, A. (2015, March 02). Plastic bag industry profits as it faces tough battle over ban.
Retrieved from https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Plastic-bag-industry-profits-as-it-
faces-tough-6109021.php

16