Why a coffee cup tax won't have the same effect as the plastic bag tax

I see in the i newspaper that the Lib Dems, with policies I increasingly find sad, are proposing a 5p tax on coffee cups (I assume they mean treated cardboard when they say 'plastic') to try to have the same effect as the plastic bag tax, which has reduced usage of single use carrier bags by about 85%. Unfortunately, I don't think it will work unless it's thought through a bit more.

The point is that the plastic bag tax works because people pay it explicitly and separately. If you use a bag you pay a visible fee. But a coffee cup charge will inevitably be absorbed into the price of a coffee because it's not really a separate item. You can't just have the coffee and not the cup. People won't notice it the same way.

Admittedly, there is a kind of way to have coffee without a cup, and that's to take your own cup in. Starbucks, for example, have a 25p discount on takeaway coffee if you do this. So they are effectively imposing a 25p disposable coffee cup tax - five times as much as that proposed by the Lib Dems. And certainly some people do take their own, but it's an inconvenient thing to do, compared with a carrier bag you can stuff in your pocket. Based on observation on visits to the chain, it's a tiny proportion of people who do - probably significantly less than 8.5% rather than 85%.

For this kind of action to deliver you have to do two things - make the tax visible and easy to avoid by doing the right thing, then to monitor alternatives to ensure you're not just shifting the problem elsewhere. The carrier bag tax has done the first of these, which is great. I haven't seen any reporting on the shifting of the problem, however, which is a little worrying. I know that when Ireland introduced a similar tax there was a surge in production of other types of plastic bag to cover situations where people had been repurposing carrier bags, so the actual reduction in plastic film going into the environment was significantly less than the apparent reduction by merely looking at carrier bag use. I've not seen any figures for this in the UK yet.

Environmental measures should not just be for appearance's sake. They need to deliver a benefit and to have a measurable impact. And I find it hard to believe that the 5p coffee cup tax would be anything more than greenwash.

This has been a  green heretic  production.


1 like ·   •  4 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 17, 2017 01:13
Comments Showing 1-4 of 4 (4 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Adam (new)

Adam Price inelasticity


message 2: by Jim (last edited May 25, 2017 09:10AM) (new)

Jim I know yours is a commentary on "social engineering", not material science.

Still, you may appreciate this article from Reason.com

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Sep. 1, 2015

http://reason.com/archives/2015/09/01...

Here is a list of things that are thicker than a typical plastic grocery bag: A strand of hair. A coat of paint. A human cornea.

High-density polyethylene is a miracle of materials science. Despite weighing less than 5 grams, one bag can hold 17 pounds, well over 1,000 times its own weight. At about a penny apiece, the bags are cheap enough for stores to give away and sturdy enough to carry home two gallons of milk in the evening and still be up to the task of scooping Cujo's poop the next morning.



KM-W goes on to provide context, which per usual is considerably more complex than the usual journalist's characterizations

(Katherine Mangu-Ward is no mere "journalist")

The finish:

The technology behind plastic grocery bags is so useful it won a Nobel Prize. Employing an unimaginably small amount of base material, manufacturers can create tools of surprising strength and durability. Far from being the environmental threat activists make them out to be, plastic bags are not particularly to blame for clogged sewers, choked rivers, asphyxiated sea animals, or global warming. Instead, they are likely our best bet for carrying all of our junk in a responsible manner.

Don't believe the haters. Plastic bags are good for you.



message 3: by Brian (new)

Brian Clegg Jim wrote: "I know yours is a commentary on "social engineering", not material science.

Still, you may appreciate this article from Reason.com

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Sep. 1, 2015

http://reason.com/archives/2..."


Thanks for that. I agree about sea animals, though they did contribute quite a lot to visible rubbish on the street and quite a few tonnes did go to landfill.

I struggled to find a Nobel Prize that fits unless it's the 1963 Chemistry one, but that was for plastics in general - do you know which one she is referring to?


message 4: by Jim (last edited May 25, 2017 10:02AM) (new)

Jim Why not email her (address is "public" like many at Reason.com) ?

kmw@reason.com

and copy me:

jimsusky<{}>yahoo<{}>com

You may appreciate Reason.com - lots of very smart folks - who mostly are aware of their own "confirmation biases", respect actual evidence (that is are skeptical), and seem to know how to innumerate (and how sadly unusual is THAT?).

In particular I like Ron Bailey's popular science writing and his:

End of Doom a tonic for the various innumerate Chicken Little's and their unsupported theories:

https://reason.com/people/ronald-bail...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/End-Doom-Env...

(nice summary of Chicken Little Stories on the review at the top)


back to top