[sitharus]

Plastic bags are _short term_ less costly to produce, but unlike paper they do not readily degrade in the environment and produce long term environmental damage. They're not the only or largest proportion of plastic pollution, but you move a mountain one stone at a time.

Reusable bags are a habit thing. Once you're in the habit of taking bags with you it's much easier, but is a right pain until then.

I do agree a minimum price might be better, at least that would make medium-term degradable bags (corn starch etc) more readily used as they're currently out priced by non-degradable plastics. However sometimes the outright ban gets things moving faster.

For reference plastic bags have been banned where I live for two months now. I don't miss them.

[skybrian]

Environmental damage depends on them getting into the environment. If they're properly disposed I don't see the harm?

[standardUser]

The problem is that there is no "proper" way to dispose of plastics. That's why plastics have become such a problem. They simply accumulate in the environment.

[magduf]

You can say that about anything. If things are "properly" disposed of, they go in the landfill. Decomposition isn't an issue, because stuff doesn't really decompose that much in landfills: they've dug up old landfills and found newspapers perfectly intact from the early 20th century. The main problem with plastic bags is what happens when they aren't disposed of properly. Paper bag litter will decompose fairly quickly, but plastic bags don't. The corn starch ones are a lot better, and have been around for decades now, so I'm not sure why those aren't required everywhere that still uses plastic bags, because they would ameliorate the problem significantly.

[skybrian]

That's not true. Landfills are quite effective at keeping stuff out of the environment. We have the technology.