IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/jsd123/v11y2018i3p158.html

Is Plastic Bag Ordinance Effective? Evidence from Carbon Emissions in China

Author

Listed:
  • Xiufeng Xing
  • Hongyu Liu

Abstract

China has enacted the ordinance of plastic shopping bags since June 1 of 2008, which stipulates the bag thickness should be greater than or equal to 25 micrometers and consumers should pay for each bag they consume. However, the overall effect of the ordinance is lower-than-expected. This paper qualifies the carbon emissions associated with plastic shopping bag consumption in a fifteen year time series. The results indicate that, except for 2008, carbon emissions are on a continuous increase during this period. With respect to carbon emissions in 2008, there does appear a local minimum. Specifically, the carbon emissions relating to plastic bags in 2008 dropped 0.87% when compared with the emissions of 2007. This is not to suggest that the ordinance is effective in the long term, just that there is a slight carbon emission reduction in 2008. The transitory reduction of carbon emissions should be more attributed to the impact of Beijing Olympic Games than the effectiveness of the ordinance in hindsight. From 2009 on, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions generated by plastic shopping bags grows by 0.7-0.8% annually. Also, a two-child policy has taken into effect since 2011 which results in the net increase rate of entire population by 0.05% annually. When taken Beijing 2008 Olympic Games as well as the two-child population policy effect into consideration, it thus implies that the plastic bag ordinance may not be much effective to curb the bag usage in the long run. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiufeng Xing & Hongyu Liu, 2018. "Is Plastic Bag Ordinance Effective? Evidence from Carbon Emissions in China," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(3), pages 158-158, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:jsd123:v:11:y:2018:i:3:p:158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/download/73969/41853
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/73969
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank Convery & Simon McDonnell & Susana Ferreira, 2007. "The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 1-11, September.
    2. Reviva Hasson & Anthony Leiman & Martine Visser, 2007. "The Economics Of Plastic Bag Legislation In South Africa1," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 75(1), pages 66-83, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jingze Jiang, 2016. "Peer Pressure in Voluntary Environmental Programs: a Case of the Bag Rewards Program," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 155-190, June.
    2. Okto Irianto & Kosuke Mizuno & Safri Burhanuddin & Ninasapti Triaswati, 2022. "Formulating an Excise Duty on Plastic: A Strategy to Manage Marine Plastic Waste in Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Thornton Matheson, 2022. "Disposal is not free: fiscal instruments to internalize the environmental costs of solid waste," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(4), pages 1047-1073, August.
    4. Johane Dikgang & Martine Visser, 2012. "Behavioural Response To Plastic Bag Legislation In Botswana," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 80(1), pages 123-133, March.
    5. Doris Knoblauch & Linda Mederake & Ulf Stein, 2018. "Developing Countries in the Lead—What Drives the Diffusion of Plastic Bag Policies?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-24, June.
    6. Irina Zen & Rahmalan Ahamad & Wahid Omar, 2013. "No plastic bag campaign day in Malaysia and the policy implication," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 1259-1269, October.
    7. Tatiana A. Homonoff, 2018. "Can Small Incentives Have Large Effects? The Impact of Taxes versus Bonuses on Disposable Bag Use," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 177-210, November.
    8. Dikgang, Johane & Leiman, Anthony & Visser, Martine, 2012. "Analysis of the plastic-bag levy in South Africa," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 59-65.
    9. Gregory DeAngelo & Rainita Narender & Rustam Romaniuc, 2024. "Nudging law enforcement: evidence from low priority initiatives," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 321-354, October.
    10. Yu-Kai Huang & Richard T. Woodward, 2022. "Spillover Effects of Grocery Bag Legislation: Evidence of Bag Bans and Bag Fees," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(4), pages 711-741, April.
    11. Yong Li & Bairong Wang, 2021. "Go Green and Recycle: Analyzing the Usage of Plastic Bags for Shopping in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-10, November.
    12. Mattauch, Linus & Hepburn, Cameron & Stern, Nicholas, 2018. "Pigou pushes preferences: decarbonisation and endogenous values," INET Oxford Working Papers 2018-16, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    13. Rebecca L. Taylor & Sofia B. Villas-Boas, 2016. "Bans vs. Fees: Disposable Carryout Bag Policies and Bag Usage," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 351-372.
    14. Chad S. Boda & David O’Byrne & David Harnesk & Turaj Faran & Ellinor Isgren, 2022. "A collective alternative to the Inward Turn in environmental sustainability research," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(2), pages 291-297, June.
    15. Flora Budianto & Jana Lippelt, 2010. "Kurz zum Klima: Plastiktüten - nicht länger tragbar," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 63(14), pages 41-43, July.
    16. Goshu Desalegn & Anita Tangl, 2022. "Banning Vs Taxing, Reviewing the Potential Opportunities and Challenges of Plastic Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, June.
    17. Walter Leal Filho & Jelena Barbir & Pınar Gökçin Özuyar & Enrique Nunez & Jose Manuel Diaz-Sarachaga & Bertrand Guillaume & Rosley Anholon & Izabela Simon Rampasso & Julia Swart & Luis Velazquez & The, 2022. "Assessing Provisions and Requirements for the Sustainable Production of Plastics: Towards Achieving SDG 12 from the Consumers’ Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-23, December.
    18. Hüseyin GÜRBÜZ & Veysel YILMAZ, 2018. "Investigation of Attitudes and Behaviours of University Students on the Use of Plastic Bags by Structural Equation Modelling," Sosyoekonomi Journal, Sosyoekonomi Society, issue 26(38).
    19. Bairong Wang & Yuhua Zhao & Yong Li, 2021. "How Do Tougher Plastics Ban Policies Modify People’s Usage of Plastic Bags? A Case Study in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-8, October.
    20. Taylor, Rebecca & Villas-Boas, Sofia B., 2015. "Bans versus Fees: Disposable Carryout Bag Policies and Bag Usage," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 204783, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:jsd123:v:11:y:2018:i:3:p:158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.