Lawmakers favored political posturing rather than data.
W ashington State lawmakers promised that banning single-use plastic bags would reduce waste, conserve resources, and protect wildlife. Instead, their virtue-signaling law has produced a humiliating series of unintended consequences that make the problem worse, while sticking retailers and consumers with the bill. The state’s own report admits as much.
According to the Washington State University research team tasked with evaluating the law, “The number of plastic bags distributed in Washington fell by 50 percent between 2021 and 2022. However, during the same time, total plastic use by weight increased by 17 percent.” Why, according to the September 2025 study findings? Because the new “reusable” bags mandated by Olympia are four times thicker and far heavier than the old ones. It’s precisely why the report recommends “removing the thickness requirement on carryout bags and allowing retailers to provide single-use, 0.5 mil plastic bags for a pass-through fee.”
This is a staggering indictment of environmental activism.
The state banned thin plastic bags to fight “waste, litter, and marine pollution,” but instead created a system where more plastic, not less, is now in circulation. As the report bluntly states, “For the single-use plastic bag ban to be effective in reducing plastic use by weight, the number of plastic bags distributed to customers on an annual basis would have to fall by 78 percent . . . [instead] total plastic use by weight has increased by an estimated 17 percent from 2021 to 2022.”
Retailers are being crushed by costs, too. The law forces stores to charge eight cents per bag, but that doesn’t cover their expenses.
A 2024 survey by the Northwest Grocery Retailers Association found “paper bags have an average cost of $0.16/bag to retailers, and reusable plastic film bags have an average cost of $0.10 to $0.39/bag.” With the mandated fee capped at $0.08, “retailers are spending more acquiring their bags from distributors than they can make back.” In other words, lawmakers handed grocery stores and small shops a hidden tax they can’t recover.
And consumers aren’t reusing these heavier bags enough to justify their higher environmental cost. The report cites studies showing “consumers typically do not reuse their bags enough to compensate for the higher external costs of production and distribution.” This phenomenon is similar to that observed by New Jersey’s bag-ban crusade, as detailed by National Review’s Noah Rothman.
The state admits there hasn’t even been an assessment of actual reuse rates in Washington. Translation? They banned bags without bothering to learn whether people would change their habits.
The transportation and emissions trade-offs are equally embarrassing. Before, a pallet could carry 72,000 single-use bags. Now? Just 2,400 of the thicker ones. That means more trucks on the road, more emissions, and more inefficiency. The report states clearly: “Transporting 2.25 mil reusable plastic bags is also less efficient, with fewer bags fitting on each pallet (2,400 reusable bags/pallet vs 72,000 single-use bags/pallet yielding fewer bags per truckload. For the single-use plastic bag ban to be effective in reducing plastic bag transportation costs (and emissions), plastic bag use has to fall by 66 percent relative to plastic bag pre-ban.”
Even the recycling benefits are questionable.
Washington’s Department of Ecology survey found that while “71 percent of respondents report offering curbside recycling for paper bags, only 3 percent offer curbside recycling opportunities for plastic carryout bags.” So most of these thicker bags end up in the garbage — or worse, in the environment, where they take longer to break down.
Lawmakers built this house of cards on political posturing rather than data. The Commerce Department itself concedes the study was hamstrung.
“The contracted research team was unable to obtain sufficient data on the quantities of bags distributed, retail prices, or reuse rates within Washington to effectively evaluate the law’s impact,” the report states. In other words, they didn’t know what they were doing, and they still don’t.
Meanwhile, the “pass-through charge” exemption for food benefit customers has created confusion and noncompliance. The Department of Ecology received “112 reports of noncompliance where businesses charged food benefits customers the bag fee.” So even the equity angle — a favorite talking point of progressive lawmakers — was botched.
The law meant to reduce plastic has increased plastic. A law meant to relieve environmental burdens has worsened them. And a law meant to ease recycling has made it harder.
The report’s authors offer a devastating summary: “Without sufficient reuse, reusable carryout bags made of paper, plastic, or fabric have higher environmental lifecycle costs than their single-use counterparts.” Exactly. By pushing a feel-good ban, Washington Democrats managed to design a policy that fails its own stated goals.
This is the story of progressive governance in the Pacific Northwest: slogans over science, mandates over markets, and the inevitable boomerang of unintended consequences. Washington’s bag ban didn’t save the planet. It just made life harder, costlier, and dirtier. And, of course, Washington State Commerce and Ecology don’t recommend reversing course on the plastic bag ban.