A recent column of mine got a lot of attention from environmentalists on Twitter. I argued that the plastic bag ban failed to account for real-world human behaviour. I pointed out that I’ve had the same reusable bags for years, so on the off chance I forget to bring them to the grocery store I end up throwing out the reusable bags I have to buy since plastic bags are no longer available.
I got a lot of suggestions for how I can avoid throwing out bags in the future, most of which entail me carrying stuff every time I leave the house (which I do when I plan to go shopping). I think this underscored my point: people aren’t perfect, and environmental policy needs to recognize that we won’t always make optimal choices.
To be clear, the feedback was largely healthy and constructive—even if some people seem to think I should spend the rest of my days roaming the earth doing good works as penance for throwing out a reusable bag. I understand the urge to reduce waste. But I think the plastic bag ban, and many other all-or-nothing policies, make the perfect the enemy of the good.
I say this for a number of reasons. For one thing, it’s possible to reduce the number of bags used without banning them entirely. Moreover, highly symbolic and annoying policies might not be politically durable. The plastic straw ban (which I’m much less personally fussed about) is another example. But, more to the point, if individual environmental policies are annoying enough to become electorally salient, they could well undermine other higher-impact environmental policies.
When politicians get out of step with the public, even when tackling problems the electorate wants to solve, the public can get mad. Consider, for instance, the mere mention by Hillary Clinton of shutting down coal plants. Arguably that was a contributing factor to her losing Pennsylvania, and therefore the presidency. People don’t like feeling punished. That’s how you get Trump.
Now, that isn’t a reason not to make hard decisions. It’s an argument for picking battles and trying to persuade the public rather than trying to push them along. There are a lot of really high-impact environmental policies that we should pursue. Allowing more high-density housing within major cities would be a huge win for the environment. As would ending mandatory minimum parking requirements and road user fees. I recognize that these aren’t easy sells. But I think these are policies worth burning political capital for.
Of course, you’re probably not going to get the pure form of any of those policies outside of specific cases. We’ve seen a lot of policy movement towards allowing more density in North American cities. Lots of details remain to be sorted out, though. We’ve seen many cities reduce or eliminate parking minimums. Road user fees, on the other hand, have been far less popular. Even Ontario couldn’t manage to add tolls to existing (or proposed) highways. Progressive British Columbia even rolled back bridge tolls. And no one is seriously entertaining a congestion charge for the GTA or Lower Mainland, even though it’s the only plausible fix for traffic congestion (“free” roads work about as well as “free” concert tickets).
In short, you’re not getting everything you want, and me throwing out a bag every week or two isn’t going to change that. Broad environmental policies that encourage every household to be a little bit more environmentally conscious here and there are going to do far more than trying to ensure that people use zero shopping bags. People don’t always act precisely how you want. And they vote, often motivated by things or people that annoy them.
Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If you want to help the environment, focus on the low-hanging fruit like making it easier and cheaper for people to live lower-impact, urban lifestyles. There’s plenty of pent-up demand for that right now, as you can see reflected in Toronto and Vancouver housing prices. Meet people where they’re at with policies today and persuade them to go further tomorrow.
I hear you saying: but there is no tomorrow if we don’t act now. To which I’ll reply: acting today isn’t much good if it’s going to undermine all of your efforts tomorrow.
