By Peter Shmigel, Director Sustainability

If there's one thing that Peter Garrett's threat to ban plastic bags proves, it's that he's still good at show biz. While style and symbolism are undeniably important in politics, let's hope our new Enviro Minister will be equally adept at the policy substance in months to come. Indeed, it would be great to see him next try his hand at some other, more substantive bans.

So, why all the excitement? Well, plastic bags are a classic negative icon if you're trying to get column inches in the enviro debate. They're everywhere and part of everyday life. They're ugly when littered. They remind us about our consumptive, wasteful ways. They certainly can kill critters. And, very importantly, they're easy for journos to understand as a story. Why do you think you see rival environmental spokespeople – such as Jon Dee of Planet Ark and Ian Kiernan of Clean Up Australia -- falling over each other to 'own' the issue?

While the plastic shopping bag definitely has an environmental impact and while that impact should be minimised wherever possible, it’s comparative impact is low. The bottom line is that the plastic bag is a very light weight article that is small in area. That each bag is so cheap largely reflects how little resource goes into producing it - even accounting for what we geeks call "the non-monetisation of its environmental externalities".

The reality is that the plastic bag simply doesn’t do nearly the kind of damage that other things we use in daily life do. Plus, focussing policy on banning the bag detracts from any number of serious reforms, including other potential bans.

Let’s note that in policy terms a ban of any sort is what's called a 'blunt instrument'. Namely, it’s likely to create significant collateral costs for some group in society. So, if you are to use a ban, do it judiciously where the benefits of action are greatest. Here’s a few suggestion – solely from the waste minimisation arena – where bans would deliver much greater benefits that those associated with banning the bag:

• Ban organic material from landfill. Most of what goes to and decomposes in our landfills (and creates 3% of Australia’s greenhouse gases) is stuff like garden waste and food scraps. Nearly all of this material can be recovered for beneficial and job-creating uses like composting on residential and agricultural scales and renewable energy production.

• Ban computers, TVs and other ‘electronica’ from landfill. The various digital bits and pieces are the fastest growing segment of Australia’s waste stream. Some of this material is quite toxic, including heavy metals such as lead from batteries. Again, a considerable proportion of these goods – such as their plastic, gold and copper content – can be recovered as part of new sustainable industries. Indeed, probably less than 2% of all computers are currently being recycled.

• Ban biohazardous material from landfill. With our society’s ageing demographic, there’s an increasing amount of medical waste around and more of it is inappropriately ending up in landfill where it can create significant human health issues.

• Ban introduction of packaging materials which can’t generally be recycled in existing Australian systems

And, there are many other bans beyond waste that are equally applicable, such as banning cars that don’t meet an annual pollution emission and fuel efficiency test.

Each of the above steps – though thoroughly unsexy – would address a market failure, deliver a superior environmental outcome than banning bags, and stimulate new "sustainability industries". They're also easier to police - who's going to be keeping an eye on millions of shops in thousands of High Streets?

Moreover, if your aim is to get supermarkets per se to show greater environmental responsibility, encourage them toward better environmental labelling of consumer products. Why not give the consumer more information and choices about the environmental footprint of what's in their shopping trollies not just what they use to get stuff home in?

Banning plastic bags – while populist and there’s nothing wrong with that – seems a bit redundant. Namely, there’s been a steady decline in bag use for the last five years as a result of community and consumer education – all of it paid for by the supermarkets rather than the taxpayer. Many people are steadily moving to the reuseable bag alternative – a ban just sends the signal that their efforts haven’t been good enough. Moreover, the policy alternative - the plastic bag levy – applies to those who don’t do the right thing while not punishing those that do.

Indeed, if as government you’re getting a decent environmental trend and somebody else is paying for it, why not focus public policy priorities where that isn’t happening? While I strongly support the principle of consumer-based environmental responsibility, let’s hope the next time the Minister suggests a ban it will be on something big and bad rather than just what’s easily understood and visible.