What California's plastic bag ban reveals about regulating waste by material type

California's 2026 carryout bag reform eliminates plastic checkout carryout bags at covered grocery and retail stores statewide and makes recycled paper carryout bags, sold for a minimum charge of 10 cents, the default single-use option at the point of sale. The law decisively closes the "thick plastic" loophole that followed SB 270, but it continues to regulate primarily by material category rather than by quantified lifecycle performance metrics such as carbon intensity, water use or land-use impacts.

From thin plastic to paper

California's statewide carryout bag regime began with SB 270, which prohibited most single-use plastic carryout bags and required covered stores to sell either recycled paper bags or certified "reusable" plastic film bags for at least 10 cents. That framework, later ratified by voters, defined "reusable" largely through thickness and durability criteria rather than demonstrated reuse.

Retailer and consumer behavior under SB 270 was predictable. Stores rapidly replaced ultra-thin plastic bags with thicker plastic film bags that met statutory "reusable" standards but were often discarded after a single use. Consumers paid the fee, used the bag once and disposed of it. In many cases, total plastic resin use increased because each thicker bag contained substantially more material than the bags it replaced.

SB 1053 represents a direct response to this substitution failure. Effective Jan. 1, covered stores including supermarkets, large retailers with pharmacies, liquor stores and many convenience outlets, may no longer provide any plastic film carryout bags at checkout, regardless of thickness or claimed reusability, and instead must rely on compliant non-plastic options. At the point of sale, these stores may provide only recycled paper carryout bags and must charge at least 10 cents per bag. Beginning Jan. 1, 2028, those paper bags must contain at least 50% postconsumer recycled content, firmly entrenching paper as the default single-use checkout substrate.

CalRecycle now treats the SB 270 program structure as archived, with SB 1053 and its implementing guidance governing carryout bag requirements beginning Jan. 1, 2026. SB 1053 governs carryout bag requirements going forward.

Material-proxy design

CalRecycle's implementation guidance makes clear that the 2026 regime is categorical rather than performance based. Certain materials may appear at checkout, and others may not. Compliance is achieved by offering qualifying recycled paper carryout bags and refraining from distributing plastic carryout bags of any kind. It is not tied to demonstrated reuse rates, verified recyclability or lifecycle-impact thresholds.

This design choice is as notable for what it omits as for what it mandates. The statute does not require that paper bags, or any other permitted option, meet benchmarks for greenhouse gas emissions, water use or land-use change. Nor does it establish a framework for comparing the environmental impacts of paper, plastic, textiles or emerging bio-based materials used in reusable designs.

Instead, California continues a familiar regulatory approach: using visible materials at checkout as proxies for environmental harm. The regulatory focus remains on what consumers see and hold, rather than on upstream extraction, processing and downstream disposal where many of the most significant environmental impacts occur.

Material substitution and lifecycle blind spots

Experience under SB 270 demonstrates the risks of regulating by material proxy rather than by outcome. After the first-generation ban took effect, thicker "reusable" plastic bags increased plastic consumption in some contexts because they required more resin while reuse behavior remained largely unchanged.

The 2026 expansion seeks to sever the link between grocery transactions and plastic carryout packaging by eliminating plastic film at checkout entirely. Yet in doing so, the law redirects demand toward wood-based recycled paper bags as the sole permissible checkout carryout option.

Paper production is energy- and water-intensive, relies on chemical pulping processes, and implicates forestry practices with significant land-use, carbon and biodiversity consequences that vary widely across supply chains. Even with recycled-content mandates, increased paper demand can place pressure on virgin fiber markets, particularly during periods of pulp scarcity or price volatility.

Plastic reduction at checkout therefore does not automatically equate to environmental harm reduction. Without lifecycle-based metrics for carbon emissions, water use or land conversion, the law regulates what consumers see at the register rather than the environmental burdens embedded in each bag.

Compostables and pre-checkout complexity

Certified compostable bags retain a limited role in California's framework, but not as checkout carryout bags. Instead, they appear primarily in pre-checkout contexts, such as bags used to contain loose produce or prevent contamination of other items, subject to separate statutory standards.

Most compostable plastics, including those made from polylactic acid or starch-based polymers, require high-temperature industrial composting facilities to break down as advertised. In jurisdictions lacking such infrastructure, these materials may persist in landfills, generate methane under anaerobic conditions, or contaminate recycling streams.

The continued presence of compostables elsewhere in the retail environment underscores a broader regulatory challenge: material substitution without infrastructure alignment. Compostable labeling may signal environmental benefit to consumers even where real-world disposal conditions prevent those benefits from materializing.

Small business compliance burdens

SB 1053 applies uniformly across covered stores rather than scaling obligations by revenue, transaction volume or floor area. As a result, small retailers may face disproportionate compliance costs compared with larger chains that enjoy greater purchasing power and supply-chain leverage.

For corner stores and small-format retailers, shifting from low-cost plastic to compliant paper bags can significantly increase per-transaction costs, particularly as pulp price volatility, transportation expenses and certification premiums are passed through by suppliers.

The enforcement structure compounds these pressures. The statute authorizes civil liability of $1,000 per day for a first violation, $2,000 per day for a second violation and $5,000 per day for third and subsequent violations. These penalties are not calibrated to a retailer's environmental footprint or economic capacity and bear little relationship to actual environmental harm.

The absence of phased-in compliance, de minimis thresholds or tailored safe harbors raises concerns about proportionality and economic equity. Small businesses risk becoming the financing mechanism for a highly visible but imperfectly targeted waste-reduction strategy, even though their individual contribution to statewide plastic pollution is minimal.

Bioplastics, labeling and green marketing risks

California law restricts unqualified "biodegradable" and "compostable" claims unless products meet specific standards, reflecting longstanding concerns that many such items fail to degrade under real-world conditions. Nonetheless, compliance guides and local programs often present certified compostables as environmentally preferable options in certain contexts.

This disconnect between marketing signals and actual end-of-life conditions creates classic greenwashing risks. Consumers may infer that compostable bags are environmentally benign, even where local jurisdictions lack industrial composting infrastructure capable of processing them at scale. Misplaced disposal behavior can contaminate recycling streams and reinforce a "single-use but guilt-free" mindset that undermines broader waste-reduction goals.

Alternative policy architectures

Other jurisdictions and policy advocates are increasingly exploring performance-oriented approaches that regulate outcomes rather than specifying materials. Reuse mandates can require that any bag provided at checkout meet durability standards and be designed for a minimum number of uses, with compliance tied to observed reuse behavior through audits or retailer reporting.

Economic instruments can complement these approaches. Deposit-return systems for durable bags, weight-based or carbon-adjusted bag fees, and extended producer responsibility mechanisms move policy closer to internalizing environmental costs rather than shifting them across materials.

Toward outcome-oriented reform

A more coherent next generation of California bag regulation would shift statutory focus from materials to metrics such as reuse, carbon intensity and water footprint. Legislators could require lifecycle analysis as a condition for approving any carryout bag eligible for checkout, embedding performance standards into CalRecycle's regulatory authority and guidance.

Public lifecycle disclosures through labeling, retailer reporting or centralized databases could illuminate trade-offs among plastic, paper, textiles and bio-based alternatives. Small-business safe harbors calibrated to volume, revenue or hardship could allow phased implementation, reduced penalties or pooled purchasing without undermining environmental objectives.

Regulating outcomes, not optics

California's 2026 plastic checkout bag ban represents a politically powerful response to plastic pollution and decisively closes the loophole created by thick plastic "reusable" bags. Yet its legal design continues to regulate waste primarily by material proxy, privileging visible change at the checkout counter over measurable lifecycle outcomes.

Unless paired with reuse-centered mandates, lifecycle-based performance standards, and calibrated compliance pathways for small businesses, the policy risks exchanging visible plastic litter and marine debris for a less visible suite of climate, water and land-use impacts embedded in paper and other substitutes. The disappearance of plastic bags from checkouts will matter most if future reforms reward genuine reuse and penalize lifecycle harm, rather than simply steering consumers from one material category to another.