Bag Ban Bad For Freedom And Environment Rhetorical Analysis

Adam B. Summers address the people of California in his 2013 article, “Bag Ban Bad for Freedom and Environment.” California had just recently escaped a bill that would ban all plastic bags in stores. This upset many environmentalists, so Summers wrote his article to show why plastic bags should exist in society. Summers’ article could easily fail as an argument, as many people support the environment and have continuously heard about the dangers of plastic bags. However, Summers builds three tiers of arguments by cleverly using rhetorical strategies. In his article “Bag Ban Bad for Freedom and Environment,” Summer approaches the argument reasonably and logically, uses multiple sources of evidence and facts, and appeals to people’s sense of freedom to effectively convince readers people should have the ability to choose to buy plastic bags.
First, Summers approaches the argument logically, instead

of coming from a place of sentiment, and encourages his readers to follow suit. He states, “While public debate over plastic bag bans often devolves into emotional pleas to save the planet or preserve marine life (and, believe me, I love sea turtles as much as the next guy), a little reason and perspective is in order.” Here, he conveys an important truth. Many people visualize heartbreaking pictures of marine animals with their heads trapped in plastic bags and immediately denounce plastic. However, Summers brings up this argument immediately after summarizing the bill to change readers mindsets going into his argument. This statement allows readers to understand Summers cares about the environment, but he wants readers to open their minds to the facts and evidence that follows. By asking people to momentarily change their mindsets early on, Summers establishes a solid path forward in his argument.
Next, Summers uses credible sources, facts, and evidence to explain why plastic bags do not harm society. First, he puts plastic bags into perspective by using a credible source as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stated, “plastic bags, sacks, and wraps of all kinds…make up only about 1.6 percent of all municipal solid waste materials. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) bags, which are the most common kind of plastic grocery bags, make up just 0.3 percent of this total.” Also, he shows plastic bags actually produce less greenhouse gas emissions as they “require 70 percent less energy to make, generate 80 percent less waste, and utilize less than 4 percent of the amount of water needed to manufacture [paper or cotton bags].” He also reveals another downside of banning plastic bags: public health. According to a statistical analysis by University of Pennsylvania, “San Francisco’s plastic bag ban in 2007 resulted in a subsequent spike in hospital emergency room visits due to E. coli, salmonella, and campylobacter-related intestinal infectious diseases.” Food contamination actually increased due to bacteria lingering in reusable bags. Summers overloads his article with studies, facts, and examples to back up all his points that plastic bags serve a purpose in the world.
After his logical appeal and factual appeal, Summers uses one last appeal for any remaining doubtful reader: the freedom appeal.

He states, “environmentalists have every right to try to convince people to adopt certain beliefs or lifestyles, but they do not have the right to use government force to compel people to live the way they think best.” Summers reveals a flaw in the plan to use the government to ban plastic bags. Studies show plastic bags actually help society, so banning them would force society to adopt a lifestyle change. However, America allows people to make choices and live life freely. Ending his essay, Summers summarizes his point, “In a free society, we are able to live our lives as we please…That includes the right to make such fundamental decisions as “Paper or plastic?” Environmentalists know they need freedom to continue advocating for their causes, so they must show this freedom to others. By saving this argument for the end, Summers clinches an already strong argument by showing readers why Americans have an inherent right to choose plastic

bags.
“Bag Ban Bad for Freedom and Environment” could have unsuccessfully argued the place of plastic bags in society. However, Summers brilliantly built his three leveled argument. He started at the top of the tier, where he asked people to simply consider this argument from a logical standpoint. Then, he moved down to the second tier by flooding them with credible evidence and facts supporting plastic bags. Finally, he revealed the foundation of his argument: appealing to emotions by bringing up freedom. All Americans treasure the freedom they have to choose how they want to live, so readers find themselves at a loss when Summers shows this freedom includes the choice of plastic bags. By the end of Summers’ article, environmentalists may still choose to refrain from using plastic bags, but because of Summers’ use of rhetorical argument strategies, they understand people have the right to choose, and they should not take that away.