Early last week, Seattle became the first major city in the U.S. to ban plastic straws in food-service establishments, as well as plastic utensils and plastic cups. These establishments are now responsible for finding alternatives to plastic straws. Non-compliance could end up costing $250 in fines. This policy is meant to address the increasing amount of marine plastic pollution that has ended up in the ocean. Plastic is a particular issue because it is not biodegradable, i.e., it does not break into compounds that can be easily reused. Globally, 275 metric tons of plastic waste is generated every year, 4 to 12 million metric tons of which goes into the ocean (Jambeck et al., 2015). The goal of a plastic straw ban is to minimize the impact that our consumption has on our oceans. Because of these environmental concerns, the European Union, Vancouver, the United Kingdom, California, and New York City are all considering plastic straw bans.
Let's partake in a thought exercise here for a moment. Let's assume that we could get all 50 states in the U.S. to ban plastic straws right now. What would be the impact? Would it tackle the issue of marine plastic pollution like plastic straw ban proponents would like? I actually have a few reasons to be skeptical of success:
Straws as a percent of overall marine plastic pollution: First, it would be prudent to ask how many straws are in our oceans right now. Estimates put it at 4 percent of the plastic trash in oceans in terms of number of pieces. However, we have to remember that plastic straws are very light. In terms of tonnage, plastic straws make up 2,000 out of 9,000,000 tons, or 0.2 percent. Bloomberg had a similar estimation of 0.3 percent of all ocean plastic. That means if we were to stop producing plastic straws and were able to remove all plastic straws from the ocean, it would have such a minimal effect on the issue at hand. The effect of plastic straws in the ocean is metaphorically a drop in the ocean when comparing it to the total tonnage of plastic that makes it out into the oceans. So what is a major contributor to marine plastic pollution? According to one recent study, 46 percent of plastic waste in the ocean is from a single product: fishing nets (Lebreton et al., 2018).
The United States' contribution to marine plastic pollution: This goes back to the question of "how much does the United States [or the developed world] contributes to marine plastic pollution." The answer? The United States is responsible for 0.9 percent of marine plastic pollution (Jambeck et al., 2015), even though it accounts for about 5 percent of the global population. Assuming that the 0.9 percent proportionality carries over to the 0.3 of marine plastic pollution that is plastic straws, that would mean that U.S. straws are only responsible for 0.27 percent of marine plastic pollution. Even if the United States were responsible for all marine plastic pollution related to plastic straws (which it is not), then that would still only account for 0.3 percent of all marine plastic pollution. If the United States is not responsible for marine plastic pollution, who is? China is the largest culprit, at 28 percent (Jambeck et al., 2015). China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka account for nearly 60 percent of marine plastic pollution.
Will a plastic straw ban encourage better consumption habits?: Environmentalists are counting on there being a positive spillover effect to motivate people to reconsider their plastics consumption. I question the spillover effect on two fronts.
Past Plastic Bans
The first is that plastic straws are not the first plastic item that has been taxed or banned to incentivize better consumption patterns. The government creating interventionist policies for plastic bags have existed since 1994. California was the first U.S. state to do so in 2007. There have also been taxes and bans on plastic microbeads since 2014 (Xanthos and Walter, 2017). I don't automatically dismiss the possibility that a plastic straw ban could help shift consumption patterns. At the same time, the question that needs to be asked is "What would make a plastic straw ban different from past plastic product bans?"
Feel-Good Public Policy
Milton Friedman was famous for saying that "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs on their intentions rather than their results." That quote decidedly applies here. The question is whether people can feel good enough about it to change their habits, but not so good where it creates a euphoria from slacktivism. As already established, removing all plastic straws from the ocean and desisting from plastic straw usage does not solve the problem of marine plastic pollution by a long shot. This is not the only time this feel-good policy would come into fruition. People who by fair trade goods think they are helping out "the little guy" in developing countries. However, an understanding of the value chain would show that it is helping out the big guy, not to mention that it does not help end the cycle of poverty in these countries. There are those who feel better when they "buy local." If you prefer it, fine, but if you think you're saving the world, you're not. There are those who eat organic only either because it's healthier or because it's saving the environment. The problem with that is neither one of those reasons can withstand scrutiny. The last thing we need is more "societally acceptable," sanctioned actions that emphasize the effort over the results.
Drawbacks of a plastic straw ban: A ban is not going to save the oceans, but it will most probably do a bang-up job inconveniencing customers (particularly certain disabled customers) and creating additional issues for food-service establishments (e.g., increased shipping and storage costs, less durable products, decreased straw lifecycle, enforcement costs). I don't think a plastic straw ban nationwide would derail the restaurant business, but we do also have to consider the costs and determine whether they are outweighed by the benefits.
Conclusion: There is enough evidence that a plastic straw ban will be ineffective at stopping marine plastic pollution. The Left-leaning Vox points out that environmentalists admit that the ban is not so much about the straws as it is an initiative to point out the pervasiveness of single-use plastic in our lives, which is a tacit admission that the ban itself is ineffective. The Global Wildlife Conservation even acknowledges that forcing people to stop using straws is not effective because people generally do not like being told what to do. If a plastic straw ban is not the solution, then what is?
I agree we should have a conversation on how we, as a society, should consume less in general. Have those conversations with friends and family. Get volunteers to clean up the coastlines so less plastic enters the ocean. Nevertheless, more will need to be done. I am of the opinion the primary solution is in developing better technology, particularly that which captures land-based waste or that which can convert the plastic into reusable goods. I would argue that a Pigovian tax on plastic straws would be preferable to a ban (although not necessarily recommended). We could target fishing nets since it is the item that consists of nearly half of marine plastic pollution. In terms of geography, target the countries that are most responsible for marine plastic pollution. Making a big deal about the low-hanging fruit (i.e., the straws) distracts us from much larger pollutants. It also distracts us from policy alternatives that could actually reduce the amount of plastic pollution in the oceans and on the coastlines. There are ways to approach marine plastic pollution, but a plastic straw ban is not one.
No comments:
Post a Comment