Are waste bans an efficient strategy to help people reduce plastic waste?
Background of the Controversy
While they are ubiquitous today, people didn’t always use plastic bags to the extent that they are used today. Plastic bags weren’t developed until 1933, when polyethylene, the primary plastic used in bags, was created by accident at a chemical plant in England. In 1965, plastic bags began to replace cloth bags at stores in Europe. By 1979, 80% of the bag market in Europe was controlled by plastic bags, their popularity was beginning to spread across the globe. As plastic bags and other single-use plastic became more popular, their environmental consequences became more popular as well.
Marine life became threatened in 1997, as many sea-creatures like turtles would mistake plastic bags for jellyfish and would eat them, causing them to suffocate. Though it took almost 40 years to develop single-use plastic as we know it today, it only took until 2002 for countries to begin restricting plastic, only five years after the environmental threats began. In 2002, Bangladesh became the first country to issue a ban on single-use plastic bags, in response to the bags clogging the country’s drainage system and causing disastrous flooding.
Plastic bag bans continued to pop up around the world— as of 2020, 69 countries have issued either major restrictions or bans on single-use plastic. Some of these countries have issued alternative methods to polyethylene bags. For example, Kenya has created a thicker synthetic fabric that they use primarily for bagging. Other countries, like the UK, implemented a tax on those who choose to use plastic bags as a way to incentivize using more sustainable options. Because of the increasingly obvious dangers of plastic bags, it is expected that more countries will continue to consider restricting their usage. Some states in The United States have already begun the process. On March 1st of 2020, New York no longer offered plastic bags as an option to shoppers. California, Hawaii, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Oregon, and Vermont have also issued bans. However, despite the increasing risk of plastic, some still are resistant to the idea of a ban. Plastic is an extremely cost and space-efficient product for businesses to use. Additionally, businesses prefer to have consistent policies between stores. These arguments particularly struck a chord with Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin. In 2017, Walker signed a bill that banned a plastic bag ban in all counties of Wisconsin as a preemptive measure while plastic bans were on the rise. This bill was met with public outcry, especially from the community of Milwaukee, which is more affected by the litter of plastic bags than any other community in Wisconsin. Despite this backlash and the change in leadership from Walker to Evers, the ban remains in place due to the Republican majority state congress and the continued support of the bill from Wisconsin businesses.
Current Controversy
Unfortunately, this ban is still in place with big business profiting off of the use of polyethylene. In 2016 Governor Scott Walker signed 56 bills on a variety of issues including no usage of cellphones while driving in construction zones to no bans on plastic bags. According to assembly bill 730, No local government can ban grocers from using plastic bags. While this was five years ago, the ban is still in place despite evidence pointing towards the harm that the polyethylene has on our environment. The environmental protection agency recorded that between 500 billion and 1 trillion plastic bags are used each year with an estimated average time of use of only 12 minutes. Many people do not take into consideration.what it took to create the single bag they are using. It takes 11 billion pounds of fossil fuels and 19.5 billion gallons of fresh water to make 500 billion plastic bags. Which is approximately 3.52 ounces of fossil fuel per plastic bag which is roughly the weight of a deck of cards. All of this adds up and depletes resources that are non renewable, so how can republican legislators push for plastic bags with an environmental cost this large?
The bill for this was presented by Representatives Rohrkaste, et al.. Many of these representatives, all of whom were republican got this bill idea from ALEC. ALEC is short for the American Legislative Exchange Council who writes legislature and gives it to representatives like the ones listed above. ALEC is involved in a lot of legislative action that promotes big business.While these councils and people are praying on the downfall of the environment, there is still hope. The popular opinion in the city of Milwaukee is that people do not like plastic bags and prefer using alternatives such as paper bags, or reusable bags. Organizations such as the Milwaukee Bucks and Milwaukee Brewers are opting for all paper straws and will no longer sell plastic straws. This is a powerful move due to the number of locals that attend these games. With an influence as heavy as the sports teams in Milwaukee, many businesses will be sure to follow in the footsteps. Unfortunately, many businesses do not want to switch from the plastic bags due to various reasons, all of which are claimed to be economic. Plastic bags take up 1/7 of the space that paper bags do so of course it is more convenient for businesses to select plastic bags. At what point do we sacrifice some of our convenience for the sake of our very own earth?
Ethics Surrounding Plastic Consumption and Waste
The ethics surrounding single-use plastic can become murky when considering all the different stakeholders and their conflicting perspectives. While scientists working with polyethylene, plastic manufacturers, and disabled individuals may be in favor of the use of single-use plastic, it is clear that the waste plastic creates is too severe to overlook. Something clearly must be done, but whose responsibility is it? In reality, it should be up to the major corporations involved in the extraction, production, and distribution of plastic that should be held accountable. This same argument has been made by the early environmentalists of the 70s, who back then pushed for a ban on plastic (Goodwine). However, plastic is valuable to these corporations and their consumers. . There is little to no extrinsic incentive for these corporations to behave sustainably. Plastic, on the other hand, perfectly encapsulates the values of consumption: affordable, accessible, and convenient. Why would these businesses ever change their ways when their ways are making them profit?
Thus, the slack dropped by corporations must be picked up by individuals. Individuals have two options when considering single-use plastic waste: to reduce the plastic waste itself, or to reduce their consumption of plastic. To reduce waste itself is a preventative measure at best. Methods like incineration and recycling may seem appealing to individuals as it allows them to continue their behavior while still seemingly helping the cause.These measures do not do enough to curb the detrimental effects of single-use plastics. Incineration puts harmful pollutants into the air and 9% of all the plastic ever made have been recycled. It is clear that another approach is necessary to help the environment. This is where reducing consumption comes in. Reducing consumption both eliminates the issues of both plastic production and disposal. Additionally, by minimizing our consumption of plastic, we help move away from a culture of disposability. From a moral standpoint, reduction of consumption is also superior as it decreases behaviors that are detrimental to the environment, instead of decreasing the consequences of those behaviors. Clearly, reduction of consumption is a more cohesive way to combat plastic waste. But just what options are there for consumption reduction?
Solutions
There are many different options to reduce consumption, but most communities do one of two: either a “sin tax” on single-use plastic, or a ban on single-use plastic completely. A sin tax is a tax picked up by the buyer that is placed on “morally bad” goods and services, in order to incentivize not buying those things. Some popular examples are gambling at a casino or alcohol. People are generally receptive to sin taxes for multiple reasons. For one, it protects the consumer’s agency and allows them to choose which method of consumption works for them. Furthermore, the funding that comes from the sin taxes are most times used to fund more sustainable options for other consumers. However, sin taxes fall short as they create a bigger class divide between upper and lower middle class. Sin taxes on single use plastic introduce the chance for plastic to be seen as a luxury product, versus a detriment to the environment that should be avoided. Additionally, sin taxes are also questionable on a moral level, as it can be seen as morally bad to profit off of morally bad behavior.
The other option, bans, immediately comes ahead on a consumption reduction level. It completely eliminates the option for people to contribute to waste. Some may say that this makes the environmental conservation efforts less meaningful as it forces people to be environmentally conscious, versus people actively making the choice to be sustainable, but it is naive to expect that enough people will change their consumption habits in the time needed to make a difference. By not giving other options, it forces people to consider the severity of the effects of single-use plastic and consider what other areas of their lives may have similar consequences. Bans on single-use plastic level the playing field in terms of different classes and their ability to help the environment. While bans may seem like an extreme measure that demands justification, what is more justification than the future of our planet?
According to the World Economic Forum, more plastic than fish will be found in the ocean by 2050. According to National Geographic, plastic takes over 450 years to decompose. With over 70% of plastic ending up littered or in landfills (Goodwine), it is clear that plastic poses a major threat to nature all over the world. Through our group’s research, we have determined that waste bans on single-use plastics would be the most effective strategy to curb plastic pollution. In fact, many countries around the world have either already put bans in place or aim to place bans in the near future. Kenya and Bangladesh both were pioneers in the plastic ban movement, and Canada plans to have a full ban in place by 2022. Even states in the US have begun to move towards a plastic-free future. So what makes Wisconsin resistant? When Governor Scott Walker signed the ban on bans bill, the main argument was for consistency in business practices and policies. But who are we to prioritize businesses over biomes? Who are we to place more value on cost-efficiency over species conservation?
This is where it becomes even more important for the individual to take action. Local elections can often go overlooked, but they are actually some of the most important elections in terms of environmental conservation. By electing environmentally conscious candidates to state legislation, Wisconsin can begin to move away from protecting businesses and begin to create a greener future. Additionally, it becomes more important to be proactive in reducing one’s own consumption habits on a personal level. Does an able-bodied person really need a straw along with their large soda? Would it be so inconvenient to make a one-time purchase of reusable bags to bring to the grocery store, versus getting the multiple plastic bags from the store? There is a notable saying in Marxism that “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.” Some people can take this as a sign of helplessness-- that no matter what choices we make, we are contributing to an exploitative and pollutive system. Instead, it should be taken as a sign to consume more consciously. Think critically about what you buy and what happens to it when you throw it away.
“From Birth to Ban: A History of the Plastic Shopping Bag.” UN Environment, 25 Apr. 2018, http://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/birth-ban-history-plastic-shopping-bag.
Scott Walker Signs Bills on Cellphones, Plastic Bag Bans. http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-signs-bills-on-cellphones-plastic-bag-bans-b99697580z1-374054721.html. Accessed 24 Mar. 2021.
“Walker Signs Bill Banning Bans on Plastic Bags.” Wisconsin Gazette, 1 Apr. 2016, http://www.wisconsingazette.com/?p=34497.
“Who Invented Plastic Bags & When Were They First Used?” Promotional Products Blog, 23 Nov. 2020, https://www.qualitylogoproducts.com/blog/the-history-of-plastic-bags/.
Goodwine, Kiara, "The Ethics of Single-Use Plastics" (2019). Student research. 105. https://scholarship.depauw.edu/studentresearch/105
Howard, Brian Clark, et al. “A Running List of Action on Plastic Pollution.” Environment, National Geographic, 10 Feb. 2021, www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/ocean-plastic-pollution-solutions.
“10 Shocking Facts About Plastic.” National Geographic, 25 Mar. 2021, www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/10-shocking-facts-about-plastic.
While they are ubiquitous today, people didn’t always use plastic bags to the extent that they are used today. Plastic bags weren’t developed until 1933, when polyethylene, the primary plastic used in bags, was created by accident at a chemical plant in England. In 1965, plastic bags began to replace cloth bags at stores in Europe. By 1979, 80% of the bag market in Europe was controlled by plastic bags, their popularity was beginning to spread across the globe. As plastic bags and other single-use plastic became more popular, their environmental consequences became more popular as well.
Marine life became threatened in 1997, as many sea-creatures like turtles would mistake plastic bags for jellyfish and would eat them, causing them to suffocate. Though it took almost 40 years to develop single-use plastic as we know it today, it only took until 2002 for countries to begin restricting plastic, only five years after the environmental threats began. In 2002, Bangladesh became the first country to issue a ban on single-use plastic bags, in response to the bags clogging the country’s drainage system and causing disastrous flooding.
Plastic bag bans continued to pop up around the world— as of 2020, 69 countries have issued either major restrictions or bans on single-use plastic. Some of these countries have issued alternative methods to polyethylene bags. For example, Kenya has created a thicker synthetic fabric that they use primarily for bagging. Other countries, like the UK, implemented a tax on those who choose to use plastic bags as a way to incentivize using more sustainable options. Because of the increasingly obvious dangers of plastic bags, it is expected that more countries will continue to consider restricting their usage. Some states in The United States have already begun the process. On March 1st of 2020, New York no longer offered plastic bags as an option to shoppers. California, Hawaii, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Oregon, and Vermont have also issued bans. However, despite the increasing risk of plastic, some still are resistant to the idea of a ban. Plastic is an extremely cost and space-efficient product for businesses to use. Additionally, businesses prefer to have consistent policies between stores. These arguments particularly struck a chord with Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin. In 2017, Walker signed a bill that banned a plastic bag ban in all counties of Wisconsin as a preemptive measure while plastic bans were on the rise. This bill was met with public outcry, especially from the community of Milwaukee, which is more affected by the litter of plastic bags than any other community in Wisconsin. Despite this backlash and the change in leadership from Walker to Evers, the ban remains in place due to the Republican majority state congress and the continued support of the bill from Wisconsin businesses.
Current Controversy
Unfortunately, this ban is still in place with big business profiting off of the use of polyethylene. In 2016 Governor Scott Walker signed 56 bills on a variety of issues including no usage of cellphones while driving in construction zones to no bans on plastic bags. According to assembly bill 730, No local government can ban grocers from using plastic bags. While this was five years ago, the ban is still in place despite evidence pointing towards the harm that the polyethylene has on our environment. The environmental protection agency recorded that between 500 billion and 1 trillion plastic bags are used each year with an estimated average time of use of only 12 minutes. Many people do not take into consideration.what it took to create the single bag they are using. It takes 11 billion pounds of fossil fuels and 19.5 billion gallons of fresh water to make 500 billion plastic bags. Which is approximately 3.52 ounces of fossil fuel per plastic bag which is roughly the weight of a deck of cards. All of this adds up and depletes resources that are non renewable, so how can republican legislators push for plastic bags with an environmental cost this large?
The bill for this was presented by Representatives Rohrkaste, et al.. Many of these representatives, all of whom were republican got this bill idea from ALEC. ALEC is short for the American Legislative Exchange Council who writes legislature and gives it to representatives like the ones listed above. ALEC is involved in a lot of legislative action that promotes big business.While these councils and people are praying on the downfall of the environment, there is still hope. The popular opinion in the city of Milwaukee is that people do not like plastic bags and prefer using alternatives such as paper bags, or reusable bags. Organizations such as the Milwaukee Bucks and Milwaukee Brewers are opting for all paper straws and will no longer sell plastic straws. This is a powerful move due to the number of locals that attend these games. With an influence as heavy as the sports teams in Milwaukee, many businesses will be sure to follow in the footsteps. Unfortunately, many businesses do not want to switch from the plastic bags due to various reasons, all of which are claimed to be economic. Plastic bags take up 1/7 of the space that paper bags do so of course it is more convenient for businesses to select plastic bags. At what point do we sacrifice some of our convenience for the sake of our very own earth?
Ethics Surrounding Plastic Consumption and Waste
The ethics surrounding single-use plastic can become murky when considering all the different stakeholders and their conflicting perspectives. While scientists working with polyethylene, plastic manufacturers, and disabled individuals may be in favor of the use of single-use plastic, it is clear that the waste plastic creates is too severe to overlook. Something clearly must be done, but whose responsibility is it? In reality, it should be up to the major corporations involved in the extraction, production, and distribution of plastic that should be held accountable. This same argument has been made by the early environmentalists of the 70s, who back then pushed for a ban on plastic (Goodwine). However, plastic is valuable to these corporations and their consumers. . There is little to no extrinsic incentive for these corporations to behave sustainably. Plastic, on the other hand, perfectly encapsulates the values of consumption: affordable, accessible, and convenient. Why would these businesses ever change their ways when their ways are making them profit?
Thus, the slack dropped by corporations must be picked up by individuals. Individuals have two options when considering single-use plastic waste: to reduce the plastic waste itself, or to reduce their consumption of plastic. To reduce waste itself is a preventative measure at best. Methods like incineration and recycling may seem appealing to individuals as it allows them to continue their behavior while still seemingly helping the cause.These measures do not do enough to curb the detrimental effects of single-use plastics. Incineration puts harmful pollutants into the air and 9% of all the plastic ever made have been recycled. It is clear that another approach is necessary to help the environment. This is where reducing consumption comes in. Reducing consumption both eliminates the issues of both plastic production and disposal. Additionally, by minimizing our consumption of plastic, we help move away from a culture of disposability. From a moral standpoint, reduction of consumption is also superior as it decreases behaviors that are detrimental to the environment, instead of decreasing the consequences of those behaviors. Clearly, reduction of consumption is a more cohesive way to combat plastic waste. But just what options are there for consumption reduction?
Solutions
There are many different options to reduce consumption, but most communities do one of two: either a “sin tax” on single-use plastic, or a ban on single-use plastic completely. A sin tax is a tax picked up by the buyer that is placed on “morally bad” goods and services, in order to incentivize not buying those things. Some popular examples are gambling at a casino or alcohol. People are generally receptive to sin taxes for multiple reasons. For one, it protects the consumer’s agency and allows them to choose which method of consumption works for them. Furthermore, the funding that comes from the sin taxes are most times used to fund more sustainable options for other consumers. However, sin taxes fall short as they create a bigger class divide between upper and lower middle class. Sin taxes on single use plastic introduce the chance for plastic to be seen as a luxury product, versus a detriment to the environment that should be avoided. Additionally, sin taxes are also questionable on a moral level, as it can be seen as morally bad to profit off of morally bad behavior.
The other option, bans, immediately comes ahead on a consumption reduction level. It completely eliminates the option for people to contribute to waste. Some may say that this makes the environmental conservation efforts less meaningful as it forces people to be environmentally conscious, versus people actively making the choice to be sustainable, but it is naive to expect that enough people will change their consumption habits in the time needed to make a difference. By not giving other options, it forces people to consider the severity of the effects of single-use plastic and consider what other areas of their lives may have similar consequences. Bans on single-use plastic level the playing field in terms of different classes and their ability to help the environment. While bans may seem like an extreme measure that demands justification, what is more justification than the future of our planet?
According to the World Economic Forum, more plastic than fish will be found in the ocean by 2050. According to National Geographic, plastic takes over 450 years to decompose. With over 70% of plastic ending up littered or in landfills (Goodwine), it is clear that plastic poses a major threat to nature all over the world. Through our group’s research, we have determined that waste bans on single-use plastics would be the most effective strategy to curb plastic pollution. In fact, many countries around the world have either already put bans in place or aim to place bans in the near future. Kenya and Bangladesh both were pioneers in the plastic ban movement, and Canada plans to have a full ban in place by 2022. Even states in the US have begun to move towards a plastic-free future. So what makes Wisconsin resistant? When Governor Scott Walker signed the ban on bans bill, the main argument was for consistency in business practices and policies. But who are we to prioritize businesses over biomes? Who are we to place more value on cost-efficiency over species conservation?
This is where it becomes even more important for the individual to take action. Local elections can often go overlooked, but they are actually some of the most important elections in terms of environmental conservation. By electing environmentally conscious candidates to state legislation, Wisconsin can begin to move away from protecting businesses and begin to create a greener future. Additionally, it becomes more important to be proactive in reducing one’s own consumption habits on a personal level. Does an able-bodied person really need a straw along with their large soda? Would it be so inconvenient to make a one-time purchase of reusable bags to bring to the grocery store, versus getting the multiple plastic bags from the store? There is a notable saying in Marxism that “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.” Some people can take this as a sign of helplessness-- that no matter what choices we make, we are contributing to an exploitative and pollutive system. Instead, it should be taken as a sign to consume more consciously. Think critically about what you buy and what happens to it when you throw it away.
“From Birth to Ban: A History of the Plastic Shopping Bag.” UN Environment, 25 Apr. 2018, http://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/birth-ban-history-plastic-shopping-bag.
Scott Walker Signs Bills on Cellphones, Plastic Bag Bans. http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-signs-bills-on-cellphones-plastic-bag-bans-b99697580z1-374054721.html. Accessed 24 Mar. 2021.
“Walker Signs Bill Banning Bans on Plastic Bags.” Wisconsin Gazette, 1 Apr. 2016, http://www.wisconsingazette.com/?p=34497.
“Who Invented Plastic Bags & When Were They First Used?” Promotional Products Blog, 23 Nov. 2020, https://www.qualitylogoproducts.com/blog/the-history-of-plastic-bags/.
Goodwine, Kiara, "The Ethics of Single-Use Plastics" (2019). Student research. 105. https://scholarship.depauw.edu/studentresearch/105
Howard, Brian Clark, et al. “A Running List of Action on Plastic Pollution.” Environment, National Geographic, 10 Feb. 2021, www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/ocean-plastic-pollution-solutions.
“10 Shocking Facts About Plastic.” National Geographic, 25 Mar. 2021, www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/10-shocking-facts-about-plastic.