Discussion On debate About Banning of Plastic Straws
The world has finite resources and its people have infinite wants. On this note, people tend to act in their own personal interests, which accelerate resource depletion and environmental pollution. In a world surrounded by uncertainties today, one thing for certain is the need to protect our environment from these impacts. In the recent past, there had been multiple environmental policies that had been created to tackle these issues. One particularly salient approach was to reduce the use of plastic through banning of plastic straws, which will be further discussed. The initial notion of reducing single-use plastic straws came about when 9-year old Milo Cress proposed for his neighborhood café to offer its customers the choice of straw usage, instead of automatically serving it together with the drink. His idea generated an exponential rise in public awareness on effects of single-use plastics. Countries have adopted and expanded on the idea, with United Kingdom being one country from a list to implement a ban on plastic straws. However, I do not agree entirely with the ban as I feel that the effectiveness of such a ban may be limited.
Plastic waste extends further than just single-use plastic straws, which is only a small percentage compared to the other plastic products. In the United States of America, the residents use, on average, 500 million plastic straws per day. When viewed alone, the figure may seem astonishing. However, in the grand scheme of things, plastic straws only account for 4% of total plastic usage (by piece) in the world, a low percentage compared to other single-used plastic products. By banning the use of plastic straws, action is only taken to reduce the 4% of plastic litter that is harming the environment, neglecting the remaining 96%. Furthermore, there is also significant usage of other single-use plastic products, such as plastic bags, cup lids, utensils etc. The continued usage of such products will negate the effectiveness of the plastic straw ban. As such, the plastic straw ban may not fully realise its potential in the long run.
No doubt, personal usage of plastic products may be the leading cause for plastic pollution. Nevertheless, I feel that producers should also be responsible for the current pollution crisis, as part of their corporate social responsibility. In the case of plastic straws, companies are discouraging consumers from using them. Contrastingly, they encourage users to purchase alternatives that can be used multiple times. On initial thought, companies are painted in a positive light by encouraging the use of products that are more sustainable to the environment. However, on closer inspection, it seems that companies are diverting the responsibility of environmental conservation to the consumers, which contradicts the idea of corporate social responsibility. In addition, by not providing plastic straws and alternatives, businesses are benefitting directly from this change. An example will be KFC in Singapore, whereby plastic straws and caps are not provided for dine-in customers; plastic caps will still be available for take-outs. Not providing these single-use plastic products actually help the company cut costs, reducing their cost of production in the process. This example highlighted that banning of plastic straws actually help businesses save money and increase profits, which is good for their bottomline.
At the end of the day, we cannot safely conclude the actual intention of the plastic straw ban, as reflected in the conflict of interest between increasing profits and environmental protection. Banning the use of plastic straws is more of a boon than a bane. Although there are many people and organizations out there championing the cause, we should not completely neglect the unintended consequences the straw ban has brought about. The straw ban has led to consumers bearing the brunt. One notable problem which arose from the no straw ban is the increased difficulty for consumers with physical disabilities e. g. cerebral palsy to enjoy their beverage. For this group of people, they require straws to hydrate themselves. This is because their movement and motor skills are impaired, and hence are not able to consume a beverage like any other normal person. To make things worse, a straw made up of alternative materials may neither be practical nor safe to use, although it aligns with the overarching idea of being environmentally sustainable. For example, if the straw be made up of paper, over time, the paper may dissolve into the drink. When the drink is consumed, unwanted substances may be ingested into the body, resulting in potential health issues. As such, the total removal of plastic straws in some countries have led to a severe impact on the daily lives of this group of people.
The ban on single-use plastic straws has also brought about classism, which is discrimination based on social economic status. In the past, before the ban was implemented, single-use plastic straws were made available easily to anyone anywhere. The plastic straws were free of charge to the general public as it is complimentary with the purchase of a drink. However, with the new implementation, plastic straws are no longer free. When they enjoy a beverage, they now have to purchase straws made up of alternative materials, or go without them. The price of these straws ranges from a few dollars to tens of dollars, depending on the quality of the straw. To many of us, we may feel that it is affordable, as it only takes up a minute percentage of our disposable income. On the other hand, for lower-income families, purchasing a straw may take up a larger percentage of income compared to other groups of people. This may lead to them not purchasing/using straws in its entirety. This creates a social divide between the more affluent and the less wealthy. What was previously a simple good that benefits all types of consumers in the market will now give rise to unintended social issues.
Another consequence that arose from the plastic straw ban is that it encourages slacktivism. Non-usage of plastic straws or using straws made up of alternative materials creates a “feel-good” factor for the consumers as they feel that they are putting in effort to help save the environment. By developing such a mindset, the general public may not put in any extra effort for environment conservation as they may think that they are doing enough by not using single-use plastic straw, thereby resting on their laurels. People may not cut down on the usage of other single-use plastic products that account for a far larger percentage of plastic waste. In the long run, this false sense of goodness among the general public may limit the effectiveness in combating environmental pollution. The implementation of the plastic straw ban has its critics, but it surely has its benefits as well. If the ban is useless, country leaders will not be spending time, effort and reserves on implementing the plastic straw ban.
One positive that we can draw from the ban is its ability to act as a catalyst for similar environmental protections projects in the future. Although the scope of the current ban is limited to only plastic straws, country leaders, non-profit and non-government organisations are able to analyst the pros and cons of the ban and apply it to new environmental conservation policies in the future. In years to come, we may be able to see similar bans on plastic cups or plastic lids, which also accounts for a significant percentage of plastic waste in the world. The plastic straw ban helps to increase awareness of not only plastic pollution, but the need for environmental conservation in general. The reduction in single-use plastic straw usage started off as a fad, but government agencies of countries around the world are latching onto it and doing more to ensure the prolonged effectiveness of the cause.
In all honesty, on a more personal level, there is no significant change in my habit of using single-use plastic straws. People are often torn between convenience and saving the environment, and I am no different. In most cases, I would lean towards the former, which led to my continued usage of plastic straws. In Singapore, the more prominent businesses that have jumped onto the bandwagon of not providing plastic straws are KFC and Koufu, predominantly their SMU outlet. As there are not enough companies in Singapore that are ringing these changes, most restaurants and food outlets out there are still providing these plastic straws. When this happens, most consumers out there, like me, will intuitively lean towards convenience, hence the continued usage of single-use plastic straws. In addition, using of these straws are habitual and these habits have been formed during our growing up years, which has been ingrained into us. Habits, good or bad, will require time and effort to change. In the near future, should more businesses in Singapore decide to stop the provision of plastic straws, it will be safe to say that consumers will start to adapt to this change and form new habits of not using these single-use plastic straws.
For me, convenience is still a key factor in my daily life decisions. However, having analysed the plastic straw situation, it has shed more light on the pros and cons of the ban, as well as the harmful consequences of single-use plastic straws on the environment. Moving forward, as plastic straws are not a necessity for me when consuming a beverage, I will be cutting down on the use of the straws, unless absolutely necessary. Over time, new habits will be formed, and I will naturally stop using the plastic straws or look for alternatives if necessary.
All in all, I feel that the plastic straw ban has its pros and cons, and its effectiveness remains uncertain. With that being said, it is still a step in the correct direction of environmental conservation. However, we should not be too caught up with a single policy or limit our scope and neglect other areas e. g. usage of plastic bags. The effectiveness of such policies takes time to surface and constant review has been to be made to ensure applicability and to maximise the effectiveness.
