Plastic bans are increasing around the world, a necessary step to save our environment, writes Sarah King of Greenpeace Canada. Angela Logomasini of the Competitive Enterprise Institute argues that, although well meaning, such bans create more problem than they solve.

In October 2019, the hole in the ozone layer was the smallest it has been since it was detected. Yay, right? It’s been 35 years since the hole was discovered, sparking the scientific community to sound the alarm.

Two years after its discovery, global governments came together to ban the ozone-depleting substances. What does this have to do with banning single-use plastic?

When science confirms that a substance poses a severe and sustained threat to human health, biodiversity or the planet’s ability to support us, the only logical thing to do is to eliminate the threat.

Two years ago, the UN declared plastic pollution a global crisis, not just a threat. This declaration came more than 40 years after plastic pollution was first identified, and more than 30 years since discovery of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch brought real attention to the issue.

Since the UN declared a “War on Ocean Plastics” in 2017, Canada has produced more than 6 million tonnes of plastic waste, about 60,000 tonnes of which has become pollution.

Single-use plastics like bottle caps, bags, bottles, straws, cigarette butts, wrappers, cups, lids, and styrofoam pieces make up the bulk of the plastic found in Canada’s environment annually. From wind to leakage during transport and overflowing bins, they end up in nature.

As a kid I was told “don’t be a litterbug” and taught that if we put trash where it should go and recycle, then everything would be OK. The thing is, most people aren’t litter bugs and try hard to recycle, but everything is definitely not OK.

Only about 9 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is recycled. Most goes to landfill (86 per cent) and some is burned. Many single-use plastics are theoretically recyclable. They’re accepted in blue bins, at recycling depots, or even as part of extended producer responsibility programs that can make producers more accountable for ensuring collection and recycling. But none of these efforts are putting a dent in our plastic waste problem.

But can’t we just improve plastic recycling and ensure it’s all recyclable? Not at current massive production levels, or with global production set to double by 2030.

Share your thoughts

Whether it’s bottles made of recycled plastic content, or a new coffee lid touted as recyclable, this famous “R” is not going to cut it. So it’s time to focus on the less utilized but more effective “R”: reduction.

National and provincial polls conducted in 2019 found that the majority of Canadians want to reduce single-use plastics, and support banning it altogether.

No wonder. Plastic is everywhere. It has been found in drinking water, sea ice, soil, air and food chains, so chances are, few among us are plastic-free. It has even been found in beer (I know, not the beer!). What it’s doing to nature is heartbreaking. More than 700 different types of marine species have been affected, even animals at the oceans’ greatest depth.

Plastic ban opponents may say, “That’s an ‘over there’ problem, not a ‘here in Canada’ problem.” Well, tell that to the recycling centres that are stockpiled or closing because the global recycling market has crashed, to the scientists who found that 87 per cent of seabirds in Canada’s Arctic contain plastic and the 30 million people who rely on drinking water from the Great Lakes — water bodies with higher plastic concentrations than the Pacific Garbage Patch. We also (shamefully) ship plastic waste to countries in the Global South, so we’re even directly contributing to trash “over there.”

Single-use plastics bans are happening around the world because they’re now unavoidable.

We need a system reset and to start to get at the real source of the problem — our throwaway culture. There is a reuse revolution happening all around us, and focusing on reuse product delivery models and products replacing single-use plastics can help us avoid any “unintended consequences” that opponents often threaten to maintain our destructive status quo.

Similar to ozone-depleting substances, plastic degrades very slowly and accumulates in our environment.

Scientists expect the ozone layer to fully recover by 2070, when the polluting substances are finally gone. If we stop producing problematic plastics now, plastic will still be in our oceans by at least 2520, but less of it. Every day without a ban creates tonnes of pollution.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Sarah King is the head of Greenpeace Canada's Oceans & Plastics campaign.

As the Canadian government jumps on the proverbial “ban” wagon in the name of environmental piety, its latest attack on plastics might be the greater sin.

The government’s Draft Science Assessment of Plastic Pollution’s findings indicate that bans are likely to have no measurable benefits, and the report ignores likely adverse impacts from such bans. That information would help Canadians make a more informed decision about the wisdom of banning single-use plastics.

The report’s most significant finding is that approximately 1 per cent of all plastics waste in Canada — or 29,000 tons — was improperly disposed of in 2016, eventually ending up as litter. Of that, 49 per cent is estimated to be plastic packaging, including single-use plastics.

Essentially, this means that less than one-half of 1 per cent of plastic packaging is improperly disposed of. While there is room for improvement, this demonstrates that Canadians do a relatively good job at disposing waste correctly and keeping it out of the environment.

That finding is consistent with studies related to the global plastics pollution problem. Data in a 2015 Science magazine report reveals that China and 11 other Asian nations are responsible for 77 to 83 per cent of plastics waste entering the oceans because of poor disposal practices.

In the Science study, Canada is not listed among the top 20 nations contributing to the problem, nor is the country even mentioned in the article. Credit goes to modern waste management practices — landfilling, incineration, or recycling — and litter control that Canadians apparently do very well.

While a government ban on single-use plastics is unlikely to measurably reduce both regular or microplastics pollution, life-cycle studies that assess the environmental impacts of various products (including plastic, paper, cloth, and ceramics) find that single-use plastics have better environmental profiles than alternative products.

Plastics often far outperform cloth or other reusable products when it comes to environmental footprints. Plastic goods, such as straws, foam cups, and plastic bags, are much less energy-intensive to produce and ship (because they are lightweight) than alternatives like metal straws, ceramic cups, or cloth bags.

In fact, one study found that reusable cloth shopping bags require more than 100 uses before they actually use less energy, make less waste, and produce less pollution than their plastic alternatives.

THE BIG DEBATE: For more opposing view columns from Toronto Star contributors, click here.

A Danish government study found that organic cotton bags would need to be reused 7,100 times. A ceramic cup requires more than 1,000 uses before it becomes more energy efficient to use than a plastic foam cup. And more often than not, these items are disposed of long before they attain an equal environmental footprint with plastics.

Plastics are also more sanitary, reducing risks related to pathogens. For example, a study conducted by researchers at the University of Arizona and California’s Loma Linda University in 2010 measured bacteria in a sample of reusable bags, finding many contain dangerous ones, such as coliform (found in half the bags) and E. coli (found in 12 per cent of the bags).

Pathogens can develop from leaky meat packages as well as unwashed produce. And consumers reported they rarely wash the bags, according to the study.

Metal water bottles and straws have pitfalls as well. Not only is it more energy-intensive to mine and transport metal than it is to make plastic, but metal water bottles and straws may also harbour pathogens if not cleaned properly.

Plastics may be less recyclable than other products, but landfilling offers a safe and environmentally sound way to manage waste, and space is unlikely to run out even over thousands of years. Since landfills are basically designed to mummify trash, none of it decomposes. To top it off, plastics also take up less landfill space than the other alternatives.

Of course, it’s laudable that Canadians want to do their best to reduce their litter, no matter how small. But rather than banning products that have real benefits, a better approach would be to focus on litter control and other policies to ensure proper disposal.

Dr. Angela Logomasini is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank. You can find her work at cei.org.

Read more about: