top of page
Search
Writer's pictureJina Song
Sep 193 min read

Plastic Bans: Economy vs. Environment

Since its popularization in the 1970s, single-use plastic has evolved into an indispensable part of daily life—a vital part that individuals dispose of too readily. From sipping on plastic water bottles to storing leftover food in zip-up bags, plastic boasts unrivaled versatility. Because of its unrivaled cost, lightweights, and convenience, plastic has rapidly transformed numerous industries.


Image Source


Today, the world produces over 380 million tonnes of plastic annually, of which about half is single-use (“Plastic Pollution Facts”). However, plastic takes up to 500 years to decompose and adversely impacts the environment (UN). Every year, ocean plastic kills over 100 million marine animals (“Marine & Ocean Pollution”). Plastic first came under fire when scientists discovered the mass destruction plastic inflicts on the environment, particularly in aquatic ecosystems.  


In 2002, Bhutan became the first nation to ban plastic bags (Low). This ban was placed to prevent plastic bags from causing devastating floods. As of 2024, ninety-one countries have established at least some level of plastic ban (Buchholz). Despite these bans' positive environmental impacts, many companies and individuals have advocated that plastic minimization laws harm the economy. 


The Issues Behind Plastic Bans

One social drawback of plastic bans is the comparatively low cost of plastic. Plastic plays a role in reducing inequalities because it is accessible to low-income families. Firstly, plastic packaging extends the shelf-life for consumers. Additionally, plastic reduces construction costs. Plastic is a necessary resource for resolving housing crises. 


Plastic bans also harm the economy in many ways. Plastic bans essentially limit the production of plastic, decreasing job opportunities (“The Plastic Ban Conundrum”). This reduces government tax revenue. Plastic bans could also harm exports or foreign exchange because of difficulties with packaging and transporting material—a majority of which is plastic. Plastic production companies face the brunt of the consequences of the plastic ban. 


Despite the rise of partial plastic bans, more restrictive forms of bans were repeatedly met with failure. Additionally, many companies have found loopholes in plastic production. Sacramento’s 2014 plastic ban is one example of how plastic bag fees did not hinder a significant number of consumers from reducing their plastic bag usage. Convenience is another major issue for establishing plastic bans. Shifting systems and daily lives is not an easy process.


Source: Images

Possibilities for Plastic Bans

There have been cases of successful plastic bans. In New Jersey, plastic bans successfully reduced single-use plastic bags by forty-two percent (Hughs). Lowering the number of plastic bags in the ocean drastically reduces the risk of death for marine animals. While plastic bans result in economic recession for plastic-reliant industries, they could also heighten economic activity for marine industries. 


Plastic bans could also drive progress into a circular economy—an economy that focuses on repairing products to prevent the necessary expenditure of resources. A shift into plastic bans undoubtedly calls for the establishment of new policies and strategies. However, the economic impacts of plastic bans do not stop the profits lost for plastic companies. They should also consider the future costs of continuously producing plastic.


Works Cited

Buchholz, Katharina. "The Countries Banning Plastic Bags." Statista, 12 July 2024, www.statista.com/chart/14120/the-countries-banning-plastic-bags/. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.


Hughes, Rebecca Ann. "Do plastic bag bans work? A new study finds they save 6 billion bags a year in some US states." Euro News, 24 Jan. 2024, www.euronews.com/green/2024/01/24/do-plastic-bag-bans-work-new-study-finds-they-save-6-billion-bags-a-year-in-some-us-states. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.






77 views
bottom of page