SCHOLAR: SINGLE USE PLASTIC A POLICY ISSUE

SUBJECT:  ENVIORNMENT AND CANADA

PURPOSE:  This briefing note is a recommendation for environmental policy changes.

ISSUE:  Too much use of plastics has a negative impact on the environment.  

Background:

Pollution can be defined as the discharge of any material which may cause immediate or long-term harmful effects to the natural environment.  Plastic is a resource which Canadian companies rely on to transfer their goods.  However, once consumers use this plastic, they then dispose of it which then it becomes garbage.  Garbage that cannot be recycled then becomes pollution.  Plastic takes a long time to biodegrade and has caused much damage to the environment.  From unsightly garbage in the streets to the oceans, the use of plastics has hampered the ecosystems.  These plastics become pollution in the streets or even in forests or oceans.  This pollution has negative effects on nature. Fish who consume plastic that is discarded are later caught by fishermen only to find out that plastic is still in the stomach.  Plastics look like jelly fish which are edible to some animals.  These plastics kill the animals as they are unable to digest this plastic.  Birds not only mistake plastic for food but also get strangled resulting from their handling of such plastic.  Some fish and birds are strangled by linings which prevent them from moving.  For land animals, these plastic containers can be stuck on their head as they attempt to reach for leftovers.  This causes suffocation and overheating.  This is a public issues because the environment is hampered wherein our food supply becomes affected resulting from plastic usage. 

Considerations:

Plastics leach toxic chemicals as they are dumped in landfills, lakes, parks and oceans.  It takes 200 years to biodegrade a straw (SCITECH EUROPA, 2019), while fishing lines take even longer. Canada has made efforts to be more environmentally sustainable when in relation to plastics.  They have increased plastic waste diversion and have previously increased procurement of sustainable plastic products (Canada, 2019).  Furthermore, Canada has attempted to limit single use plastics in their government functions.  Nature and wildlife are dramatically affected by single use plastics.  It has caused disturbances in the ecosystem where wildlife are or have become endangered.  This has caused many interest groups to push for policy which limits plastic use.  The city of Vancouver has recently pushed a ban on plastic and this is a step in the right direction.  The stakeholders here are the businesses, the consumers, and the government.  The businesses may have to adjust their supply chain in order to be able to accommodate changes in policy with pertinence to plastic use.  Consumers may have to pay a higher price for plastic replacements.  The government benefits because policy in plastic uses can reduce pollution or damage to the environment.  This issue is in the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment & Climate Change Strategy.

Options:  

Option 1:  Full ban of plastic.

This option is somewhat feasible.  A full plastic ban would change the supply chain of business and increase the cost of goods.  Plastic alternatives could be expensive but there is high public acceptability for this option as people become more educated about the damage plastics have done to wildlife.  The issue of cost can be reduced as more and more business switch to plastics which evidently would drive the price down.  Banning plastics fully is very sustainable, it would protect the environment and secure a safer future for the ecosystem.  There would have to be increased accessibility to alternatives for plastic which are not limited to paper, and bamboo.  This option would reduce efficiency during the switch from plastics to alternatives however, it is speculated that once alternatives have proliferated the market, efficiency would remain unaltered.  The government can place strict regulation on the use of plastics, they could fully implement a prohibition on its use.  For those who are uncompliant, the government can issue fines, which would be another source of income for the government. 

Option 2:  Partial ban of plastics.  Ex.  Straws, six pack sleeves, plastic bags. 

This is very feasible although it may take the community some time to adjust.  The community may become confused as to which specific plastics are banned.  Therefore, it may be necessary to have information sessions to educate the public.  There is high acceptability for such policy, considering that it is only a partial ban.  This could prove to be sustainable for the environment but is not as effective as a full ban.  The access to these banned products could be restricted which would prevent garbage or litter.  This could be rolled out efficiently if the government is organized and collaborates with both the consumers and the business industry.  The government needs to make it clear as to which specific plastics are not permitted.   Placing a regulation on certain plastics could be a step into a full ban.  Therefore, a partial ban could act as a transition.  Fines could be generated for uncompliant entities. 

Option 3:  Education on biodegradables.  Subsidize. 

This option is very feasible.  The government can provide education sessions to members of the public whom may be interested in environmental sustainability and the use of plastics.  There is wide public acceptability or interest for protecting the environment.  This is evident because groups such as green peace have spread awareness in the community.  This option is sustainable, it will safeguard the existing ecosystems because we could have a more informed public at large.  The accessibility to such education can be provided in several educational institutions.  Having education sessions can dramatically increase efficiency because people would be more informed of potential alternatives and how to handle such plastic rubbish.  Information sessions allow the government to be able to conduct focus groups which give it an idea of how the public perceives environmental sustainability.   We can also implement nudges wherein we manage the behavior of the public at large through this information such as signs or notes. 

Option 4:  Status quo:  Not working which is why we have options. 

Maintaining the current state of affairs when in relation to plastics is feasible.  But not advised as the environment will deteriorate if nothing is done.  There is low public acceptability of maintaining the status quo as people become more informed about plastic alternatives.  Currently, the use of plastic is not sustainable as animals are being endangered resulting from the use of plastics.  There have been many incidents of fishermen who have caught fish with plastic bags still in the stomach.  Although maintaining the status quo is efficient, it is important to know that when switching to any alternative, it is expected that efficiency will be reduced but as time goes on it may very well increase resulting from the increased uptake of such alternative. 

Recommendation:

Option two is recommended.