Single Use Plastics: A Bane or a Boon?
Despite an era marked by heightened climate activism and awareness, the single-use plastic industry remains an inescapable pillar within the US economy. Through assessing both the benefits and negatives of the industry, this article navigates the maze of whether or not to ban the industry altogether.
What are the benefits of the single-use plastics industry?
Though single-use plastics (SUPs) may not be good, they are a necessary evil in our daily lives. Thus, when considering legislative action and increased regulation in the industry, the question is not if plastics are good, but rather if the removal of the industry in and of itself is good.
Simply put, the industry is integral to the US economy, employing over 1.5 million Americans as well as contributing $500 billion to the US GDP. More than unemployment and macroeconomic loss, many consumers are concerned about the cost-side of removing single-use plastics. Historically, cities or states that implemented single-use plastic bans absent suitable and scalable alternatives sufferend high demand-side inflation. Logically speaking, when you remove a cheaply produced item and can’t replace it with something of similar cost prices will rise. Empirically, this has proven true as seen in New York, where a plastic bag ban increased business and consumer spending on alternatives over 100%. On a national level, a SUP ban in India was set to increase inflation by over 300%.
Secondly, nearly all American hospitals use single-use plastic equipment. From cuffs, gowns, linens, and surgical instruments (syringes, pipettes, masks, etc.), single-use plastics are integral in the American healthcare system. Due to their cheap costs and easy disposability, hospitals have been transitioning over to the ease and access of plastics since the 1960’s. Minimizing the risk of cross contamination, hospitals choose to dispose rather than to sanitize and reuse. Specifically, in the medical industry, the lack of reliable alternatives is apparent. With no incentive to innovate in reusable products, hospitals and companies alike are completely dependent on single-use plastic supply chains to provide them with precious hospital supplies. Furthermore, single-use plastics such as PFA foam are used in every step of the vaccine making and distribution process. A ban would not only cause price hikes to one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the developed world, it poses a threat to future vaccine development. During the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine, SUPs were integral in storing, transporting, and injecting vaccines to hundreds of millions globally.
What are the negatives?
A common problem in any monopolized or oligopolized industry is a lack of innovation. When a select-few types of plastics and manufacturers control the entire industry, there is a lack of competition and incentive to produce better goods. Thus, many advocates for bans argue that should these companies be forced to create new products that are not single-use plastics, they will develop more-environmentally friendly forms of plastics in the future. Though the current price of alternatives are extremely high, proponents continue to argue that rapid innovation and a forced transition will lower prices in the long term. In fact, in countries such as the UK which banned single-use plastics, innovation has tripled since 2015 alone.
Along with concerns regarding the lack of ready alternatives and innovation, America has a pollution problem. The United States generates nearly 287 pounds of plastic waste per person, with over 89% of all plastic waste in the oceans being single-use. Clearly, America has a problem, and many argue that a ban is the only solution. With plastics polluting our waters and lands, even a 90% reduction in single-use plastics would remove 286 million pounds of plastics in the coming decades. Studies conducted in states such as Washington and California both concluded a ban on plastic products such as bags logically leads to a decrease in plastic consumption overall.
What legislative action should the United States take?
Though the benefits and harms of single-use plastics seem unresolvable, both supporters and opponents of the industry agree that some change must be needed. Along that same vein, the most logical course of action is to gradually phase in a ban of single-use plastics. Not only will this both encourage change and innovation within companies affected by bans, it will preserve the economy and critical industries that rely on SUPs. A phase in of a ban allows the supply of alternatives to grow and meet the ever-growing demand of the current plastics industry, giving companies room to adapt for the future without killing entire industries. Ultimately, there are nuances and intricacies that will always exist when dealing with multinational corporations, a safe bet is to always meet in the middle to ensure change, but in a reasonable manner.