The Good and The Ugly of The Plastic Straw Ban
In August of 2015, a marine biologist named Christine Figgener filmed an 8 minutes video of her team removing a plastic straw that was firmly stuck in a sea turtle’s nose. In that video, the sea turtle was sobbing in pain and bleeding from her nostril and arm. Soon after that, it finally sparked up more significant movements against the usage of disposable plastic straws. Multi-national corporations like Starbucks and McDonalds adopted a gradual ban for plastic straws and actively encouraged customers to bring their straws and cups and stand against straws.
There are two levels of positive impacts of this policy — one on an economic level and the other on an educational level.
Firstly, on an economic level, large or even small MNCs got to benefit since they could cut the cost of the excessive purchases of straws. In Hong Kong, McDonald’s first introduced a ‘NO STRAW MONDAY’ initiative and then gradually turned it into a no straw everyday policy unless customers requested for one. This “no straw” initiative helped McDonald’s by saving a lot on expenses related to disposables. Starbucks soon followed suit by putting a gradual ban on all plastic straws and replacing them with special recyclable lids for cold drinks and paper straws for frappucinos by 2020. These initiatives helped both of the largest restaurant companies in the world to attract customers who are keen on saving the environment by such little acts. It also attracted the larger public in general because of social norms and interesting new products.
Secondly, on an educational level, this policy had direct impacts on our daily lives. Some people started using reusable straws and completely ditched plastic straws while some opposed the ban because of inconvenience. Regardless of how people may or may not have changed their way of life, the banning and reduction of plastic straws in the market allowed for social engagement in environment and policies. It was finally something that people understood and realised how much impact it brought to their lives. The banning of them from schools and all universities in Hong Kong gave Hong Kong students a pathway to carefully think about their ways of life and the vast impacts such little changes could bring. Discussions in class also helped in increasing knowledge of this issue amongst students. Debates on media and social media created an echo chamber effect that caught the public’s attention and awareness.
However, just like how every policy has its positive impacts, it also has its negatives. There are two levels of negative impacts — one on a humanitarian level and the other on an environmental level.
Firstly, on a humanitarian level. The banning of straws might have significantly benefitted MCNs as mentioned above and first world nations by increasing their GDP. It greatly affected third-world countries whose GDP and job market heavily rely on the manufacturing industry. Since fewer large companies were ordering plastic straws in huge quantities from the wholesale market, many jobs were to be shut down, and workers in those factories had to leave and struggle to find a new job. The banning of straws (mainly) in first-world nations did no benefit to third world nations because neither was their environment saved nor their economy improved, contrary to what happened in first-world countries.
Is this policy just a way for the rich to keep getting richer or is it something done with a heart that genuinely cares about the environment?
Secondly, on an environmental level, the ban on plastic means a rise on paper straws. However, is that useful? The increase in deforestation leads to environmental problems like soil erosion and the rise in the air’s carbon dioxide level. It manages to affect more stakeholders than plastic straws ever could. Farmers suffer due to soil erosion, animals lose their natural habitat due to deforestation, and our air gets worse one chopped tree at a time. But even if it weren’t paper straws, Starbuck’s initiative to change its nonrecyclable plastic lids to recyclable ones in some sense causes more harm than good. For example, the production process where more plastic is used and cut in a much more complex manner. The pollution in factories might be so much more significant than it already is. Even if Starbucks claims that the lids are recyclable, it doesn’t mean they are decomposable, which is not helpful because people rarely recycle. The ones that do are, to a considerable extent, useless because recyclable waste programmes are extremely weak and underfunded. The majority of the waste thrown in recycling bins ends up in landfills alongside the plastic straws that people strive against.
Do companies care about the negative environmental impacts they bring about and want to strive for a change, or is it just social pressure?
Although the option of reusable straws exist, the question is how many people can make the most out of reusable straws? As a forgetful and always in a rush person, I am sure that if I were to rely on reusable straws to drink my bubble tea during a lunch break, 9/10 times I would forget brining the straw along with me. Paper straws suck as they just melt in your mouth yet it seems like they are the only disposable option at the moment for most to-go drinks. While I think it is important now more than ever to be environmentally aware and act to save the planet, I have huge mixed feelings on paper straws replacing plastic straws as an environmental move.
Each year, a total of 8 million tons of plastic flow into the ocean and straws comprise just 0.025 per cent of that. Yet, the majority of legislations that exists under the status quo are against plastic straws only. It is good to have change, after all, baby steps are still steps. But considering all other factors and damages, ask yourself this; is it all worth it?
