Straws on Trail
Bans on single-use plastics are effective, but often fall short
Bans on single-use plastic items such as plastic bags and straws lead both to a noticeable reduction in littering of streets and beaches and to a more intensive public discussion about sustainable consumption. However, the total amount of plastic waste cannot be significantly reduced with so-called “plastic bans.”
This is the conclusion reached by this POLYPROBLEM Report of the non-profit Röchling Stiftung and the consulting firm Wider Sense in cooperation with the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Energy, Environment. Under the title “Case Straw,” the team of authors has examined the impact of state bans on single-use plastic products.
“Whether bans on certain products and their use are suitable for coping with global ecological crises is a controversial fundamental question. We wanted to know whether the effects go beyond a symbolic effect,” says Uwe Amrhein, Foundation Manager of the Röchling Stiftung, outlining the objective.
To this end, the team of authors conducted research on three continents – in Kenya, California and Germany – and developed case studies from discussions with experts.
Bans on certain single-use plastic items have existed for many years in most countries of the world. However, they are so differently structured and related to different products that they have not yet led to a global end for a particular item. According to the latest figures from the United Nations Environment Programme, 83 countries have generally banned the free distribution of plastic bags. Another 61 countries have established production and import bans. 27 countries levy taxes on production, and in 30 there are surcharges for consumers. Nevertheless, the bag still exists.
Improved international coordination in state intervention in the market is therefore an expert recommendation from Kenya.
Another problem, which was particularly evident when looking at Germany: A ban on single-use plastic does not necessarily lead to a strengthening of reusable systems, as consumer and environmental protection associations criticize in the study. A switch to disposable products made of other materials is often observed, but is usually not an ecologically sensible solution.
Therefore, the integration of so-called plastic bans into an overall strategy is probably the most important recommendation for action in the new POLYPROBLEM Report.
“If plastic bans are to lead to clean beaches and less marine litter, then clear ideas are also needed for the other introduction paths on how to address them. If other, perhaps even more relevant goals such as climate and resource protection are to be supported, clear ideas are also needed here as to what role plastic should play in a future climate-neutral and resource-efficient circular economy,” writes Dr. Henning Wilts, circular economy expert at the Wuppertal Institute, in his summary.
What, however, could be observed in all the regions considered is an approval of the citizens to the restrictive measures and a noticeable invigoration of the discussion about sustainable consumption.
It is also clearly demonstrable that there has been an actual, enormous decline in the specific products banned in the respective regions. However, their low weight and volume share does not lead to a significant reduction in the total amount of plastic waste.
Click here to download the fourth POLYPROBLEM report.
Under the title POLYPROBLEM, the non-profit Röchling Foundation and Wider Sense are combining various information and networking offers that should contribute to better cooperation in solving this global challenge. These include studies, webinars, workshops and excursions.
