In most markets, shops or supermarkets in the U.S., customers are usually offered plastic bags to carry their groceries and other items. However in January 2010, the government of Washington D.C. issued a law decreeing the charge of five cents for these bags. The reason for this is to discourage the consumption and use of these plastic bags, for they are harmful to the environment and cause pollution, litter and waste. Many other areas have already taken such measurements such as Ireland, San Francisco and Los Angeles. It seems like a preferable idea, yet when concerning local citizen approval, there is great controversy. Some people support this new law to help the environment, but a considerable amount of opposition exists. In this essay, we are going to discuss the advantages of decreeing this law, yet also analyzing why people disagree, meaning the disadvantages and dilemmas of this law. Then as with every debatable topic, personal opinions will be explained concerning if this idea is actually the best course of solution, and if there are better options for this situation.
The advantages of this law are reasonably clear if it succeeds, the one main goal it set out to accomplish: Reducing pollution. There is a landfill’s worth (pardon the pun) of explanations to prove plastic harmful to the environment. Creating plastic uses energy and causes pollution, yet that doesn’t even remotely scratch the surface of this issue. First of all, plastic can technically be recycled, but as research shows, barely 1% of a total of 13 million tons of plastic produced in 2008 alone were recycled. The rest ends up in landfills or natural environments. Furthermore, plastic is non-biodegradable, meaning they don’t decompose and disappear: They can stay around for centuries, only breaking down into smaller pieces of equal toxicness, microplastics that are just as harmful. Animals, especially in the oceans, often eat plastics by mistake and either die or get ill or pass it on to the next predator in the food chain, eventually leading to humans. About 100 million sea animals die annually from plastic waste alone. Plastic can also contaminate both water and soil, thus leading to a catastrophic chain of events including food contamination, illness, water and land pollution and groundwater pollution. There are endless possibilities how plastic can harm the environment and the wildlife residing in it. By charging five cents for plastic bags, the government hopes to reduce the amount of bags thrown away and thus reduce the crushing numbers concerning plastic pollution. This is the one and only essential goal of this law, and it seems like a good idea.
However, even though this plan on paper should be highly supported, not everyone agrees. An alarming amount of controversy exists, with plenty of residents rooting against this new law. They don’t object to this law because it helps with reducing pollution. Rather, the majority of doubt is on the money itself. Poor people can’t afford this 5 extra cents for the bags, and people believe that if shops give groceries, they should also give something to put them in. In the modern world, everything is already getting more and more expensive on the markets. Thus, it certainly won’t help to increase those numbers. Now, one might turn attention to rich people: If they are rich, won’t they agree to this law? They are able to afford the 5 cents, so they should agree to this extra tax. Yet even in that sentence, the phrase simply doesn’t make sense. This is the first dilemma. Rich people don’t care about some five cents, they certainly can afford it, and thus there are no qualms on whether they would be able to afford bags or not, they’re going to buy it anyway. So the poor complain because of the lack of affordability, and the rich simply don’t care. Not only this, the government itself can be suspected of a dilemma. As aforementioned, the extra five cents for bags are enlisted as taxes, money that the government gets, that they want to get. In 2010, the annual bag-fee revenue was 1.5 million dollars. In 2014, it was 2.1 million. And research shows these money weren’t all invested in charities or other local benefits. Here lies the second dilemma: The government created this law to discourage buying plastic bags, and yet they benefit financially if the bags are bought. This makes one consider if the government can truly be trusted to be 100% in on this plan of discouraging plastic bag use.
So now that we’ve examined the advantages and disadvantages of plastic bag use, it's time to decide if this plan is actually the best course of action. Now, as aforementioned, the goal of this is simple and helps the environment. But in my opinion, one simply cannot have a law with too much controversy, especially with local citizens. And also as aforementioned, the annual bag-fee revenue simply gets higher, meaning more people are buying plastic bags. I for one think that there are better and more efficient ways to achieve the same goal with hopefully less protest. The plan that I propose is that if people buy and throw away bags, why not simply remove the bags from the market and replace them with more eco-friendly ones? Do not even risk the probability that people will still buy plastic bags. By removing them from the shops, people will be forced to use more eco-friendly bags and in my opinion, there won’t be such controversy, since plastic bags really don’t have much difference from other bags in the lenses of usage, especially for local citizens. If people really can’t help improve, then take another approach. These bags won’t be charged taxes, which simultaneously solves both aforementioned dilemmas. Also advertise the use of shopping trolleys, as those are clearly reusable and can hold much more than the average bag. If it means lowering their prices or holding discounts, it will be a beneficial expense. By executing the aforementioned actions, we will hopefully have a better way of reducing plastic bag use. Even if it means banning them from shops.
In conclusion, Washington D.C.’s plastic bag fee has clear advantages yet problematic dilemmas. By charging five cents for a plastic bag, the government hopes to reduce plastic usage and thus help the environment. There are nearly infinite reasons why plastic is harmful from start to end. Creating them uses energy and emits pollution, just for citizens to throw them out instead of recycling them. This causes most of the plastic bags to go into landfills and the more alarming oceans. Plastic is not biodegradable, it can stay for centuries, breaking into microplastics of smaller and smaller size. It harms the environment, pollutes everywhere, and kills wildlife. It breaks every rule of being environmentally friendly. However, the plan the government devised was met with much protest. Poorer citizens complained that five cents is too much in the modern market, and shops should give them out for free. Rich people can afford this money, but that doesn’t mean they would agree to this law. They simply don’t care, they buy the bags anyway. So poor people complain and rich people don’t care. The government itself is also suspected of not completely being on this plan, as the money earned from buying the bags goes to the government, financially benefiting them. I think that there are better solutions, better plans of action that would be met with less controversy. If people would buy plastic bags anyway, then we should remove them completely from the markets and replace them with more environmentally friendly bags. This will force people to use more eco-friendly bags, but there won’t be any taxes, fixing both dilemmas and hopefully getting less protest. When considering actual usage, both sorts of bags should be equal in usage ability with one having the clear edge in helping our planet. We should also advertise the use of shopping trolleys which are definitely long-term reusable and have more storage capacity. By taking these actions, we will hopefully decrease the amount of plastic bags produced and consumed, making Earth a better and more sustainable place for humanity.
Comments