No. It will do more harm than good

As the Canadian government jumps on the proverbial “ban” wagon in the name of environmental piety, its latest attack on plastics might be the greater sin.

The government’s Draft Science Assessment of Plastic Pollution’s findings indicate that bans are likely to have no measurable benefits and the report ignores likely adverse impacts from such bans. That information would help Canadians make a more informed decision about the wisdom of banning single-use plastics.

The report’s most significant finding is that approximately one per cent of all plastics waste in Canada — or 29,000 tons — was improperly disposed of in 2016, eventually ending up as litter. Of that, 49 per cent is estimated to be plastic packaging, including single-use plastics.

Essentially, this means that less than one-half of one per cent of plastic packaging is improperly disposed of. While there is room for improvement, this demonstrates that Canadians do a relatively good job at disposing waste correctly and keeping it out of the environment.

That finding is consistent with studies related to the global plastics pollution problem. Data in a 2015 Science magazine report reveal that China and 11 other Asian countries are responsible for 77 per cent to 83 per cent of plastics waste entering the oceans because of poor disposal practices.

In the Science study, Canada is not listed among the Top 20 countries contributing to the problem, nor is the country even mentioned in the article. Credit goes to modern waste management practices — landfilling, incineration, or recycling — and litter control that Canadians apparently do very well.

While a government ban on single-use plastics is unlikely to measurably reduce both regular or microplastics pollution, life-cycle studies that assess the environmental impacts of various products (including plastic, paper, cloth, and ceramics) find that single-use plastics have better environmental profiles than alternative products.

Plastics often far outperform cloth or other reusable products when it comes to environmental footprints. Plastic goods, such as straws, foam cups and plastic bags, are much l ess energy-intensive to produce and ship (because they are lightweight) than alternatives like metal straws, ceramic cups or cloth bags.

In fact, one study found that reusable cloth shopping bags require more than 100 uses before they actually use less energy, make less waste and produce less pollution than their plastic alternatives.

A Danish government study found that organic cotton bags would need to be reused 7,100 times.

A ceramic cup requires more than 1,000 uses before it becomes more energy efficient to use than a plastic foam cup. And more often than not, these items are disposed of long before they attain an equal environmental footprint with plastics.

Plastics are also more sanitary, reducing risks related to pathogens. For example, a study conducted by researchers at the University of Arizona and California’s Loma Linda University in 2010 measured bacteria in a sample of reusable bags, finding many contain dangerous ones, such as coliform (found in half the bags) and E. coli (found in 12 per cent of the bags).

Pathogens can develop from leaky meat packages as well as unwashed produce. And consumers reported they rarely wash the bags, according to the study.

Metal water bottles and straws have pitfalls as well. Not only is it more energy-intensive to mine and transport metal than it is to make plastic, but metal water bottles and straws may also harbour pathogens if not cleaned properly.

Plastics may be less recyclable than other products, but landfilling offers a safe and environmentally sound way to manage waste, and space is unlikely to run out even over thousands of years. Since landfills are basically designed to mummify trash, none of it decomposes. To top it off, plastics also take up less landfill space than the other alternatives.

Of course, it’s laudable that Canadians want to do their best to reduce their litter, no matter how small. But rather than banning products that have real benefits, a better approach would be to focus on litter control and other policies to ensure proper disposal.