Last month England joined the growing list of countries that ban various single-use plastic items. Starting in October 2023, items such as plastic plates, cutlery, takeaway food containers and more will no longer be available in restaurants, retailers or the hospitality industry. The government is hoping it will drastically reduce the amount of single-use plastic used in England. 

Single-use plastic bans are becoming increasingly popular as pressure mounts to reduce plastic pollution worldwide – and they are undoubtedly a step in the right direction. However, successful results are not guaranteed. 

California’s plastic bag ban in 2014 led to an 85% drop in single-use plastic bag use in stores and a 60% reduction in plastic bags found polluting rivers. On the other hand, when Kenya introduced a similar ban in 2017, a black market for plastic bags developed. The country struggled to prevent these hard-to-recycle bags from plaguing the streets and waterways. 

So why does some legislation result in a reduction in plastic pollution and others not? What can be done to ensure that a ban is having the desired effect?

What is being banned? 

Many single-use plastic bans target low-hanging fruit such as straws, thin plastic bags or cutlery. In reality, these types of items make up just 2-3% of the single-use plastics produced, so the impact is naturally limited. 

In July 2022, India introduced such a ban. It has mainly affected local market stalls and street food sellers. With low profit margins and no resources to switch to alternatives, these members of the community have struggled to adhere to the new regulations. The ban in India has, so far, not produced the desired effect. 

Critics have suggested that the ban should instead have targeted the far greater amounts of plastic packaging created by supermarkets and multinational companies, for everyday items such as toiletries and food. This packaging is often multi-layer, making it impossible to recycle, and is often designed with branding and cost-cutting (as opposed to functionality or sustainability) in mind. Big companies also have greater resources to make such a change.

In France, the government did target retailers with a ban on plastic fruit and vegetable packaging in January 2022 and, more recently, banning the use of takeaway containers when eating inside a restaurant. This has proven much more effective, although it has not been easy: some sectors of the fast-food industry have used the energy crisis as an excuse not to invest in the changes needed to meet the new regulations. 

What should replace the banned items?

The temptation, following the announcement of a plastic ban, is to immediately search for a paper or “compostable” version of what was previously used. Ideally however, a ban should be part of a long-term transition towards a zero waste economy. It should be seen as an opportunity to target the throwaway culture in general. Rather than replacing plastic with more single-use items, a ban should support reuse systems for producers, retailers and consumers. 

By encouraging companies to innovate, such systems can be created, tested and evaluated before the ban is implemented. People and businesses will have time to prepare, ensuring less resistance to the new regulations. These changes can further be supported by providing subsidies for investments in reusables and deposit return schemes. 

How is the ban communicated?

Any ban needs to have a clear communication strategy for producers, retailers and consumers. If you don’t know about a ban, or you don’t understand it, how can you follow it? Bans are often portrayed as restrictions on freedom or consumer choice. By helping the public understand the reasons for the ban and framing it as an opportunity, governments can help people feel they are an essential part of a movement towards a better and cleaner world – which they are!

Once a ban has come into force, it is also vital to share its success and show people the positive impact they are having with their actions. A great example of a well-communicated media campaign is in Morocco. The government used artists, celebrities and community cleanups to help introduce its plastic ban in 2016.

Is the ban enforceable?

People and businesses affected by a ban will often try to find exceptions or loopholes that will allow them not to cooperate. 

Generally, governments use fines against law-breakers, but these can be costly and very difficult to enforce on a large scale. For example, in New York, USA, a plastics ban was introduced in 2020, but very few of the businesses failing to meet the regulations have suffered any consequences. Therefore, people continue to use the items that have been banned.

The key to consistent enforcement is social pressure. If a ban is generally accepted by the public and the reasons for it understood, any violations will naturally be called out. This reduces the investment needed by governments to monitor and chase up infringements.

This of course goes hand-in-hand with a good communication strategy, as mentioned above.

Single-use plastic bans are essential in reducing plastic pollution worldwide and play a significant role in shifting towards a zero waste society. However they need to be done in the right way. With the correct items included in the ban, support for systemic change, a well-communicated campaign and social enforcement, they can be transformative rather than an expensive waste of time.

A fascinating new report, ‘Winter is coming’ by Break Free From Plastic and CIEL, explores how the ongoing fuel crisis is linked to the plastics industry. 

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has affected energy supplies and, consequently, prices worldwide. This is especially true for European countries that rely on Russia for oil and gas – in 2020, Russia supplied 38% of the EU’s gas and 22% of their oil. By August 2022, it became clear to the EU that they were facing a severe energy crisis and limited supplies of oil and gas meant that prices continued to soar. There have been warnings of power cuts lasting up to 3 hours to try and save energy, and millions of people are concerned about how they can afford to stay warm over what could be a freezing winter. 

In response to these concerns, the EU set a target for all member countries to reduce their energy consumption by 15% by 31 March 2023. To help achieve this, governments have been advising consumers about how they can reduce their energy use. For example, Germany recommended that its citizens take cold showers and limit the use of their heating.  However, industrial use of oil and gas continues unabated, with no government advice or restrictions to date. 

So how does this relate to plastic? 

Currently, the plastics industry is the largest consumer of oil and gas in the EU, accounting for 8% and 9% of the EU’s final consumption in 2020, respectively [efn_note]Page 4, ‘Winter is Coming‘ [/efn_note] . It overshadows any other industry, including steel, automobile manufacturing, machinery, food, and beverages. Within the plastics industry in the EU, over 40% of end-market plastics produced are instant waste – single-use plastic packaging. 

The EU and its member states have been leaders in tackling the plastics crisis. In 2018 the EU released its Plastics Strategy, which aims to ‘transform the way plastic products are designed, produced, used and recycled’ and is described as ‘a key element of Europe’s transition to a circular economy’ [efn_note]European Commission Plastics Strategy [/efn_note] . In 2019 they announced the Single Use Plastics Directive that set a collection target of 90% for recycling single-use plastic bottles by 2029. [efn_note] European Commision Single Use Plastics Directive [/efn_note] This leadership was particularly evident at the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in March 2022, when there was a historic advance in negotiations for a global agreement to tackle plastic pollution.

Despite all that the EU has tried to do to reduce plastic pollution, there has been no mention of placing a cap on the production of unnecessary plastic or restricting the activity of the petrochemical industry. This, despite their significant contribution to climate change and their continuing depletion of precious oil and gas reserves. 

The report found that if plastic packaging was reduced by 50% and the target of 90% recycling was achieved, this would lead to a reduction of 6.2 billion cubic metres (bcm)  of fossil gas and 8.7 million tonnes of oil at the EU level compared to 2020. These figures are equivalent to the oil and gas consumption of the entire Czech Republic in 2020.[efn_note] Page 5 ‘Winter is Coming‘[/efn_note]

The report concludes that, rather than seeking new trade deals for fossil fuels, this situation presents the EU with a unique opportunity to address the energy, climate and plastic crisis. Immediate and drastic action should be taken to reduce the production of unnecessary and excessive virgin plastic by implementing the Plastics Strategy from 2018 and the Single Use Plastics Directive from 2019. In turn, this would significantly reduce greenhouse emissions, reduce plastic pollution and free up the limited energy supplies. The oil and gas that would have been used to produce plastic could instead supply millions of people with reliable and more affordable energy over the winter. 

You can read the Executive Summary of the report or the full report. 

Footnotes & further reading:

In a new study, Empa researcher Dominik Brunner, together with colleagues from the Utrecht University and the Austrian Central Institute for Meteorology and Geophysics, investigated the amount of plastic present in precipitation over the period of a month. 

According to the study, nanoplastics can spread aerially over a 2,000-kilometre radius resulting in around 43 trillion tiny plastic particles ending up in Switzerland every year. This could equate to 3,000 tons of nanoplastics annually, ranging from the remote Alps to the urban lowlands. “These estimates are very high relative to other studies, and more research is needed to validate them”, according to Empa. Nonetheless, the results of Brunner’s work are the most accurate assessment of nanoplastic air pollution ever made. 

To count the plastic particles, Brunner and his colleagues developed a method that determines the level of contamination in collected samples. The scientists examined a small area at an altitude of 3,106 metres at the top of the Hoher Sonnenblick mountain in the Austrian Hohe Tauern National Park. Every day and in all weather conditions, they removed part of the top layer of snow at 8am and carefully stored it to check for plastic residue.

The origin of the tiny particles was traced using European wind and weather data. It was established that the largest emission of nanoplastics into the air happens in densely populated, urban areas. About 30 percent of the measured nanoplastic particles on the mountaintop came from a radius of 200 kilometres, mostly from cities, while around ten percent of the particles were blown in from more than 2,000 kilometres away, partly from the Atlantic. 

It is estimated that more than 8.3 billion tons of plastic have been produced worldwide, around 60 percent of which has ended up either in a landfill or the natural environment. This plastic is eroded by weather effects and abrasion into micro (less than five millimetres in diameter) and nanoparticles (less than 100 nm in diameter). Due to their size, their movement in air can be best compared to gas. This means they are easily inhaled into our lungs, as well as ingested through contaminated food and water sources. Once in the body, their size allows them to potentially cross the cell-blood barrier and thus enter the bloodstream. The health implications of this are only beginning to be studied.