Ottawa should scrap nonsensical plastics ban
Simply put, the single-use plastic ban trades higher waste and environmental costs for a negligible impact on global plastic pollution.
SEATTLE (Scrap Monster): Recently, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the federal government’s classification of plastic items as “toxic,” allowing Ottawa to continue its ban on several types of single-use plastics including straws, grocery bags, cutlery and takeout containers—purportedly in response to global plastic pollution.
Yet, despite the court ruling, this Trudeau-era policy remains deeply flawed. Canada’s plastics ban will have negligible impact on global plastic pollution yet will increase waste here at home and force a shift toward substitute items with higher overall environmental impacts.
First, the federal government’s own assessment (cited in the recent ruling) acknowledges that 99 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is already disposed of safely through incineration, recycling and environmentally-sound landfills. And according to the latest available estimates, thanks to its near-total waste collection and disposal system, Canada contributes a negligible 0.04 per cent of global mismanaged plastic waste.
In fact, a 2024 study published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, finds that no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters, and just eight countries—India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia and Brazil—generate more than half of global plastic waste. And most ocean plastic pollution originates in Asia where six countries—the Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Myanmar—account for nearly three-quarters of the global total.
Of course, plastics are central to modern life. Their durability, weight and versatility make them essential to health care, food packaging, agriculture, electronics, textiles and construction. Nevertheless, plastics remain an easy target for environmental restrictions, even if this means you must redefine “toxic” to include almost any physical object capable of harming wildlife.
When evaluating whether plastic items should be deemed toxic, the Federal Court of Appeal stated that the “chemical content” of plastic manufactured items is “irrelevant to the sea otter choking on a plastic straw.” In the judges’ words, “the problem is the plastic item itself, not its chemistry.” But by that logic, any discarded object with the potential to cause physical harm—including porcelain, silicone, glass, paper and other plastic substitutes whose waste will likely increase under the plastic ban—could be considered toxic.
Ottawa’s own projections acknowledge this risk. According to the government, the anticipated reduction in plastic waste—roughly 1.5 million tonnes by 2032—will be outweighed by nearly 3 million tonnes of additional waste from heavier substitutes such as metal, porcelain, glass, wood and aluminum. As a result, the ban would increase total waste overall. (Remember, these are the government’s own projections.)
Moreover, by forcing Canadians to replace plastics with these substitutes, the government may help increase the overall environmental risks of the substitutes throughout their life cycle—from manufacturing and transportation to use and disposal. Studies show that alternatives to plastic require more energy and water to produce, generate more solid waste, and result in higher CO2 emissions from production and transportation. They also contribute more to acidification of lakes and rivers, degradation of water quality, smog formation and ozone depletion than the plastic products they replace.
Once again, Ottawa does not dispute the environmental harm of plastic substitutes and in fact acknowledges that plastic substitutes can worsen air quality, affect “both marine and freshwater environments” and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to increased greenhouse-gas emissions.
Simply put, the single-use plastic ban trades higher waste and environmental costs for a negligible impact on global plastic pollution. It’s a deeply flawed policy that the Carney government should reconsider posthaste.
Courtesy: www.todayville.com