Images of dead marine creatures that have ingested plastic materials and of living tortoises caught in nets have prompted many to call for a ban on plastics. Experts even warned that humans are now also consuming the plastic debris they throw in seas and oceans. The plastic debris enter the food chain via the fish that ingest microplastics, which the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration defined as any type of plastic fragment that is less than 5 millimeters.
The horror of discovering that plastic debris has now found its way into the food we eat has resulted in knee-jerk reactions, such as the call for a total ban on the use of plastic (See, “Duterte backs legislation to ban plastic use,” in the BusinessMirror, November 8, 2019). The President even signaled his preference for legislation to authorize the ban. In place of plastic, advocates of the ban want a shift to more environment-friendly packaging materials made of biodegradable matter, such as paper, which comes from trees.
Following the President’s pronouncement, lawmakers at the House of Representatives have started deliberating a bill that seeks to impose excise tax on single-use plastic bags. House Committee on Ways and Means Vice Chairman Estrellita B. Suansing of Nueva Ecija said her proposal targets supermarkets, malls, shops, stores and similar establishments. However, House Minority Leader Bienvenido Abante Jr. wants a total ban on single-use plastic and to hike the excise tax on reusable plastic.
The protection of the environment was cited by advocates as the single biggest reason for their push to ban plastics and to slap an excise tax on single-use plastics. Unfortunately, imposing taxes will not discourage single use and will only penalize the poor who have grown dependent on plastic. For the poor, plastic bags have become the most convenient means of carrying their groceries and food items that they consume in construction sites or even in their air-conditioned offices.
The tax will only be passed on to consumers and raise the price of goods and it is likely that businessmen will not absorb the cost. This has always been the case whenever government decides to tax certain items. The dependency of Pinoy consumers on plastic containers and packaging materials has given rise to an industry that may be forced to lay off workers if the government will insist on a total ban on plastics.
The shift to the paper-based packaging materials will also be stressful to the environment as more trees will have to be cut down to meet the spike in demand for paper. This could result in the further denudation of the country’s forests, which had to give way to more houses as the country’s population expands. The consequent increase in demand will make paper more expensive and raise the production cost of industries that depend on it.
Instead of an outright ban on plastics or imposing taxes, Congress could consider giving out incentives to consumers and industries that will use biodegradable packaging materials. To protect the remaining forest cover of the country, the government must now encourage the cultivation of bamboo, a sturdy material that can also be used to construct houses. Tax perks must be given to companies that will find a way to add value to locally grown bamboo.
The government can do a lot to ensure that the transition to reducing the use of plastics will be less painful. Measures to encourage people to use alternatives, however, will require political will to implement. Information and education campaign will help, but the government must not stop there.