the ban on single use of plastic is impractical the purpose of articles like bags and packaging is ultimately to make human life easier plastic article to do well they shouldn't be banned write a paragraph to analyse this argument
Answers
Explanation:
I don’t agree that the plastic ban is impractical. No doubt, plastic has become an integral part of our fast-paced life but it does not mean that its side effect can be ignored.
Hot food packed in plastic container reacts with plastic and causes many diseases. Negligent disposal of plastic bags leads to choked drains. Animals swallow plastic bags with the food mistakenly. This non-biodegradable object should be banned completely.
Citizens must co-operate with the government by using traditional cloth bags or reusing a bag before throwing it away. To break the habit single-use should be charged separately. It can compel people to carry their own carry bags or containers. The ‘say no to plastic bags’ campaign must start from an individual level to National level to make it a success.
Answer:
Ban on Plastic
Explanation:
Plastic is very harmful for the environment and it must be banned.
Millions of fish in water and animals on land die after consuming or
getting stuck in plastic.Plastic cannot be destroyed either by throwing in water or burning neither can it decompose if you bury it in mud.
Therefore many countries have put a complete ban on plastic.
But its quite impractical to pose a complete ban on plastic because
1)The latest research shows plastic bags make up only a fraction of marine debris in the waters of Greater Jakarta. Thin or thick plastic wraps and sacks constitute just over 13.5% of all debris items found and 8.5% of their weight. In Japan, plastic shopping bags account for only about 2% of all plastic waste produced in the country. Moreover, while plastic bags are visible to us all, we need to remember that what is in them is often more harmful to the environment than the bags themselves. For example, products with heavy plastic packaging and containers can weigh many times more than the bag. Or consider the actual items, from toxic cleaning solvents, to high-food-mile imported strawberries, to soda in an aluminium can.
2)Paper bags can require 400% more energy to make, not to mention the harvesting of trees and use of noxious chemicals in production. Growing cotton “requires land, huge quantities of water, chemical fertilisers and pesticides”.
Plastic bags use fossil fuels, a nonrenewable resource, and are permanent, entering the waste stream forever. They may cause more pollution on land and in waterways, but have less effect on climate change and land use than other types of bags.
Biodegradable bags, perhaps surprisingly, could be “the worst option” in terms of their impact on climate, harm to soil, water pollution and toxic emissions.
3)Researchers in psychology have observed people often harm the environment when they try to save the planet. For example, they might buy more of a product, like groceries, because they are labeled as eco-friendly.
This is related to the concept of compensatory behaviour.
For example, people may feel that, since they recycle, they don’t need to consider the extra meat they ate that week. Or because they walked instead of driving to the store, they deserve to buy an extra piece of clothing.
Sometimes compensatory action takes the form of attempts to account for previous harms. For example, buying carbon offsets for flying might make a passenger feel good, but from an environmental perspective it’s less desirable than not boarding in the first place.