Banning Plastic Foam Containers - Term Paper Example

Banning Plastic Foam Containers The Problem and How it is Defined by Policy Makers The problem at hand is plastic foam containers which Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg feels are doing more harm to the environment than good. It is for this reason thatin the 12thand final Stateof the City a country-wide ban on plastic foam food packaging was proposed. Takeout boxes, trays and cups fall within this rubric of the plastic-foam containers that are to be banned. Historical Background of the Problem According to Grynbaum (Feb. 2013), at hand there is an ensuing development where the New York City Mayor, Mr. Michael Bloomberg, wants to ban the use of plastic foam containers. However, in order for this ban to become legally enforceable, the City Council should approve it. The need to ban plastic foam containers was based on the fact that they are notbiodegradable, and, therefore, their wastes outlive other forms of refuse. It is for this reason that Ms. Quinn, the Council Speaker,referred to plastic form containers as worse than cockroaches. Dow Chemical is in the middle of this storm as the producer of Styrofoam which is alleged by the Council to beused to manufacture disposable foam items. Dow Chemical is categorical and states that the Styrofoam it uses is for insulation.Apart from its role in environmental degradation, plastic foamattracted the wrath of the City Council because of the high cost of disposal it brings about. Plastic foam is said to add up to 20 dollars for everyton of wastes to recycling costs. Given that New York City handles approximately 1.2 million tons of food waste annually, the amount that is incurred in handling plastic foam containers is extra expenses. This development takes place at the background of past events wherein the mayor implemented a ban on smoking in New York City’s parks, restaurants and bars and imposed limits on the selling of sugar sodas. Apart from ensuring environmental safety, promotion of public health and the abatement of costs that are incurred in managing plastic foam containers, the mayor made the move in the bid to restore the waterfront in the city. That the move cannot be adequately termed as draconian, is a matter that is underscored by cities such as Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Oregon having preceded New York in banning the use of plastic foam containers. Literature Review There are scholars who will solidly stand behind the move by the mayor, Mr. Bloomberg to stump out the use of plastic foam packaging; with the main reason behind the standpoint they take being premised on truths about the dangers that accompany the use of plastic foam packaging. For one, Pruss, Giroult and Rushbrook (1999) point out that it is these toxic chemicals that have been found to leach out of plastic foam packages into food that has been packed in them. These chemicals have been found to adversely affect the health of human beings and the rest of fauna that may come into contact with these chemicals. The very chemicals have also been established to damage the reproductive systems of animals and human beings. Another concern against plastic foam packaging is that they are made of non-sustainable, heavy pollutant and receding commodity which is petroleum. This means that the facing out of plastic foam packages will not only succor the environment from degradation by non-biodegradables, but the same move will also help herald economic gains by reducing the strenuous demand on nonrenewable resources. Knight and Creighton (2004) also wax polemical against plastic foam packages, pointing out that these packages are non-biodegradable. The problem herein is that as all forms of polystyrenes, plastic foam packages only crumble into smaller fragments which are totally bereft of expiration date. Any percentage that is dumped in the environment, these bits persist on land for an indefinite period as litter. Most of these bits are ingested by animals and later chock or/ and clog animal digestive systems in the waterways. As if these drawbacks are not enough, plastic foam materials occupy more space in landfills than paper and ultimately reenter the environment when water or mechanical forces breach landfills. Guber (2003) also contributes, by pointing out that the mayor’s standpoint is venerated by the fact that foam recycling is always carried out by chemical plants that manufacture it. This recycling is carried out in highly centralized and distant industrial plants which employ complex chemical processes and, thereby, expending far greater energy than that which the recycling material saves. Identifying Key Stakeholders There are several stakeholders in the development that is unfolding. The City Council is a major stakeholder in this matter since it is evident that plastic foam packaging is polluting New York City and its environment. It is for this reason that Christine C. Quinn, the City Council Speaker suggested openness to a ban on plastic foam, as a way of strengthening the effort to encourage recycling. Dow Chemical is another principal stakeholder, as the producer of Styrofoam. The banning of plastic foam packaging is poised to affect its sales. Restaurants and bodegas are stakeholders in this state of affairs since they will be compelled to restock. Public schools also fall within this category since they are to be instructed to face out plastic-foam trays from their cafeteria. The public is also a stakeholder in the matter at hand since it will be affected by the decisions that have been arrived and will bring either positive or negative effects. If the New York City Council does not ban the use of plastic foam packaging, it will continue to incur an additional cost of 20 dollars to recycling costs. Of course, this expenditure will be shouldered by the public. The glaring effects of the plastic accumulation will also propound environmental degradation and thereby negatively impact the public. Analyzing Whether or Not the Problem Represents an Example of a Market Failure The problem cannot be said to exemplify market failure, since it has been brought about by non-economic interests. The interest herein is underpinned by the need to: conserve the environment; promote public health; abate the cost of waste management; and to restore the city’s waterfront. Although these efforts will bring rich economic values with them, yet, the tackling of the problem was neither necessitated by the desire to financially drain Dow Chemical, nor by the move to gain economic or financial mileage therefrom. As a matter of fact, the push by Mr. Bloomberg may have made him unpopular with corporate leaders who deal with plastic foam containers. Identifying the Recommendation that Has Been Proposed or Already Put in Place So far, the decision that has been made is laudable on several grounds. In the first place, before taking such measures it is important to recommend the New York City Council to ensure that the decision that is to be made at hand is done within the confines of the law. Particularly, the Council’s spokesperson Ms. Quinn acknowledged the need for the New York City Council to approve the proscription of the plastic foam containers in order to have a legally binding environmental injunction. Secondly, the need to ban the use of plastic foam containers remains a watershed in the realization of a clean, healthier and more serene environment since the move will have helped remove the amount of non-biodegradable waste materials in the environment, and, thereby, making the environment cleaner. Secondly, this will increase public health since public health is concomitant with clean environment. The realization of a cleaner and more serene environment is to be done through the restoration of the waterfront in the city. Nevertheless, as a future scholar, it is important for me to learn about other feasible alternatives that may be applied alongside with Mr. Bloomberg’s act of banning the use of plastic foam packages. This is so, because in as much as the mayor’s act of banning the use of plastic foam packages may auger well with environmental safety, yet it is needful that the residents and inhabitants of New York City are provided with the most appropriate alternative. For one, it can be helpful if the mayor recommends the use of biodegradables made from unbleached paper, to make alternative containers and packages. These materials are far much safer and friendlier to the environment; they are biodegradable and easily recyclable. The biodegradable nature of these unbleached papers is underscored by the fact that the paper easily and naturally dissolves in the environment. The same paper can be easily renewed and repackaged into another holder. In about the same wavelength, it is important to note an aspect which accentuates another quality of biodegradable papers, which is the emergence of community recycling. The introduction of community recycling programs is of very high benefit, since it has taken the initiative of recycling and environmental conservation into the hands of the community. This means that it is no longer the government and highly capitalist industrial plants which must be waited upon to preserve the environment. Right now, paper products can be recycled at people’s doorsteps. The environment is safer when environmental safety becomes a matter of public interest and not a concern which is a preserve of the government and large industrial plants. Analyzing the Decision Making Process behind the Arrival at the Recommendation The decision making process remains stable, elaborate and formal enough to parry away the intrigues of power-plays and intense lobbying which interested parties, such as Dow Chemicals, may resort to as a way of delaying the ban, or defeating it altogether. All that is needed is for the New York City Mayor, Mr. Michael Bloomberg, to present the matter to the City Council for decision making. The decision that may have been arrived at will be legally binding. However, in this case, should stakeholders such as Dow Chemicals feel slighted or unfairly targeted by the move, they may exercise the right to make an appeal in the court of law. Discussing the Costs and Benefits of the Recommendation The cost and benefits that may stem from the New York City Mayor underscore by far, the prospects of accruals overrunning losses that may be resultantly realized. Specifically, on the one hand, the recommendation (to face out the use of plastic foam food packaging) is bound to ensure environmental cleanliness and safety, cleaner waterfronts and parks in the city and a healthier population. On the other hand, the ratification of the recommendation is likely to shortchange the financial interests of organizations that deal in or produce polystyrene such as Dow Chemicals. Restaurants and bars are also likely to be inconvenienced for a while as they seek for alternatives to plastic foam food packaging. However, the gains that will be accrued from the ratification of Mr. Bloomberg’s recommendations are bound to far outrun and overflow the sectarian interests that some organizations will have forfeited. The sectarian nature of these entrepreneurial outfits is underscored by the fact that although a lot of profit is accrued by these organizations which heavily compromise environmental safety, yet these organizations seldom take initiatives to safeguard the environment. These organizations barely go past what is legally demanded by the government through occupational safety and health (OSHA) standards and regulations to practice environmentally-centered corporate social responsibility (CSR). Therefore, the losses that will culminate from this process are likely to remain confined to the non-private sector. As opposed to the foregoing, a healthier population, for instance, translates to less strain on public expenditure which may have been expended in addressing polystyrene-related health complications. At the same time, a healthier population is bound to grace New York City with a stable and stronger force of manpower and skilled labor. New York City is also likely to gain increased revenue from tourist attraction and recreational services as its parks and waterfronts are restored and made cleaner. Conversely, even the failure to institute the ban of plastic foam containers is bound to rake in some benefits. However, these benefits will be restricted to just a click of players in the corporate world, instead of the gains trickling down to the rest of the people. Dow Chemicals and other companies that make plastic foam containers are the ones that will benefit from the current state of affairs. This means that maintaining the status quo will forestall the realization of public good. The import of this is that even from a utilitarian point of view, it will be wrong to maintain the status quo. This is because, utulitarians point out that a deed is ethically right if it accords the greatest gain to the greatest number [of people]. In this case, the beneficiaries of the use of plastic foam containers are to be limited to major players in the plastic manufacturing industry and their associates. Extending the gains to workers in these companies or industrial plants may also be incorrect since such workers are always exposed to occupational hazards and dangers and are not paid competitively. Identifying Political and Ethical Concerns of Recommendation There are no political concerns that may stand in the path of the mayor’s recommendations, given that all the parties in the US are committed to environmental safety and sustainable development. Already, big cities such as Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Ore have already carried out similar recommendations by facing out the use of Polystyrene without political impediments. The absence of political concerns to institute the ban on plastic foam containers is also underpinned by the heavy industrial nature of America. Since America is heavy industrialized, there are serious concerns about the importance of environmental conservation. This explains why America is therefore not only concerned about the need to totally adopt green energy, but also the need to stave off the danger of elements that exacerbate soil pollution. It is very unlikely that a politician will seek to gain political mileage by attempting to campaign against plastic foam containers. This is especially the case with the election period having long expired. Ethical concerns and all ethical points of view are only likely to tip in favor of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's policy. For instance, utilitarianism will side with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s move, while deontologists are likely to hail the mayor’s efforts since he is making progressive and positive steps out of duty. Deontologists believe that an action is morally or ethically right if it is done in the line of duty, as a duty. In like manner, consequentialists are likely to hail Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s initiative to have the manufacturing and use of plastic foam containers legally proscribed because of the consequences that such a move will bring. For instance, it is obvious that the consequence of such a move will extirpate the soil pollution, littering, incidents of chocking among children and animals and the expenses that accost the use of these containers, due to their unrecyclable and non-biodegradable nature. On the other hand, the failure to implement the ban on plastic foam containers and their use is likely to have spiraling effects on the environment. Consequentialists are therefore likely to prefer the passage of the ban, to the status quo. Perhaps the most serious ethical issue that is worthy of more serious consideration is that the banning of the plastic foam containers and their usage is likely to create unemployment. This is because; the ban is likely to trigger a chain of foreclosures as numerous plants [such as Dow Chemicals] which deal in plastic foam containers will have been pushed out of operation. As these companies close, their employees are bound to forfeit their jobs, and thereby exacerbating the already complex conundrum which is unemployment. This is one of the factors that may be considered, especially at a time when job creation has become one of the five key concerns of the Obama Administration. This concern is serious to the point that if not addressed well by the proponents of the ban, it could modify the manner in which such legislation will be executed. If not resisted, others are likely to point out that the ban is carried out in phases, to moderate and abate the harsh realities that would come from sudden and collective loss of jobs. References Guber, L. D. (2003). The grassroots of a green revolution: Polling America on environmental safety. New York: SAGE. Grynbaum, M.M. (2013, Feb. 13). To go: plastic foam containers, if the mayor gets his way. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/nyregion/next-bloomberg-target-plastic-foam-cups.html? _r=0 Knight, D. &Creighton, L. (2004).Regulation of food packaging in Europe and the USA. London: Shrewsbury. Pruss, A., Giroult E. & Rushbrook, P. (1999). Safe management of wastes from healthcare activities. Geneva: World Health Organization. Read More