12-STEM F Bonilla, Timothy Joseph

PLASTIC BAN IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

As of the start of 2014, nearly all of the cities in Metro Manila had implemented a ban on plastic bags, in
compliance with the “Total Plastic Ban Act of 2011”. This Act prohibits the sale and use of conventional
(high density polyethylene or HDPE) plastic bags in business establishments, such as grocery stores, fast
food outlets and restaurants, mall stores and markets, and penalizes violators with amounts ranging
from Php 500 to Php 5,000, including imprisonment. Businesses are allowed to use only paper bags or
biodegradable plastic bag as substitute. While this measure appears to be eco-friendly, the fact is that
the plastic ban does more harm than good.

It is easy to believe that paper bags are more environment-friendly than conventional plastic bags. After
all, paper is natural; plastic is synthetic. Paper bags degrade easily; plastics, we are told, stay in the
environment for many years. However, all these are just myths. And anyone who cares enough to do
basic Internet research can find out what science actually proves.

The website “All About Bags” (http://www.allabout bags.ca/papervplasticstudies.html) compiles a

number of research studies, both by private research organizations and governments, and shows the
following:

1.Research done by the Scottish Government in 2005 shows that compared to conventional plastic
bags, paper bags have a more negative impact on water sources. Paper bags consume four times more
water in their production stage, and contribute 14 times greater in the eutrophication of bodies of
water. In addition, the report says that because paper bags can be as much as 10 times heavier than
plastic bags, the former eats up more landfill space and costs more to transport.

2. The ULS Report in 2007 shows that the production of conventional plastic bags compared to that of
paper bags, produces significantly less greenhouse emissions (39% for plastic vs 68% for paper). It
also consumes less water: 58 gallons per 1,500 plastic bags versus an overwhelming 1,004 gallons per
1,000 paper bags.

3. A 2011 report from the UK Government says conventional HDPE bags shows the least negative impact
on climate (a measure called “global warming potential”) compared to paper bags and even
biodegradable plastic bags.

These findings from credible research bodies prove one thing: Plastic bans do not make sense. Plastic
bans do not work. The smart-and eco-friendly- thing to do now is to repeal the “Total Plastic Ban Act of
2011.”
I- Share your answer to any of the questions below.

1. Was there a time when you wanted to express your side on an issue but you could not? What
hindered you from sharing your position?

2. Talk about a time when you publicly expressed your stand on an issue. How did you feel about your
experience?

1. What is the issue taken up in the position paper?

The issue addressed in the position paper is the plastic bag ban implemented in Metro Manila under the
“Total Plastic Ban Act of 2011,” which prohibits the sale and use of conventional plastic bags in business
establishments. The paper argues that the ban, intended to be eco-friendly, is counterproductive and
does more harm than good. It questions the effectiveness of the ban, particularly in terms of its
environmental impact and sustainability.

2. What is the writer’s claim or thesis on the issue?

The writer's thesis is that the plastic bag ban, while seemingly eco-friendly, is not beneficial to the
environment. In fact, it argues that the ban does not achieve its intended environmental benefits and
suggests that the “Total Plastic Ban Act of 2011” should be repealed. The writer claims that the
environmental impact of alternatives like paper bags is actually worse than plastic bags, and the ban as a
whole does not effectively address environmental issues.

3. What reasons are given to support this claim?

The writer provides several reasons to support the claim that the plastic ban is harmful rather than
helpful:

Environmental impact of paper bags: The production of paper bags requires significantly more water
and contributes to greater eutrophication (the process by which water bodies become overly enriched
with nutrients, leading to oxygen depletion and loss of aquatic life).

Heavier weight and landfill space: Paper bags are much heavier than plastic bags, which leads to more
landfill space consumption and higher transportation costs.

Greenhouse emissions: The production of paper bags results in significantly higher greenhouse gas
emissions compared to conventional plastic bags, making them a less sustainable alternative.

Water consumption: Paper bags use far more water to produce than plastic bags, exacerbating concerns
about water resources.

4. What kinds of support are given for the reasons?

The support provided for the reasons is primarily based on credible research studies conducted by
various organizations:
The Scottish Government’s 2005 research: This study highlights the negative impact of paper bags on
water sources, their heavier weight leading to more landfill space, and the higher transportation costs
compared to plastic bags.

The ULS Report (2007): This study compares the environmental impact of paper and plastic bags,
showing that paper bags produce significantly more greenhouse emissions and use more water during
production than plastic bags.

The 2011 UK Government report: This report emphasizes that conventional plastic bags have a lower
global warming potential compared to both paper and biodegradable plastic bags, further supporting
the argument against banning plastic bags.

5. What counterarguments are presented? How are these refuted?

The main counterargument presented is the belief that paper bags are more environmentally friendly
than plastic bags because paper is natural, and plastic bags take longer to degrade in the environment.
The paper refutes this by explaining that:

Paper bags consume more water during production, leading to greater environmental degradation,
especially regarding water resources.

The claim that plastic bags degrade slowly in the environment is true, but the production process of
paper bags causes greater harm through water consumption, landfill space, and greenhouse gas
emissions.

While biodegradable plastic bags may seem like a better option, they still do not solve the larger
environmental issues caused by the production and disposal of paper bags.

6. Do you find the position paper convincing? Why or why not?

The position paper presents a compelling argument based on credible scientific studies that challenge
the conventional wisdom about the environmental benefits of banning plastic bags. The use of concrete
evidence from reputable sources lends credibility to the writer's claim. However, the paper’s focus on
the negative impacts of paper bags may overlook the possibility of improving or innovating alternatives
to plastic bags (such as more sustainable biodegradable plastics or reusable options). While the writer’s
argument is persuasive in pointing out the flaws in the plastic bag ban, it could be further strengthened
by proposing actionable solutions that promote environmental sustainability, rather than merely
criticizing the current law. Therefore, while the position paper is convincing in its critique of the ban, it
would benefit from offering more forward-thinking solutions.