How to Solve The Problem of Plastic Pollution in Chicago?

The City of Chicago’s Dilemma with Single-Use Plastics

In the city of Chicago, foam to-go boxes could be banned, and single-use plastics could be restricted at Chicago restaurants under a municipal ordinance proposed aimed at reducing plastic pollution. The “Plastic-Free Water” ordinance introduced by Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s Finance Committee Chairman, Scott Waguespack, would give restaurants carry-outs and to-go orders until Jan. 1, 2021, to stop serving food in the polystyrene containers used by small neighborhood restaurants. Instead, restaurants must use reusable dishes for dine-in orders and recyclable or compostable containers for to-go orders.

Restaurants that are not able to wash dishes or contract that workload can request a full or partial waiver under the ordinance. Plastic drinking straws will also be available when requested. Customers would also be allowed to bring their reusable cups when dining. Restaurants could offer reusable cups for dining-in and disposable cups with lids, spill plugs, or sleeves for delivery or take-out service. Jen Walling, president of the Illinois Environmental Council, hailed the proposed ordinance as the “strongest ordinance in the Midwest” and a “mirror” of some of the strongest ordinances in the country. “We want to target these single-use plastics and foam products because we use them for a brief amount of time.

After the plan was introduced, the Illinois Restaurant Association said it is supportive of voluntary efforts to reduce waste, but warned of potential cost impacts on businesses. “Restaurants face massive legislative and regulatory burdens – such as a higher small wage, paid sick leave, and Fair Workweek rules – that result in average profit margins that are already pennies on the dollar,” IRA President and CEO Sam Toia said in a statement. “Any proposed regulations on plastics need to consider the more financial hardships that will be placed on operators and implications for safety and sanitation, customer requests, drive-through areas, medical necessity of plastic food-ware, and other considerations.” “Twenty-two million pounds of plastics are going into the Great Lakes every single year,” he said. “We are finding plastic particles in the water we drink and the food we eat. We cannot recycle our way out of the problem.”

Global Approach and Impact to Reducing Plastic Pollution from Single-Use Plastics

The production of plastic worldwide has outpaced that of almost any other material. As it stands, plastic packaging accounts for about half of the plastic waste in the world. Globally, Asia, America, and the European Union are the world’s leaders in producing plastic packaging waste per capita. The plastics used by everyday Chicagoans are thrown out almost immediately after being used only once. Thus, the ability to manage the high volume of plastic waste is confounded. Most plastics end up in dumps, landfills, or the environment — jeopardizing our drinking supply.

Most plastics do not biodegrade. Instead, they break down into smaller fragments known as microplastics. Plastic litter in the Asia-Pacific region alone costs its tourism, fishing, and shipping industries $1.3 billion per year. In Europe, cleaning plastic waste from coasts and beaches requires about €630 million per year. The total economic damage to the world’s marine ecosystem caused by plastic amounts to at least $13 billion every year. The economic, health, and environmental reasons to act are clear.

Changing consumption patterns, growing populations, and increased urbanization are some of the significant challenges developing countries face in waste management. There is no single solution to addressing the leakage of plastic into the environment. Based on local considerations, the answer is likely to be a combination of the three approaches.

Considering the city of Chicago’s 2021 approach towards businesses, these sorts of articles reinforce the narrative that reactions to environmentalism are too slow, and further steps need to be taken. Developing countries have more challenges than the United States, yet still, comprise our global ecosystem through a broader lens. As I mentioned in my earlier sources, making the connection from Chicago to the outside world might be unnecessary, I may want to focus on the United States. But, alternative understanding perspectives can still strengthen any conclusions I make too.

Measures to reduce plastic bag pollution have included bans and levies. These interventions have occurred both and. Although reduction strategies provide tools to reduce single-use plastics at source, it is recommended that consistent measures continue to be implemented to mitigate plastic bags and micro-beads pollution. But, need for that research to measure the positive impacts of these strategies in the short- and long-term.

The Potential Impact on Businesses in the City of Chicago

Plastic pollution is, regardless, deserving of our attention. Yet, does a ban on single-use products grant a significant first step towards a cleaner environment? The answer is, no. Western bans on single-use plastics can only ever be little more than superficial, a bandaid on a much larger macro issue.

Furthermore, many of the “green” alternatives are not “green” at all. A hole in this logic, but, is that a product is only as recyclable or compostable as the infrastructure allows. It is, thus, rather clear that a ban on single-use plastics is unlikely to have any real impact on the global pollution issue. As an example, after the city of Seattle banned single-use plastic shopping bags, many store owners saw their cost for bags increase from 40% up to 200%.

The ban on single-use plastics will place a significant burden on both consumers and producers and will have little to show for it. This is a shame since far more effective solutions exist that would be far less damaging to consumer choice and accessibility. One possible path to take would be to improve the recycling infrastructure.

Legislative History of Environmentalism and Single-Use Plastics

China has taken efforts to reduce plastic consumption by eliminating the one trillion plastic bags used each year, African and Asian countries have set small thickness thresholds after plastic bags were found to clog pipes and waterways, and Europe has chosen to disincentivize their use by placing a tax on plastic bags. Thus, a central goal for further legislation needs to be undertaken.

In 2015, Congress passed the ‘Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015.’ The passage of the Act revealed that Congress can pass smart environmental legislation. Proponents of future environmental legislation enjoy the Act’s example by setting a precedent against demonizing commerce, focusing on stakeholder coalition building, and emphasizing the public health aspects of the proposed legislation.

Cite this page