Ottawa should end war on plastics for sake of the environment

Here’s the shocker: Meng shows that for 15 out of the 16 uses, plastic products incur fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives…

For example, when you swap plastic grocery bags for paper, you get 80 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substituting plastic furniture for wood—50 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substitute plastic-based carpeting with wool—80 per cent higher GHG emissions.

It’s been known for years that efforts to ban plastic products—and encourage people to use alternatives such as paper, metal or glass—can backfire. By banning plastic waste and plastic products, governments lead consumers to switch to substitutes, but those substitutes, mainly bulkier and heavier paper-based products, mean more waste to manage.

Now a new study by Fanran Meng of the University of Sheffield drives the point home—plastic substitutes are not inherently better for the environment. Meng uses comprehensive life-cycle analysis to understand how plastic substitutes increase or decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by assessing the GHG emissions of 16 uses of plastics in five major plastic-using sectors: packaging, building and construction, automotive, textiles and consumer durables. These plastics, according to Meng, account for about 90 per cent of global plastic volume.

Here’s the shocker: Meng shows that for 15 out of the 16 uses, plastic products incur fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives. Read that again. When considering 90 per cent of global plastic use, alternatives to plastic lead to greater GHG emissions than the plastic products they displace. For example, when you swap plastic grocery bags for paper, you get 80 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substituting plastic furniture for wood—50 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substitute plastic-based carpeting with wool—80 per cent higher GHG emissions.

A few substitutions were GHG neutral, such as swapping plastic drinking cups and milk containers with paper alternatives. But overall, in the 13 uses where a plastic product has lower emissions than its non-plastic alternatives, the GHG emission impact is between 10 per cent and 90 per cent lower than the next-best alternatives.

Meng concludes that “Across most applications, simply switching from plastics to currently available non-plastic alternatives is not a viable solution for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, care should be taken when formulating policies or interventions to reduce plastic demand that they result in the removal of the plastics from use rather than a switch to an alternative material” adding that “applying material substitution strategies to plastics never really makes sense.” Instead, Meng suggests that policies encouraging re-use of plastic products would more effectively reduce GHG emissions associated with plastics, which, globally, are responsible for 4.5 per cent of global emissions.

The Meng study should drive the last nail into the coffin of the war on plastics. This study shows that encouraging substitutes for plastic—a key element of the Trudeau government’s climate plan—will lead to higher GHG emissions than sticking with plastics, making it more difficult to achieve the government’s goal of making Canada a “net-zero” emitter of GHG by 2050.

Clearly, the Trudeau government should end its misguided campaign against plastic products, “single use” or otherwise. According to the evidence, plastic bans and substitution policies not only deprive Canadians of products they value (and in many cases, products that protect human health), they are bad for the environment and bad for the climate. The government should encourage Canadians to reuse their plastic products rather than replace them.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Up Next

Ordinary working Canadians are not buying into transgender identity politics

Don't Miss

The US Canadian border: Greatest number of terrorist watch list individuals being apprehended at northern border

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump puts all federal DEI staff on paid leave

Business / 43 mins ago

Undemocratic tax hike will kill hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs

Economy / 1 hour ago

Number of newcomers to Canada set to drop significantly

Business

Trump puts all federal DEI staff on paid leave

Published on January 22, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

Trump’s shuttering of federal DEI programs is in keeping with his promise to ‘forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based.’

President Donald Trump has ordered all federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) staff to be placed on paid leave by Wednesday evening, in accordance with his executive order signed on Monday.

The president pledged during his inaugural address to “forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based,” which is the impetus behind his efforts to abolish DEI programs that prioritize race and ethnicity above merit when hiring workers.

Trump’s Executive Order on Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing stated, “Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great.”

“President Trump campaigned on ending the scourge of DEI from our federal government and returning America to a merit based society where people are hired based on their skills, not for the color of their skin,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Tuesday night. “This is another win for Americans of all races, religions, and creeds. Promises made, promises kept.”

The Office of Personnel Management issued a memo to the leaders of federal departments instructing them to inform employees by 5 p.m. ET on Wednesday that they will be placed on paid administrative leave as all DEI offices and programs prepare to shut down, according to NBC News.

It is unclear how many employees will be affected by the erasure of federal DEI programs.

Diversity training has “exploded” in the federal government since Joe Biden took office in 2020, the Beacon noted, with all federal agencies having mandated a form of DEI training before he left office.

DEI initiatives have long been widely denounced by conservatives and moderates as divisive, but they have been coming under increasing fire for undermining the competence and most basic functioning of public institutions and private corporations, even putting lives at risk.

For example, some commentators have blamed growing – and at times catastrophic and fatal – airplane safety failures in part on DEI hires and policies. Upon the revelation that a doctor at Duke Medical School was “abandoning… all sort(s) of metrics” in hiring surgeons in order to implement DEI practice, Elon Musk warned that “people will die” because of DEI.

Business

Undemocratic tax hike will kill hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs

Published on January 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Devin Drover

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is demanding the Canada Revenue Agency immediately halt enforcement of the proposed capital gains tax hike which is now estimated to kill over 400,000 Canadian jobs, according to the CD Howe Institute.

“Enforcing the capital gains tax hike before it’s even law is not only undemocratic overreach by the CRA, but new data reveals it could also destroy over 400,000 Canadian jobs,” said Devin Drover, CTF General Counsel and Atlantic Director. “The solution is simple: the CRA shouldn’t enforce this proposed tax hike that hasn’t been passed into law.”

A new report from the CD Howe Institute reveals that the proposed capital gains tax hike could slash 414,000 jobs and shrink Canada’s GDP by nearly $90 billion, with most of the damage occurring within five years.

This report was completed in response to the Trudeau government’s plan to raise the capital gains inclusion rate for the first time in 25 years. While a ways and means motion for the hike passed last year, the necessary legislation has yet to be introduced, debated, or passed into law.

With Parliament prorogued until March 24, 2025, and all opposition parties pledging to topple the Liberal government, there’s no reasonable probability the legislation will pass before the next federal election.

Despite this, the CRA is pushing ahead with enforcement of the tax hike.

“It’s Parliament’s job to approve tax increases before they’re implemented, not the unelected tax collectors,” said Drover. “Canadians deserve better than having their elected representatives treated like a rubberstamp by the prime minister and the CRA.

“The CRA must immediately halt its plans to enforce this unapproved tax hike, which threatens to undemocratically take billions from Canadians and cripple our economy.”