The article highlights an thought to cut down on plastic bag use in Singapore by enforcing charges for them on people patronizing supermarkets. proviso stores and even nutrient mercantile establishments and peddler stables. The proposal deals with one of Singapore’s important beginning of waste and it can be seen as a little move towards eco-friendliness. As with any other new enterprises. it is deserving discoursing its possible effectivity. and any other impacts that the charges on plastic bags may hold on the society. On the same note. analyzing such a green policy would besides of course lead one to chew over upon the “green” attitude of Singaporeans in general.
The use of plastic bags is a major concern foremost due to the sum of cherished resources that goes into fabricating it. More alarmingly for Singapore. the local ingestion for plastic bags last twelvemonth was reported to hold amounted to three billion pieces – an equivalent of 37 million kilogram of rough oil and 12 million kilogram of natural gas. The issue is made more tragic when we consider the fact that most of these plastic bags end up in the incinerator. Raising the monetary value of plastic bags from zero to ten cents as a hindrance makes behavioral economic sense. A survey in 2007 indicated that people have a strong penchant for free point over a better trade available at a little cost. In add-on. when a little monetary value ticket is placed on something that was ab initio free of charge. the demand for the point will see a important bead. Such was the account behind the success of the Area Licensing Scheme – a policy introduced in 1975 that charged auto users come ining the CBD in order to cut down congestion into the country. The success of a similar. local policy would possibly bespeak a possible success of the statute law of plastic bags in the close hereafter.
In add-on. ordinances over use of plastic bags have proven to be successful in other states instances. Charging for plastic bags has led to a important decrease in use in the UK and a prohibition in China reportedly saved an equivalent of 4. 8 metric tons of oil. while locally Ikea bear downing its clients for plastic bags has been hailed as a great green success. Looking at these successes. paying for plastic bags may possibly be the solution to Singapore’s environmental sufferings. On the other manus. it is pertinent to look into the local consumer wonts with respect to plastic bags. Equally astonishing as the reported figure of plastic bags disposed may sound. we have to bear in head that a immense proportion of that figure is contributed by families recycling them to bag their garbage before disposal. In fact. one of the common grouses raised with respect to bear downing for plastic bags is the incommodiousness that arises when people dispose their waste. Simply put. plastic bags are non freebees that Singaporeans take for granted and discard as they please ; they are as important to our day-to-day lives as the food markets they one time contained. Puting a charge on the otherwise free plastic bags may probably make the same consequence as ERP gauntries on Singapore roads – those who don’t head paying for the convenience will go on to make so. while the remainder will be ‘diverted’ to buying rubbish bags on their ain.
The article brought in Ikea as an illustration of a retail merchant that patterns such a policy. While one may be speedy to see Ikea as a success narrative and testament for the future success of such a policy across Singapore. it of import to admit the difference between Ikea’s pattern and an all-embracing policy for all retail merchants. Ikea is a alone store with no direct. perfect competition selling Swedish-designed furniture and family points. Between paying for a fictile bag and paying somewhat more for a stronger. more lasting reclaimable bag. the pick is really clear for a typical client who needs to tote place a heavy burden of points with a good mix of delicate points. The return off here is that it is non wise to merely recycle a policy and anticipate a certain success in altering Singaporean’s day-to-day modus operandi merely by generalizing from a alone instance without admiting the niceties between the two scenarios. Should payment be put in topographic point for plastic bags. in the long tally. consumers will bit by bit factor in the extra 10. 20 or even fifty-cents into their everyday shopping costs. merely like how it has become a common pattern for peddlers to bear down an extra sum for takeout orders.
A major concern ( for conservationists. at least ) that may originate from this would be a recoil in the long tally. in the sense that such a pattern would take Singaporeans to bit by bit accept that lending to the environmental devastation is yet another entitlement that they can afford with some little alteration. The following inquiry that should be asked is possibly how so. should such an issue be dealt with? A survey has shown that people may non mind traveling green. every bit long as it does non be more. This would explicate why. harmonizing to the article. supermarkets would wish to see the governments make it a statute law to bear down for plastic bags alternatively of taking the first measure on their ain: being the first to bear down for plastic might deviate their concern to the following nearest viing supermarket. This would besides explicate why. despite the alternate option of reusable bags made available. clients still opt for the free plastic bags.
A really simplistic account. possibly. yet it is one that clearly highlights the existent mentality job that needs to be corrected over clip should we truly be sincere in endeavoring to salvage the environment. The fact of the affair is single-use plastic bags are about ne’er ‘single-use’ in Singapore ; hence the job can non be tackled merely like other single-use bundles. Yes. the sheer sum of non-renewable resources that end up in our rubbish heap is so distressing. and the fact that non many are making something about it is a manifestation of a country’s detached attitude towards Gaia. However. assisting immense supermarkets save on packaging costs does non efficaciously work out the implicit in job. The focal point should alternatively be on instruction and a gradual rectification of attitude. and because paradigm displacements do non go on overnight. possibly we should look towards a feasible option such as bags made from sustainable stuffs every bit good.
Lew. Y. D. . & A ; Leong. W. Y. ( 2009. May ) . Pull offing Congestion in Singapore—A Behavioural Economics Perspective. Journeys. pp. 15-22. Mohan. A. M. ( 2012. August 9 ) . Survey: Eco-packaging can act upon purchase determinations. Retrieved September 17. 2012. from Boxing World: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. packworld. com/sustainability/green-marketing-amp-claims/study-eco-packaging-can-influence-purchase-decisions Osborne. H. ( 2009. May 1 ) . Plastic bag charge hailed as a immense success. Retrieved September 10. 2012. from The Guardian: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. defender. co. uk/money/2009/apr/30/plastic-bags-reuse PackWebAsia. ( 2012. September 17 ) . China’s fictile bag prohibition saves more than 4. 8 metric tons of oil. Retrieved September 20. 2012. from PackWebAsia. com: hypertext transfer protocol: //apfcongress. packwebasia. com/sustainable-packaging/environmental-news/2062-china-s-plastic-bag-ban-saves-more-than-4-8-tonnes-of-oil Shampanier. K. M. ( 2007. November/December ) . Zero as a Particular Monetary value: The True Value of