Thoughts on the Plastic Straw ban campaign
by Ananya Peddibhotla
The plastic straw ban movement has been the most popular environmental campaign in the last few years and has been seen as an easy way to reduce the use of single-use plastic. Plastic straws being a commonly used product are non-biodegradable and prone to ending up in waterways. Most plastic straws break down into smaller particles (microplastic) hence releasing chemicals into the soil, air, and water. The plastic straw ban movement gained further momentum as big corporates like Starbucks swore to get rid of plastic straws, which can also be seen as a way through which corporates asserted their contribution to reducing single-use plastic. In a cynical sense, this can also be seen as a way through which companies assert their morality towards the environment by doing what many argue “bare minimum”.
The reason why plastic straw ban gained such momentum can be partly attributed to how straws are not a necessity for abled-body people who have come to realise straws as an unnecessary and mundane utensil. This momentum further spread on social media, and narratives around the ban created a sense of moral obligation or a norm of not using straws in order to ‘feel good’ about doing something for the already miserable environment.
With regard to the popular narrative around plastic straws, a question that merits consideration is whether straws can really be banned without any consequences, i.e. are straws really insignificant plastic products which can be ridden of without furthering conflicts? To understand this, it is important to look at the role plastic straws have played originally. Disability rights advocate Lawrence Carter-Long highlights that the first targeted sales of “flex-straws” were to hospitals in 1947. Kirsten Schultz argues that the plastic bendy-straws were, in fact, originally used among people with illness and disability before it became a mainstream utensil.
In this context, it is important to understand how plastic straws were an important invention especially for the disabled community. Plastic straws more than an insignificant product that can be done away with is the most important tool for the disabled and is a necessity for them. The need for plastic straws for the disabled community can be elaborated by analysing how many people with different types of disabilities and special needs rely on straws to consume food and beverages offered at businesses. Disability advocate Karin Hitselberger notes how people with a huge range of disabilities such as cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis etc., depend on plastic straws to access beverages and water which is essential for one’s survival. Moreover, something as ‘mundane’ as a straw represents independence and freedom for the disabled community. In this sense, it is a tool for the disabled community to access the same places we go to eat/drink.
Many have argued that renewable straws would suffice and replace plastic straws as a sustainable alternative. However, disability activist Kirsten Schultz notes that plastic straw alternatives are not good enough for the essential needs of the disabled community. The image below highlights how alternatives, in fact, harm people with disabilities:
Majority of the population may not have the need for plastic straws, but it is evident that all stakeholders who use plastic straws have not been adequately considered. Therefore, it is imperative that blanket bans on plastic straws have the potential to create newer conflicts which stems due to the lack of deliberation and discussion during policy formulation.
Why stakeholders matter
Not considering a different and non-majority perspective may bring forth ground for conflicts between minority groups of disabled people with the majority able-bodied people. This can be noted in the way in which a lot of people on social media screeched on the disability activists who highlighted the importance of plastic straws.
Rappaport (1979) elucidates how nature is seen by humans through a screen of beliefs, knowledge, and purposes. In a similar fashion, it can be attributed that environmental campaigns without consulting all stakeholders may be biased towards the majority screen of beliefs and convenience. Such power dynamics are common nuances of the human society and it becomes vital to unearth these complexities which exist in the presence of more than one stakeholder. This complex system however should not be misinterpreted as justification for single-use plastic pollution.
Why then is inclusivity important? Like you and me reading and expressing our thoughts in our day to day life, the disabled community is also part of the human ecosystem. It hence becomes important to integrate the disabled community in environmental campaigns as stakeholders because for the ‘convenience’ of the majority, the needs of the disabled should not be compromised. Moreover, putting it bluntly, without considering the needs of all the stakeholders, campaigns would be prone to greater conflicts and hostility. On the other hand, inclusive stakeholder dialogues can lead to solutions which are workable for all the stakeholders. Adding to this, by including the needs of all the stakeholders, the pressure to create bio-degradable straw options that are safe for the environment and for all the disabled people would fall upon manufacturers and investors as well. Once the need and the gravity of the situation of straws for the disabled community has been accepted, working together for other environmental initiatives would be feasible as well as effective, inclusive and accessible. If all stakeholders are not considered then the majority decisions would be considered, which may be a decision rooted in ‘convenience’ than the bigger goal of preventing environmental degradation.
Moreover, being conscious about the extent to which human behavior is appropriate to biological well-being of the actors (stakeholders) and of the ecosystems in which they participate is vital when thinking about environment. This primarily means that even if our beliefs or values and even needs keep changing from time to time, the degree of ‘adaptive effectiveness’ would help sustain long-term environment conservation goals, as we would adapt keeping in mind the appropriate and suitable behavior for biological as well as ecosystem well-being. Therefore, in this sense, stakeholder dialogue and inclusivity becomes fundamental characteristics for ‘adaptive effectiveness’ to materialize into efficient environment conservation. Finally, it is only by taking the first step in initiating all stakeholders in a dialogue that the environment would also be considered as an essential stakeholder. Being conscious about the prevalent power dynamics in narratives and to de-construct and adapt as times change hence becomes imperative.
At no time while writing this blog post am I aiming to justify the marine pollution caused by single-use plastic such as straws. The important attribution that I wish to highlight is the importance of stakeholder dialogue in environmental movements. The reason being, we are all part of the environment and conflicts in beliefs and needs have to be negotiable in a just manner for any effective measures to be taken up for the environment.
