The answer is affirmative. It is important to realize that such a ban does not necessarily shrink people’s welfare. According to the government’s announcement, by improving plastic waste management and investing in innovative solutions, Canada can reduce 1.8 million tons of carbon pollution, generate billions of dollars in revenue, and create 42,000 jobs. Although there’s no detailed explanation of those numbers, it’s reasonable to say that this policy would leave us a better environment, increase revenue of innovation firms and therefore create new jobs in this industry. Savings from the cost of plastic waste disposal is a considerable number, which can be used to subsidize innovation firms or improve social infrastructure. And if a good alternative can be found, this ban would not bring inconvenience to our lives. For example, we may use a glass bottle to substitute plastic bottle.

Bans are sometimes necessary because actions without regulatory instruments can be problematic. Social pressure through campaigns against single-use plastics was used in Bangladesh during the 1990s but without regulation, more than 9 million plastic bags were wasted daily in its capital in 2002. Other campaigns enlisting public engagement to keep public spaces clean have been found unsuccessful as they cannot tackle the largest sources of pollution, which comes from garbage dumped by local residents. Other measures such as small levies on retailers that were implemented in South Africa did not prompt the desired change in consumer behaviour.

Measures such as social pressure, public-private partnership and voluntary agreements, generally have limited effects without strict government regulation. Other instruments, such as price increases, are slower in generating results. They also tend to increase inequality, as the affluent can still afford the polluting goods, now more expensive, but those at the bottom of the distribution may find themselves without options. As long as the demand for polluting goods continues, the incentives to find alternatives will be less. This means that although some reduction in plastic consumption will likely be achieved, a true change in consumer behaviour is less likely to happen.

However, bans are not free of problems. Evidence shows that bans without sufficient consultation may cause dissatisfaction in residences, and result in undesired consequences, such as what happened when the government of Rwanda banned all plastic bags in 2008. No longer after that, people started smuggling plastic bags and a lucrative black market emerged.

In addition, the existing data and reports seem insufficient to support the policy strongly. One key problem is that we still do not have a perfect substitute of plastics, which is one of the main concerns by opponents to the ban. The evidence also shows that although more than 60 countries have introduced bans and levies to curb single-use plastics, only 30% reported drastic drops in single-use plastic consumption. Furthermore, we need to know more about the impact of these measures on the countries’ economy and people’s welfare. There is also a need for more data on Canada’s plastic production and disposal. In a word, credible analysis of the economic benefits, including the impact on people’s welfare as well as a report of reliable alternatives are needed before putting the policy into practice.