Can Regulations on Single-Use Cups in Stores Succeed?

Starting August 2, the Ministry of Environment banned the use of disposable cups inside coffee shops and fast-food restaurants. Business owners who violate the rule face fines of up to 2 million won. This is part of the government’s “Comprehensive Measures for Recyclable Waste Management,” which aims to reduce plastic waste by 50% by 2030.

The revised system is causing considerable inconvenience for consumers, business owners, and coffee shop employees alike. Consumers are now forced to drink coffee from mugs regardless of their own preference, and if they need to leave the store midway, they must go through the inconvenience of switching to a takeout cup. Consumers who are reluctant, for hygiene reasons, to use cups previously used by others must bear the hassle of carrying a personal tumbler with them every time.

The same is true for coffee shop owners and employees. They must now spend considerable time and money storing mugs, washing them, and supplying them again to customers.

The purpose of this system is to protect the environment by reducing plastic use. However, it cannot simply be assumed that using reusable cups instead of disposable ones is more environmentally friendly. The water and detergent used to wash reusable cups waste resources and pollute rivers and seas. Dishwashers used to clean and sanitize the cups also consume electricity. Producing electricity, too, is not unrelated to environmental pollution.

There is also a fairness issue. It is unfair to force only some consumers and businesses to bear the burden of environmental protection. Plastic is also used in iced coffee cups sold at convenience stores and in bottled water sold at large supermarkets. Requiring only coffee shop customers to shoulder the duty of environmental protection does not align with the stated purpose of the policy.

Restrictions on the use of plastic cups also give rise to various loopholes and workarounds. Once plastic cups were regulated, coffee shops began using waterproof paper cups instead. Some businesses even started separately selling disposable cups in corners of their stores. Of course, cup lids and straws made of plastic are not subject to the regulation, so they continue to be used. Considering the costs and inconvenience borne by consumers and suppliers, this suggests that the ban on disposable products may be neither efficient nor environmentally friendly.

Policies for environmental protection are often highly praised based on their intentions alone. The word “environment” is treated almost as if it were sacred, and regulatory bills for environmental protection are enacted with little opposition. This is because it is generally assumed that everyone ought to accept a certain degree of inconvenience in order to protect the environment. Yet little attention is paid to whether these laws actually produce results that protect the environment.

A representative example is the cup deposit system introduced in 2002. Despite its stated aim of reducing disposable product use, the cup return rate was very low. It ended up imposing only the burden of cup deposits on consumers, and was ultimately abolished in 2008. Although it was created in the name of environmental protection, it failed to actually protect the environment. This is precisely why good intentions do not necessarily guarantee good results. The government is reportedly considering reintroducing the already failed cup deposit system in order to promote recycling. Careful consideration is needed so as not to repeat past failures.

Any form of coffee consumption inevitably involves factors that can pollute the environment. Trying to stop this by force and imposing inconvenience only produces side effects and makes it difficult to protect the environment. The plastic washing up in the ocean is not primarily emitted by advanced countries, where takeout coffee is widely consumed, but by countries such as China and India, where awareness of environmental protection is lower and economic development has been slower. In other words, rather than banning use itself, a more realistic alternative for environmental protection is to find solutions for how to properly handle such products after use.

As we commonly say in the phrase “the tragedy of the commons,” commonly owned property is easily overused and polluted. But my own front yard and my privately owned forest are always kept clean and pleasant. For well-intentioned policies to actually produce results that protect the environment, both consumers and suppliers must have sufficient incentives to practice environmental protection of their own accord. That is precisely why environmental policy must also take into account the principles of the market economy.

Eun-kyung Kwak

Director of the Corporate Culture Office

Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: 매장 내 일회용컵 규제, 성공할 수 있을까?

Author: Eun-kyung Kwak

Date: 2018-08-27

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=press&pn=26&idx=11343