The world produces 350-400 million metric tons of plastic waste. Less than 10% of this waste is recycled, while 25% is mismanaged or littered. About 1.7 million tons ends up in the ocean. This is not sustainable, but whose responsibility is it to deal with this issue?

The debate about responsibility is often framed as personal responsibility vs systemic (at the government policy level). Industry famously likes to emphasize personal responsibility, as a transparent way to shield themselves from regulations. The Keep American Beautiful campaign (the crying Indian one) was actually an industry group using an anti-littering campaign to shift the focus away from the companies producing the litter to the consumer. It worked.

This is not to say we do not all have individual responsibility to be good citizens. There are hundreds of things adults should or should not do to care for their own health, the environment, the people around them, and their fellow citizens. But a century of research shows a very strong and consistent signal – campaigns to influence mass public behavior have limited efficacy. Getting most people to remember and act upon best behavior consistently is difficult. This likely reflects the fact that it is difficult for individuals to remember and act upon best behavior consistently – it’s cognitively demanding. As a general rule we tend to avoid cognitively demanding behavior and follow pathways of least resistance. We likely evolved an inherent laziness as a way of conserving energy and resources, which can make it challenging for us to navigate the complex massive technological society we have constructed for ourselves.

There is a general consensus among researchers who study such things that there are better ways to influence public behavior than shaming or guilting people. We have to change the culture. People will follow the crowd and social norms, so we have to essentially create ever-present peer pressure to do the right thing. While this approach is more effective than shaming, it is still remarkably ineffective overall. Influencing public behavior by 20%, say, is considered a massive win. What works best is to make the optimal behavior the pathway of least resistance. It has to be the default, the easiest option, or perhaps the only option.

We also know that industry is always going to follow the cheapest and most profitable pathway. Counting on industry to sacrifice their own shareholder profits in the name of some abstract common good is not a solid plan. Even if some companies do this, they will be out-competed by those who don’t. Good behavior, therefore, requires top-down policy, which brings us back to the plastic question.

I love plastic as much as the next person – it’s light, durable, cheap, and sanitary. Glass is heavier and is brittle. For many applications aluminum is a great option, however. But single use plastic is simply terrible for the environment. Technology is often about trade-offs, with some alternatives being better in some ways but worse in others. In a capitalist society we often let the market decide which trade-offs are optimal, and that’s great (the power of the market). But what happens when the trade-offs are different for different segments of society? Industry might prefer one set of trade-offs, consumers another, and environmentalists another. There is also the issue of externalizing costs – who pays for the public consequences of technology?

This is where government comes in. Their job is to protect consumer safety and interests, to protect public spaces and shared resources, and to make sure there is a level playing field and no one is cheating. Of course, this can be challenging as well, and carries its own set of trade-offs – a cumulative regulatory burden. Optimizing the balance between free markets, consumer choices, and government regulation is often tricky, and is best done, in my opinion, based upon evidence and review, not ideology.

So how do we apply all this to the plastic problem? A recent study sheds some light. Researchers found that just four government policies could reduce plastic waste by 91% and reduce the carbon footprint of the plastics industry by 37%. What sacrifices do we have to make to get these benefits?

“The policies are: mandate new products be made with 40% post-consumer recycled plastic; cap new plastic production at 2020 levels; invest significantly in plastic waste management — such as landfills and waste collection services; and implement a small fee on plastic packaging.”

These all sound like reasonable suggestions. They are not necessarily a package deal, and the specifics can be tweaked, but the study shows the potential to significantly reduce the environmental burden of plastic with these types of measures. These policy suggestions also reflect some of the kinds of things government policy can do. They can set a standard for industry, so that everyone has to comply and no one has an unfair advantage (like using 40% recycled material and limiting total production). They can invest in infrastructure, which can both facilitate a technology and also deal with negative impacts. Policy can also shift economic considerations by making harmful practices more expensive or more environmentally friendly practices relatively less expensive. In other words – don’t tell industry what to do, just tweak the economic incentives so that the most profitable path is the optimal one. This also lets industry figure out the details for themselves.

I am neither a free-market purist nor a believer in unlimited regulation without consideration of unintended consequences. These are ideological extremes that are ultimately harmful. As with many things, there is a balance between free market forces and government regulations that follow Aristotle’s “golden mean”. Plus, this balance should be evidence-based and subject to review and revision. All players must have a seat a the table with no one interest dominating. In the end we can get some rational policies that make the world a better place for everyone.