Question

But environmental engineer Morton Barlaz of North Carolina State University posits that bans might not be the best solution for our planet’s growing plastics problem. “Nothing works like an incentive better than money. Instead of banning bags, we could start charging for them,” Barlaz said. Under that strategy, the hope would be to avoid losing access to useful products like plastic bags and straws outright, and instead voluntarily cut their use. “Anything we’re talking about — a straw, a plastic bag, a piece of cutlery — it has a function consumers want. If we ban it, we need to think about the alternative and what that alternative does for people and the environment,” Barlaz said.

According to Morton Barlaz, how can a large-scale plastics ban policy potentially show fallacious reasoning? (1 point) Responses Increasing the cost of oil could decrease the interest in using petroleum-based plastics. Increasing the cost of oil could decrease the interest in using petroleum-based plastics. Replacing banned single-use plastics with biodegradable plastics will not solve disposal problems. Replacing banned single-use plastics with biodegradable plastics will not solve disposal problems. Charging people for single-use plastics could decrease demand for these problematic items. Charging people for single-use plastics could decrease demand for these problematic items. Thinking about what alternatives do for people and the environment could help to improve disposal problems.

Answer 1

According to Morton Barlaz, a large-scale plastics ban policy could potentially show fallacious reasoning by suggesting that simply banning single-use plastics will effectively address the problem without considering the alternatives and their impacts on consumers and the environment. Specifically, the response that aligns with Barlaz's argument is: **"Thinking about what alternatives do for people and the environment could help to improve disposal problems."** This perspective emphasizes the need to evaluate the consequences of alternatives rather than just implementing bans, which could overlook the utility of the items and their potential environmental impacts.