KFC outlets all over Singapore have rid their operations of plastic straws.

They did this to save the planet. Or so they say.

But what is actually happening when establishments actively ban straws, or offer substitutes for products and services once thought essential?

Well, we can only point you to the existing literature that has covered this topic extensively.

1. Businesses are helping themselves save money

The longer version of the above statement would be: When businesses claim they are doing something for consumers/ environment/ planet Earth, they are doing it for themselves.

A lot of times, businesses do things because it is good for their bottom line.

This is a point that has been raised most prominently by prophet/ probabilist/ flanuer/ author Nassim Taleb.

And he did so even before the recent straw bans kicked in.

In his most recent book, Skin In The Game, which was published in December 2017, Taleb gave the example of hotels reminding guests about reusing bath towels to cut down on water consumption, the suggestion being that it would be good for the environment.

This appeal to the eco-consciousness of guests is also virtue signalling by the businesses.

Taleb's broader point is that there exists some degree of charlatanism whenever someone, some business or some government say it is doing something for your own good -- when the benefits are more clear cut for the one making the offer.

In the larger scheme of things, cutting down on straws will have little to no impact on the environment, as industrial scale plastic wastage is the real issue that has not even been addressed.

2. The transference of responsibility from businesses to consumers

The greatest sleight of hand achieved by the clean and green movement is the transference of responsibility for plastic wastage and pollution from businesses to consumers.

And this is a point made by a July 6, 2018 Scientific American article, titled, "More recycling won't solve plastic pollution".

The thesis is fairly straightforward: The worst polluters are not regular consumers.

The worst polluters are the industries that make single-use plastic, where such products are on average used for 12 minutes, but take forever to break down, and there is no regulation of such massive production on a global scale.

From the business perspective, educating consumers on recycling is supposed to help with the cause.

It also is a way for businesses to wash their hands off of the problem.

Because most of the time, consumers are left scratching their heads as to what to do to help the environment.

For example, a task such as sorting different grades of plastic has become a chore for many and requires knowledge and plenty of individual effort, especially in places where recycling facilities are not exactly evenly distributed (i.e. North America).

Corporate polluters should then, on their part, come up with ways to extend the lifespan of plastic and build into plastic products lifespans that go beyond single-use status, allowing containers and bottles multiple uses to extend product life.

And instead of thinking of what to do with the plastic after it is manufactured, industries must build products that takes into account reusing and recycling.

3. Using plastic substitutes might make the plastic problem worse

And this point is brought up by a BBC piece on July 6, 2018, titled, "What's the real price of getting rid of plastic packaging?"

The argument is that there are plenty of hidden costs associated with trying to shift away from using plastic packaging.

This is due to the higher hidden costs of non-plastic substitutes.

For example, when Coca Cola uses glass packaging for its beverages, the costs of producing glass over plastic is slightly higher by just $0.01.

But the cost of transporting glass bottles are much heftier, because glass weighs much more than plastic.

For example, a 330ml plastic soft drink bottle contains around 18g of plastic material, while a glass bottle itself can weigh between 190g and 250g.

It takes 40 percent more energy to transport glass bottles, thus producing more polluting carbon dioxide and transport costs go up by up to five times per bottle.

Moreover, biodegradable plastic materials, such as bioplastics -- which uses starch or protein from plants like sugarcane to generate the basic hydrocarbon materials needed to create plastics -- are being manufactured at higher costs by up to 3.5 times.

And the issue comes at the end of the bioplastics lifespan.

This is when they are unable to be recycled together with regular plastics.

If mixed, the recycled product would end up weakened due to the contamination by bioplastics, which are compostable and are supposed to break down eventually.

[related_story]

Other outstanding issues

Therefore, the only way humanity can go plastic-free is if people can accept a convenience-free life.

No more single-use products, no more takeouts, no more going out of the house with nothing but your phone and keys because you got to bring your own containers for buying things and holding your merchandise.

And what is considered convenience for some, is in fact, almost a matter of life and death for others.

The Guardian published a piece on July 9, 2018, written by a disabled person who cannot afford the luxury of a plastic-free life.

Plastic straws, especially those that bend, are needed for drinks and medication.

If all these points cannot convince you humanity has a long, long way to go, the most convenient way is to stop thinking about it and continuing to believe you have done your part because you have partaken a meal at an establishment that doesn't use straws.