Can In-Store Disposable Cup Regulations 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 significant inconvenience for consumers, business owners, and coffee shop employees alike. Consumers are now forced to drink coffee from mugs regardless of their preferences, and if they decide to leave the store midway, they must go through the inconvenience of transferring their drink into a takeout cup. Consumers who are reluctant to use cups previously used by others for hygiene reasons must bear the burden of carrying a personal tumbler every time.

From the standpoint of coffee shop owners and employees, the inconvenience is no different. They are now required to 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 the use of plastic. 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 wash and sterilize the cups also consume electricity. And producing electricity is not unrelated to environmental pollution.

Questions of fairness may also be raised. It is inequitable to force only certain consumers and businesses to shoulder the burden of environmental protection. Plastic is also used in iced coffee cups sold at convenience stores and water bottles sold at large discount stores. Requiring only coffee shop customers to bear the duty of protecting the environment runs counter to the very purpose of the policy.

Regulations restricting 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. 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 regulation, so they continue to be used. Considering the costs and inconvenience borne by consumers and suppliers, this means that the policy banning disposable products may be neither efficient nor environmentally friendly.

Policies for environmental protection are often highly praised on the strength of their intentions alone. The word “environment” is treated almost as a sacred and inviolable domain, and regulatory bills for environmental protection are passed with little opposition. This is because people generally assume that everyone ought to tolerate 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 goal of reducing the use of disposable products, the cup return rate was extremely low. It merely burdened consumers with deposit costs and was ultimately abolished in 2008. Although it was created in the name of environmental protection, it failed to protect the environment in practice. This is precisely why good intentions do not necessarily guarantee good results. It is said that the government is considering reintroducing the already failed cup deposit system in order to promote recycling. Careful consideration is needed to avoid repeating past failures.

No matter how coffee is consumed, there will inevitably be factors that pollute the environment. Trying to prevent this by force and imposing inconvenience will only create side effects while doing little to protect the environment. Much of the plastic flowing into the oceans is not 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 is slower. In other words, rather than banning use itself, a more realistic alternative for protecting the environment is to find solutions for how to handle waste properly after use.

As we often describe it, this is the “tragedy of the commons”: shared property is easily overused and polluted. But my 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 according to their own will. That is precisely why environmental policy must also take the principles of the market economy into account.

Eun-kyung Kwak / Director of Corporate Culture Division, Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

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

Author: Eun-kyung Kwak

Date: 2018-08-17

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=column&pn=17&idx=11065