Outlawing an undesirable activity might be the quickest route to action, but does it always achieve the best result? Circular Magazine Editor Ian Farrell investigates.
Over recent years, European governments have embarked on a banning spree. Single-use plastics, petrol and diesel cars, and gas boilers are all earmarked to be outlawed.
But is banning things really the best way of reducing environmental damage – or is it more about optics in a politically polarised age?
No-one would argue that reducing plastic pollution, improving air quality and cutting the use of fossil fuels are not good things, but outright bans can send the wrong message and even have unintended consequences.
Do bans work?
Bans are popular, however, because they show – at least in the eyes of the electorate – strength of leadership. They are a simple concept to understand, even if you don’t agree with one.
Bans can be spun as decisive action; getting something done – and which political party wouldn’t want some of that?
The trouble is, bans don’t always win over hearts and minds. Take the recent idea of a smoking ban that will ensure that people born after 2009 are never able to legally buy cigarettes.
Great for their health, but should that be their choice? Public health campaigns have long been about education, nudges and behavioural change, not the outright restriction of a person’s freedom of choice.
“Behaviours are essentially choices about the things we are going to do, and a ban removes those choices. That’s how they work,” says Danielle Heward, change-management expert at the consultancy Optimo. “However, bans are very specific and targeted, and often do nothing to change wider behaviour.
“For instance, banning single-use plastic items might be very effective at removing this material from the environment, but it doesn’t necessarily mean people are going to stop their single-use behaviour.
“They are likely to just use a different material in a single-use way instead, and all materials have some kind of environmental footprint.”
The sweeping nature of outright bans leaves little room for market forces to operate effectively.
Incentivising behaviour change vs bans
Regulations must find a balance between immediate, heavy-handed measures and economic nudges that can gently steer consumer behaviour.
Financial levers, such as taxes and subsidies, often present a more palatable solution that respects the individual choice without stifling innovation, while also discouraging environmentally harmful behaviours.
“It’s important to have a balance of carrot and stick,” Heward says, “though carrots can take longer to make a difference. In fact, sometimes, the ‘pull’ of the carrot can only come about after the ‘push’ of the stick, or ban, has been enacted.
“Look at the ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants in 2007. There was a lot of grumbling about that when it was brought in, but, eventually, pubs became much nicer places to be, and I think you’d find most people – even smokers – are now agreed that this was a good idea.”
Heward also cites education as being important in encouraging a change in behaviour, but recognises that it’s not enough on its own.
“Even when someone understands something better, they may still not be motivated to do something about it if that cause doesn’t align with their own emotions and values. That’s where nudges – or sometimes shoves – can make a difference.”
Should we ban the ban?
A great example of an effective nudge was the plastic carrier-bag charge, introduced through the UK between 2011 and 2015.
While not as effective as a ban (plenty of people still buy new bags at 10p each when they forget to bring bags from home), a small financial-stick has made a huge difference to the number of disposable bags thrown away every year, and encouraged reuse.
It was part of a package of measures, including the education that came with nature documentaries, such as those by the BBC, which showed plastic in the environment.
Could the same model be applied to other purchasing decisions, such as disposable coffee cups? In some places it already is, says Heward, but in a less effective way.
“In general, we humans work harder to keep hold of something we’ve already got than to gain something new. So, if you turn up to a coffee shop and have already made up your mind you’ll pay £3.50 for a flat white, then a 50p discount on that is not as motivating as the threat of having to pay 50p extra for a £3 coffee because you forgot your reusable cup,” she says.
So, is a ban a last resort, for when nudges and education don’t work?
In general, we humans work harder to keep hold of something we’ve already got than to gain something new.
“It can be,” says Heward. “But using a ban to clear up the 20-or-so per cent of people that won’t subscribe to voluntary change is not very efficient. You might just as well use a ban from the start, especially if there is a need to get things done quickly, as there is with environmental matters.”
Indeed, the sweeping, no-nonsense nature of legislative bans can make them attractive to industry. All too often, Circular hears business leaders saying “we need clear policy and legislation from government so we can make investments”; or “we want government to tell people what they can and can’t do, because, if we wait for them to make up their own mind, we’ll be here forever”.
Outright bans will always be controversial, but – like it or not – they also have an important part to play in resources and waste.
Often, their use is a no-brainer – such as in the regulation of hazardous materials, including asbestos – but, at times, a more successful result can be achieved by winning over hearts and minds.
Education, persuasion and influence are more than a match for prohibition, injunction and outlaw.
