The Park Service’s Botched Bottle Ban Obama’s behavioral economists must have been on vacation.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-park-services-botched-bottle-ban-1503616147
Vacationers can now buy bottled water in national parks, after the Trump Administration this month ended an Obama-era policy that sought to reduce plastic waste. Environmentalists responded with predictable outrage, but reversing the ban is healthier and greener.
Bottled water has increasingly dominated the nonalcoholic beverage market, surpassing soda this year. In this trend the Obama Administration saw a teachable moment. In a 2011 memo on sustainability, the National Park Service claimed that by reducing or prohibiting water sales and increasing its offerings of reusable bottles, it could “introduce visitors to green products and the concept of environmentally responsible purchasing, and give them the opportunity to take that environmental ethic home and apply it in their daily lives.”
More than 20 sites, including the Grand Canyon and Zion National Park, banned bottled water sales, and the Park Service spent millions on water fountains and filling stations.
But consumers have a way of thwarting paternalistic plans, and the Park Service failed to apply similar restrictions on soda or sports drinks. When the University of Vermont banned bottled water in 2013, researchers found that bottled beverage consumption did not decrease—and students quenched their thirst with sugary beverages instead of water. Carbonated beverages exert more pressure than water, requiring heavier bottles that use more plastic.
Researchers at the University of Washington’s Seattle campus also assessed a potential water bottle ban, building on findings from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency’s social cost of carbon. They concluded that “although it is widely believed that these bans are important for environmental reasons,” any benefits were minuscule.
The teachable moment turns out to be a lesson in the law of unintended consequences.
Comments are closed.
