The Pros And Cons Of Plastic Bottles

In “National Park Ban Saved 2m Plastic Bottles- and Still Trump Reversed It” Jessica Glenza demonstrates the positive implications of banning plastic bottles in National Parks. President Trump reversed the ban after six years of curbing pollution through water bottle restriction. The reversal of this ban has fueled protests from environmentalists. I think this a disgusting display of industry interests overpowering the wants of the people through lobbying. In my opinion, this program was an efficient way to minimize the environmental impact on our national parks. Not only did it reduce plastic use, it also allowed for free access points to water in the parks. The ecologic benefits were outstanding, Glenza notes “A ban on bottled water in 23

My take on this is, this program set the tone for others, and getting rid of it does not make any sense. If anything, this could allow for other companies to take the easy way out through bottled water. As I see it, there were no downsides to this ban of sale of plastic bottles. This program exemplified a way to reduce the use and discarding of plastic in large quantities. This policy was a great example of sustainability, as plastic bottles were a problem within our national parks. The parks provided a sufficient replacement with free water stations. For a ban that had only redeeming qualities, I find it odd that just after Trump is enacted as president, this green program was rescinded. Campaigners of the Corporate Accountability International note that it “was a win-win for everyone except the water bottle industry, which is only interested in its bottom line.” From my perspective, this ban was produced through the guise of a ‘choice’ of hydration. How were the options limited if the source of water was replaced, for free? It seems outlandish to believe this act was in the interests of the people. I am unconvinced that this policy was reversed for the choice of how to