Some individuals claim that we should replace all plastic products with materials that are more eco-friendly, like glass. I partially agree that this method would be effective in reducing plastic-induced environmental damage, but it would also bring financial hurdles for both consumers and manufacturers. This essay will examine pros and cons of the replacement, and will present reasoning to justify my stance.
On one hand, substituting plastic can help in the fight against ecological pollution. That being said, stopping the production of all plastic-derived goods would lead to reduced accumulation of polymer products in water bodies and sand. As stated in research conducted by the United Nations Environment Programme in 2024, most of the countries that had strong environmental policies against fabrication of synthetic goods, were ranked among the 20 cleanest countries in the world.
On the other hand, increased manufacture of commodities, such as glass, would lead to several economic drawbacks for many. In other words, the creation of glass would require higher production costs because of its energy-intensiveness, which brings financial burdens to both companies and their customers. As found by a survey conducted by the British Business University in 2025, 75% of people who visited Sara’s supermarket hesitated to buy juice that were contained in glass-made bottles.
In conclusion, even though banning plastic products could help to reduce ecological contamination, it will also create economic pressure on others. That is why I strongly believe that synthetic materials should not be banned, but limited, in order to foster the growth of our sustainable society.