On July 24, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors decided to ban plastic straws. The straw-ban, inspired by environmental concerns, comes as part of a larger movement in the U.S. against plastic straws; several other cities in California including Berkeley and Oakland were precursors to the ban, as well as cities in Washington, New Jersey and Florida and even larger movements outside of the U.S. The movement has even spread into our vicinity, with the #GoStrawless initiative being promoted by NC State.

The #GoStrawless initiative’s goal according to its website is to “move away from all single-use items on campus.” The initiative pushes a variety of solutions to work toward zero waste at NCSU, including compostable straws paired with compost bins. Commendably, #GoStrawless also recognizes some large difficulties that eliminating a product like a straw has: including the effect on those with “life-changing physical issues” and “upfront economic cost” to individuals and businesses.

With this objective of reducing waste from single-use items and its respective hurdles in mind, I believe there is a solution that not only compensates for a ban’s flaws but has added benefits that fit all parties involved: a tax on plastic straws in Raleigh. Based on the idea of a carbon tax, a straw tax would aim at progressively weeding straws out of Raleigh’s local economy by increasing their price through taxation more and more over time. Also, like a carbon tax, a straw tax would require that Raleigh reinvest all tax revenue into environmental campaigns.

That’s all there is to it; people buy fewer plastic straws because they keep costing more and more, which helps the environment, and the money spent on straws by those who do buy them goes to helping the environment anyway.

So why exactly is a tax better than a ban? One reason is that banning a product can hurt the economy when companies suddenly have to deal with the ban. For instance, how could a place that sells boba tea (a product that needs a straw) possibly survive a straw ban? If they opted for compostable straws it would cost more and they’d suddenly need to charge more, meaning people might buy less boba tea. Such companies are experiencing that very problem in San Francisco now. With a gradual straw tax the blowback is reduced and places that serve boba tea would be able to make changes to their menu or straw selection over time.

Beyond companies, some individual customers would be able to gradually adjust to not using a straw, using one on occasion if they really need it, or learning if they should invest in a reusable straw. People with disabilities will see increasing prices too, and will probably have to spend a few dollars on a permanent one, or this problem could be addressed with some of the tax revenue as well.

Simply put, a municipality can put tax revenue toward any environmental issue they feel is needed. Perhaps the solution is a campaign that provides reusable straws for those who need them? Or a bailout for the boba tea industry that’s suffering? Or a program that subsidizes compostable straws? A little of all three? No problem. There are practically infinite options, and how to go about choosing from them is a different discussion. For now, suffice it to say, as long as it goes to something environmentally friendly, it’s good.

The last benefit is that a carbon/straw tax model can be used for a wide variety of products, in and out of the restaurant industry. If it works for straws, maybe Raleigh should try it for plastic cups, lids, trays or plastic bags. Again, these options are practically infinite, even including an actual carbon tax. 

A ban is great … in spirit. In reality, it’s a sort of a trap; it seems like an easy and simple solution to outlaw the things you don’t like, but legislation results in struggling industry and immediate difficulties. A tax on straws lets the market bear the brunt of the work to figure out such a complex problem, rather than having to revise and adjust to legislation. If real and effective change is the goal of students, initiatives, of universities, and even cities, then they should opt for the solution that hurts the least and helps the most.