Maybe you're too young to remember the days of paper bags, hemp shopping bags, shoes and shirts.
"more environmentally friendly"? Most alternatives are more environmentally friendly in a long run than plastic.
Hemp is only used a low scale so I don't think we have enough data on what would happen if tomorrow we decided to replace all the plastic bags with hemp bags and how we'd produce that. It's not guaranteed to be better until then.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_paper
It's complicated.
- new growth is monoculture, and we're having health issues coming with it (Japan is trying to do something about its pollen problem, but not until two decades from now). It's also more fragile areas, including geologically.
- new growth also means the process that took centuries to build forests is not starting either.
- if the plan is to produce more paper (replace current plastic use with paper use) we can't just keep the current tree farms. It will be expanded and eat up on the legacy forest, as it needs the right niche to efficiently grow.
On the last point, if we were really good at farming new trees, we'd have tree fields not far from manufacturing centers. That's not the case, we're still relying on favorable places where forests used to grow, which doesn't bode well for further mass production in the future.
I will agree that monoculture is no good and neither is taking over virgin forest, but this isn't exactly the only industry on this planet that behaves like this either. Rather than trade paper for plastic we can instead consider how we protect virgin areas from any sort of development. Monoculture is also a risk for industry in the form of crop loss from disease, so I wouldn't be surprised if this begins to change in the future and we see more polycultures farmed, not just in trees either. So if there is a plastic ban favoring domestic paper products instead, as well as sufficient protections in place for existing virgin forest, you can probably expect the value of a tree farm to go up to the point where people who might be using their land for one thing being more inclined to farm trees on this land.
We should really look for more lower hanging common sense solutions.
Let me give you one… the boxes that are used to transport food to a grocery store are all crushed and go back into the recycling system as bundles. Why aren’t we sending boxes that can be used in place of paper and plastic bags? It would immediately offset a lot of purchases that require bags.
Costco does it. Sam’s Club sometimes too. But manufacturers don’t make boxes designed for the purpose of a second use before recycling, and the vast majority of stores don’t offer it.
That would take a waste stream and give it a second use before being recycled.
Simple, common sense solutions like this one are all around us but we keep looking for a “solution” rather than an “improvement.”
Whatever you do to producer, it will affect consumer.
Increase cost of production? Cost of product increases.
Decrease production output? Cost of product increases. (Assuming demand did not change)
Forbid a product? Consumer looks, for next best alternative which is pricier (if it was cheaper, it would have been the first pick).
Regulate prices? Output is reduced. To fill in the gap, consumers look for next best alternative, which is pricier (if it was cheaper, it would have been the first pick)
The only alternative is for consumer to stop desiring the product somehow. E.g by changing of definition of “good” via education, morals or religion.
It doesn't work for everything but it's the exact playbook we followed for LED lightbulbs.
Trying to chase at least a tiny bit of “technically correct”: during subsidisation period, consumers are the ones paying for it with their taxes.