According to Morton Barlaz, how can a large-scale plastics ban policy potentially show fallacious reasoning?%0D%0A%0D%0A(1 point)%0D%0AResponses%0D%0A%0D%0ACharging people for single-use plastics could decrease demand for these problematic items.%0D%0ACharging people for single-use plastics could decrease demand for these problematic items.%0D%0A%0D%0AReplacing banned single-use plastics with biodegradable plastics will not solve disposal problems.%0D%0AReplacing banned single-use plastics with biodegradable plastics will not solve disposal problems.%0D%0A%0D%0AIncreasing the cost of oil could decrease the interest in using petroleum-based plastics.%0D%0AIncreasing the cost of oil could decrease the interest in using petroleum-based plastics.%0D%0A%0D%0AThinking about what alternatives do for people and the environment could help to improve disposal problems.
Morton Barlaz argues that a large-scale plastics ban policy may show fallacious reasoning if it solely focuses on banning single-use plastics without considering the full lifecycle of the alternatives. Merely replacing banned single-use plastics with biodegradable plastics does not address the root cause of disposal problems, as biodegradable plastics may still require specific conditions to break down and could potentially have negative environmental impacts. Therefore, Barlaz suggests that policymakers should consider the overall impact of alternatives on both people and the environment to effectively address disposal problems.
