By: Abdulkariem Aljrbi
For some, environmental protection has become an obsession; for others, a source of profit. In the name of the environment, jobs have been created, companies founded, industries established, and laws enacted, all under a seemingly noble banner. Yet, in many cases, this has transformed into a lucrative business, the cost of which is borne almost entirely by the citizen.
Generally, citizens do not prioritize environmental concerns unless they experience direct harm. Since governments establish laws and regulations, they should also be responsible for organizing and implementing protections, rather than placing the full burden on the consumer.
One of the most environmentally damaging materials is plastic, which takes centuries to decompose and has a direct, negative impact on soil, plants, animals, and water. Plastic bags, used extensively for decades, are among the most harmful of these materials. But what has happened in response?
Instead of pursuing balanced solutions, many retailers and supermarket chains have exploited this environmental issue. They produce flimsy, semi-reusable bags sold to customers for as little as 35 cents each. Consumers are forced to purchase them if they wish to carry their groceries. These bags are often usable only once or twice and are unsuitable for other purposes. When folded, their bulk makes them impractical to carry in a pocket or keep on hand. If a shopper needs two or three bags, they must carry them nested inside one another, an absurd and environmentally unsound practice.
If you forget your bags or need to make an unplanned purchase, you are obligated to buy new ones. The result? These bags accumulate in homes, eventually ending up in landfills. This creates a double loss: environmental damage compounded by financial costs, manufacturing, purchasing, and waste disposal expenses. In fact, some customers are now consciously buying less simply to avoid purchasing these bags, feeling mocked by a system that professes environmental care while multiplying both ecological and financial harm. And the issue does not end there.
Many stores now require a 25-cent deposit to use a shopping cart. In an era where card payments are standard, customers are forced to carry exact change or plan, as if shopping has become a cumbersome task rather than a convenient service. This imposes an unjustified restriction on consumer freedom and complicates daily life.
The real disaster, however, may be the paper bags that tear under the slightest weight, failing to hold merchandise and forcing customers to use multiple bags or purchase sturdier alternatives. This raises a legitimate question:
Is this a design flaw, or a deliberate tactic to drive additional sales?
The entities tasked with protecting consumers and defending their rights must now take a clear stand:
Either reinstate free plastic bags with strict regulations on their use and disposal, or require retailers to bear the cost of alternative bags if they are genuinely committed to environmental protection. For a merchant to claim environmental stewardship while passing the entire cost onto the consumer is a form of disguised deception, a slow-motion profiteering, even if the individual amounts seem small, because it occurs daily and on a massive scale.
We need serious intervention from relevant authorities and a genuine dialogue about solutions that protect the environment without exploiting citizens. The environment is not saved by slogans, but through justice, balance, and shared responsibility, not shouldered by one party alone.