Why would we keep a system that's choking our oceans and piling up in landfills when we already have viable alternatives? The case for banning single-use plastics globally isn't about perfection—it's about practicality. We've seen localized bans work. Kenya's ban on plastic bags cut litter significantly, and the EU's directive on single-use plastics has pushed companies toward reusable designs. These aren't radical experiments; they're proven steps. Opponents often argue that bans hurt developing nations or disrupt convenience. But look closer: poor countries bear the brunt of plastic waste, with their beaches and waterways clogged by trash they didn't produce. A global ban, enforced fairly, would shift responsibility to manufacturers and incentivize innovation in materials like bioplastics or compostable packaging. The claim that alternatives are too expensive ignores the hidden costs of plastic cleanup—billions in municipal waste management, marine ecosystem damage, and health impacts from microplastics. We don't need to be dogmatic. Some single-use plastics for medical use make sense. But the vast majority—straws, bags, cutlery—are unnecessary luxuries. A global ban with targeted exceptions is a sensible, measured response to a crisis that's only getting worse. Let's stop pretending convenience is worth the price.