I noticed this too, it almost makes it seem redundant. 11.5 years from now we're going to improve something. Oh yeah? Imagine if someone told you they planned to quit smoking in 10 years? haha ok

There is a business and people impact to these types of decisions. Reducing usage of anything means one or more businesses will cease to operate and people will lose income. The government needs to afford these industries an opportunity to adjust to the new regulations.

sure, presumably there are some people that only make or deliver plastic spoons. But, they aren't many.

Businesses will need to change practices. Supporting industries (regular cutlery, dishwashers) need to adapt a little. There might be a little pain or cost. Highly optimized workflows (eg McDonald's) a little more.

Generally, this is not that disruptive. Industry could adapt in 6 months, 18 months comfortably. Anything over two years is pointless.

No businesses will even think about this until 2028. Why bother with a tiny change 12 years from now. It may not even come to pass.

Generally, I don't like long lead time for democratic considerations. It makes accountability worse, and encourages political shenanigans. Decision makers should be there when their decisions take effect.

If they jumped into it 100% too fast, then it might become unpopular because it's such a sudden change, and then reversed or everyone solidifies into a new routine in which they evade it somehow. Easing into it maybe makes that less likely.

My first reaction too. I didn't think 2030 was particularly ambitious.