A Losing Battle in the War on Plastics

 

The Negative Affect of Plastics for the Environment

The world environment is experiencing daily changes that have become a threat to living forms; since we are developing our countries without considering the impact of pollution and degradation on the environment. People use plastic bags that are dangerous to the environment mostly for shopping purposes. There is a need for a collaborative effort to reduce or eliminate environmental pollution by both the business organizations and the consumers. Plastic bags block drainage systems creating severe flash floods in suburban and urban areas, causing governments of the world significant financial suffering. Plastic bags should be banned in the whole world to adapt to alternatives that are biodegradable to do away with their toxic implications.

Plastic bags, at their worst, act as a prerequisite to cancerous maladies due to the production of carcinogenic substances. The other effect is on agricultural lands that have the potential to produce trillions of tons of grains and vegetables to feed the world population (Jalil et al., 2). When indiscriminately dumped into the landfills, the plastic bags emit carbon dioxide gases and methane during decomposition leading to the greenhouse effect and rise in sea levels.

Plastic bags have wanton negative effects on the agricultural sector. Since people are not responsible enough to recycle them, they throw the plastics everywhere. These discarded plastics mix with decomposed materials and eventually into the agricultural fields. Plastics are non-biodegradable hence they do not mix with the soil but cause lockage inhibiting plants' growth. Since plastic grocery bags are light, they can be blown by winds, stick onto tree branches, roadside ditches, public waterways, oceans, and rivers affecting the fauna and flora and making the environment unattractive. (Jalil et al., 4). The panacea to the mentioned scenario would be through the adoption of biodegradable alternatives.

In conclusion, whether recyclable or not, plastic bags are causing irreparable damage, especially to world agriculture. Soil, air, and water are affected by plastics because they are made from fossil fuel that releases toxic fuel, impacting negatively on living things. Clogging of pipes and drainage systems is another effect of plastics that cannot be overlooked since they contribute to flooding claiming lives and finances in repair and restoration of public infrastructure. Shanita Clarke

The Biggest Loser…And Proud of It.

In his article Banning Plastic Bags Is Great for the World, Right? Not So Fast, Ben Adler concedes that there are no bags which do not negatively impact the environment. In fact, he asserts, “the bags we use are not the big problem.” And considering his article deals primarily with life in the good old U.S.A., by “we” he must mean Americans. In terms of plastics pollution worldwide the graphic below confirms his claim. At a time when being an American is portrayed as not something to be proud of, we have reason to boast. We are the Biggest Loser in the International Plastics Pollution Competition. If statistics now were the same during the Cold War and the arms race, Russia could have easily annihilated us. Come to think of it, they could still smother us in plastic. And the picture below give credence to the 2010 Guinness World Records naming “plastic bags the most ubiquitous consumer item in the world” (Mangu-Ward).

Although we are the least offender, caring for the environment should be a concern for all civic minded individuals. Since Ben Adler asserts that to date there is no 100% environmentally safe shopping bag that makes everyone happy, it is possible there might never be. Therefore, without laws mandating shoppers to carry their purchases home in their arms sans some sort of carrier, there will always be the problem of what to do with our shopping bags once we get them home.

Questions about the environmental impact of paper vs. plastic surfaced quickly. According to Katherine Mangu-Ward, author of Plastic Bags Are Good for You, the transition from paper to plastic really took hold in the mid-80s and immediately a controversy was birthed:

The booming environmental movement was initially flummoxed. Forest

conservation was a big deal in the '80s, a point in favor of plastic. But fossil fuels

were a no-no, so maybe paper was better? Both types of bags at the time were

tough to recycle. The debate raged on, leaving eco-conscious shoppers unclear

about the best course of action.

And opinions are as divided today as they were back then.

Adler contends the “adverse impacts of plastic bags are undeniable.” In their 2014 study How Green is That Grocery Bag Ban? An Assessment of the Environmental and Economic Effects of Grocery Bag Bans and Taxes, authors Julian Morris and Brian Seasholes address complaints against this demon of the shopping world. Their report is too extensive to cover in depth, but their research produced the following:

1. The bans, fees and taxes on shopping bags have a miniscule impact on litter.

2. There is no evidence of a reduction of municipal litter or waste collection costs as a result of the introduction of bans, fees and taxes on shopping bags.

3. Other environmental impacts are not significantly reduced and some, including greenhouse gas emissions, may increase as a result especially of restrictions on the use of plastic (HDPE) shopping bags.

4. There is likely an adverse health effect from people failing to wash bacteria-ridden reusable bags, the use of which may increase as a result of restrictions on the distribution of other bag types.

5. Reusable bags are less convenient and, when taking into account the time and resources required to remove bacteria from bags, are very costly for consumers.

6. The costs of plastic bag bans fall disproportionately on the poor (4).

For the sake of brevity, this post will focus on the first issue…litter.

Adler states that plastic bags litter streets, block storm drains and get stuck in trees. “At one level, the assertion that plastic bags cause litter is ridiculous: litter is the result of human behavior, not the products we use. Put another way: people cause litter, bags don’t. Responsible consumers dispose of their waste in ways that do not cause litter. (Morris and Seasholes 12). So, if plastic bags are to blame, just how much damage do they create? According to the duo, the 2009 Keep America Beautiful Report is the only comprehensive survey done concerning litter in America, and Steven Stein of Environmental Resources Planning who designed and managed the survey is regarded as “the nation’s leading authority on litter” (13). According to the KAB study on a national level, “all plastic bags, of which plastic retail bags are only a subset, are just 0.6% of litter.” (13). Stein also attributes that estimates for items such as plastic bags can appear to be high because volunteers and not professional staff conduct the research. And, for example,

according to Katherine Mangu-Ward the information given to the California Coastal Commission is “collected by volunteers on one day each year and is not a scientific assessment.”

Plastic bags are also cited as the source of clogged storm drains resulting in flooding and damage to marine ecosystems. Morris and Seasholes admit that clogged storm drains are a “serious problem” however in the KAB survey mentioned above, plastic bags “represented just under 1% of litter items in storm drains.” And the top offender, tobacco products came in number one with a hefty 32% of storm drain litter. The authors again assert, “that the underlying problem is the fact that people litter” (15). A simple Google search for the impact of cigarette butt litter worldwide produces a plethora of sites that suggest far reaching negative effects on people, animals, and the planet. If true, these are a bigger problem than plastic bags.

Adler mentions the impact of trash in the oceans that harms marine and wildlife. Morris and Seasholes investigated the claims of various organizations concerning this issue. “Greenpeace, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and many other organizations claim that at least 80% of marine debris comes from land-based sources” (16). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, however states that data supporting such claims does not exist:

“We know relatively little about what is lying on the ocean floor or suspended in the

water column. Because of this we truly can’t say what the land-and ocean-based

percentages are with any certainty or accuracy” (16).

In other words, “it is simply dishonest to claim that 80%, or even most of marine debris originates on land.” (16). Also, according to NOAA, the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” is a “misnomer…There is no island of trash forming in the middle of the ocean, nor a blanket of trash that can be seen with satellite or aerial photographs” (17). To further their claim, NOAA added,

“For the record, no scientifically sound estimates exist on the size or mass of these garbage patches.” (18). While NOAA does not deny the existence of trash in the oceans, it does deny there is proof that it is caused by land-based sources and that huge island sized patches of trash are floating in the Pacific Ocean.

Deaths of marine mammals and sea turtles due to plastic bags have been estimated by organizations such as the Monterey Bay Aquarium as 100,000 annually. However, David List an analyst for the Marine Mammal Commission told a New York Times reporter that “in reality plastic bags don’t figure in entanglement…The main culprits are fishing gear, ropes, line and strapping bands…the impact of bags on whales, dolphins, porpoises and seals ranges from nil for most species to very minor for perhaps a few species. For birds, plastic bags are not a problem either.” (20). Looks like plastic bags may be off the hook as the main culprits here too.

Adler concedes there is no single “bag policy” adopted throughout the United States. He also notes that neither those responsible for bans and taxes nor the journalists that cover this subject provide solutions for acceptable replacements or evidence of any negative impacts these other possible options could have ecologically. Every substitute for the “despised” plastic bag has its own environmental baggage. Still, this should not dissuade Americans from working hard to maintain our Biggest Loser Title and not litter, recycle and lead the charge for environmentally friendly solutions to the plastic bag. Mary Agrusa

Works Cited

Adler, Ben. Banning Plastic Bags Is Great for the World, Right? Not So Fast. Wired, 2016. https://www.wired.com/2016/06/banning-plastic-bags-great-world-right-not-fast/. Accessed February 21, 2021.

Mangu-Ward, Katherine. Plastic Bags Are Good For You. Reason, Oct 2015, Vol. 47. Issue 5. https://reason.com/2015/09/01/plastic-bags-are-good-for-you/. Accessed February 22, 2021.

Morris, Julian, and Brian Seasholes. How Green is That Grocery Bag Ban? An Assessment of

the Environmental and Economic Effects of Grocery Bag Bans and Taxes. https://reason.org/policy-study/how-green-is-that-grocery-bag-ban/. Accessed February 22, 2021.