Earth Day 2018 Was About Plastics Pollution—But Greens Missed Target

Biodegradable Plastic Articlei

Guest essay By Steve Goreham

April 22 was designated by the Earth Day Network as Earth Day 2018. This year’s Earth Day was dedicated to ending global plastic pollution. While efforts to reduce plastic pollution are needed, the campaign missed the mark by emphasizing measures to eliminate the use of plastics.

Earth Day Network’s “Plastic Pollution Primer and Action Toolkit” identifies important problems such as litter and accumulating plastic in the ocean. It proposes effective measures to reduce plastic pollution such as local beach clean-up and recycling. But then the primer goes overboard, promoting radical proposals such as “whenever possible, refuse plastic” and “living a plastic-free life.”

Plastics are essential to modern society. We fabricate food containers, boat paddles, shoes, pipes, toys, smart phones, and thousands of other goods from plastic. Plastic is integral to medical services, used in heart valves, artificial joints, and catheters. Every day, society consumes approximately 450 million plastic bottles and 2.7 billion plastic bags worldwide.

From an objective point of view, plastics are a miracle material. Plastics are composed of long synthetic molecules of carbon and hydrogen, derived from petrochemicals, with amazing chemical properties. Plastics are moldable, impervious to water, inert in normal room-temperature conditions, light weight and strong, able to deform without breaking, and inexpensive.

But the valuable characteristics of plastic, a low-cost non-reactive material with wide applicability, produce both misguided and justified fears about environmental impacts. The Earth Day campaign raised concerns about the volume of plastics going to landfills, about fossil fuel feedstock for plastic, and about “leakage” of plastic into the environment. The landfill and fossil fuel concerns are misguided, but the concern about plastic accumulation in the environment is valid.

Environmentalists decry landfill plastic, but modern landfills are designed to accept waste with a minimum of environmental impact. Landfills in developed nations use a waterproof lining to prevent leaching of chemicals into underground water aquifers. Plastic and other garbage is crushed each day and covered with soil to reduce smell and litter and to prevent the growth of vermin and insect populations.

Nor are we running out of landfill space, except in local situations or in small nations. It has been estimated that, at current throwaway rates, all US municipal waste for the next 1,000 years could fit in a landfill 300 feet tall and 30 miles on a side. Compaction could reduce this volume by more than half.

In addition, the waste recovered by recycling, composting, and combustion is rising faster than waste is being generated. According to data from the Environmental Protection Agency, the amount of US waste annually deposited into landfills peaked in 1990 and has been slowly declining for more than 20 years. Plastic going into landfills is a minor issue.US Waste Disposal Graph Article

Most plastic comes from oil or natural gas refining, therefore a target in the ongoing war on hydrocarbons. The Earth Policy Institute states, “Manufacturing of the nearly 28 billion plastic bottles used each year to package water in the United States alone requires the equivalent of 17 million barrels of oil.”

This sounds alarming, but it’s mistaken. Plastic is a by-product of refining waste. Only about four percent of the world’s oil is used to produce plastic, with only about one percent used for bottles. If plastic bottle production were halted, the volume of petroleum used in refining would hardly change.

 

A valid concern, however, is the accumulation of plastic in the environment, particularly the oceans. Dr. Jenna Jambeck at the University of Georgia estimated that 4.8 to 12.7 million tons of plastic waste entered the world’s oceans in 2010, or about 1.7 to 4.6 percent of total plastic production. These waste numbers are rising with increasing production.

Some scientists warn of a growing Pacific Ocean garbage patch, a huge area of ocean current whirlpool north of Hawaii, where plastic is said to be accumulating. Contrary to some reports, an observer gazing at this ocean area does not see floating plastic waste. But scientists do measure a growing concentration of tiny plastic particles. Sea birds, which mistake plastic for food, have been found with plastic fragments in their stomachs.

The environmental movement proposes that we cleanse our daily lives of plastic, and well-meaning nations and communities have responded. France enacted a ban on all plastic dishware to go into effect in 2020. Hundreds of cities have banned plastic straws and plastic bags.

But banning plastic straws in Seattle or Fort Myers will not do much to solve the problem. Only about two percent of the plastic that ends up in the ocean originates in Europe and the US, where waste disposal is well-controlled. An estimated 82 percent originates in Asia and another 16 percent from the rest of the world.

Ultimately, the best solution may be plastics engineered to biodegrade in the environment over a short period of time. Many companies now offer biodegradable plastics for single-use applications, usually at a cost premium over common plastics. Unfortunately, green groups often oppose biodegradable plastics over fears of methane or carbon dioxide emissions.

Environmental advocates push for lifestyle changes and plastic bans, but ignore practical biodegradable solutions. Let’s recycle and clean up our beaches, but avoid feel-good plastic-banning campaigns.


Originally published in The Daily Caller, republished here at the request of the author. Steve Goreham is a speaker on the environment, business, and public policy and author of the book Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

190 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peta of Newark
April 28, 2018 1:59 am

My story about enforced recycling comes, naturally, from UK agriculture.
Livestock farming.
Uses extensive amounts of fencing materials and also plastic.
Fencing to keep the animals where they’re supposed to be and black plastic sheeting enabled the production of silage. Both in large heaps (clamps) and big bales.
Fences require typically wooden stakes/posts/rails.
(The prices of which have easily quadrupled in the last 5 years since everyone started burning wood to Save The Planet but that’s another story)
But anyway, last time I bought any posts/stakes/rails, a plain wooden rail of 4″ by 1″ and 12′ long came in at about £3 ea.
At same time, waste management rules were going crazy, especially regarding the old black plastic.
‘Entrepreneurs’ appeared and volunteered to remove the stuff from farms. (Not for long did the removal service last, within 2 years the farmer had to take it to them)
And it had to be near spotlessly clean
And, get this, they charged money – about £10 per tonne as I recall.
But as per usual, the farmer was caught by the short & curlies and had to cough up. Rules stated that farms could only store the used plastic for 12 months or less.
OK, back to the fence posts.
The ‘entrepreneurs’ processed the plastic into various things, one of their products being posts/stakes/rails to be used for fencing.
The posts were the most dangerous things ever invented. Hit them with a mechanised post-driver and they bent – twanged really. If you were standing beside it to hold it straight upright/vertical you could suffer a broken arm, bruised ribs or generally get your face smashed in.
Then it didn’t go into the ground and if you ever did get it into the dirt, ’twas impossible to hammer nails into them.
To add insult to very real injury, you might want one of the plastic rails – you’d be charged £34 (5 yrs ago) for the recycled plastic equivalent of the £3 wooden rail.
And it was made from plastic that you had paid them to take away.
They are almost as bad as lawyers. They create jobs & work for themselves, charge as much as they imagine they deserve (and more) and then destroy you financially and personally (dig up my dead brother and ask him if you don’t believe me) if you don’t pay.
Are you *really* sure you know how the GHGE works and can explain it coherently to your own children.
If not, you are in appeasement with these people and it will all go so badly wrong you cannot imagine the horrors.
Need I remind that there is precedent.

ROM
Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 28, 2018 2:33 am

Peta of Newark;
You remind of the days when the Road authorities decided to use white recycled plastic marker posts that act as markers to define the edges of numerous secondary roads and highways here in Australia .
The white plastic marker posts at about a 100 metres intervals were very flexible and when knocked down promptly stood up again.
Of course such a situation was a sure fire attractant for all the local road hoons who providing they had a “bull” bar [ deflects stray kangaroos and etc when at speed ] on the front of thier utes, used to belt down the line of white plastic posts at speed yielding a very satisfactory “whhack” every few seconds each time they hit the next post in line.
The cost in broken plastic marker posts was a bit excessive so some smarter than normal public servant in the road authority’s offices decreed that a white painted lump of railway iron, identical in appearance to the white plastic marker posts, be used as a replacement for a white plastic post every so many hundreds of metres.
It only took a dozen or so completely destroyed utes to bring the whole of the white marker whacking to a complete halt.

hunter
Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 28, 2018 5:06 am

Well stated.
The enviros care little for the environment and less dor people.

April 28, 2018 4:29 am

According to the BBC

A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) was asked about the reliability of the figure and said: “The 8.5 billion figure is a widely-quoted figure based on research by independent group Eunomia.”
The same researchers have done further research for the World Wildlife Fund, which estimated that 42 billion straws a year were being used a year in the UK – that’s 640 per person.
That figure was based on an estimate for total use (not just fast food outlets) from a market research company that said 82 thousand tonnes of plastic straws were used in the 28 countries of the EU.
Eunomia then divided based on the sizes of the economies of each country (measured by GDP) to get to 15,700 tonnes for the UK and work that out at 0.4 grams per straw.

I’m not convinced that
a these figures make sense, I don’t think anyone in my family uses 2 plastic straws per day averaged over a year.
and
b If the numbers are correct then using an alternative paper? Is any better for the environment. Plastic is strong and impermeable so children can’t easily chew the end flat nor does it become saturated and collapse, both of which happens to paper based straws increasing the numbers used.
c. Every day there are over a dozen 40ft wagons on UK roads moving plastic straws.
As far as straws are concerned then a total ban no matter what material is the only way to go. Although the amount of drink spilled by children will greatly increase in those circumstances.

MarkW
Reply to  Sandy in Limousin
April 28, 2018 8:14 pm

In normal science, when the results of your calculations make no sense whatsoever, the first step is to review your math, your initial data and your assumptions.
In environmental “science”, the more ludicrous your numbers, the more likely you are to attract a research grant, so the last thing you want to do is double check yourself.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
April 28, 2018 8:14 pm

PS, Chis, do I need to find you a link for that?

tadchem
April 28, 2018 4:47 am

Is the problem really just plastics, or should much of the responsibility be shouldered by coastal municipalities that load there trash into barge to be scuttled at sea?

hunter
April 28, 2018 5:02 am

So once again green extremists are using deception to hurt people.

mynaturaldiary
April 28, 2018 5:42 am

All organic waste, from food to plastics etc could go through the Fischer–Tropsch process, which is a set of chemical reactions that changes a mixture of carbon monoxide gas and hydrogen gas into liquid hydrocarbons (like gasoline or kerosene). This offers complete recycling back to feedstock to begin the cycle again.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process

Russell Robles-Thome
April 28, 2018 6:05 am

Just a thought, but plastics which degrade chemically in the presence of seawater would seem to offer a great solution, if they could be made.

MarkW
Reply to  Russell Robles-Thome
April 28, 2018 8:15 pm

No need. The bacteria and such that live in sea water already love to eat plastics and make short work of anything dropped into the water.

Roger Knights
April 28, 2018 6:10 am

Ordinary incineration is unacceptable to greenies because it produces some air pollution. However, a “fusion torch” operating at 30,000 degrees eliminates nearly all air pollution and can capture much of the heat it generates to power its own operation. It was described in the book, Prescription for the Planet and is being pilot-tested in Russia. There are several U.S. makers of the torch for that purpose. General descriptions of the fusion torch can be found by googling for the term. My search result page is here:
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=fusion+torch&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

John Robertson
April 28, 2018 6:13 am

Gang Green are living proof that stupid is incurable.
I liken these people to the infection with cause.
You cannot reason with these zealots anymore than you can reason with gaseous gangrene.
We,collectively, have provided them with everything,yet they seek to destroy us.
Amputation is not an unreasonable solution to such.
They “know all”, yet admit to ignorance of maths,science and consequence.
Tolerance of their idiocy has not worked,our tolerance of their anti-human bigotry has resulted in todays crazy political situation.
Voting crazy people to positions of authority does not wake them up.
Being in positions of responsibility does not force fools or bandits to become responsible.
Lost in a world of virtue signalling and self congratulation, these paragons of virtue are blind to responsibility, personal responsibility only applies to their critics.
The famous quote, attribution temporarily forgotten,” The modern environmental activist will do anything to save the environment, absolutely anything.Anything that is, except get an education and study the sciences”.Anything except learn enough to understand what the “environment” might be.
When challenged far too many are copies of Dr Fruit Fly of Canada, not even aware of the data underlying their claims.

M E
Reply to  John Robertson
April 29, 2018 1:38 pm

As to fabrics for the Green warriors. Hemp and flax make very unpleasant itchy fabrics and would be just the thing for the environmentalists. Hair shirts for penitence and . in the old days, sackcloth and ashes for mourning. it would send a message to all these oil using villains and signal virtue at the cost of comfort. Just up their street. Someone could make a fortune from Greenpeace if it become the mandatory get up for protests.

Roger Knights
April 28, 2018 6:16 am

Safeway sells, for 25 cents, heavy-duty plastic shopping bags that have a high capacity and can be brought back to the store for repeated baggings. I’ve done so for years. Compared to cloth bags, they are cheaper, more capacious, more compressable when empty, easier to get ahold of their handles, and lower-maintenance (no need to put them in a washing machine because their non-absorbance keeps fluids from being an infection threat or a material-degrader).

MarkW
Reply to  Roger Knights
April 28, 2018 8:16 pm

You still need to wash them out with a disinfecting solution.

Roger Knights
Reply to  MarkW
April 28, 2018 10:50 pm

A rinse would do. I have neither disinfected nor even rinsed for about 18 months. There’s been no odors or illness. (Yet, I guess I must confess. 18 months isn’t a full test.)

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
April 29, 2018 7:09 am

A rinse won’t get something that is oil based. Contamination from meat is usually oil based.

Scarface
April 28, 2018 7:40 am

From Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – Germany:
“The researchers have also calculated that the ten river systems with the highest plastic loads ( eight of them are in Asia and two in Africa ) – areas in which hundreds of millions of people live, in some cases – are responsible for around 90 percent of the global input of plastic into the sea.
https://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=36336&webc_pm=34%2F2017
http://www.pi-news.net/2017/10/90-prozent-des-plastikmuells-im-meer-aus-zehn-fluessen-in-asien-und-afrika/
http://www.pi-news.net/wp-content/uploads/weltmeere-696×387.jpg

Scarface
Reply to  Scarface
April 28, 2018 7:44 am

Thank you, Greenies, for not talking about the elephant in the room.

StephenP
April 28, 2018 8:30 am

What has happened to the genetically modified enzyme that supposedly eats plastic? Oh dear, it’s GM so the greens won’t like that.

GREY LENSMAN
April 28, 2018 10:02 pm

The 3R scam, blather you must recycle, reuse or re-purpose, blah, threats doom. We already do on a massive scale. Just look at the growing list of reused plastic products and recovered metals.
Chickens eat stones, humans need fibre, parrots eat clay. Plastic is another pass through material.
How does the Pacific garbage island twice the size of Texas not get silenced, it does not exist, nobody can find it.

MarkW
Reply to  GREY LENSMAN
April 29, 2018 7:11 am

Like the myth of runaway global warming that nobody can find. It continues because there are those who find it profitable to spread lies.

Jules
April 29, 2018 6:42 am

‘ Ocean originates in Europe and the US, where waste disposal is well-controlled. An estimated 82 percent originates in Asia and another 16 percent from the rest of the world.’
Thats my experience travelling around Asia, Africa. I was in Papua New Guinea last year and the amount of rubbish in the rivers was eye watering. I suspect that the poor sods living in poverty the environment would be the least of their problems.

Chris in Calgary
April 30, 2018 12:34 pm

“The landfill and fossil fuel concerns are misguided…”
Reducing plastic use is a good thing, especially regarding landfills. It costs a lot of tax dollars to build and maintain landfills. Why should we generate huge amounts of plastics that we don’t really need? It drives up the cost of living for everyone, and creates trash that we have to pay to store in landfills. Use what is necessary, and minimize what isn’t.
Conservation and frugal use of our resources is smart and ecoomical. Let’s not get pushed off of that position by a reaction to environmentalist rhetoric.

Trevor
Reply to  Chris in Calgary
May 1, 2018 5:34 am

Yeah ! And while you are at it…………………….to improve the soil…………..dig-in a greenie ……………..
and plant a tree or a pumpkin or a protester !!!! NOW LOOK WHAT YOU HAVE STARTED !

Verified by MonsterInsights