Plastics and Climate Change: some data you’ll want to be aware of

OCEANA.ORG sent me a bone chilling email that I just found in my Inbox.  Here’s an excerpt from that email:

Every year, an estimated 33 billion pounds of plastic enter our oceans. That’s roughly the equivalent of dumping two garbage trucks full of plastic into the oceans every minute. It’s polluting our oceans, choking marine life, and breaking up into smaller microplastics that we’re all drinking, eating, and breathing.

Change is needed, and there’s no time to waste. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Rep. Tom Suozzi (N.Y.) recently introduced a bill in Congress that would put a fee on plastic polluters. The REDUCE Act would set a per pound fee on the sale of new, or virgin, plastic used for single-use products.

It’s time for Congress to hold plastic polluters accountable — but we need your help!

Use your voice today: Tell your members of Congress to put a fee on plastic polluters to help save our oceans, before it’s too late >>

The plastic pollution crisis will only get worse if we don’t take action now to stop it at the source, Brian.

The plastics industry expects annual production will more than triple by 2050. The United States is an enormous contributor to this crisis — in fact, a 2020 study found that the U.S. generated more plastic waste than any other country. As plastic production continues to increase, so will the amount of plastic entering the ocean.

The REDUCE Act, if passed, will hold the plastics industry accountable for its pollution and help level the playing field between recycled plastic and new plastic. We need to seize this opportunity!

Your representatives answer to you! Tell your members of Congress to do right by our oceans and marine wildlife, and make plastic polluters pay: Support the REDUCE Act today >>

This “Reduce Act” is H.R. 5389 currently sitting in the House of Representatives. 

OCEANA is right; we need to tell our members of Congress to ensure this bill moves forward.  When the oceans go, we’re toast!  If you were worried about the Amazon forest disappearing, be aware that even MORE oxygen is produced by phytoplankton than the Amazon forest. (According to https://www.allayer.net › amazon-rainforests-vs-phytoplankton, Phytoplankton produces anywhere from 50% – 85% of the world’s oxygen.)

Here’s a list of the organizations to whom I sent my brief article about Safeway packaging below.  All of them are working hard to reduce plastics:

Per Yale Climate Connections (https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/08/how-plastics-contribute-to-climate-change/ ) article by Brooke Bauman HOW PLASTICS CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE CHANGE, the following areas are of particular concern:

Waste management affects community health

Globally, about 40% of plastics are used as packaging. Usually, packaging is meant for a single use, so there’s a quick turnaround to disposal. This packaging can be processed in three different ways: landfill, incineration, or recycling.

Waste incineration has the largest climate impact of the three options. According to the CIEL report, U.S. emissions from plastics incineration in 2015 were 5.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Based on projections from the World Energy Council, if plastics production and incineration increase as expected, greenhouse gas emissions will increase to 49 million metric tons by 2030 and 91 million metric tons by 2050.

The climate impact isn’t the only concern. Incineration facilities are disproportionately built near communities of color and low-income populations.

“Incineration is a massive environmental injustice – not just in the United States, but all over the world,” Arkin said. “The people who are subjected to the pollution from these incinerators often are the ones who are least responsible for the waste in the first place and have to bear the brunt of the impacts.”

Burning waste can release thousands of pollutants. Incinerator workers and people living near facilities are particularly at risk to exposures.

Landfilling has a much lower climate impact than incineration. But the placement of landfills can be associated with similar environmental injustices.

Recycling is a different beast with an entirely different set of problems. Compared to the low costs of virgin materials, recycled plastics are high cost with low commercial value. This makes recycling profitable only rarely, so it requires considerable government subsidies.

Research from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation suggests that only 2% of plastics are recycled into products with the same function. Another 8% are “downcycled” to something of lower quality. The rest is landfilled, leaked into the environment, or incinerated.

Recycling facilities also commonly receive low-quality materials. Wishful recycling makes people recycle items that they think should be recyclable but are actually not. This puts a huge responsibility on the recycling facilities to process and sort the waste.

For many years, the United States and many other Western countries sent a lot of their contaminated waste to China, transferring the responsibility of waste management. In 2018, China closed its doors to the West’s contaminated recycling. Rather than increasing domestic recycling capacity, the United States now sends the waste to other countries like Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. But some of these countries have started to turn down Western recycling, too.

Recycling could be an important bridge on the way to waste reduction, but Arkin said the Western world needs to address its plastics addiction at the source.

“We can’t recycle our way out of the plastic pollution crisis,” Arkin said. “There’s simply too much plastic – single-use plastic – being produced and consumed.”

When plastics enter the environment, they don’t stop polluting

After plastics have been used, people may dump them into the environment, sometimes purposefully and other times accidentally. Even if plastics go to a landfill, some are light enough to blow in the wind and enter waterways.

Plastics can break down into smaller pieces, called microplastics, through biodegradation or exposure to the sun, heat, or water. These microplastics scatter across the globe, even to the depths of the ocean. Toxic chemicals can bind to microplastics and create poison pills that aquatic animals eat. Plastics also harm animals through entanglement and ingestion at all levels of the food chain.

Sarah-Jeanne Royer at Scripps Institution of Oceanography has found that low-density polyethylene – one of the most common types of plastics found in the ocean – releases greenhouse gases as it breaks down in the environment.

But beyond the direct emissions from plastics in the environment, there’s another issue with microplastics. Historically, the ocean has sequestered 30-50% of carbon dioxide emissions from human-related activities. However, evidence suggests that plankton are ingesting ever-greater quantities of microplastics.

Researchers at the Ocean University of China found that microplastics reduced the growth of microalgae and the efficiency of photosynthesis. So producing more microplastics could degrade plankton’s ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

What is the solution?

For every phase of the plastics life cycle, there are ways to reduce emissions. But it may take systemic shifts to slow the growth of plastics production. For example, some advocate for using bio-based feedstocks to reduce emissions in the refining stage. According to 2018 analysis by Material Economics – a sustainability management consulting firm – using only zero-carbon energy sources, such as wind and solar, in the manufacturing phase would decrease overall emissions by 50%. That may not be enough to offset emissions associated with the rapid rise of plastics production.

When developing solutions, it’s important to think critically about the materials that will replace plastics. Authors of a 2011 study from the Environment Agency in the United Kingdom assessed the life cycle environmental impacts of different bags – such as paper, plastic, and cotton – used in U.K. grocery stores. Their study found that the key to reducing global warming impact is to reuse the bags as many times as possible. But the number of times the bag must be reused depends on the material it’s made from. The paper and cotton bags need to be reused three and 131 times respectively to ensure their global warming potential is lower than a typical plastic grocery bag.

Ultimately, cutting emissions associated with plastics may require an all-of-the-above strategy: reducing waste, retaining materials by refurbishing or remanufacturing, and recycling. Under this type of circular business model, authors of the CIEL report say carbon dioxide emissions would decrease by 62 million metric tons per year.

Brooke Bauman is an intern at YCC and a student at UNC-Chapel Hill studying environmental science, geography, and journalism.

Now you understand why a simple thing like Safeway’s changing their packaging this year from paper to plastic for many of their dairy products can have such a significant impact.   It’s moving in the WRONG direction.  Please let Safeway know this is NOT acceptable (see the links below).  I want to believe they care about the future of this planet and the people living on it, and, as responsible members of our community, will work to preserve and protect both.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s