Plastic isn’t the bad guy, even if the media constantly tries to tell us otherwise. Dr Alicia Chrysostomou, Academic, Consultant and Published Author, reminds us that we can’t accept as true the ‘facts’ we hear every day. We must dig further and question those everyday claims, and we will find that plastic is indeed a lot more valuable than commonly believed.
shutterstock
It’s a curious trait of human nature that gives us a propensity to believe what we like to hear rather than what may be true. For instance, if a statement said that gathering all the plastics in the sea would source enough plastic to make a sheet as big as the Atlantic Ocean, how many would believe it? It’s nonsense, but it sounds plausible to those who think the worst of this material. If an opinion is given with enough vigour, or hits a chord, or even feeds an existing belief, then it is accepted as fact.
Where in our society is this seen more than in the representation of plastic to the public? This material is seen as the source of all the world’s woes. There’s too much of it; it’s choking the waterways and polluting the seas. It relies on oil for its creation and generates microplastics. With many of these ‘facts’, any individual with a prior knowledge of plastics would know couldn’t be true, while others just don’t read quite right. Enough to raise a sceptical eyebrow and dig further. Indeed, digging revealed almost all (in one instance) could be traced to one opinionated source with absolutely no basis in either fact or science.
Take the common trope of micro and nano plastics, assumed by many to be detrimental to our health. Certain claims relating to the quantity of microplastics in the body have subsequently been debunked. Yet, mainstream media still tend to portray them in the worst light. A joint study by the Universities of Plymouth and Vienna found that, while just 24% of scientific studies suggest ill-effects arising from micro and nanoplastics, a whopping 93% of media articles on the subject imply they do carry a risk. This is an enormous imbalance, which explains why the public expresses such concerns which, so far, science is just not realising. Research is ongoing with investigative techniques continually honed.
Switching the focus to plastics on a larger scale, a thorough investigation has been conducted on the efficacy of those bags now in circulation since the widespread ban on plastic bags. This is efficacy in terms of environmental impact; we all have our own opinions on the usefulness of a paper bag on a wet day.
A report commissioned by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency in 2018 aimed to understand the impact of the once standard end-of-till plastic bag and its alternatives on the environment. Of the low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags available, four variations were subjected to the study, and one with average characteristics was taken as the base or reference bag.
Other bags studied included:
•LDPE bags with a soft and a rigid handle, and a recycled version
•Non-woven and woven polypropylene bags
•Virgin and recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bags
•A starch-complexed biopolymer
•Bleached and unbleached paper bags
•Organic and conventional cotton bags
•Composite bag comprising jute, PP and cotton
The result assumed that the LDPE vest bag would be used once for shopping and finally as a bin liner. All findings and environmental impacts for this example were taken as the benchmark. The study aimed to identify the carrier bag type that would offer multiple uses, coupled with the best environmental outcome, compared to the single-use, vest-type plastic bag.
The results showed that each LDPE bag (recycled or with a strengthened handle) performed roughly the same, although the recycled bag would be best used at least one more time (extra processing is needed to recover and reform this plastic). As for PP bags, the non-woven bags for life are recommended to be reused at least 52 times, whereas the stronger woven PP bags ought to be reused 45 times. Biopolymer bags were calculated as needing at least 42 uses to equate to the single-use bag. Not far behind were the paper options, with both forms requiring 43 reuses.
The big shock came with cotton. Taking all factors into account, organic cotton bags need to be reused a whopping 20,000 times. No, this is not a misprint. At its very best, if just considering climate change, recommended reuse is advised at least 149 times. Remember, this is just to equate it to the environmental impact of a single-use vest-type plastic bag. And a non-organic cotton bag? It would need 7,100 uses to bring it to the same level as the plastic bag. This remarkably high reuse number is attributed to cotton’s impact on ozone depletion. Omitting this data reduces its reuse values enormously (149 times for organic, 52 for conventional cotton), but remember, the same stipulations were imposed on the other bags, including plastic. So, even if we were to reduce the imposed parameters, an organic cotton bag would still need 149 shops as opposed to a single trip with a plastic bag.
While many are quick to condemn and offer opinions, don’t fall into the trap of believing sight unseen. Just because a ‘fact’ is repeated many times doesn’t make it true. False claims can cause harm, so question everything. Even the best-intentioned individual wanting to do the best for the environment can cause harm by castigating a material that can do a lot to help mitigate issues.
And in case you’re still wondering, there isn’t enough plastic in the sea to cover the Atlantic. It’s ‘fake news’ - don’t be tempted to believe it!