Plastic has changed the world. The low-cost and versatile material has saved millions of lives by bringing sterile single-use equipment to health centers and making it possible to store food safely. At the same time, it has played a significant part in creating a global throwaway society, in which we easily forget the lifespans of the goods we use.
Campaigns encouraging plastic free months along with the Zero Waste lifestyle trend have mobilized people all over the world. In October last year, the European Parliament voted for a ban on single-use plastics, to be realised in 2021 2018). Sweden and Great Britain have banned microplastics in certain cosmetic products, and the use of plastic microbeads in wash-off cosmetics has already been radically reduced in Europe – it has gone down by 82% between 2012–2015 (Gouin et al, 2015). In the case of plastics, the worry for the effects on the environment and people’s health has evoked citizens to act towards a common goal and resulted in changed legislation.
However, despite the growing concern of the environmental effects of plastics, the problem is more about how we use the material than the material itself.
Plastic is a versatile and useful material. It can be forged into complicated forms even in extremely thin layers. It protects our food and medicine from their surroundings, and plastics are used in bypass surgeries, in pacemakers, in blood test and IV equipment; in kevlar vests that protect policemen from bullets and in bicycle helmets and seat belts. (World Economic Forum, 2018.)
Even though many of these functions could technically be performed by other materials, no competing material is yet as cheap, as suitable (it’s taken decades of material design and research to get plastics there) and as readily available as different forms of plastics are. Disinfected packed syringes and surgery equipment would become a luxury only available to the very richest should we ban all plastics use tomorrow.
Climatewise, plastic outperforms many other materials. The low price of plastics in comparison with e.g. metal means that solar panels, for instance, can be produced at a lower cost. The electrical components and switches can be made out of hard technical plastics that are cheaper to produce, lighter to transport (hence saving greenhouse gas emissions when replacing heavier materials) and more durable in use than their metal counterparts would be. In the cases where technical plastics substitute metals or cement, the process emissions from producing these materials are avoided altogether – which is a big deal since producing these materials is extremely greenhouse gas intensive.
Plastic packaging of food saves both resources and emissions by reducing food waste. We often sigh with resignation at the amount of plastics wrapped around the food in grocery stores, but sometimes it does fill a purpose. Globally, food waste causes 4.4 gigatonnes of CO2-eq every year, which corresponds to 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions (FAO, 2015). Not all of the waste is due to food going bad, but plastic packaging that can help reduce this number is still good for the climate. A packaged product has a longer shelf lifetime, increasing the chances that it is sold and eaten before it goes bad.
Finally, plastic is one of the easiest materials to recycle. It can simply be melted and reformed. So why is plastic still a problem?
First of all, only one third of the plastics in the EU actually finds its way into the recycling bins and too much ends up in our oceans instead. This is bad design on a system level: any material that can easily blow away and is too cheap to pick up off the street and recycle should not be used in single-use products. Ideally, all materials that are used in cases with a high probability of ending up in nature should be fully biodegradable and harmless to the environment. In the case of straws, plastic cups, bags and the likes it is completely necessary to find good alternatives to plastic quickly. However, the biggest issue is not necessarily what materials we consume, but rather how we consume.
Apart from polluting our oceans, cheap plastic products have supported an increase in consumption. By replacing rare and expensive materials, plastic has made it possible for producers and manufacturers to keep up with rising demand while keeping the costs down. In its early days, plastics contributed to breaking down social boundaries and the uneven distribution of natural resources: “Plastics promised a material utopia, available to all” (Freinkel, 2011).
Today, we live in a society where products seem to appear on shop shelves and disappear into garbage bins after only a few times of usage. It’s easy to grab a smoothie packed in plastic and throw the empty package away once we’ve drank it a whole of 7 minutes later. And this doesn’t apply to just plastics. In a throwaway society it’s socially acceptable and economically possible to buy things we don’t need, of bad quality, and with an invisible production chain, just to throw them away whenever we feel like it.
We therefore welcome initiatives such as the Zero Waste lifestyle and Plastic Free months, and view them as invitations to question this way of consuming rather than as direct campaigns against one particular material. These movements are fantastic because they encourage us to pay attention to what it is we are buying and what we do with it after we’ve used it.
As such, initiatives that tackle plastics usage have the power to not just ban one material, but to change the entire consumption culture.
Most plastic packages can be recycled, and if that is not possible, they can be burned to produce heat in so called waste-to-energy power plants. In the EU, 31% of the collected plastic waste is recycled; 42% is burned for energy recovery, and 27% is placed in landfills. 10 European countries, including all Nordic countries, have banned plastics in landfills altogether.(PlasticsEurope, 2018.)
Despite this, only 40% of Finnish people recycle all or almost all of their plastics.
There has been a lot of talk about microplastics in cosmetics and personal care products lately, but that is in fact only a small source of global microplastic pollution. It is however one that is easy for consumers to avoid. Look for natural alternatives on the shelves!
Washing of textiles is a much larger source of microplastics, and one we can also impact directly. Clothes made of synthetic materials release microplastics in the washing machine. We can prevent that by for example investing in a washing bag that filters out microfibers during washing, preventing them from being released into the oceans.
We often sigh with resignation at the amount of plastics wrapped around the food in the grocery stores, but sometimes it does fill a purpose. Globally, food waste causes 4.4 gigatonnes of CO2-eq every year, which corresponds to 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions (FAO, 2015). Not all of the waste is due to food going bad, but plastic packaging that can help reduce this number is still good for the climate. However, enough is enough – no product needs double wrapping.
Avoiding single-use products can be a good idea but switching those to multiple keep cups and tote bags doesn’t serve the purpose. E.g. stainless steel, used in drinking bottles and other reusable products, is an extremely carbon intensive material. Cotton cultivation is associated with various negative environmental and social impacts, e.g. water scarcity (WWF, 2013). As such, reusable doesn’t automatically equal climate-friendly. Try to buy only the things you need and handle them with care.
Gouin et al, 2015
World Economic Forum, 2018