plastic – ThisIsCommonSense.org

Are We Graduating from Plastic?

In The Graduate (1967), the young man played by Dustin Hoffman gets advice from an elder. “Just one word: plastics.” “Exactly how do you mean, sir?” “There’s a great future in plastics.”

When the world bans all plastic in 2021, that will be the end of that market opportunity. Other components of civilization will be discontinued in 2022.

Maybe I’m being too pessimistic. After all, there’s always the black market.

A plastic-bag ban is underway in New York City. Four states and five territories have already banned disposable plastic bags, as have countries around the world. New Yorkers are reportedly two-to-one in favor. A friend who lives there confirms this widespread resignation.

“I’m not happy about what it [plastic] does to the environment,” says one New Yorker. “But . . . what it does to my environment if I don’t have them is a nightmare.”

“This is a good thing because it’s helping the environment,” says another.

The problem of trash disposal has been solved. We use garbage cans, pickups, landfills. It’s a problem that must be continuously re-solved. Like many other problems . . . such as how to carry groceries.

We adopted plastic bags because they are much more convenient than paper. Convenience, efficiency, effectiveness: many man-made components of civilization serve these goals.

Reduction to absurdity can persuade only if the listener rejects the absurd. In 1967, the idea of banning plastic bags and plastic straws seemed, to most, absurd. Today, maybe two thirds of New Yorkers lament the inconvenience but add whaddyagonnado . . . when you gotta protect the environment?

That this measure will not protect much of anything, but merely allow activists to think well of themselves is, itself, absurd.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

plastic, environmentalism, California, law, prohibitions, bans,

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

When I go to the supermarket, and get asked “paper or plastic?” — about which bag the checker should wrap my purchases in — I almost always say “plastic.” They are lighter than paper bags, are easily re-usable for a wide variety of home purposes, and resist water — thus less apt to self-destruct on the trip from store to car, car to kitchen.

Of course, anything plastic and mega-popular makes a perfect target for environmentalist critics. Hundreds of cities, particularly on the West Coast — but throughout the world — now outlaw plastic bags or restrict their use.

We are encouraged to buy and re-use cloth shopping bags — which in my experience get stinky pretty quickly.

On many issues (say, pollution) my heart is with the environmentalists. But on the bag issue, I’m skeptical. Thankfully, Katherine Mangu-Ward has a great piece at Reason, showing that the scientific case against the plastic bag is weak — weaker than a paper bag holding wet veggies, an exploded Coke, and frozen meat.

Plastic bags are not the litter problem they’ve been cracked up to be, she says, citing one study figuring that “all plastic bags, of which plastic retail bags are only a subset, are just 0.6 percent of visible litter nationwide.”

And, as for harm to wildlife, she quotes a Greenpeace biologist to good effect: “It’s very unlikely that many animals are killed by plastic bags. The evidence shows just the opposite. We are not going to solve the problem of waste by focusing on plastic bags. . . . On a global basis plastic bags aren’t an issue.”

What is at issue is their utility, reusability, and . . . our freedom.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF