On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML

Banning plastic straws and other acts of environmental suicide

By Eric Claus - posted Wednesday, 20 June 2018

There is a general feeling among supporters of Environmental Legislation and advocates of "Green" policies in general, that anything done to reduce pollution or reduce impacts on the natural environment, regardless of other costs and impacts, is a good thing. This feeling is endorsed with statements like the one below by Woolworths when they announced they would not be selling plastic straws anymore.

"Today's initiatives represent further small, but important, steps in our commitment to make positive change happen. We understand the journey towards a more sustainable future has its challenges, but together with our customers and industry partners we are committed to moving our business, our country and our planet towards a greener future."

Nothing about this statement is overtly false and Woolworths doesn't feel the need to answer the question "What good is this going to do?" because nobody is asking that question.

Four other articles (links below) appeared in recent weeks regarding solutions to the problem of plastics in the ocean and not one answered the question "What good is this going to do?" The likely reason is that there is a general consensus that anything that reduces pollution, regardless of other impacts, must be good.

The specifics about how the new legislation or new policy will actually help solve a specifically identified problem are usually just implied, rather than quantified. It's all about what the customer wants and if the customer wants meaningless gestures, customer focussed businesses like Woolworths are ready to jump in with as many meaningless gestures as the customer wants.

Another general feeling that is at least as widely held by the broader community, is that most environmental legislation is "a waste of time and money," or by some less generous souls, "a total wank."

Banning plastic straws in Australia could be rock solid evidence that the "total wank" crowd has it exactly right. Using the figures developed by Denise Hardesty and Chris Wilcox plastic straws make up about 0.003% of the total quantity of plastic waste that might potentially get in to the oceans. To get a feel for how small this percentage is, if you went to your doctor and said you thought you were 0.003% overweight and you wanted to do something about it he could tell you to eat one less apple PER YEAR and that would solve the problem. Similarly if you told your financial advisor that you were spending 0.003% more than you wanted to, she could tell you that as long as you buy one less apple PER YEAR you will be back on your spending budget.

But wait it gets better. Most of the plastic waste entering our oceans doesn't come from Australia (where waste management systems are good) it comes from Asia (where many waste management programs are horrendous), so the ban on straws is even more useless.

The June 2018 National Geographic highlights this futility:

"Let's say you recycle 100 percent in all of North America and Europe," says Ramani Narayan, a chemical engineering professor at Michigan State University who also works in his native India. "You still would not make a dent on the plastics released into the oceans. If you want to do something about this, you have to go there, to these countries, and deal with the mismanaged waste."

In the same National Geographic article:

"In 2010, according to an estimate by (Jenna Jambeck, Engineering Professor University of Georgia) half the world's mismanaged plastic waste was generated by just five Asian countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka."

Researchers at the Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research in Germany concluded that:

"The 10 top-ranked rivers transport 88–95% of the global load (of Mismanaged Plastic Waste) into the sea."

Eight of those ten rivers are in Asia (Yangtze, Yellow, Hai He, Pearl, Amur, Mekong, Indus, Ganges Delta) and the other two are in Africa (Niger and Nile).

So if we ask the question "What good is banning plastic straws in Australia going to do?" the expression three fifths of bugger all, comes to mind.

If Woolworths were serious about reducing plastics pollution in the oceans, they would describe the detailed plans they have, working with their business partners in the polluting Asian countries, to ensure that plastic waste is better managed. And then they would describe "What good these plans are going to do."

If green groups were serious about reducing plastics pollution in the oceans, they would be advocating government sanctions on countries with poor waste management practices. One example, might be putting a tariff on Chinese and other polluting countries, plastic products sold in Australia. The bottle and can recycling systems in NSW and SA charge about $10 per kilogram, but we have good waste management systems in Australia. If we charged a $20/kg tariff for plastic products from polluting Asian countries we would be letting polluting Asian countries and Australian consumers know that we are serious about reducing plastic waste in the oceans. A 100gram plastic toy from China that now costs $1, would increase to $3.

If the polluting Asian countries cut their plastic waste into the ocean by 1%, that would be thousands of times more effective than a ban on plastic straws.

The meaningless gesture has become the heart and soul of the environmental movement, because the environmental movement has become the movement of feeling good about yourself, rather than trying to tackle the tough problems. The image many have of the Greens is that they have carbon footprints the size of sheep stations, but they brag about not using a plastic straw.

The most obvious tough problem is population stabilisation, which most environmental groups run away from, as fast as they can. Green groups don't like to be linked with reductions in immigration because proponents of high growth have framed opposition to immigration, as racist. All evidence points to green groups being strongly anti-racist, but apparently members of green groups still can't feel good about themselves, even if it is only their enemies calling them racists.

There are many environmentalists who would argue that there is no harm in the meaningless gesture. As long as environmental protection is improving, even in some small way, the world is better off. This argument disrespects the intelligence of the average citizen and the average citizen is absolutely critical in solving major environmental problems.

If you really want to solve a problem caused by the whole world community, you need to get the community behind you. You can't get the community behind you if you insult their intelligence.

If we say to the average citizen: plastic pollution in the oceans is a major problem and the first step is to do something that will have NO impact at all, why should we expect the average citizen to listen to the second step?

If we say to the average citizen: Climate Change is a major problem, just look at the science. The average citizen can say "Well you didn't look at the simple math, let alone the complex science, when you were banning plastic straws. Why would I listen to you about Climate Change?"

It is also important to recognise that the green movement's opponents in establishing protection for the environment don't trifle with meaningless gestures. They have a very clear message that making money (for them, not for you) is much more important than protecting the environment. They also know that meaningless gestures weaken the green movement's credibility.

Solving plastic waste in the oceans isn't going to be easy. It is going to take big changes in the way we (but mostly Asian and African countries) are now doing things.

If the green movement really wants to solve tough problems, such as plastic waste in the oceans, it needs to be seen to be the source of sensible, science based solutions that are likely to have a significant impact. It can't be about meaningless gestures. Meaningless gestures erode the credibility of all environmental protection policies and play straight into the hands of the opponents of environmental protection.