Consumers drive markets and consumer choices will therefore create change in the industry.Single use plastics are now high on the agenda, with many people trying to do their bit to reduce usage. Despite many scientists’ misgivings about the project and its recent failed attempts to collect plastic the project is still attractive to many as it allows us to tackle the issue without having to make any major lifestyle changes. So it’s not surprising that so many people think ocean plastics are the most serious environmental threat to the planet. Studies on the toxicity effects, especially to humans are often overplayed.Despite the importance of this message, environmental news has been dominated by the issues of plastic pollution.Taking a stand against plastic, by carrying reusable coffee cups, or eating in restaurant chains where only paper straws are provided, is the classic neo-liberal response. And the benefits of these small-scale consumer driven changes are often minor.
By now, most of us have heard that the use of plastics is a big issue for the environment. Take, for example, energy-efficient light bulbs – in practice, using these has been shown to have very little effect on a person’s overall carbon footprint.That’s not to say plastic pollution isn’t a problem, rather there are much bigger problems facing the world we live in, specifically climate change.Yes, we know plastic can entangle birds, fish and marine mammals, which can starve after filling their stomachs with plastics and yet there are no conclusive studies on population level effects of plastic pollution.Alternative products can often have different but equally severe environmental problems.Three boundaries were found to have exceeded: biodiversity loss, nitrogen flows China design plastic barrel mould and climate change. But what if all of this just provides a convenient distraction from some of the more serious environmental issues? In our new article in the journal Marine Policy we argue plastic pollution or more accurately the response of governments and industry to addressing plastic pollution provides a “convenient truth” that distracts from addressing the real environmental threats such as climate change.
In 2009, the concept of planetary boundaries was introduced by the Stockholm Resilience Centre, to indicate safe operating limits for the Earth from a number of environmental threats. Much of the news focused on what individuals could do to reduce their carbon footprint, although some articles did also indicate the need for collective action. The Ocean Cleanup of plastic pollution, which aims to sieve plastic out of the sea, is a classic example.In October last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced a report detailing drastic action needed to limit global warming to 1.But by making these small changes, plastic still appears to be an issue we can address. Research shows for example, that plastic is not as great a threat to oceans as climate change or over-fishing. Partly fuelled by the success of the BBC’s ‘Blue Planet II’ series, people are more aware than ever before about the dangers to wildlife caused by plastic pollution, as well as the impact it can have on human health, with industries promising money to tackle the issue. But this is not the case
hj