Where, oh where, is Mr. Reagan when you needed him? Known for many positive contributions to our country during his time as US President, perhaps no quote is as well remembered as his scorn for unnecessary government interference when he quipped, “The nine most dangerous words in the English language – ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
The General Services Administration (GSA) recently established an open comment period for a proposed judgment to limit or cancel the government’s reliance on single-use plastic in many areas of its functions. This constitutes only one item in an endless litany of government overreach actions. The negative consequences of this proposal cannot be overstated. Some of the largest sectors of our economy affected by the GSA petition include, but are not limited to, transportation, infrastructure, and shipping. It flows into all sectors of society.
The amount of plastics in the environment is exaggerated
The Plastics Industry Association (PLASTICS) has made it clear that this latest attempt to eliminate single-use plastics (SUPs) will not fail. It reveals a new campaign and webpagewhich states that “bans and other regulations that reduce access to plastics will only harm consumers and reduce our abilities to achieve environmental goals, including reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.” In launching its new campaign, PLASTICS takes this proposed ruling seriously and disseminates information and relevant data to push for a ban.
Last month, global management consultancy McKinsey released a comprehensive report on plastics and the environment. “Climate Impact of Plastics” states: “Among the applications where non-plastic alternatives are used at scale, the plastics analyzed in this paper offer a lower total GHG contribution compared to the alternatives in 13 of 14 cases. GHG savings range from 10 to 90%, taking into account the product’s life cycle and usage impact.
The GSA’s decision to enact this legislation was driven not by sound science but by knee-jerk submission to the environmental left and powerful lobbyists who shun plastic and the pollution it blames. It’s true, we see it everywhere: Streams, lakes, city streets, most any nook and cranny imaginable. However, is the fault with the polymer or the consumer who did not dispose of it properly?
Enviro-hysterics are most effectively answered with calm reason, or in this case, data. When viewed through the lens of life-cycle assessments (LCAs), it is easy to see that not only the widespread use of SUP makes scientific sense, but also the use of alternative materials such as paper, wood, metal, or glass more expensive. and can be more harmful to the environment.
The proof is in the LCA
Environmental scientist and Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green’s new paper published on the PLASTICS site supports LCA as a foundation for quantifying the impact of plastic on the environment. Green presented several LCAs showing that plastics, in single-use applications or in long-term use, are a better choice than alternatives.
- Scientific life cycle assessments of plastics and alternative materials have found that plastics tend to have lower carbon footprints, making them a more sustainable option.
- Life cycle assessments also suggest that substituting other materials for plastics creates negative environmental tradeoffs.
- Plastics have become critical to the sustainability of prosperous and technological societies. Stop using plastic harmful to the well-being of people and the environment. [Italics mine]
Are we to believe that the GSA does not have access to the same statistical analysis and peer-reviewed studies as the general public? To be fair, as Green pointed out, “the current recycling systems are not economically efficient, but the complete reclaiming of plastic monomers will bring the use of plastic materials in society closer of current concepts of environmental sustainability.” Our current system is far from perfect, but it is improving and will continue to do so without government involvement. Free market systems and capital investment will provide long-term solutions to successfully meet industry challenges.
The proposed rule is contrary to the goal of reducing GHG emissions
Chris DeArmitt says in his brief exposé of plastic lore, Plastic Paradoxes, It’s inconceivable that government policymakers and bureaucrats can’t do a simple ‘plastics LCA’ search on Google, for example, and find all the data they need to reference, review, and find. of the truth before making informed decisions that affect us and our environment. . Is it laziness, incompetence, or, as some lawmakers tend to do, just a case of jumping on the gravy train that is Big Government, regardless of the consequences?
FTI Consulting’s Emilie Newton cites the new PLASTICS campaign as a source that “Catalogs of scientific research showing how plastic is better for the environment than common alternatives, including aluminum, compostable, glass, and cotton due to its smaller GHG footprint, among other benefits in nature.”
Additionally, the GSA diktat flies in the face of the Biden administration’s priorities to reduce GHG emissions. Newton said: “By restricting the government’s ability to purchase items made from or wrapped in plastic, the proposed rule would contradict the Biden administration’s goals to reduce emissions.”
After a remarkably short 100-year existence as an important material used by humans, we still have a lot to learn about the proper reuse, recovery, and recycling of plastics to reduce pollution. It is understandable that the general public is demanding an answer, and one of this scale would suggest that government intervention is necessary. However, a ban on such large swaths is counterproductive in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The applications of plastic are just beginning, relatively speaking, and like other materials, adaptation and development of manufacturing will continue to benefit our world. Hat tip to the Gipper: Private enterprise, free market forces, and the will of educated consumers will, in the future, achieve the necessary resolutions. We don’t need another bloated government regulation, which is clearly wrong and harmful to the environment, to tell us how to handle single-use plastics.
