Plastic is Good for Us

In a couple of my previous posts, I pretty much bashed on plastic whenever I had a chance.  Well, it’s quite damaging to the environment, yet, we can’t do a lot about not using it.  In a modernized society, it is part of our everyday lives.  I can’t imagine a day without touching plastic.

Plastic is great!  It’s durable, can be molded into just about any shape or form, and has multiple functions.  So much can be done with plastic, if you’re reading this, chances are, you’re using a device in an area that has access to the Internet.  In such a setting, all you have to do is simply look around, there’s probably plastic around.  You’re probably touching it right now.

Like all good things, too much of it is bad.  For example, vitamin C, people say taking it will keep you healthy.  I recently found out that too much vitamin C can cause diarrhea.  My doctor said that to me when I went for a physical check up, she was grilling me on vitamin supplement intake.  Apparently, it has other side effects as well, here’s what the Mayo Clinic says.

Diarrhea, that’s what the world is having with plastic pollution.  Uncontrollable amount of plastic waste is getting washed out into the oceans and causing a lot of concern.  Plastic waste doesn’t stay in their own form once out in the ocean like glass bottles.  Glass bottles stay intact, a record of a recovered message in a bottle was first thrown into the sea in 1913.  The bottle was recovered in 2014, 101 years at sea.  LINK

Plastic breaks down under long exposure under the sun, it “photodegrades.”  It doesn’t disappear though.  The smaller pieces still slosh around in the ocean and eventually come together from ocean currents.  One such congregation places is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.  There’s one in every ocean, the one in the Pacific is the largest of them all.  It’s one gigantic soup of degraded plastic pieces that scientists don’t know how to track or clean.  Full environmental impact is still not known.  There are many theories, such as sea life eating them and in turn messes up the ecosystem, therefore the food chain, and our food supply.

Faced with such dire scenarios of our near future, environmental groups got politicians to pass laws to ban single-use plastic bags.  It’s one of those items that are extremely abundant in the trash world.  Tons get thrown out everyday, not only into trash receptacles for the landfills, but onto the streets, on high ways, directly thrown into the waterways, the oceans, etc.  There are so many plastic bags, people don’t know what to do with them.  I have a part of my closet dedicated to hold plastic bags that I keep for trash bags.  There’s a smaller section where I hold plastic bags that I don’t know what to do with.  They’re too small for my garbage can.  There’s simply no other uses for them.  When I’m out and about, I keep an eye out for plastic bag collection bins, they can sometimes be found in large pharmacies or supermarkets.

On Sep. 30, 2014, California became the first state to ban single-use plastic bags.  LINK

On Nov. 17, 2014, Baltimore City Council banned single-use plastic bags.  LINK  This one is quite interesting, it might get vetoed.  The veto is more of a political action than an environment issue.  Here’s one of those times when politics became more important than the issue at hand.

With single-use plastic bags banned, what can shoppers use?  They can bring their own bags.  I normally decline the plastic bag when I go shopping.  If I have a backpack, I throw them in.  It can get quite heavy if there are liquid items, such as milk, orange juice, etc.  A small price to pay to carry a heavy load for a few blocks with one fewer plastic bag used.  Other times, I will bring my own bag.  What if I bought too much stuff for me to carry in my arms and I do not have a backpack or my own bag?  The answer is the store-supplied paper bag!

If one step back and take a moment to think about this.  Paper bags, paper, paper comes from trees.  Wouldn’t this mean more trees will be chopped to make paper bags?  California requires that 40% of the paper bags must be post-consumer products.  What about the 60%?

There is an organization in San Francisco suing against the ban, called Saved the Plastic Bag.  Their website has a bunch of interesting information.  For one example, carbon dioxide emission.  Paper bags, as with most organic compounds that degrade or decompose, such as dead animals, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.  The estimated amount of paper bags that will replace plastic bags will emit annual carbon dioxide estimated to be equivalent of 92,280 passenger vehicles.  According to this theory, switching solely to paper bags will make things worse for us.  The site also went on to say that the U.S. and California governments are working on keeping carbon dioxide from being released from landfills.  Plastic bags are said to last a very long time.  During that time, nothing is released into the air.

What does this mean for us?  We’re in a “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” scenario.  Others will call it a “Catch-22.”  Use plastic bags, they can potentially go into the ocean and add to the patch.  Or use paper bags, they go into the land fills and release carbon dioxide into the air.  Carbon dioxide is largely blamed for global warming.

I believe it comes down to responsibility.  If we try our best to not use store bags, whether paper or plastic, then there’ll be less waste.  Sometimes I see people buy one single small item, such as a bottle of water, and ask for a bag.  That’s silly!  What’s the point of carrying a bottle of water in a bag when it can be carried in the hand?  The hand is needed to carry something anyway.  If we do our part and pitch in to the recycling effort, then less waste, paper or plastic will end up in the landfills or oceans.

Another thing that we need to be responsible is to do our own due diligence and don’t rush to conclusions.  When passing these laws banning single-use plastic bags, did the law makers do their own research?  Did the environmental groups perform research on the alternative?

Do you know that they can turn plastic bags and other waste plastics into diesel fuel?

If you’re going to try this at home, do so at your own risk:

http://youtu.be/njIYHtFmcSs

All Politics are Local

This week, we saw something quite unusual.  China has agreed on an environmental issue with the United States.  For years, whenever environmental issues come up, China would play the “developing country” card and accuse the West of trying to limit their growth.  It has long been Chinese policy to go against Western, especially American, proposals.  The West wants China to clean up their air and water, China’s natural instinct was to rebuff it.  I often find it comical for China to self declare itself to be a developing country, especially after sending manned missions to space and having an aircraft carrier cruising the oceans.  At the same time, boasting to having the fastest growing and soon to be the largest economy on Earth.  For a long time, I wonder if China knows what it means to be a superpower.  It’s not all about projecting power and make people listen, it’s also to do its own part as a world leader.

I once asked Michael Zakkour, a coauthor of a newly published book, China’s Super Consumers, cowritten by Savio Chan, the question regarding China declaring that it’s a developing country whenever it’s to their benefit.  He said that China is in a very unique position.  It is very rich, but very poor.  There are people who are very educated, but also very uneducated.  The spectrum of China reaches both sides of the scale almost across the board.  It is also a country with a very large population, so the ranges are great.

Once the agreement was announced, there was a lot of praise, and of course, a lot of criticism.  Analysts quickly say that it’s not binding.  China agreed to set its carbon emission peak in 2025.  “The China Academy of Social Sciences saying in a study last week that slowing rates of urbanization would likely mean that industrial emissions would peak around 2025-2030 and start to fall by 2040.” – LA Times (Nov. 12, 2014)

“Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, likely to succeed Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) as chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee in the Republican-led Senate next year, called the deal a “nonbinding charade.”

“I will do everything in my power to rein in and shed light on the EPA’s unchecked regulations,” he said. Inhofe, perhaps Congress’ most prominent climate change skeptic, has long criticized the Environmental Protection Agency.” – LA Times (Nov. 12, 2014)

Right away, American lawmakers are against what President Obama did, especially now, since Republicans hold both the House and the Senate.  Some analysts says it is more of an uphill battle for Obama than for President Xi Jinping of China.  Chinese cities, including Beijing, are already suffering from health and reputation issues from their infamous smog.  The Chinese government knows it needs to clean up the air and water, if not for its own people, for reputations sake.  China is trying to host just about every prominent international event it can.  It had the Summer Olympics in 2008.  Now it is trying to win the bid to hold the Winter Olympics in Beijing in 2022.  One needs to keep in mind, the Chinese government is the Chinese Communist Party.  It must do what it must to stay in power.  How did some Roman emperors gain the support of Roman citizens?  They hosted games.

Politics is extremely local, the United States legislative system is set up that way.  U.S. House of Representatives only serve two-year terms, so they must keep their district’s voters happy, or they will not get reelected.  U.S. Senators get six-year terms, to make sure that Senators’ terms overlap with the U.S. President’s term.  It’s all about checks and balances.  Similar to House representatives, to be reelected, Senators need to keep voters in their home state happy.  For those who have seen House of Cards, it’s not all about voters, but supporters as well.  Supporters need to be kept very happy for reelection.

The pledge between Obama and Xi was on carbon emission reduction.  What’s wrong with that?  Isn’t it nice for everybody to collectively reduce their carbon footprint, the rate of global warming will slow down, glaciers will not disappear as fast, and the Jet Stream will not slow down at such a rapid pace.  Demonstrators in Australia mocked their own government for not participating by putting their heads in the sand (link).  What’s wrong is that it makes certain people unhappy.  On the path of progress, some people will get hurt, that’s just the nature of things.  Just as how trans-Atlantic passenger steamship lines disappeared as people favor air travel after it became cheaper and more abundant.  Nowadays, trans-Atlantic voyages are considered cruises, for vacation purposes, not simply transportation.

Who can get hurt from this pledge?  Industries that emits carbon will get hurt.  For example, coal fired plants will need to take steps to reduce their emissions.  These steps cost money, cutting into their bottom line.  Investors don’t like their profits reduced.  It’s an industry that is powerful enough to have lobbyists on Capitol Hill.  As a result, representatives that represent the state and counties of these industries will have to fight the pledge.  Click this link for other industries that emits a lot of carbon.  You might quickly see that those sectors on the list have some powerful lobbying power in the government.

How about China, isn’t it an authoritative country?  If it wanted carbon emissions to stop, just order it!  It wanted to flood the Three Gorges, so it forced everybody out of the area, and built a gigantic dam with dizzying speed.  During the Olympics, it made factories close and limited the amount of cars on the road.

Similar to the United States, there are lobbyists in China.  Politicians rise and fall in China as well, Xi did not get to where he is today without any support.  That’s logic, nobody can become a leader of a nation, especially one as large as China, without strong support from behind.  In the interest of support to remain in power, Xi, as well as members of the Politburo, must keep their supporters happy.  Which is why China has been so resistant to participating in global environmental pledges up until this week.  Maybe there is a change in the Chinese political ideology.  Or maybe the businessmen realize that cleaning up is cheaper than to continue to pollute.  A party can only remain in power for as long as the citizens allow it, military firepower can only drag out the time in power longer, but eventually, that can be overcome.  China is very good at censoring information and provide not-too-truthful reports.  It becomes very difficult to say that things are fine when people are coughing and wheezing on the streets.  One does not require great education to realize that something’s wrong when he sky is yellow and the sun blocked out by smog.  So this might be an issue that the Party is now tackling to remain legitimate?

Politics is local, whether on the national level like the United States and China, or international, such as G20, World Trade Organization, or United Nations.  Their own self interest always comes first.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/11/12/lok-mckenzie-china-apec-climate-change.cnn.html