Information vs Perception – Who Wins?

In today’s fast paced world, we often see a chasm between the truth and what is published. Take the example of a topic, frequent in the spotlight of the mainstream media (MSM) and social media (SM) – plastics.

Let us understand some facts about plastics, before we dive deeper into the topic. Since the invention of Bakelite in 1907 by the Belgian chemist Leo Baekeland, plastics have continuously evolved. Even today, new types and grades of plastics are being developed to satisfy the voracious needs of the ever-growing world market. The annual worldwide production of plastics in 1950 was 1.5 million metric tons. In 2020, it was 367 million metric tons, 245 times the volume! (Data and below image from Statista.com)

So what fuelled this exponential rise in the use of plastics? Let us take a look at some factors:

1. Lightweight – being 1/3rd the weight of Aluminium and 1/8th the weight of Steel, plastics have helped reduce the weight of automobiles, utensils, packaging materials, construction equipment, etc.
2. Durability – unlike paper or cardboard, plastics do not degrade easily or quickly. So important documents can be transported safely without the fear of getting them wet or lost ?because the bag tore.?
3. Cost effective –

a. The fact that plastics are a by-product and not the main goal helps in reduced costs.

b. A high demand and a satisfactory supply keep the costs low.

4.?Barrier properties – plastics provide the best defense against oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide and other elements. This why cooking oil doesn’t turn rancid when placed in a plastic can or why potato chips stay fresh and our chocolates don’t spoil.

There are plenty of other benefits, but even from the ones above, we can see that plastics have rightly been called as “the miracle material”. Not only have they addressed/surpassed the inadequacies of traditional materials such as glass, metal and paper, but they have created new applications which would not have been possible without their existence. Plastics have not only helped man achieve impossible feats, but they have also helped in reducing our environmental footprint.

At the same time, we often come across pictures and videos of waste plastic strewn across beaches or playgrounds or stuck on tree branches. This is where the line between information and perception starts getting blurred.

There are a couple of reasons why we see plastics everywhere, some of them being:

1. Lightweight – when plastics are littered, due to their light weight, they are easily picked up by the wind and transported across great distances and placed in inaccessible locations.
2. Durability – since plastics are designed to last, they often do not decompose as easily as other materials.
3. Cost effective – as they are cheap, their value is too little for consumers and hence they are discarded far more than other materials.
4. Visibility – due to all these factors, plastics are the most visible discarded material, while actually accounting for less than 1% of the total waste out in the oceans.

The deadly combination of these factors results in a perception of plastics being the single greatest threat to mankind, which is far from the truth. When we look at the utility or impact of an object, process or material, we apply a method called as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).

These LCAs consider the impact of its subject from its origin to its end [cradle to grave]. Multiple such LCAs, right from the Danish government to the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in as recent as 2020, have concluded that single use plastic has far lower environmental impact than alternatives such as glass, metal or paper. It has been found that an Aluminium straw would have to be reused 37 times to have the environmental impact of 1 plastic straw! This important fact is often lost in the noise of misinformation, deliberate or not.

There are two sources of the problem, which seem to be escaping our notice and they are – littering and poor waste management infrastructure. The incessant littering and dismal waste collection, segregation systems have created this monstrous problem. It is because of these two factors that we see plastics in our environment. It is here that they are ingested by cows, birds, fish and others. Side note: these deaths are due to asphyxiation and not from “leaked chemicals” from plastics. Instead of addressing the problem of littering & poor infrastructure, we end up attacking the material which is innocent. Yes, we are producing a lot of plastic and a large percentage of that is unnecessary. But making plastics the scapegoat in order to hide a lack of societal discipline is scientifically and morally unjust.

A lack of adequate information added to emotional appeals, our perception or perhaps even politics, results in a disdain of this perfectly safe, versatile and environmentally friendly material. In addition, alternatives to plastics are either functionally inadequate, expensive, or far more environmentally damaging than plastics!! Paper causes deforestation, uses chemicals such as bleach during its processing and isn’t strong enough to compete with plastics. Also, it releases methane while decomposing, which a deadly greenhouse gas and four times as damaging to the environment than carbon dioxide! Glass and metals are heavier than plastics, their mining damages the environment more than dredging for oil does, the toxic sludge during ore-refining is often dumped in the environment, polluting the soil, water and air. But we never get to read the complete information.

Plastics aren't the problem, littering is!

Another important fact we need to consider is that alternatives to plastics need to be functionally equivalent i.e., they need to carry out the same function, not be in the same shape. Consider glass, an often touted alternative to plastics. While glass containers definitely look good and have good barrier properties, they are not functionally equivalent in that they aren’t strong enough to sustain hits or falls. Paper or cardboard boxes would disintegrate if kept in open weather or when in contact with any liquid. Metals are extremely heavy, so activities such as transporting water in pots require more energy than if those same pots were made from plastics. So functional equivalency is an extremely important parameter.

We do need to acknowledge that rampant, unnecessary usage of materials (plastic, cardboard, paper, etc.) for packaging and other applications has caused problems of wastage. We also need to acknowledge that the materials aren’t the problem, littering and poor infrastructure are. Even if all the plastic in the world were to be removed tomorrow –

• The impact it would have on the existing pollution in our seas and other ecosystems would not be too high. Plastics account for just 1% of all the waste materials.
• The material which we would replace plastics with, would instead be scattered around due to prevalent human habits of littering.

We do need awareness on the wasteful and pernicious human tendencies which adversely affect our environment. However, what we must avoid is either doomsday prophesying or greenwashing, for that matter. Greenwashing occurs when the environmental impact of a material is downplayed heavily and it is instead presented to be an environment friendly alternative. For example – asking people to choose paper cups instead of plastic cups, but neglecting to inform that these paper cups are in fact lined with a thin Polyethylene (PE) film.

We do need awareness on the wasteful and pernicious human tendencies which adversely affect our environment.

Not only is this dishonest, but it is actually more harmful to the environment. Had the cups been made completely from paper or plastics, they would have been easy to recycle. But due to this mixture, it is extremely difficult to separate the two materials, making their recycling expensive or simply not feasible.

Another example is when we come across announcements of new materials being launched, which are created from allegedly sustainable sources, such as plants. We must realise that in such cases, growing those plants would mean additional stress on our agricultural resources (land, water, etc.) and in the end, their recycling might have to be executed in industrial or laboratory settings, exactly like conventional plastics.

Even 10 years ago, it would have been a difficult task to ask the civic society to get informed on the subject at hand due to the lack of access to information. However, with the rapid and deep penetration of cheap Internet to even the most remote corners of our globe, it is time we as citizens of the 21st Century, inform ourselves and learn to identify the truth in such matters. It is our responsibility to identify and separate information from perception. It is our responsibility to ensure in this fight between information and perception, information wins! One way to do this is by encouraging discussions across the board and by entering discussions with an intent to learn rather than to prove someone wrong. (Image by Glenn Carstens Peters via Unsplash)

It is also long overdue that we start with basic activities which we ought to have started decades ago – stop littering!

Let us also hold our politicians and civic management bodies responsible for not creating adequate waste management infrastructure and ensure that they do so in the future!

We also need to look at further localising recycling and other waste management techniques, while having corporations, government bodies and citizens at the same table, working together towards a common goal and not against one another.?