Right: Clean Up Australia volunteers picking up litter; the organisation has called for the banning of lightweight plastic bags.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of banning plastic bags
1. Plastic bags are unnecessary items which are produced, used and dumped in enormous numbers
Critics of plastic bag use argue that it is essentially a discretionary product which is produced in great numbers only to be thrown away.
Clean Up Australia has stated, 'Australians use 3.92 billion plastic bags a year, that's over 10 million new bags being used every day. An estimated 3.76 billion bags or 20,700 tonnes of plastic are disposed of in landfill sites throughout Australia every year. Australians dump 7,150 recyclable plastic bags into landfills every minute or 429,000 bags every hour.
It is estimated that around 50 million bags enter the Australian litter stream every year. Unless they are collected, they remain in the environment and accumulate at a staggering rate. If these 50 million plastic bags were made into a single plastic sheet, it would be big enough to cover the Melbourne CBD.'
Critics claim that the mass production and dumping of plastic bags is a problem that exists world-wide. Clean Up Australia has declared, 'It is estimated that the world consumes 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags every year.'
In a comment published on August 2, 2012, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki stated, 'Canadians use between nine- and 15-billion plastic bags a year, enough to circle the Earth more than 55 times, according to the Greener Footprints website. (U.S. citizens use about 100 billion a year!) Few plastic bags are recycled. Most are used for a short time to carry groceries, and then maybe re-used as garbage bags or to wrap dog poop before ending up in the landfill or the ocean.'
Suzuki argues that, though this is only a small portion of the total plastic pollution human beings produce and an even smaller proportion of the total pollution human beings create, it is still a vast and concerning quantity.
Suzuki argues that the quantities are concerning because plastic bags are not a necessity. He states, 'Plastic bags are bad and for the most part unnecessary. Many of us older folks remember a time, only a few decades ago, when we didn't have them. Sure, they're convenient, but is that an excuse to damage the environment and the life it supports?'
Opponents of plastics bags argue that shirt-term convenience is not sufficient justification for inflicting long-term harm upon the planet. Plastic bags are seen as a prime example of a product which is not strictly necessary and which despite this is produced in enormous quantities for temporary expediency.
In a comment published in Futurarc in 2016, Vaidehi Shah, Projects Manager, Singapore Environment Council, stated, 'Plastic bags are symptomatic of a much larger problem of a "disposable culture", characterised by a rise in the consumption of single-use products, often made of plastic and paper. Plastic bags, plastic cutlery, paper towels and disposable food containers are just a few of the things that make our life more convenient, but unfortunately, also more harmful to the environment.'
2. Lightweight plastic bags endanger marine species, land-based species and birds
Lightweight plastic bags have been claimed to harm many species in the oceans and waterways and on land.
There is a variety of ways in which lightweight plastic bags can injure marine species. One of these is that larger animals often ingest plastic bags mistaking them for a natural food source. An information sheet on marine debris produced in 2003 by the Australian Government's Department of Environment and Energy stated, 'Marine species confuse plastic bags, rubber, balloons and confectionery wrappers with prey and ingest them. The debris usually causes a physical blockage in the digestive system, leading to painful internal injuries. Turtles frequently eat plastic bags, confusing them with jellyfish, their common prey.'
The information sheet lists the Loggerhead Turtle (an endangered species), the Leatherback Turtle (a vulnerable species), the Hawksbill Turtle (a vulnerable species), the Flatback Turtle (a vulnerable species) and the Green Turtle (a vulnerable species) as particularly compromised by the risk posed by plastic bags in the ocean as these species' numbers are already in decline. The information sheet notes 'Marine debris is a hazard for all sea creatures, and an added danger to the survival of species already listed as threatened or endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.'
In addition to turtles, whales and dolphins have been identified as animals that may choke through ingesting plastic bags mistaken for jelly fish. In August 2000, an eight metre Bryde's whale died soon after becoming stranded on a Cairns beach. An autopsy found that the whale's stomach was tightly packed with six square metres of plastic, including many plastic check-out bags. Such obstructions in animals can cause severe pain, distress and death.
Writing for EcoWatch in August, 2013, Laura Beans explained, 'One in three leatherback sea turtles have plastic in their stomach, most often a plastic bag, based on a study of over 370 autopsies. Once in these animals' bodies the plastic bioaccumulates, and the chemicals can cause excess oestrogen to be produced, which has led to discoveries of male fish with female sex organs. For sea turtles, the plastic blocks their digestive tract and the food that is trapped releases gases that render them buoyant, and unable to dive for food.'
In a comment published on August 2, 2012, David Suzuki stated, 'A University of British Columbia study [published in 2012] found that 93 per cent of beached northern fulmars (migratory seabirds related to the albatross) had bellies full of plastic - a substantial increase from the last time they were tested, in 1980.'
In 1998, a pelican was found dead in Kiama, New South Wales, after eating 17 plastic bags. The pelican presumably thought the plastic bags were food. The pelican was preserved and named Pete. Since then he has been standing in front of a sign at Fitzroy Falls that informs visitors of how he died and the problems of plastic bags and ocean pollution.
Not only does ingesting plastic bags cause harm and often death to marine animals and seabirds, the broken down by-products of plastic debris (including that derived from plastic bags) is also extremely harmful.
Environmentalists note that plastics do not easily degrade; they may break down, but only into smaller pieces which as they degrade further reach a point where they form what is termed microplastic.
Researchers have indicated that microplastic is consumed by many sea creatures including zooplankton, tiny animals toward the bottom of the food chain. This is significant as zooplankton are consumed by larger animals and the microplastic within them is concentrated in the tissues of these larger animals.
Andrew Watts, a marine biologist at the University of Exeter, has explained that eating microplastic causes some species to store less fat, protein and carbohydrate. Also of concern is that microplastics attract a range of toxins which then accumulate in the tissues of marine animals. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states, 'In addition to being non-nutritive and indigestible, plastics have been shown to concentrate pollutants up to a million times their level in the surrounding seawater and then deliver them to the species that ingest them.' There is concern that this process is poisoning the marine food chain.
Finally plastic bags in oceans and waterways are an entanglement hazard for marine creatures and seabirds. On August 22, 2013, the Ocean Health Index noted that 'All known species of sea turtles, about half of all species of marine mammals, and one-fifth of all species of sea birds are affected by entanglement or ingestion of marine debris. The frequency of impacts varies according to the type of debris; but over 80 % of the impacts were associated with plastic debris.' Though much of this plastic is not from plastic bags, these bags make a significant contribution. A United Nations Environment Programme report released in 2009 noted that the bags accounted for about 8.5 percent of trash found in the Mediterranean Sea.
Critics claim that not only do plastic bags endanger marine creatures and seabirds, they also harm on land animals and birds. Animal Friends Croatia includes numerous instances of Australian terrestrial animals harmed by plastic bags. Their internet site states, 'Discovered in agony, a calf that was recently put down in Mudgee, New South Wales, was found to have eaten eight plastic bags. The loss of this calf cost the farmer around $500. Birds get caught up in them, too. Unable to fly they die of starvation. Turtles have also been rescued with plastic bags lodged in their throat - and part of the bag hanging out of their mouth.'
3. Lightweight plastic bags may endanger human health
It has been claimed that microplastics in the oceans (some of which come from plastic bags) pose a potential threat to human health.
A United Nations report released in 2016 indicated that more than a quarter of all fish now contain plastic, according to a recent analysis of the guts of fish sold at markets in Indonesia and California.
The United Nations Environment Project report expresses concern that chemicals in plastics and also toxic chemicals which attach themselves to plastic in the natural environment could cause poisoning, infertility and genetic disruption in marine life, and potentially in humans if ingested in high quantities.
Tamara Galloway of the Bioscience Department of the University of Exeter has stated, 'In terms of human health risks, microplastics as contaminants in the wider environment represent a concern because it has been shown that they can be ingested by
a wide range of aquatic organisms, both marine and freshwater, and thus have the potential to accumulate through the food chain.'
Of particular concern is the capacity for the chemicals in some plastics to interfere with the human endocrine system. This is the system that produces and delivers chemical messengers or hormones throughout the human body, helping to regulate virtually all bodily processes.
Carol Kwiatkowski, executive director of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange has stated, 'Anything that interferes with hormone action potentially has an effect at a very low dose, because the endocrine system is designed to function at very small doses. So it's possible this pathway could bring some exposure. You'd have to find some evidence that the chemicals were being carried through marine organisms and making it into people.'
Despite the current lack of evidence that human health has been compromised by microplastics ingested from marine food sources, critics note that the potential exist for this to be happening now or to happen in the future. They argue that protecting human health is another reason to ban single-use plastic bags.
4. Lightweight plastic are difficult to recycle
It has been claimed that lightweight plastic bags are difficult and expensive to recycle leading to more of them ending up as litter and finally as pollution in the oceans.
An ABC Science feature has explained some of the difficulties associated with recycling plastic bags in Australia. It states 'Recycling your plastic shopping bags is one of the most obvious courses of action; however, only 10% of Australian households take their plastic bags to a central collection point for recycling. This could be due to the fact that HDPE bags cannot be put out for collection with other household recyclables, and there is no separate kerbside collection for them as the volume does not support the cost. Instead, bags must be taken to central recycling collection points, such as supermarkets, where there are special bins to collect the bags. Even at these central collection points there is a risk that the bags may end up unsuitable for recycling due to a range of contaminants such as LDPE bags, ink, food, even supermarket dockets if they are left in the bags.'
Planet Ark's Recycling Plastic Bags factsheet states, 'Some council's now accept plastic bags in their kerbside recycling bins. Check with your council first if they accept plastic bags, otherwise keep them out of the recycling bins as they can get caught up in the processing machinery and contaminate other recycling streams.
Most supermarkets have a front of store bin that accepts single use plastic shopping bags and reusable 'green bags' for recycling.'
The Planet Arc site further states, 'Working out what to do with some types of plastic bags can be tricky as some are labelled "Biodegradable", "Compostable" and "Degradable". These types of bags unfortunately cannot be recycled.'
In the United States less than 1 percent of plastic bags are recycled each year, according to the Clean Air Council. The council also states that recycling one ton of plastic bags costs $US4,000, while the recycled product can be sold for only $US32.
An article published in The Huffington Post on August 18, 2013 stated, 'Recycling the bags can prove difficult, even for the industry itself. Plastic bags are typically placed in recycling bins with other plastics, and the bags jam and damage sorting machines, which can be expensive to repair.'
An article published in Mother Jones on September 15, 2014, referring to the situation in California stated, 'Designated plastic bag recycling facilities exist, but the EPA estimates only 12 percent of bags make it there. CalRecycle puts the statewide number even lower at 3 percent. Even when bags are returned to the proper bin, they aren't truly recycled, but downcycled. "Because plastic bags have a variety of dyes and other additives, it's hard to know exactly what you're getting if you melt down a bunch of bags that consumers have used," explains Larsen [the Earth Policy Institute's director of research]. Instead, used bags "generally get turned into something else, such as park benches or flooring material."'
The ABC Science feature No Bags, Thanks, concludes, 'Given the costs and inconvenience associated with recycling, and the fact that reuse only delays the plastic entering the environment, the most sensible option is to cut down on the number of plastic bags that you use, or stop using them altogether.'
5. Single-use lightweight plastic bags are a major economic cost to governments, municipalities and consumers
Opponents of plastic bags argue that they impose economic as well as environmental costs.
It has been noted that the cost of apparently free plastic bags given to customers at supermarkets and other stores is actually added on to the cost of the products sold as a hidden impost.
In an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal on October 8, 2012, Daniella Dimitrova Russo, co-founder and executive director of the United States lobby group, Plastic Pollution Coalition, has stated, 'Grocery stores embed 2 cents to 5 cents per plastic bag in the cost of food. A ban would save approximately $18 to $30 per person annually.'
The cost of managing the waste that results from large scale use of plastic bags is also a substantial burden on local governments. Russo notes, 'Communities don't have much of a choice if they leave things as they are: They either drown in plastic bags or spend millions of dollars to clean up the mess-tax dollars that should go toward infrastructure, education and libraries.' She gives the example of San Jose, California, where 'it costs about $1 million a year to repair recycling equipment jammed with plastic bags'. She further cites, 'San Francisco estimates that to clean up, recycle and landfill plastic bags costs as much as 17 cents a bag, or approximately $8.5 million a year.'
In a survey the conducted in 2012, 70 percent of Washington recycling companies indicated they wanted plastic bags out of the waste stream. Some recycling plants in Washington estimated spending 20 to 30 percent of their labour costs removing plastic bags from their machinery -in the order of US$1000 per day.
Planet Ark has estimated that it costs Australian governments, businesses and community groups over $4 million per annum to clean up littered plastic shopping bags. Figures released in 2015, indicated that the annual cost of Clean Up Australia day alone was $35,216,437.00 . Over 14 percent of the litter cleaned up on this day comes from single-use plastic bags.