Utiliser le widget traduction pour traduire.
We need to open our eyes to the reality of how much plastic ends up in landfill, but perhaps even more importantly, we must reframe the idea of recycling. When it comes to plastic, it is not a solution – it’s the last resort.
Recycling is not something that governments or charities do out of the goodness of their hearts – it’s an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars globally. A drop in oil prices or a shift in environmental policy in China has the power to render recycling plastic much less profitable for the companies doing it, often making it not worth their while at all. As a result, 70 per cent of potentially recyclable plastic in Europe ends up in landfill, in oceans or are incinerated, leading to the release of devastatingly harmful toxins into the environment.
This is how we can deal with our plastics problem
Plastic – unlike glass or metal – cannot be recycled infinitely, and after a handful of times it will be discarded, where it will take centuries to degrade. One single water bottle will remain on the planet in some form for a minimum of 450 years.
Even if plastic were easily and infinitely recyclable, it is still manufactured from crude oil often obtained by methods such as fracking, one of the most environmentally damaging processes in existence, which produces carbon emissions and contaminates the surrounding areas, putting people’s health at immediate risk.
It’s clear that something needs to change, and it’s not about recycling. If we want to truly address the devastating impact of single-use plastic the answer is simple: governments must focus on stopping its production entirely.
Single-use plastics should be immediately banned, or at the very least heavily taxed. This is not radical: the British government legislates against self-inflicted danger all the time. The continued illegality of cannabis is based on the off-chance a minuscule percentage of people may develop health issues as a result of using it, while tobacco, alcohol and sugar are subject to punitive taxation based on the idea that they’re not very good for us so we should have to pay as much as possible for the pleasure of poisoning ourselves.
Yet plastic is poisoning the planet, and shows no sign of stopping. The impact of climate change is largely irreversible, but not unstoppable – all it takes is a choice to put the future of the human race above a bit of convenience. Plastic bags, straws and disposable coffee cups are a start, but until the manufacturing of single-use plastic is truly penalised, we won’t be able to end its ubiquity.
How the beloved pumpkin spiced latte is ruining the planet
There are a small number of contexts in which single-use plastic is unavoidable, but the vast majority of it thoughtless and unnecessary. If corporations’ profits were increased by using other types of packaging – or none at all – we would see a real change in the environmental impact of our waste. Consumers can already choose to opt out of plastic, but it’s not easy. Sourcing things like food, toiletries, household products and electronics without plastic packaging is time-consuming and can be expensive. Living a sustainable life should not be a left-field choice for the elite, it should be the norm for us all. The onus is on political leaders to make it impossible to profit from manufacturing single-use plastics.
Recycling is not a solution to our plastic problem: it’s just an easy cop-out for cowardly governments, greedy corporations and lazy consumers to hide behind. We must acknowledge the true scale of this mess we’ve landed ourselves in if we want to see environmental change – and we have to do so before it’s too late.
More: You have to read about how plastic is made, from what, what types and how it is recycled. This information is given by the association of producers of plastic products. Read more.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire
Ce blog est ouvert à la contradiction par la voie de commentaires. Je tiens ce blog depuis fin 2005; je n'ai aucune ambition ni politique ni de notoriété. C'est mon travail de retraité pour la collectivité. Tout lecteur peut commenter sous email google valide. Tout peut être écrit mais dans le respect de la liberté de penser de chacun et la courtoisie.
- Je modère tous les commentaires pour éviter le spam et d'autres entrées malheureuses possibles.
- Cela peut prendre un certain temps avant que votre commentaire n'apparaisse, surtout si je suis en déplacement.
- Je n'autorise pas les attaques personnelles. Je considère cependant que ces attaques sont différentes des attaques contre des idées soutenues par des personnes. Si vous souhaitez attaquer des idées, c'est bien, mais vous devez alors fournir des arguments et vous engager dans la discussion.
- Je n'autorise pas les commentaires susceptibles d'être diffamatoires (au mieux que je puisse juger car je ne suis pas juriste) ou qui utilisent un langage excessif qui n'est pas nécessaire pour l'argumentation présentée.
- Veuillez ne pas publier de liens vers des publicités - le commentaire sera simplement supprimé.
- Je suis pour la liberté d'expression, mais il faut être pertinent. La pertinence est mesurée par la façon dont le commentaire s'apparente au sujet du billet auquel le commentaire s'adresse. Si vous voulez juste parler de quelque chose, créez votre propre blog. Mais puisqu'il s'agit de mon blog, je vous invite à partager mon point de vue ou à rebondir sur les points de vue enregistrés par d'autres commentaires. Pour ou contre c'est bien.
- Je considère aussi que la liberté d'expression porte la responsabilité d'être le propriétaire de cette parole.
J'ai noté que ceux qui tombent dans les attaques personnelles (que je supprime) le font de manière anonyme... Ensuite, ils ont l'audace de suggérer que j'exerce la censure.