The Great Plastic Straw Diversion
Posted on 14. Feb, 2024 by Paul Sochaczewski in Articles, Environment
The ban on plastic straws put the blame on the consumer, allowing companies to become heroes. It was largely symbolic, addressing only a tiny part of the problem of plastic pollution. But the campaign’s visibility gave impetus to a proposed global plastics treaty.
The Great Plastic Straw Diversion
Does shifting the blame and responsibility to consumers avoid the real problem of ecocide practices of Big Business and Big Politics?
Starting in 2018, in the Unted States, anti-plastic campaigners encouraged people to make their voices heard to stop companies from using disposable plastic straws. One estimate was that as many as 8.34 billion plastic straws pollute the world’s beaches. That sounds like an enormous amount, but of the eight million tons of plastic that flows into the ocean each year, plastic straws comprise just 0.025 percent, a drop in the ocean, as it were.
The eco-sipping campaign was wildly successful. The city of Seattle banned plastic straws. Starbucks, McDonald’s, and dozens of other companies phased out plastic straws and stirrers.
In an attempt to address the plastic problem, a new environmental treaty covering the “full life cycle” of plastics, from production to disposal, is being discussed.
In March 2022 leaders from 175 countries agreed on a resolution at the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya to develop by 2024 a legally binding multi-lateral treaty on plastics. Inger Anderson, the director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), said: “This is the most significant environmental multi-lateral deal since the Paris [climate change] accord.”
According to UNEP, “plastic production soared from 2 million tonnes in 1950 to 348 million tonnes in 2017 … and is expected to double in capacity by 2040. Yet less than 10 percent of the world’s plastic has been recycled. The impacts of plastic production and pollution on the triple planetary crises of climate change, nature loss, and pollution are a catastrophe in the making.”
What can we learn from these plastic-related initiatives?
First lesson: It’s relatively easy to get people to make small changes in their lifestyles, like renouncing plastic straws, but most people are reluctant to dramatically alter their standard of living or behavior. Changing to energy-efficient light bulbs is an easy gesture. Installing solar panels in an old home is more problematic.
Plastic-straws were a relatively easy target. Is this a model for future environmental efforts — tackling small, easy to achieve problems and hoping the big pieces will fall into place?
Second lesson. Individual companies are brilliant at judo-flipping a problem. Burger King, for instance, easily jumped on the no-plastic straw bandwagon. “Sustainable packaging is a cornerstone of our Restaurant Brands for Good journey,” said Matthew Banton, head of innovation and sustainability at Burger King. “We’re optimistic about our progress and are committed to reducing waste to do our part in creating a more sustainable future.” We’re the good guys, these companies say. Trust us. We’ve got your eco-back.
Third lesson. Like a good magician, industries misdirect critics and reframe the argument. Steve Russel, of the American Chemistry Council, a trade organization that represents plastics manufacturers, says regulation that focuses just on plastic straws misses the point. “The focus on individual products takes our focus away from the more necessary discussion on how we bring waste management to places that need it the most.” In effect, he’s saying. Don’t blame us for making plastic. The problem isn’t stuff, but rather how we dispose of the stuff. And that’s not our fault or our responsibility.
Fourth lesson. There is no debate that we use too much plastic and that plastic is difficult to recycle or dispose of easily. Banning plastic straws, let’s call it eco-sipping, has a miniscule impact on the amount of plastic waste. But the ever-optimistic campaigners saw it differently: “It’s taking a stand on plastic pollution and [highlights] what needs to happen, a ban on all single-use plastics,” Greenpeace’s Kate Melges said. She might be proved right if the proposed plastics treaty is approved.
Is scolding people the most effective way to solve the big environmental challenges we face?
Fifth lesson. Are you tired of being scolded by the eco-police who tell you to recycle your old newspapers, stop eating red meat, sell your car and bicycle to work, and deny your kids ice cream made with palm oil? The more energy that goes into making individuals guilty means that less attention is paid to the really big drivers of environmental destruction — ego, greed, and uncontrolled power. A plastic straw ban won’t alter the behavior of the corrupt politicians, head-in-the-sand bureaucrats, under-motivated regulators, development officials who plan unsustainable projects, and avaricious businesspeople whose priority is the financial bottom line. These people will continue, with a smug smile, pleased that the spotlight is not focused on their activities.
CartoonStock.com 
Adobe Stock Many people make small efforts to be good eco-citizens. But do these well-intentioned actions have an impact on the behavior of Big Business, Big Agriculture, Big Politics?
Sixth lesson. Public pressure is critical, but science, technology, and engineering are required to fix many big environmental problems. And, in many cases, the technology for cleaner production and efficient disposal or recycling, is still-to-be developed. Major eco-pronouncements impact a vast number of sectors. It may be sensible (and useful politically) to ban gasoline cars in favor of electric vehicles. But the entire life cycle of electric cars — from production to charging to disposal —need to be considered.
Seventh lesson. The more than 1,300 multi-lateral environmental treaties and agreements (and more than 2,200 bilateral treaties) can be useful in helping everyone focus on a problem. In some cases they clearly achieve what they set out to do (a few of the more successful agreements: the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Minamata Convention on Mercury, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the related Montreal Protocol, the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal). To date more than 90,000 individual country “membership actions” based on treaty commitments have been declared. Yet treaties only infrequently entail legally binding commitments, policing mechanisms, and punishments for failing to adhere to the agreement (consider the hesitant journey of the Paris Agreement on limiting global warming).
Eighth lesson: Much of the world has undergone dramatic changes in the social contract over the past 100+ years — abolition of slavery and child labor, basic human rights, women’s right to vote, and food and drug regulations. This certainly isn’t to say that all these changes are universally endorsed, policed effectively, or without controversy, but they have been widely internalized as “the right thing to do.”
So, we might argue that the next big global social movement should be aimed at protecting and enhancing nature. The freedom to live in a society with clean air, water, and soil should be recognized as a basic human right.
But that’s a human-centered viewpoint. To expand the concept, interesting initiatives are being promoted to recognize that nature itself has a basic right to exist. Various countries have enshrined nature conservation in their constitutions. Taking this a step further, a small but an increasing number of countries and territories have enacted legislation granting “juristic personhood” to certain elements of nature, such as rivers and landscapes.
More than three quarters of the world’s national constitutions (149 out of 193) include explicit references to environmental rights and/or environmental responsibilities. To go a step further, a small but increasing number of countries have enacted legislation granting “juristic personhood” to natural features such as mountains, rivers, and forests, meaning that nature, in various forms, has a legal right to exist.
And a question: One might objectively argue that we are on the right path. Most countries have environmental ministries, laws, and protected areas. Universities the world over offer high-quality environment-related programs. Eco-heroes from activist groups and NGOs fight tirelessly against the forces of evil. Public awareness has never been higher. People understand the healing benefits of simply being in nature. Green technology improves rapidly. These initiatives offer hope. But are these advances sufficient to solve the globe’s huge environmental problems? Are you optimistic about our future relationship with nature?
_____________
This article is adapted from A Conservation Notebook: Ego, Greed, and Oh-So-Cut Orangutans — Tales from a Half-Century on the Environmental Front Lines
“An enduring inspiration and a wonderful tribute to the movements and characters behind modern conservation.”
— Tobgay Sonam Namgyal, former head of the Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation
