This highlights the distorted perceptions people get from the news media. No, the products we consume are
not made mostly from plastic.
Some statistics for you:-
1. 99% of plastic resin is created from oil, but this consumes only 8% of total oil production. Its contribution to global warming is far less than burning the stuff.
2. The biggest consumer of raw materials by far is the construction industry, accounting for ~75% of non-fuel consumption in the US. Only 12% of it is plastics.
3. Plastics make up 20-33% of typical consumer electronic products, and ~9% of lightweight motor vehicles.
4. ~35% of plastic consumed in the US is used in packaging.
5. Domestic waste in the US is 27% paper, 15% food residue, 14% clothing items, and 13% plastic. In China plastics make up 11%, in the EU 8%.
With the amount of plastic we are throwing away now, the effect of it 'leaking' into the environment will be devastating if we don't put a stop to it. But this doesn't mean plastic is bad. ~40% of it is used in 'durable' goods that have a long product life. The longer we keep them the less waste is produced. We could recycle 99% of the plastic if products and packaging were made to do so
and we bothered to do it.
And do you think that our civilisation can end its absolute dependence on plastics any time soon? Let alone soon enough to halt and reverse warming? Do you think that individuals, working independently of each other, can do that?
What we need to end is fossil fuels that are releasing CO
2 into the atmosphere, and other producers of greenhouse gasses. We could continue using plastic at current levels and it wouldn't be a problem - so long as we stopped it from from 'leaking' into the environment.
But currently everything we make involves the burning of fossil fuels. We can stop that by:-
1. Reducing the amount of stuff we consume, including food and non-durable goods. This will automatically reduce the amount of plastic waste.
2. Use low carbon energy sources such as wind, solar, hydro and nuclear.
3. Make production more efficient, requiring fewer workers and infrastructure (which are the biggest consumers of energy and materials).
4. Design products for greater durability so they don't have to be replaced as often.
Oh ****, I've just turned this into yet another individualism vs. collectivism debate.
We are all individuals,
and we are all in it together. But it's hard for an individual to see the big picture and understand the need for collective action. Too often they mistake it for an attack on their 'freedoms' when really it's about protecting them.
Unfortunately even those who are trying to help are often pushing their own narrow agendas and not relating it to the big picture. Plastics are a good example. Yes, we need to cut down on plastic waste - but that is a separate issue from global warming. Conflating the two is not helping.
Even worse, many people are deliberately misrepresenting facts to trick us into supporting their selfish individualism that will benefit them (at least in the short term) but not us. They often know they are doing it too. Oil companies are the most famous example, but it's actually far more widespread and insidious.
Today I read about how the National Government in New Zealand is
axing the Auckland fuel tax. This isn't directly related to global warming but it will affect it. More importantly it shows their attitude. Thankfully the news media is finally waking up to what they are doing...
The government's recent announcement that it would bring forward legislation to end the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax (ARFT) in June - four years early - is the third time in 30 years a National-led government has repealed such a tax.
Pulling the plug seems less about the cost of living or misuse of tax revenue than simply sweeping clear the previous administration's legislation. Transport policies, plans and projects have fallen at an astonishing speed since the coalition government was formed.
One of its first acts was to cancel the clean car discount that helped create a market for electric vehicles by subsidising their cost. Unsurprisingly, sales of EVs took a plunge in January. At the same time, a higher registration fee for "high-emitting vehicles", dubbed the "ute tax", was abandoned.
As the new government took office, transport agency Waka Kotahi quickly announced a freeze on cycling, walking and public transport projects. Road projects seem unaffected.
Other car-centric policies include plans to roll back hard-won speed limit reductions, cancel light rail projects in Wellington and Auckland, and nix a second multimodal Auckland harbour crossing.
Transport minister Simeon Brown recently doubled down on this when he announced that any additional harbour crossing would be for the exclusive use of vehicles - directly excluding consideration of cycling, walking and rail...
Meanwhile, the government has announced plans to enact a road user charge for battery electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. On top of removing the clean car discount, this makes low-emitting vehicles less competitive on price...
... all while insisting that we will meet our commitment under the Paris Agreement to reduce net GHG emissions to 50% by 2030, a mere 6 years away. And they intend to (not) do that with messaging like this:-
Instead, the official rationalisation for ending the ARFT has centred on the cost of living. For instance, Simeon Brown has argued drivers with a Toyota Hilux could save "around $9.20 every time they fill up".
Based on the Hilux's 80-litre fuel tank and an average 12,000 kilometres per year travelled, that equates to about $92 per year, or $1.77 per week. The savings shrink significantly for smaller, more efficient vehicles.
For reference, here's the
Hilux 'Urban Farmer', which Toyota promotes as being "as comfortable on the farm as it is at flash city bars."
Equipped with snorkel, roof platform and all terrain tyres. What an appropriate vehicle this is to illustrate the 'savings' your average Auckland city driver will make under National's scheme - not.
