We can expect a renewed messaging onslaught targeting oil, natural gas and coal to come out of Glasgow, Scotland this week in conjunction with the UN’s COP26 climate summit that convened there on Sunday. These three “fossil fuels,” without which modern 21st century life would have never been possible, have become the boogeymen of the climate alarm movement, all of whose “solutions” to global warming begin and end with these engines of economic growth and prosperity being replaced by windmills and solar arrays.
Simultaneously with the assault on reliable and abundant thermal energy sources, we can also expect a renewed narrative about the evils of plastics and the need to return to “simpler times” when we all used paper straws, drank water from the faucet and half-gallons of milk were delivered to our backdoors by the friendly milkman in glass jugs three times every week. Never mind that plastics have enabled car makers to meet ever-higher vehicle mileage requirements by reducing the weight of cars; never mind that plastics are an integral part of every television, cell phone, I-Pad and any other device that the 20,000 delegates who have converged on Glasgow in their private jets (which also make heavy use of plastics in their design and manufacture) will be browsing while ignoring droning speakers during the conference; never mind that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports that plastics make up 11-16% of wind turbines, or that plastics are also used in the manufacture of solar panels.
Plastics, you see, are made with petroleum products as a key feedstock, and thus, according to the climate alarm narrative, must be eliminated. What they will be replaced with in this prevailing narrative is an open question, other than the proposition of going back to that “simpler time” when we didn’t have plastics to facilitate modern life. Of course, the narrative doesn’t mention that that was all pre-World War II, when we didn’t have things like cell phones or I-Pads or TVs in our homes or solar arrays or gigantic wind turbines dotting the landscape, when cars weighed a whole lot more than they do today and were lucky to get 10 miles per gallon of gas, and when no one had a private jet to ride over to Glasgow.
A new study released last week, authored by Kenneth P. Green, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and published by the Plastics Industry Association, provides a wealth of information why the narrative to do away with plastics is both wrong-headed and impractical, and that the world should instead be engaged in working on solutions to ensure humanity’s ability to continue to take advantage of their myriad benefits to our modern way of life.
Much of the anti-plastics narrative focuses on landfill waste, for example. Green points out that the vast majority of plastic products are completely recyclable while also noting that currently-used recycling systems are economically inefficient. Is the best, most practical solution here to ban plastics and try to live a pre-1950s existence, or to find ways to improve on the recycling systems? The answer is pretty obvious.
Another big feature of the anti-plastics messaging revolves around beverage containers and the landfill issues they create. Again, such containers are recyclable, a problem that societies can address. But Green also cites a recent life cycle analyses conducted by researchers Voulvoulis et al at Imperial College London which explored the question of which type of bottles used as beverage containers would be more “sustainable,” viewed through the lens of life-cycle emissions. That study found that plastic containers out-performed almost all available alternatives in this key measure.
But the narrative-writers in the climate alarm movement ask you to ignore this science even as they demand you adhere to the elements of science they find more convenient for their cause. This sort of cherry picking of data to support a preferred narrative is not a productive exercise for anyone.
Whether you realize it or not, plastics play a vital role in your life every day of the week, including your medical care. The problems surrounding plastics are well known and completely addressable through human ingenuity and efforts at international cooperation. But solutions will be hard to achieve so long as international bodies like the UN are more interested in supporting a preferred narrative than in truly addressing issues.
There is no going back to a simpler, pre-1950s world. That is a fantasy notion that would, if pursued, inevitably result in global destitution. Best not to go there, especially when real, achievable alternatives are readily available.
