Paper or Plastic?

Paper or plastic? The issue isn’t that paper or bioplastics are better, it is that society’s over-consumption of oil-based plastics is catching up with us. In 1979 the tonnage of plastic produced in the U.S. exceeded steel. In 1992 the U.S. produced 60 billion pounds of thermoplastic. Last year that number doubled to 120 billion. We are in the middle of the “Age of Plastic.” Those beneficial properties of plastic – durability, moldability, air, water, mold and heat resistance – have made it a material that never goes away. And in the recent decade of study, the body burden of plastic-derived toxins has been shown to have many ill effects for living systems. In studies of rats and mice, toxins in plastic, like phthalates and Bisphenol-A, have been shown to be endocrine disruptors, estrogen mimics, insulin inhibitors resulting in diabetes, and carcinogens, resulting in tumors of the mammary glands and the prostate (1).

But the question remains, “Paper or plastic?” The answer requires a complex consideration of energy requirements to produce each material, carrying capacity of each bag, recycling rates, and long-term environmental costs. To produce any grocery bag there are transportation costs, an electric bill, and the extraction and processing of a natural resource. Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment (www.ilea.org) rates the production of paper bags to be 87% as efficient as plastic bags. This is after comparing one paper bag to two plastic bags based on carrying capacity. The findings are reversed when plastic bags are double bagged when used hold heavy purchases. The comparison becomes fuzzy when recycling rates are thrown in, and then quickly favor paper when long-term costs are considered.

Long-term costs are expensive. 60-80% of reported marine debris worldwide is plastic, 267 species have been found to ingest plastic, include 26 cetaceans, all sea turtles and 44% of seabirds (2). Plastic debris absorbs tremendous amounts of hydrophobic pollutants, like PCB’s, DDT and other pesticides, and pollutants from the incomplete burning of fossil fuels (3). When ingested, those pollutants migrate into the organism’s tissues. The effect of bioaccumulation of plastic-derived toxins on fisheries is being studied. Entanglement of vessels with derelict fishing gear and intake valves covered with plastic bags are measured in millions of dollars annually despite the Coast Guard’s attempt to educate the public and monitor plastic garbage discharge through the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1997.

Throw in recycling, better termed ‘single-generation reuse’, and the choice is paper. Though paper bags far outweigh plastic bags, they are recycled more often and biodegradable. A 2000 EPA review of solid waste puts plastic bag recycling at 0.6%, compared to 19.4% of paper bags.(4) Plastics are not recycled in a closed loop. They are reused for limited products and typically for one generation. There is a common misconception that the triangle of arrows under a plastic bottle means it’s recyclable. That symbol itself is only an alert to the number inside the triangle, 1 through 6, which indicates the type of plastic used. Most communities that recycle plastic typically allow only PETE, and high or low-density polyethylene, which are numbers 1,2 and 4 respectively. That plastic bag or bottle, and hardly ever the bottle cap, have been reused to create products like lumber, carpeting, fleece textiles, or garbage cans. Those plastics are almost never reused again. The loop never closes.

Those plastics labeled 3, 5 and 6 (polypropylene, polystyrene, and other) are usually sent to a landfill. In 2003 the California Integrated Waste Management Board estimated that landfills are the last stop for half of plastics produced in the U.S., estimated at 30 million tons each year. Of the remaining 50%, 20% is found in longer lasting durable goods, like car bumpers and circuit boards. Only 5% of plastic waste is sent to recycling centers, that is ‘single-generation reuse’ centers. That leaves 25% unaccounted for. The Algalita Marine Research Foundation has an idea where much of that 25% is going after having conducted five expeditions to the eastern edge of the North Pacific Gyre. There is a sub-gyre, called the “Eastern Garbage Patch,” off the west coast of North America. It’s center is approximately 800 miles west of San Francisco. It’s a rotating mass of water roughly twice the size of Texas. After dragging our fine-mesh nets across the surface, drying the samples and separating plastic from marine life, we find that the mass of plastic is 6 times greater than the mass of all life on the ocean surface in our study area (5). The Eastern Garbage Patch contains an estimated 3.5 million tons of plastic. It is larger than any U.S. landfill.

Plastic did not exist in the ocean half a century ago. Our grandparents lived just fine with glass, metal, paper and wood to package and transport everything we touched. But again, the issue is not that we choose paper over plastic. The choice is about living responsibly within the means of what can be sustained environmentally and economically. In the big picture it is about creating systems of government, commerce and community development that will sustain a healthy economy, environment and quality of life for all people far into the future. 120 billion pounds of plastic produced annually with limited to no post-consumer use is not sustainable. It is not a morally acceptable burden to place on the next generation. Paper or Plastic? Bring your own bag.

(1) Vom Saal, F. S., W.V. Welshons, & S. Parmigiani “Leaching of Bisphenol A From Polycarbonate Plastic Disrupts Development via Epigenetic Mechanisms.” Prepared for the Erice International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, Erice, Italy. 19-26 August 2006.

(2) J.G.B. Derraik, “The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review” Marine Pollution Bulletin 44

(3) Mato, Yukie, Tomohilo Isobe, Hideshige Takada, et al, “Plastic Resin Pellets as a Transport Medium for Toxic Chemicals in the Marine Environment,” in Environmental Science & Technology 35 (2001): 318-324.

(4) Recycling rates are from U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2000 Facts and Figures. June 2002

(5) C.J. Moore et al., (2001) “A Comparison of Plastic and Plankton in the Pacific Central Gyre,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 42: 297-1300. The North Pacific Gyre and the ORV Alguita