Does Plastic Really Not Cause Pollution as Donald Trump Claims?

Does Plastic Really Not Cause Pollution as Donald Trump Claims?

KAKALI DAS

We need to address pollution, not just the greenhouse gases we’re releasing into our atmosphere, but also the plastics we’re filling our land and seas with.

While plastic have been criticized for polluting oceans and harming marine life, the US president Donald Trump has recently signed an executive order to ban federal use of ‘paper straws’, and to bring back ‘plastic straws’.

Trump dismissed the concern saying he thought “it’s OK” to keep using plastic. “I don’t think that plastic is going to affect the shark very much as they’re… munching their way through the ocean,” he remarked during a White House announcement.

So, let’s discuss about plastic pollution. The absolute reason for discussing it now: as the world is currently in a debate over whether to continue using plastic, especially after the US president expressed his support for its use.

Greenhouse gases and plastics are closely linked, and plastic pollution is severely damaging both our planet’s health and our own well-being.

What fuels our dependence on plastics? How is all of this connected to fossil fuels? And most importantly, how do we clean up the mess we’ve made?

Are plastics a major driver of climate change? The answer is no—at least not when compared to major sources of emissions like deforestation, agriculture, and power generation.

Plastic pollution is a serious issue, intricately linked to the fossil fuel industry. The same organizations and strategies that are hindering our efforts to combat climate change are also working to prevent us from addressing plastic pollution.

Let’s start by discussing why plastics are actually harmful. Everyone knows plastics are bad, but it’s difficult to fully grasp just how severe the problem really is.

Plastic is an incredible material—tough, durable, and designed to last virtually forever. It can take anywhere from 20 to 500 years to decompose, and 500 years is an incredibly long time. While such longevity is beneficial for products meant to last decades or centuries, it becomes a major problem when applied to single-use items.

But a significant portion of the plastics we produce are single-use—items like cutlery, straws, bags, and packaging that are used once and then discarded. Then there’s fast fashion, made with synthetic materials, often worn just a few times—or not at all—before being thrown away. The result is an overwhelming amount of plastic waste.

Since the 1950s, we’ve produced approximately 9 billion tons of plastic, with around 7 billion tons ending up as waste. That number is almost impossible to visualize—but to put it into perspective, it’s the equivalent of the Empire State Building’s weight multiplied by 300,000.

So, what happens to all this plastic waste? The truth is, very little gets recycled. Imagine 10 pieces of plastic representing all the waste we’ve created. Two are burned—bad for the environment. Only one is recycled. Of the remaining seven, five end up in landfills, while the last two are scattered in uncontrolled dumpsites, nature, and our oceans.

Every year, approximately 20 million tons of plastic—equivalent to about 60 Empire State Buildings—end up in lakes, rivers, and oceans.

Unsurprisingly, these skyscraper-sized amounts of plastic are wreaking havoc on the environment—choking wildlife, damaging soils, and contaminating water supplies. And as plastics break down into tiny particles—those microplastics you’ve heard about—they disrupt everything from the water cycle to the growth of living organisms.

Since we humans share this planet, these problems are our problems too—contaminating our food, our water, and ultimately, our health.

Now, maybe despite all this, you’re still thinking, “Who cares about plastic in the environment?”—much like how Donald Trump thinks. To that, I’d say this: there’s plastic in your body too.

Many plastic products contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs)—substances that interfere with our hormones. These have been linked to a range of health issues, from increased cancer risk to infertility. Then there are the so-called “forever chemicals,” including Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which have sparked widespread concern due to their persistence in the environment and our bodies.

These forever chemicals don’t break down naturally, meaning they linger indefinitely. They’ve been detected in our blood, breast milk, and even in unborn foetuses.

And while we’re discussing plastics ending up where they shouldn’t, we really need to talk about testicles.

A study found microplastics in every single testicle examined, confirming that these tiny plastic fragments can accumulate in the body. Honestly, I’d have expected more men’s rights activists to be outraged about this. (smirk)

The presence of microplastics in testicles is alarming, as it could have profound effects on fertility. It’s also a troubling reminder of how our society’s addiction to plastic is taking precedence over protecting even the most fundamental bodily functions.

But what exactly is plastic? And what does it have to do with fossil fuels? Well, believe it or not, the answers are directly linked. Plastics are essentially fossil fuels—they’re primarily made from oil.

The connection between plastics and fossil fuels isn’t going away anytime soon. In fact, it’s only expected to get worse.

Some projections estimate that global plastic production could double or even triple in the next 25 years. As the world transitions to clean energy and electric vehicles, oil demand should gradually decline. However, petrochemical and plastic production is moving in the opposite direction and is expected to become one of the biggest drivers of rising oil demand through 2050.

Plastic production is harmful to the climate not only because it’s tied to fossil fuel extraction, but also because plastics themselves contribute to climate change. The industry accounts for about 5% of global emissions—a figure that might not sound massive, but actually is. While it’s lower than major contributors like deforestation, agriculture, or power plants, it surpasses the total emissions from global air travel. In fact, if plastic emissions were a country, it would be the world’s fourth-largest greenhouse gas emitter.

Moreover, recycling plastics is incredibly challenging. There are numerous types of plastic, making sorting difficult. Processing them is equally complex, and the resulting material is often low quality, limiting its reuse. On top of that, handling the sheer volume of plastic waste we generate is a massive challenge.

The reality is, we can’t recycle our way out of this crisis—we need to actively reduce plastic consumption. But let’s be honest, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon. So, the only way forward is to change the system itself.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is developing the Global Plastic Treaty, aiming to bring 175 countries together to combat the plastic crisis. If finalized, it could be implemented as early as 2025.

What exactly could be implemented by 2025? That remains an open question. The fifth round of negotiations is set to take place this year, from November 25 to December 1 in Busan, Korea, and much is still uncertain.

Countries like Rwanda and Norway, despite their high emissions, are leading efforts to eliminate plastic pollution by 2040. There have been calls to cut plastic production, promote reuse, eliminate harmful chemicals, and ban the worst plastic offenders, such as packaging and single-use items.

The focus would then shift from merely recycling to actively reducing the amount of harmful waste we produce.

Remember, plastics are produced by fossil fuel companies. To block meaningful action that protects people and the planet, these companies are using the same tactics they’ve used to delay climate action. They’ve flooded negotiations with lobbyists—so much so that industry representatives outnumber national delegations, scientists, and Indigenous groups. It’s the same strategy we’ve seen at climate negotiations like COP28 and COP29.

Fossil fuel companies have been working to shift the narrative. Instead of tackling the problem at its source, they argue that recycling can somehow “solve” the vast amounts of waste we produce. It’s the same tactic they use with climate change—pushing carbon capture and storage as a fix rather than simply reducing fossil fuel consumption.

For the record, both carbon capture and storage, as well as plastic recycling, are important parts of the solution. However, they are only small pieces of the puzzle and cannot replace the fundamental need to reduce pollution at its source.

On top of all this, polluting companies are creating deceptively friendly-sounding organizations that promote plastic reuse and recycling—while simultaneously opposing limits on plastic production.

The core issue with pollution—whether it’s plastics or greenhouse gases—is that we’re producing far too much of it. And in both cases, the root of the problem lies in our dependence on fossil fuels.

If you can live a plastic-free lifestyle, that’s great. But for the sake of our environment and our health, we need our entire society to break its plastic addiction. That’s why it’s crucial to pay close attention to the developments surrounding the Global Plastic Treaty.

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking.  You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com(For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.