The true price of plastic
PLASTIC is one of the cheapest materials in the market, commonly used for packaging or other commercial applications. Because of its price and accessibility, the world has become addicted to using plastic. One million plastic bottles are purchased every minute globally, and up to 5 trillion plastic bags are used every year. Consumption has quadrupled in the past 30 years, and global production is forecast to reach 1.1 billion tons by 2050. Most of the plastic consumed globally is designed for single use — discarded after a few minutes of use, yet persisting as waste in the environment for hundreds of years. Plastic bottles and disposable diapers, for example, have a lifespan of 450 to 500 years. With less than 10 percent of plastic waste being recycled, plastic pollution is overwhelming landfills and leaking into oceans and rivers.
If we are to consider the impacts of plastic (or what may be considered “negative externalities” in economics), we may realize that the true price of plastics is not cheap. Negative externality refers to the cost or negative effect caused by the production or consumption of a good or service. Plastics entail negative externalities on the environment and human beings.
Millions of animals are killed every year due to plastic waste. Discarded plastic has strangled animals in the ocean or been ingested as toxic food by marine species, mammals and birds. Studies found that plastic ingestion by animals causes cell damage and disruption, which affect digestive systems and reproductive health, potentially affecting the growth of animal populations.
Most forms of plastic do not disappear fully and merely degrade over time, producing microplastics (MPs) and smaller nanoplastics (NPs), which last for hundreds or thousands of years in the environment. MPs/NPs are ingested by living organisms, such as algae, and move up the food chain until ultimately consumed by humans. Some studies estimate that humans ingest MPs the equivalent size of one credit card per week. MPs/NPs can also be inhaled. Ingested MPs/NPs accumulate in organs and have been found in the lungs, livers and kidneys of human beings. MPs have also been detected in the placentas of newborn babies.
It’s not just plastic waste that poses risks. A recent study revealed that plastic containers shed plastic particles. Water from commercially sold bottled water was found to contain NPs and millions of nanoparticles. NPs can invade cells and organs and deposit endocrinedisrupting chemicals in our bodies.
The current prices of plastic do not fully reflect the costs associated with the environmental, ecological and health risks associated with using and discarding plastic. From an economic standpoint, the total price of plastic’s negative externalities can be measured, and a “Pigovian tax,” equal to the value of such externalities, can be imposed to discourage the consumption of plastics. The cost of negative externalities from plastic may be so high as to make the price of a plastics tax seem absurd. But what may be truly absurd is our long-held perception that plastics are the cheaper or optimal option for most product applications. What is the price to pay for animals killed by plastic? Or how do we quantify the damage to human health from plastic use?
Knowing the true price of plastic can force us to overhaul certain ways of doing business. We might realize that the sachet industry, which accounts for around 150 million sachets disposed of in the Philippines daily, is not economical but environmentally expensive. The cost of single-use water bottles, if priced with the concomitant health and environmental impacts, may be so prohibitive as to force people to rethink ways of producing and consuming portable drinking water. Investments in research and development may be deemed not only reasonable but necessary, including examining different types of plastic and their impacts and finding alternatives.
Some innovations to replace plastic have been developed, such as straws made of edible seaweed material, packaging made from mushroom materials, or food wrappers made of biodegradable film from milk protein. But new materials will have difficulty competing as rationale substitutes, and further innovations may be discouraged until the market reflects the true price of plastics. If we consider the environmental, ecological and health impacts of plastics, we may soon realize that plastics are not a cheap or sensible choice but rather a costly burden to people and the planet.