One of the biggest challenges to environmental health and climate change is plastic. Plastic is such a problem because of the chemicals used to make it and how hard it is to decompose because of those same chemicals. Plus, just the sheer amount of plastic we use on a daily basis. Creating more plastic is half the issue, the other half is what we do with discarded plastic. The easiest way to deal with plastic that has been historically used is to either landfill it or incinerate it. Landfills are harmful to the areas they occupy as well as any nearby areas. Incineration adds to the greenhouse gasses being pumped into our atmosphere. Overall, the process that plastic goes through uses too much fossil fuels and is damaging to the environment.

So why is plastic still such a normalized part of our world? Money. Plastic is cheap to make but breaking it down is a different story. As mentioned before, incineration and landfilling are overarching methods that work for the majority of plastics and are among the cheapest methods of decomposition. However, because of the detrimental effects of these methods, the band-aid for a bullet wound solution to the plastic issue is recycling. The effects of recycling plastic have been exaggerated in the media and general education overall. The fantasy that once plastic is used, one can just drop it in a recycling bin and our planet will be saved, is just that, a fantasy. Recycling plastic is far more complicated than what we think about every time we throw out a plastic straw. How recyclable an item is depends on the type of plastic it is, how much of its makeup has already been recycled, and who is processing it.

Most of the time only “virgin” plastics can be recycled in any fashion, and even then, it is expensive and lower quality than just creating more plastic. A big part of the creation of plastics relies on oil. Items made of recycled materials are more expensive because the oil used to create them becomes more expensive. As a result, only 5% of plastic recycled is actually made into something new. That number is exacerbated by the misinformation of the general public surrounding plastics.

The general norm is that we can throw anything plastic into the recycling bin and feel good about ourselves even though we are part of the problem. One of the hindrances to recycling materials is food pollution. If a material is too food-polluted it interferes with the mechanical sorting process (one option to recycling). So, throwing food-polluted items like yogurt cups or other food containers into the same bin as clean plastics makes sorting all the more expensive and could possibly contaminate other materials. However, biodegradable plastics are still compostable even if they are food-polluted, but the recycling system is so focused on post-use and trying to make a failing system work that not biodegradables have not been thoroughly explored.

Contamination is a common roadblock in the recycling process, along with inaccessibility. Cars and other vehicles have multiple parts that are made of plastic because of its durability, flexibility, etc. These plastics are generally easy to convert back to their original elements but are hard to get to in a car and are easily contaminated by the other materials in the vehicle.

So, what does this all mean? Why does it matter? It matters because these are not debilitating issues. They can be fixed, and other solutions can be implemented to be more effective in saving our planet. Misinformation is the most dangerous weapon of our time, and there is a reason why the plastic cycle is not commonly known. Big oil and gas corporations are always quick to make a statement about using “100% recycled materials” by some date or time. It’s a method to gain political points with the people by relying on ignorance about how the system actually works. The secondary materials market is weak and has more risk than reward in terms of profitability. By publicly committing to something that seems eco-friendly, big corporations are able to placate the public without changing a system that is working for them in the short run.

In order for the secondary materials market to work, oil prices would need to be lower which would be unsustainable for these corporations. This result would not necessarily be desirable either. Which is why policy needs to be introduced. There have been basic policy changes meant to cut down on our overall plastic use. For example, the banning of one-use plastic bags and the “bring back your cup” policies adopted voluntarily by businesses. Government regulations in Europe have been somewhat effective in forcing companies to comply with actual ecological decisions, but they still fail to support the root of the issue: the market. There should be more of an emphasis on government incentives rather than just regulations. Make businesses want to change their habits, make people want to cut back on their plastic waste. This would obviously cost money, but in the long run the research and the secondary materials market would become self-sustaining with the right research and habit change.

Recycling is not being used to its full potential and how we design plastic is not being thought out correctly. Progress is being made to find different methods of recycling, but the fact of the matter is that mechanical recycling is just not a viable option for a lot of plastics. And we as a culture need to stop perpetuating the fantasy that it is a viable option. Allowing a willing ignorance perpetuated by corporate “greenwashing” is unacceptable and will lead to permanent damages if it hasn’t already.

Sources:

NPR: Greenpeace report finds most plastic goes to landfills as production ramps up : NPR

Techno-economic assessment of mechanical recycling of challenging post-consumer plastic packaging waste: Techno-economic assessment of mechanical recycling of challenging post-consumer plastic packaging waste – ScienceDirect 

Managing Plastic Waste─Sorting, Recycling, Disposal, and Product Redesign: Managing Plastic Waste─Sorting, Recycling, Disposal, and Product Redesign | ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering (psu.edu)

Climate change can be a scary thing, especially for our generation. We are inheriting the world, and it feels like there has already been irreparable damage done to it. With this in mind, my second Civic Issue post will highlight the positive steps that have been taken to benefit our world. Such as the United Nations Seventeen Goals to sustain development. Not all of these goals directly relate to climate change, but I want to mention all of them because they are all incredibly admirable goals to work towards. Here are the Sustainable Development Goals:

1. No Poverty
2. Zero Hunger
3. Good Health and Wellbeing
4. Quality Education
5. Gender Equality
6. Clean Water and Sanitation
7. Affordable and Clean Energy
8. Decent Work and Economic Growth
9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
10. Reduced Inequalities
11. Sustainable Cities and Communities
12. Responsible Consumption and Production
13. Climate Action
14. Life Below Water
15. Life on Land
16. Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
17. Partnerships for the Goals

All members of the United Nations have created and implemented plans to meet all of the seventeen goals by 2030. Each year, the countries and the United Nations as an organization release reports on their progress in achieving these goals in addition to attending the annual “United Nations SDG Moment” that happens at the beginning of the U.N.’s general assembly.

Goal number thirteen directly names climate change as an issue to address. With rising temperatures and increased CO2 in the atmosphere, this is a significant issue that impacts several other 2030 goals. In order to improve the current climate state, the bodies in the U.N. have identified cooperation as the key factor in making a difference. Which is why the Paris Agreement was created as the first binding document to address climate change by multiple countries. The Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals are the blueprint for the actions to take on this big issue.

The general targets of number thirteen in climate action are to highlight synergies (collaborative opportunities) between climate change and other goals. They focus on clean energy, water, and agriculture as some main points of interest in meeting the 2030 plan. There is also an emphasis on protecting forests and the oceans as key ecological systems. These are still broad topics to begin with but there have been significant steps in the right direction as a result of the 2030 plan and the Paris Agreement.

The most recent milestones in 2023 are the regional climate weeks for Middle East and North African climate, Latin America and Caribbean, and Asia Pacific. These climate weeks are collaborative events for governments and other organizations to keep the momentum of the climate movement. In addition to these meetings, there are other conferences like the “Sharm El-Sheikh Climate Change Conference” and the “Third Global Climate and SDGs Synergy Conference” that discuss implementation plans, practical methods to implement sustainable elements, and reinforce the need for urgency in implementation. Even within its own milestone reports, the U.N. notes that there are significant gaps in the climate actions already enforced by countries. The main concerns are in filling those gaps and keeping the feelings of need.

Since there is so much emphasis on collaboration and continued action, education is a big part of the process to saving our planet. As a result, virtual learning through webinars like in the “Global Synergies Consultation and Virtual Learning Series” milestone are worked into the process of policymaking and collaboration efforts of multiple organizations involved with the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals.

The Sustainable Development Goals are definitely attainable, especially with so much attempted progress. However, there are still questions on the effectiveness of these actions, especially with the current unrest of the world in general. Covid-19 has had a significant negative and possibly positive impact on how these goals are looked at. Covid isolated the entire population from each other, and as a result forced businesses, organizations, big companies, etc. to adapt to online restraints. As a result, education and resources are now more readily available to a larger group of people. There have also been incredible technological advances to enhance sustainability research and implementation. The effects of Covid also exacerbated the issue areas that are already there, highlighting the areas for the U.N. to focus on. Unfortunately, the areas of focus are large. Covid pushed millions of people back into poverty and destroyed other progress made by the Sustainable Development Goals, such as sanitation and health.

Covid is also not the only roadblock causing regression. Rising unrest with the conflict in Ukraine, predicted conflict in Taiwan, and the Israel/Palestine conflict have created new humanitarian crises that require extra resources.

From the progress and lack of progress in the climate aspects of the Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreements, etc. the common theme is that these issues are better tackled together as a world then as individual nations. Too often are relationships between countries, particularly between developed and undeveloped countries, the aim is to use each other to advance some political agenda. Exploitive actions are worse than doing nothing at all in the face of climate change. There should be more collaborations to uplift all the countries equally or else climate change will never truly be solved. The Paris Agreement was a start, especially with it being legally binding, but there should be more requirements that are mandatory instead of voluntary at all levels of government. The fact of the matter is climate change can be found as a cause for almost all of the world’s problems. Maybe not the direct cause, but definitely an agitation to the problem. The Sustainable Development Goals have shown evidence that proves the widespread effects of climate change.

The U.N. has made groundbreaking progress on climate change and other significant issues, but there is still more progress to be made. Climate change is a dangerous issue that should be taken seriously, but things aren’t hopeless.

 

Resources:

United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs official Website: THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development (un.org)

World Economic Forum: “Has the UN Reached its Sustainable Development Goals? Yes and No” Sustainable Development Goals: A positive report on progress | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

United Nations News: “Sustainable Development Report Shows Devastating Impact of Covid, ahead of ‘Critical’ New Phase” Sustainable development report shows devastating impact of COVID, ahead of ‘critical’ new phase | UN News

Climate change is one of the most controversial topics of the time and will most likely continue to be at the center of debates for the foreseeable future. The reason climate change is such a hot debate is because of how widespread and complex it is; there isn’t just one cause and therefore there isn’t just one solution. As a result, everyone is quick to point fingers, and no one wants to take responsibility. The key to addressing such a big topic is to break it down into sections, and then divide the sections even more to make them manageable for each state or county to implement policies that create change. A perfect, yet often overlooked, example of a section to address are the watersheds.

A watershed is an area of land that drains or “sheds” water/other materials into nearby bodies of water. These lakes, rivers, creeks, etc. then flow to a major body of water. Examples of watersheds include the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, the Mississippi Watershed, the Delaware River Watershed, etc. These areas foster biodiversity and provide a wide range of ecosystem services that are beneficial to the environment and to humans. Unfortunately, these watersheds are either being filled in with sediment runoff or filled with damaging chemicals also from runoff. The agricultural development of watershed lands is leading to excess nitrogen and phosphorus runoff into the watershed, poisoning the ecosystem that relies on its waters.

The effects of the deterioration of these ecosystems are catastrophic. The excess nutrients cause algae blooms that are toxic to humans and other animals that have contact with the waters. These algae blooms also block out the sun from reaching the organisms in the deeper parts of the water. And perhaps the most dangerous of all, they use up all the oxygen in the water, so fish are unable to breathe in key parts of the water. Fishermen along the coast have noting more and more “dead zones” or places that fish either die in or no longer reside in because of the lack of oxygen.

Like many aspects of climate change, there are multiple causes of this problem. Converting important land cover to crops, overworking that land, improper draining systems from rural and urban areas, and using synthetic fertilizers/chemicals on fields are some of the key causes. Fixing these issues would have a wide range of benefits on the climate. The unaltered land filters pollutants and helps sequester carbon out of the atmosphere. Watersheds also improve the environment’s adaptability, so it protects against other aspects of climate change as well. Improving the health of the watersheds would also improve water quality, decreases infrastructure costs, and supports jobs.

There have already been steps in the policy-making process to restore the damage done to the watersheds. In 1970 the Environmental Protection Agency was created and not long after, The Clean Water Act was passed in 1972. This organization and the policy were aimed at protecting the environment and had specific allotments for watersheds. This might seem like problem solved for the watershed crisis, however, bureaucracy and politics got in the way. These were great organizations and policies, but politicians quickly limited the enforcement of the EPA’s policies, defunded their programs, and replaced leaders in the organization with people who wouldn’t be driven to create change.

It wasn’t until recently that the EPA made Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) for key parts of watersheds mandatory. WIPs are state made plans that set manageable goals for reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment build up in waters that run to the watersheds. These plans are reviewed by the EPA and either approved or sent back to the drawing board. So far there have been two phases of WIPs and a third one on the way. Pennsylvania submitted their third one, but it was sent back by the EPA for not being enough. Pennsylvania has failed to meet important goals set in the WIPs in phases one and two, so the rejection was expected.

These WIPs break down the issue into small goals of chemical reduction that are meant to ease the state into more regulations that help protect the waters. But like the case of Pennsylvania, they aren’t nearly as effective as they should be. It’s because the EPA is in an active fight that is constantly changing with new office holders who have different agendas involving the environment and climate change. The organization is struggling to maintain control over their policies and the enforcement of their policies that there is little they can do in real time to actually do the enforcing. The Trump administration alone rolled back hundreds of policies and regulations, looking to give power back to the states.

These policies are essential protections for the environment, and they were once again becoming optional for organizations to implement. In order for the EPA to create lasting change for the watersheds, something needs to give. Yes, there are different sides to every argument and the business that are being regulated are stakeholders who are affected. But in hindsight, the government regulations don’t put a whole lot of strain on these smaller businesses and even if they are, there are relief programs meant to support them for this exact reason. There needs to be more protections for the EPA and the already existing regulations that have spent decades being scientifically researched and tailored to have the greatest impact with the less drawbacks.

The EPA is doing what it was made to do: break down big issues into small steps that states can implement for themselves to create change. It is a government agency with research and scientific backing behind it and yet it is at the whim of political minds who are only looking for reelection and only see the regulations without looking at the benefits, actual effects on businesses, or the years of planning behind the policy.

My take on climate change, specifically the issue of the watersheds, is that we already have the tools needed to fix our mistakes, we just get in our own way.

 

Sources:

“Benefits of a Healthy Watershed” – EPA Benefits of Healthy Watersheds | US EPA

“How the Trump Administration is Reshaping the EPA” – PBS News Hour How the Trump administration is reshaping the EPA | PBS NewsHour

“Protecting Agricultural Watersheds” – USDA, Department of Agricultural Research Protecting Agricultural Watersheds : USDA ARS