Viewpoint

4 January 2006



The politics behind plastics


Without warning or consultation, the French Assembly, when debating the subject of agricultural waste, changed direction and announced plans to ban all non degradable plastics packaging from 2010. On UK shores, the Scottish Parliament is considering a Bill to tax plastics carrier bags – even paper carriers that have plastics in them. Across the world, from America to Australia, time and time again we hear emotive arguments that condemn our products as poisonous and seriously damaging to the environment.

It is little consolation that market research clearly shows politicians and journalists are the least believed of all the professions. The reality is that separately they have a great deal of power in persuading the public. And if they have this power separately, imagine the force they wield when they get together. Sadly, politicians need the media to help persuade the public on issues they are promoting - and the media need politicians to fill up the newspapers.

In recent years, the term 'spin' has come to represent the way the media works with politicians and PR people to distort real facts to meet their own agenda. As an industry we have been subject to spin rather than science for decades. The cumulative effect is that plastics have acquired a bad name and those that make plastics products are simply seen, by those that do not have or wish to ignore the facts, as evil industrialists poisoning our globe.

Fifteen years ago PIFA embarked on a long journey to promote science over spin. We've not always been successful, but I like to think that the trust we have built means that the astonishing move by the French Assembly could not have happened in the UK. By meeting regularly with the Department of Trade and Industry and our environment department DEFRA, and by collaborating with our colleagues in other trade associations, we are now a respected part of the consultation process. Other services we have instigated – like our 24/7 media response service – must also have an effect on at least reducing the sensationalist treatment of our products and processes.

What worries me, when I hear about how our industry reacts to criticism and the threat of legislation in other parts of the world, is why so many of our colleagues immediately go onto the defensive when we have nothing to fear and nothing to hide. Plastics films and film packaging are the best environmental choice we can make. Full stop!

At the start of the "reduce, re-use, recycle" hierarchy, plastics films minimize the amount of household waste that would otherwise occur both in terms of volume and weight. At the end of this, our industry also acts responsibly by recovering over 300,000t of film for re-use.

Those who need facts can turn to any amount of evidence from science. In our battles against plastics bag taxes (and they are by no means won yet) we continually expose the reality behind the environmental myths about plastics. One of the most thorough reviews of the science was carried out earlier this year when AEA Technology was commissioned by the Scottish Executive to investigate the likely effects of a Scottish bag tax. Six months of research by this respected international consultancy group took into account other research undertaken around the globe. AEAT got some things wrong - like the weight of paper bags likely to be substituted - and subsequently the higher figures were accepted by The Scottish Executive, but, even so, their conclusions are remarkable for their support of what we have been saying for a long time. There will be no significant environmental benefit from a plastics bag tax.

A tax in Scotland will lead to widespread substitution by heavier materials – primarily paper – and will result in more waste being created not less! In Scotland alone, 13,000t of extra waste will result from a bag tax – in volume a staggering 300,000 extra cubic metres of waste will be created. This is the equivalent of filling 74 football pitches to the depth of one metre of waste! We have also calculated that the weight and volume implications of such a switch would put up to 23,000 extra heavy lorry loads onto Scotland's roads. So how on earth could this tax be good for the environment?

Plastics bag taxes are just one example of well meaning but ill informed environmentalists feeding politicians with seemingly vote winning ideas. Yet the reality is that plastics bags are not a significant part of litter or landfill (less than one per cent). Nor do our products waste valuable oil. All plastics films use only two per cent of the oil barrel and are produced using by-products such as ethylene and naptha, which might otherwise be flared off of the oil refining process without which we would have no fuel oils or heating oil.

So why do we have to be defensive? Isn't it time for all of those whose businesses rely on plastics products, to pull in one direction using the enormous power and resources we have. Whilst we have done pretty well in the UK so far, I am sad that we have failed to harness science and common sense in our efforts across the globe.




External weblinks
Converting Today is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Packaging and Industrial Films Association

"Plastics bag taxes are just one example of well meaning ...


Privacy Policy
We have updated our privacy policy. In the latest update it explains what cookies are and how we use them on our site. To learn more about cookies and their benefits, please view our privacy policy. Please be aware that parts of this site will not function correctly if you disable cookies. By continuing to use this site, you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.