Question
Con 2: Bans targeting single-use products are Band-Aids hiding the real need—a reduction
in all plastic production.
The problem is not consumer use of single-use plastic, but the production of all plastic.
Even with every mitigating policy on the consumer side—bans, recycling, and others—“we would
still release more than 17 million tons of plastic per year into nature,” according to Melanie
Bergmann, a plastic pollution and microplastic expert at the Alfred Wegener Institute in
Germany. Bergmann says, “The science is crystal clear. Only upstream measures such as a cap on
plastic production will prevent further degradation of our life-supporting ecosystems and allow us
at the same time to reduce the carbon footprint of plastics, which makes up 4.5 percent of the
global CO₂ emissions.” [35]
In perspective, CO₂ emissions from plastic production are expected to outpace the poster child of
climate pollution—coal—by 2030. Thus, dealing with single-use plastic waste is only a Band-Aid on
the larger problem of plastic production. [35]
While a world without any plastic is farfetched, “it is crucial that the production of new plastics is
reduced and refined. The types of plastics currently being produced are incredibly complex, and
often not used in an easily recyclable form. The world urgently needs to reduce the types of plastic
from the thousands currently available to perhaps 10–20 key polymer types which can be easily
identified, sorted and recycled,” according to British think-tank Chatham House. [36]
The United States alone throws out 42 million metric tons of plastic. The solution is to stop
producing new plastic. Policies such as requiring all plastic to be 50 percent recycled rather than
100 percent “virgin” plastic and requiring environmental impact reviews for production expansion
will go much farther than consumer bans, which distract from the critical problem at hand. [37]
identify the author's point of view, purpose, and an example of supporting evidence from the article. short
in all plastic production.
The problem is not consumer use of single-use plastic, but the production of all plastic.
Even with every mitigating policy on the consumer side—bans, recycling, and others—“we would
still release more than 17 million tons of plastic per year into nature,” according to Melanie
Bergmann, a plastic pollution and microplastic expert at the Alfred Wegener Institute in
Germany. Bergmann says, “The science is crystal clear. Only upstream measures such as a cap on
plastic production will prevent further degradation of our life-supporting ecosystems and allow us
at the same time to reduce the carbon footprint of plastics, which makes up 4.5 percent of the
global CO₂ emissions.” [35]
In perspective, CO₂ emissions from plastic production are expected to outpace the poster child of
climate pollution—coal—by 2030. Thus, dealing with single-use plastic waste is only a Band-Aid on
the larger problem of plastic production. [35]
While a world without any plastic is farfetched, “it is crucial that the production of new plastics is
reduced and refined. The types of plastics currently being produced are incredibly complex, and
often not used in an easily recyclable form. The world urgently needs to reduce the types of plastic
from the thousands currently available to perhaps 10–20 key polymer types which can be easily
identified, sorted and recycled,” according to British think-tank Chatham House. [36]
The United States alone throws out 42 million metric tons of plastic. The solution is to stop
producing new plastic. Policies such as requiring all plastic to be 50 percent recycled rather than
100 percent “virgin” plastic and requiring environmental impact reviews for production expansion
will go much farther than consumer bans, which distract from the critical problem at hand. [37]
identify the author's point of view, purpose, and an example of supporting evidence from the article. short
Answers
GPT-4o mini
**Author's Point of View:** The author believes that bans on single-use plastic products are ineffective "Band-Aids" that do not address the root issue of plastic pollution, which is the overall production of plastic.
**Purpose:** The purpose of the article is to advocate for upstream measures to reduce plastic production as a more effective solution to plastic pollution rather than focusing on consumer-use bans of single-use items.
**Supporting Evidence:** The author cites Melanie Bergmann, a plastic pollution expert, who states that "only upstream measures such as a cap on plastic production will prevent further degradation of our life-supporting ecosystems," highlighting the urgency of reducing plastic production to combat pollution effectively.
**Purpose:** The purpose of the article is to advocate for upstream measures to reduce plastic production as a more effective solution to plastic pollution rather than focusing on consumer-use bans of single-use items.
**Supporting Evidence:** The author cites Melanie Bergmann, a plastic pollution expert, who states that "only upstream measures such as a cap on plastic production will prevent further degradation of our life-supporting ecosystems," highlighting the urgency of reducing plastic production to combat pollution effectively.