Question

Pro 3: Bans are required because plastic recycling is a myth.
As a 2022 NPR headline declares, “Recycling plastic is practically impossible—and the problem is
getting worse.” [25][27]
Only 5–6 percent of plastic is actually being recycled into new products in the United States,
according to Greenpeace. In fact, “no type of single-use plastic food service item (such as those
used at fast food restaurants) can legally be claimed as recyclable” in the United States, including
clamshell food containers, cutlery, bags, cups, and straws, according to the 2022 U.S. MRF
(Material Recovery Facilities) Survey. [25][26]
The Center for Climate Integrity calls plastic recycling a “fraud” and explains that part of the
problem is that plastic, unlike glass or cardboard, is not a single material but is composed of many
related polymers that also sometimes include metal, paper, colorants, and other materials. The
materials cannot be recycled together and cannot be separated for individual recycling, a catch
22 that lands 94–95 percent of plastic in landfills and the ocean, among other inappropriate places
for waste. [27]
“Politically it’s easier to just say ‘Gosh, we’re going to take everything and we think we can get it
recycled,’ and then look the other way” while the plastic goes to the landfill,
“That’s greenwashing [making a product, policy, or activity appear more environmentally friendly or
less environmentally damaging than it really is] at its best,” says Trent Carpenter, general manager
of Southern Oregon Sanitation. [25]
Leslie Davenport, a climate psychology educator, explains that consumers buy into greenwashing
unconsciously, because “there can be an unexamined story of ‘I’m doing my part’ because it is
more soothing than feeling out of control with the harmful and terrifying trajectory we are on with
climate change.” [17]
At this point, virtually all claims of plastic recyclability are egregiously false. Greenpeace urges
“instead of continuing on this false path, companies in the U.S. and around the world must urgently
phase out single-use plastics by replacing their packaging with reuse and refill systems and offering
packaging free products.” Bans can assist in this effort. [26]

identify the author's point of view, purpose, and an example of supporting evidence from the article

Answer 1

**Author's Point of View:** The author argues that plastic recycling is largely ineffective and that bans on single-use plastics are necessary to address the environmental crisis caused by plastic waste. The author believes that the recycling system is a facade that contributes to pollution rather than solving the problem.

**Purpose:** The purpose of the article is to highlight the failures of plastic recycling and to advocate for the implementation of bans on single-use plastics. The author aims to inform readers about the realities of plastic recycling and to encourage a shift toward more sustainable practices, such as reuse and refill systems.

**Example of Supporting Evidence:** The author cites the Greenpeace statistic that only 5–6 percent of plastic is actually being recycled into new products in the United States. Additionally, the author references the 2022 U.S. MRF Survey, which states that no type of single-use plastic food service item can legally be claimed as recyclable. This evidence underscores the argument that the recycling of plastic is a myth and supports the call for bans on single-use plastics.