The world around us is full of issues that spark debate–from what to do about climate change to who we should elect for president. For this essay, you’ll get familiar with a controversial issue by reading two essays from a CQ Researcher report. Those essays will serve as a starting point for your own essay by giving you two different perspectives on the controversial issue. After reading those essays, you’ll craft a policy claim argument of your own on the same topic; the argument will be informed by your opinion and supported by additional research.
Your essay must be at least 1000 words in length, although it can be longer (a maximum of 2000 words :-). The essay must have an introduction that gets readers interested, provides context on your topic through brief summaries of the two opposing essays from CQ Researcher that gave you some perspective on the topic question, and ends with a thesis statement that states your position (a policy claim) in response to your topic question and suggests at least two supporting points you’ll argue for your policy claim and at least one opposing view you’ll address through concession and/or refutation. Body paragraphs should follow the order of ideas in your thesis and should include quotations from your sources which will be introduced, cited using MLA format, and explained (ICE). Your conclusion should summarize your main points, restate your thesis in different words and/or phrasing, and give some sense of the significance of your argument, its future implications, and any recommended course of action you want readers to take. Your essay should be written in an authentic voice. Since this essay is a research paper, you will need to use at least 3 credible sources (in addition to the two CQ Researcher essays that you’ll summarize in your introduction) to support your ideas and observations in body paragraphs. Sources may be texts or videos and can range from reputable news sources and industry reports to academic articles and books; sources should be current and reliable. All sources must be appropriately cited in your paper using MLA format. Your sources will also be listed in a Works Cited page.
TOPIC YOU WILL WRITE ABOUT
Introduction by Robert Kiener
; the report is also available Links to an external site.
Plastic waste is everywhere. Researchers have discovered plastic particles throughout the world’s oceans and atop Mount Everest. Today, the world is producing 353 million metric tons of plastic waste annually — twice as much as it
did two decades ago. Plastic waste is known to harm the environment, wildlife and human health. Currently, less than 10 percent of all plastics manufactured around the world is recycled. Industry officials have acknowledged the need to improve recycling rates and infrastructure, and new approaches and technologies are being developed in response. However, critics say the industry is not doing enough and needs to be held more responsible for the plastics they produce. Several local, national and international entities, including the United Nations, are acting to curb plastic pollution by passing or considering laws that could ban certain plastics, increase regulations and add fees. Meanwhile, experts say the production of plastic is expected to double by 2040.
Kuta Beach on the island of Bali in Indonesia is seen here dotted with litter in 2020. About 353 million metric tons of plastic waste is generated annually around the globe, with at least 14 million metric tons ending up in the ocean. (Getty
Images/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Dicky Bisinglasi)
Should single-use plastics be banned?
“Pro” by John Hocevar, Oceans Campaign Director, Greenpeace USA Written for CQ Researcher, June 2022
Plastic comes at a cost that people and our planet simply cannot afford. The trillions of plastic throwaway items produced each year continue to accumulate. They break down into microplastics that are in the water we drink, the food we eat, the air we breathe and even our blood and lungs. Furthermore, plastic is made from fossil fuels, and the industry’s plan to triple its production within the next few years is driving new oil and gas extraction and pushing our planet closer to climate chaos.
Despite the plastic industry’s long and well-funded efforts to persuade Americans that recycling is the answer, recycling is not an option for most types of plastic.
In fact, less than 6 percent of the more than 40 million tons of plastic waste America produces each year is recycled. The rest is dumped, burned or discarded. Unlike paper, glass or aluminum, which can be repeatedly recycled, the rare plastic items that are recycled are typically downcycled, or reused at a lower quality, only once before being landfilled or incinerated.
From its production to its incineration, single-use plastic is a threat to our health, our communities and our climate. Communities of color bear the disproportionate health impacts of the toxic carcinogenic chemicals released during these processes from facilities that are overwhelmingly located in their neighborhoods.
Bottom line: We can’t recycle our way out of this crisis. Bans, phaseouts and reduction targets are a fundamental part of any real solution — and they’re realistic. Bans are already being successfully implemented in communities all around the world, starting with straws and bags and now moving to cutlery, takeout containers and particularly dangerous materials such as polystyrene and polyvinyl chloride.
Congress has an important role to play. It must create incentives, build infrastructure and assist businesses and workers in transitioning away from plastic. This year, the United Nations will begin discussing measures to limit plastic production via a new global plastics treaty, to be adopted as early as 2024. To properly address the substantial plastic and climate change crises we are facing, governments such as the United States must set bold and ambitious targets to reduce plastic production. And to ensure that we don’t simply replace single-use plastic with other types of throwaway packaging, we need to invest in reuse, refill and package-free approaches.
We cannot continue to flood our planet and communities with plastic, and we cannot stop the flood unless we stop producing so much throwaway plastic.
“Con” by Joshua Baca, Vice President of Plastics, American Chemistry Council Written for CQ Researcher, June 2022
For every action, there is a reaction. Banning “single-use” plastics will not stop people from using food packaging, bags, cups or cutlery; it will result in a switch to a different material, likely paper, metal or glass. Such a switch is expected to cause three outcomes: a greater environmental footprint, increased costs for businesses and consumers and worse performance of the product’s function.
Research shows that alternative packaging materials result in, on average, 2.5 times more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over their lifecycles compared to plastics. They also usually weigh more, adding to transportation emissions, and require more material to perform the same function. And that just speaks to the material itself.
Use of plastics can also help avoid GHG emissions, particularly when it comes to reducing food waste by keeping food fresh longer and protecting food from physical destruction (e.g., berries in a clamshell). If GHG emissions from food waste were ranked against countries’ emissions, they would be the third-largest emitter, behind China and the United States. Reducing food waste is a critical step toward a lower carbon future, and plastics are needed to help us get there.
Now more than ever, plastics are valued for affordability, especially for
“single-use” applications and packaging. A recent polystyrene ban in Hawaii had small-business restaurant owners lamenting that the paper alternatives cost seven times more than the polystyrene packaging. Single-use plastic bans hurt the smallest of businesses, families and those least able to afford it.
Sometimes plastics are just the best material for the job. Many consumers value the performance of plastic products compared to things like a paper straw that begins dissolving the moment it hits liquid, and nobody wants to buy their raw meat or seafood in a soaked paper package. If another material can’t do its job, more waste, emissions and frustration are the result.
America’s plastic makers have a plan to reuse and remake much more plastic. We believe that soon the term “single use” will be a relic of the past, as more advanced recycling comes online. Advanced recycling leverages innovative technologies to take mixed-used plastics that mechanical recycling can’t recycle and make it into new plastics, even plastics approved for food and medical use.
Plastic bags, cups, cutlery and food packaging can be remade again and again via advanced recycling, and they will no longer be single use, but part of a
circular economy and lower carbon future.