The New York Times’ Contradictory Assault on Plastic

Contradiction and incoherence cripple the Times' take on plastic

Photo by Volodymyr Hryshchenko on Unsplash

To be an environment reporter for the New York Times one must be comfortable with contradiction–and incoherence. 

The same way climate change is responsible for both record flooding and unprecedented drought; the same way our fossil fuel addiction must be cured at any cost except safe, abundant nuclear power; the same way electric vehicles are both coal-powered yuppie virtue signaling devices and completely mandatory; it turns out that plastics are both a critical part of our “renewable energy future,” as well as a critical environmental threat that should be eliminated. 

That’s the confused take away from Times climate reporter Hiroko Tabuchi’s coverage of the just-concluded United Nations (UN) global plastic treaty negotiations in Ottawa, Canada.

Environmental groups characterized the discussions as an opportunity to impose strict limits on global plastic manufacturing and accelerate the world’s transition away from fossil-fuel based products. Tabuchi dutifully endorsed this activist campaign as a way to “stem the flow of plastic waste” and chastised the plastic industry for “pushing back” against caps on global plastic production. Oddly, she also favorably quoted a UN official who claimed that “We will continue to need plastic for specific uses, such as renewable energy technologies.” 

The obvious contradiction in Tabuchi’s reporting underscores an important conclusion endorsed by reasonable observers in the private sector, academia and even the Biden Administration: sustainable plastics fulfill many important roles in modern society. Abruptly and drastically cutting plastic production is a nonstarter. 

Downplaying the value of plastic

On one side of the contradiction is Tabuchi’s refusal to seriously consider just how essential plastics are to everyday life. While she and many other reporters often complain about the alleged harms of plastic use, they rarely mention that these wrongly maligned chemicals expand access to life-saving health care and clean water, keep our food safe and help connect us to the internet. The list of valuable products enhanced by plastic is extensive, and it no doubt includes the computer Tabuchi used to write her biased story.

Pretending that a major cut in plastic production is a threat only to industry is an inexcusable error. The reality is that everybody, especially the poor, will suffer if plastic production (and by extension consumption) is restricted. 

Plastic: more sustainable than you’ve been told

Plastics are so widely used today because they are inexpensive and adaptable to a variety of applications. But they often possess another quality that many competing materials lack—sustainability. This detail is also typically concealed by biased journalists keen to promote an anti-industry narrative, but it’s vital to developing a proper understanding of plastics. 

Of particular interest to a climate reporter like Tabuchi should be recent research showing that plastics, in 15 out of 16 applications, produce up to 90 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions throughout their lifecycle than paper, steel, copper, glass or aluminum. This study, though undeniably relevant to potentially global plastic regulations, received no coverage from any major news outlet, including the New York Times.

Critics may be inclined to write this research off as an exception to what is otherwise a broad scientific consensus about the environmental impact of plastic, though that too is false. Real-world evidence has shown time and again that many plastics are easier to recycle than alternative materials. 

And contrary to Tabuchi’s assertion that plastic “is piling up in landfills,” it’s well known that many plastics do not persist in the environment. “I would say that we could half the estimates [of] how long we think it takes for plastic cups to degrade,” conservation scientist Yvonne Shashoua told Chemistry World in April.  “...[I]t’s a matter of single years, rather than tens or hundreds of years.”

The lightweight nature of plastics also slashes transportation costs and energy consumption, making them ideal for use in vehicles, aircraft, and other modes of transportation—where weight reduction directly translates to fuel efficiency and reduced emissions.

Broad consensus

In Tabuchi’s assessment, these basic facts are just pro-plastic talking points circulated by “industry groups” looking to derail the treaty talks. That’s the third critical oversight in her piece. Many experts acknowledge that “plastic is ingrained in modern life,” NPR reported on April 2, and that recycling, as opposed to overly stringent restrictions on plastic use, “will have to be part of the solution.” 

This isn’t a recent revelation either. Academic scientists have said for years that plastic serves essential functions. Speaking specifically of short-lived plastic uses, a pair of supply chain experts argued in 2019 that “some plastic packaging is necessary to prevent food waste and protect the environment.” By the way, food waste produces roughly double the greenhouse emissions of plastic production. 

Even vocal critics of the plastic industry, like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), recognize this reality. “Plastics are woven into every portion of modern life, from automobiles and computers and windmill blades to clothing and medical devices,” The Hill wrote summarizing Whitehouse’s comments on the treaty negotiations. Owing to plastic’s important contributions to the US economy, the Biden Administration has refused activist demands that the US government push for a global production cap.

Relying on plastic when it counts

Perhaps the best argument for plastic comes from the United Nations itself. While the intergovernmental body virtue signals its support for “eliminating plastics,” it eagerly endorses the material when lives are on the line. For example, the UN’s Children’s Fund (UNICEF) didn’t mince words when explaining what was necessary to supply water to the people in war-torn Gaza: “The UN agency underlined the need for generators to operate water and sanitation facilities, along with plastic pipes to fix broken plumbing [emphasis added].”

The point in all this is simple and undeniable: New York Times reporters and international bureaucrats can demonize plastic as a planetary threat or endorse its use for massive public health and energy projects. They can’t do both. Plastics are essential to modern life. It’s time everybody accepts that fact.