marcszar_addicted_to_plastic


 * Addicted to Plastic** //- Ian Connacher, 2008//

//What is the central argument or narrative of the film?// The film offers a thorough discussion on how prevalent petrochemical-based plastics have become in our society and how we have become increasingly dependent on them. The film argues that our depedence on petrochemical-based plastics has helped exacerbate the consumerist "throw away" culture and has led to numerous, serious environmental problems, but the film also stresses that we need to find alternatives to petrochemical-based plastics if we wish to avoid disruptions in the coming era of oil scarcity.

//What sustainability problems does the film draw out?//
 * //Political?//
 * The film occasionally shows us that politics have interfered with or influenced legislation on petrochemical plastics - in particular it mentions how pressure from the plastics industry has weakened or blocked US legislation attempting to control the use of petrochemicals in various plastics products, especially when concerns over human health are raised by researchers.
 * //Legal?//
 * The film cites numerous examples where other countries have taken the lead to limit plastics consumption and/or use resources other than petrochemicals in the production of plastic. For example, the film claims that even American companies like Coca Coca, upon being forced to comply with more stringent recycling and reuse laws, recycle their bottles more frequently in Denmark (20 times over). Kenya is also cited as one of the few African countries to use legislation to restrict the prevalence of plastic bags. The film also cites several examples where American regulation of petrochemicals is very weak, even when scientific studies have exposed the potential dangers of some types of petrochemicals on human health (BPA, Antimony, DEHP, etc).
 * //Economic?//
 * As plastics have become more common, we have become increasingly dependent on them in virtually every facet of our lifestyle - the film has an excellent opening scene where the camera pans around the house and text bubbles pop up to show how //virtually everything// in the average North American household is made of plastic or contains at least some elements made of plastic. One particular startling fact is the discussion on how plastics production surpassed steel production in 1979 (Steel was once considered the backbone of industrialized society and the fact that plastics production has surpassed steel shows us how incredibly dependent we have become on plastic).
 * //Technological?//
 * The film contains an excellent animated sequence that takes us step-by-step through the process used to create many plastics - the film shows us how resin beads (plastic granules which are the "building blocks" in the formation of many plastic materials) are used and extruded to create various plastics, but the film also points out that many beads are lost/wasted and end up concentrating in the environment in many areas (such as in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch).
 * //Media and informational?//
 * The film occasionally mentions how the media have played a prominent role in the rise of the plastics culture. For example, in 1955 Life Magazine contained a story on the burgeoning "Throw Away Living" culture that was becoming increasing prevalent in the US. This was an era in US history where the public was bombarded with numerous advertisements and products that encouraged easy disposability. Ads and product packaging of this era typically portrayed a housewife grinning with ecstasy over how she could simply throw packaging and materials away once she was done using them - this was in sharp contrast to past practice where austere economic conditions forced housewives to clean, reuse, and recycle numerous household goods.
 * //Organizational?//
 * The film cited an interesting point in which plastics were developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to specifically overcome looming shortages in the natural materials that were used in the products and (much more limited) packaging of that era. As is typical of other resources/materials in other periods of history, petrochemical plastics were specifically developed to overcome shortcomings in the organization structure of our economic system - plastics were seen as a useful way to stabilize and maintain our economic system of continuous expected growth.
 * //Educational?//
 * The film made it very clear that the public is woefully ignorant of how dependent we really are on petrochemical plastics and that we are even more ignorant of the potential health hazards of the various petrochemicals used in plastics. For example, we are oblivious to the potential hazards that the Antimony used in plastic water bottles may have on our health - the threat is apparently real enough to have convinced many scientists/researchers to avoid using many plastic products (plastic bottles, teflon-coated cooking utensils, canned goods, etc) themselves.
 * //Behavioral?//
 * The film contained an interesting scene where a spokesman from the American Plastics Council insisted that our problems with plastics pollution were the result of poor social/cultural behavior and that improved education on the proper handling and disposal/reuse of plastics is necessary. While this certainly is true, it was interesting that the film deferred to the American Plastics Council to make this point since it is actually in their economic interest for Americans to engage in as much wasteful use of plastic as possible! The APC exists solely to promote the use of plastics in everyday products - but the APC only stands to benefit as plastic is increasingly treated as an easily-disposable product by American consumers! The economic interests of the APC thus stand in direct contradiction to the point made by the APC spokesman.
 * //Cultural?//
 * While North America is enamored with the consumerist "throw away" culture, the film made trips to several third world nations to show us how locals trying to eke out a living in austere economic conditions were reusing discarded plastics in clever ways. Small African companies were reusing discarded plastics to make curtains, purses, knick-knacks, and other household goods (though this doesn't address the health problems of plastics - who would want off-gassing plastic curtains in their house?). An Indian company was reusing discarded plastics in clothing, jewelry, and other accessories. The film also briefly covered the American clothing company Patagonia which reuses plastics in the production of athletic clothing and sportswear.
 * //Ecological?//
 * The first third of the film focused extensively on the damage plastics cause to the environment - the scenes from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch were particularly intriguing and worrisome (46,000 pieces of plastic for every square mile of ocean in this area!). The film stressed that plastics were particularly destructive to the environment (in comparison to other materials) because they could break down into smaller fragment so easily and enter the food chain (many aquatic species mistake plastic particles as food).

//What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?// The film was most compelling in the scenarios where it focused on reuse and adaptability. The examples of enterprising third world citizens collecting discarded plastic materials and reworking them to fashion new household articles and clothing was inspiring, though it should be pointed out that such a culture of reuse is not likely to take hold in the US until we slip into more austere economic conditions where we'll be forced to reuse more plastics (rather than manufacturing new plastics) out of sheer necessity. Even in supposedly eco-friendly western Europe there is no longer a culture of ingenious materials reuse even though their recycling initiatives are fairly advanced by US standards.

//What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?// The film failed miserably in its discussion on solutions to our plastics addiction. Just as advertisements and propaganda pieces in the early 20th century promoted petrochemical plastics as the new wave of the future, so too did this film bow down to technotriumphalist pressures in attempting to foist upon us new "ecoplastics" (organic plastics) as being the next wave of the future. There was NO discussion on conservation - the examples toward the end of the film showed some supposedly innovative new plastics made out of organic (plant) matter but there was no serious discussion on reducing plastics consumption so that we wouldn't have to create so many new ecoplastics in the first place. For example, the film showed us some starch-based biodegradable cookie trays and lapsed into gushing language to discuss how these supposedly environmentally-conscious ecoplastics were the wave of the future. But what if we were to sell cookies in a manner that didn't require plastic trays/packaging //in the first place//!? We could just sell them in simple paper wrappings (without trays) or in paper sacks, as was done in the past. The film offered no discussion on how we could eliminate the redundant plastic packaging (wrapping something many times over in layers of plastic) of our many consumer goods. Furthermore, the film did not discuss the unintended consequences of shifting our consumption to new ecoplastics - we would need to gobble up a tremendous amount of land to plant the vast acreage of crops that would be required to replace our dependence on petrochemicals in the production of plastics. Furthermore, these crops would require vast petrochemical inputs for fertilizers and pesticides - the scale at which we would need to plant crops to match current levels of plastics consumption would be so vast that we simply would not be able to grow these crops with the ease that we do now (petrochemical fertilizers, pesticides, and mechanized gas-powered farm machinery allow us to grow crops at a scale that will simply be impossible in an era of oil scarcity). So forget about ecoplastics - we will not be able to grow the crops at a scale large enough to allow them to become as prevalent in society as petrochemical plastics currently are. This specious infatuation with unscalable high-tech solutions to our consumption problems is prevalent in other environmentalist thinking as well, such as in our desire to find another input (electricity) for our cars rather than attempting to downscale and eliminate the car culture itself.

//What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?// The film did conclude with a provocative statement - perhaps we could develop plastics that could be infinitely reused so that one day no plastics would ever have to end up in landfills. Although (as I discussed above) I don't believe ecoplastics are the wave of the future, it could be possible that if we drastically reduced our plastics consumption we could use ecoplastics for our remaining diminished plastics needs in such a fashion that they could be infinitely reused or biodegraded and never have to end up in landfills. While I don't think ecoplastics are feasible on a large scale, the field of Green Chemistry (and the research it does in ecoplastics) is certainly a valuable and useful one.

//What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?// The film seems to attempt to address North Americans who already might have at least a rudimentary interest in environmentalism but who are still quite oblivious to how dependent we are on petrochemicals. The opening sequence alone (in which various plastics in household products are pointed out) is an attempt to raise awareness to the prevalence of petrochemical plastics in our households to a public that is largely unaware of the situation (or who see no problem with it). The film is unlikely to change any cultural behaviors - we engage in a lot of "they'll solve it for us" thinking today and the closing sequence/discussion on ecoplastics will probably lead viewers to conclude, "Well they did point out some worrisome health and environmental problems with petrochemical plastics but I see that they're already developing better ecoplastics. In fact, the researchers seem to be very optimistic about these ecoplastics being our future, so I guess we're already moving in the right direction and I don't have to do anything. It's just a matter of time till we switch to 'green' plastics."

//What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?// As discussed above, the film did not discuss conservation (reduction in our consumption of plastics by eliminating packaging) though it did discuss improving strategies for reusing and recycling plastics. The film emphasized investment in ecoplastics in the closing scenes but did not discuss the potential unintended consequences of shifting our reliance to these new types of plastics.

//What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?// .
 * Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
 * The film did a good job integrating perspectives from a wide variety of sources - the American Plastics Council, scientists, researchers, "consumers," policymakers, "Green" companies, Third-world startup companies specializing in plastics reuse, etc.
 * Is it overly “balanced”?
 * The film does a good job in showing us the health and environmental threats that plastics pose to us - despite the arguments made by the APC. The film was quick to pose arguments against their claims by including interviews with scientists/researchers exploring the impact that petrochemical plastics have on our society.
 * Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
 * The film began with some good analysis on the destruction plastics have on the ecosystem (the discussion on pellets, their concentration in water especially when coated with oil slicks, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, etc) but throughout much of the rest of the film the host/narrator resorted to using a language of ignorance - he openly said in several cases that he "didn't understand" some of the studies/arguments/intricacies/complexities that researchers had uncovered in their research on plastics, but rather than elaborating on the studies to gain that understanding he would just move on to the next scenario.
 * Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
 * The film wasn't preachy until the end where it began using overly-optimistic, flowery language to describe the supposed coming generation of ecoplastics.
 * Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
 * Many of the images in the first third of the film (the text popups in the house showing just how many things were made of plastic, the imagery from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the animation showing the industrial process used to make plastics) were provoking and humorous, but there was little memorable imagery in the remainder of the film.

< Back to my portfolio