The Green Ethic

  • Chemical Recycling: A False Hero

    For over 70 years the world has relied on plastic. It has brought endless convenience and innovation– at a cost. Its overconsumption has begun to suffocate the world. Oceans, forests, mountains, and even our bodies have become a wasteland for plastics. To combat this problem chemical recycling was developed. It appeared to be the exact solution we were looking for– a second chance and hope for a better future. But under the surface, the truth is far more complicated.

    Chemical Recycling encompasses a range of processes to break plastic down into its chemical components. It can fall into three categories– pyrolysis, gasification, and depolymerization. Pyrolysis is a heating process that heats the plastic at high temperatures to break down the polymer chain the form plastics. It heats without the use of oxygen which results in the breakdown of materials into small molecules that can be converted into other materials. Gasification also utilizes heat but instead converts the plastic waste into a gas which is then sold as fuel. This process helps capture CO2 but releases it again when the fuel is used. Depolymerization uses chemical reactions to break down polymers into their original monomers. 

    Unlike traditional recycling, chemical recycling has the ability to recycle mixed and harder plastics– allowing increased efficiency. It reuses valuable resources which can help create a circular economy. Chemically recycling plastics would lower the massive amount of plastic heading towards landfills and oceans each year. In theory, it is a fantastic way to reduce the impact plastic makes.

    Chemical Recycling isn’t a new idea. Created back in the early 20th century and gained traction in the 1970s, chemical recycling seemed like it had the potential to act as our saving grace against plastic pollution. But the high costs required for implementation stopped its initial rise. It wasn’t until the 1990s, when new technological advancements were made, that the interest resurfaced.

    Today, chemical recycling is constantly promoted as a solution to the plastic crisis. Oil companies are its biggest supporters, justifying their overwhelming plastic production and creating false portrayals.

    The deeper we look, the messier the story gets. Chemical recycling is extremely energy intensive, especially when compared to the traditional way. The process also has the potential to release 96 different toxic emissions into the air, water, and soil. Only 1-14% of plastic that is sent to be chemically recycled is recycled into new products and the new plastic is commonly 10-100 times worse than the original plastic. For every 1 ton of plastic that is chemically recycled 3 tons of CO2 are released into the atmosphere. The output of chemical waste is high and the toxins can lead to numerous health problems ranging from respiratory issues all the way to cancer. 

    While chemical recycling seems to be a part of the solution to save our planet, it actually does more harm than good. Its high costs and toxic output are too big a con. It steals funds from real solutions– investing in biodegradable alternatives and environmental infrastructure.

    We must look past its shiny exterior to work towards a better solution.​​ The world needs solutions that will actually make a difference, not ones that will lead to more problems. Chemical recycling may play a small role in plastic reduction, but we need a real solution to save our planet.

    Works Cited

    ““Chemical Recycling”: Backend Fix or Toxic Technology? | National Caucus of Environmental Legislators.” National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, 13 Feb. 2024, http://www.ncelenviro.org/articles/chemical-recycling-backend-fix-or-toxic-technology/.

    “Chemical Recycling 101.” Www.bpf.co.uk, http://www.bpf.co.uk/plastipedia/chemical-recycling-101.aspx.

    ““Chemical Recycling”: What It Is, and What It Definitely Is Not.” PIRG, 19 Sep. 2023, pirg.org/articles/chemical-recycling-what-it-is-and-what-it-definitely-is-not/.

    firstgreen. “Chemical Recycling in Plastics: Pros, Cons, & Potential Impact on the Circular Economy – Firstgreen Consulting Pvt Ltd.” Firstgreen Consulting Pvt Ltd, 5 June 2023, firstgreen.co/chemical-recycling-in-plastics-pros-cons-potential-impact-on-the-circular-economy/.

    Perli, Gabriel. “Chemical Recycling: Shaping a Circular Plastic Future.” Mind the Graph Blog, 27 May 2024, mindthegraph.com/blog/chemical-recyling/.

    Plastic Collective. “Guide to Chemical Recycling Process & Types – Plastic Collective.” Plastic Collective, 10 July 2024, http://www.plasticcollective.co/a-guide-to-chemical-recycling/.

    Plastics Europe. “Chemical Recycling • Plastics Europe.” Plastics Europe, 2023, plasticseurope.org/sustainability/circularity/recycling/chemical-recycling/.

    “What Is Chemical Recycling? The Good and the Bad.” Resource.co, resource.co/article/what-chemical-recycling-good-and-bad.

  • Fast Fashion: The Loss of Art to Consumerism

    In 2013 a garment warehouse in Bangladesh collapsed, leading to the death of 1,134 workers and the injury of 2,500 workers. These employees were women and children who worked in a factory that paid them less than minimum wage and forced them to work in inhumane conditions. The culprit? The Fast fashion industry. 

    Fast Fashion is a global industry that has plagued our earth. They mass produce for cheap and the low-quality textiles reflect it. All the clothes are designed for trends and consumerism. The garments are practically disposable, useless after a handful of wears and washes. They are a scourge that stands as the second biggest water consumer and bears responsibility for around 10% of carbon emissions. For a single cotton shirt, it takes an estimated 2,700 liters of water, which is enough to sustain someone for 2 years. Rivers and lakes dry up in the name of fashion, even when 85% of the clothes end up in a dump each year.

    Behind each textile is the story of someone paying the true cost. Fast fashion is a labor-intensive industry that employs over 60 million industry workers. Employees are heavily exploited and underpaid. Workers earn less than 2% minimum wage, suffer in harsh conditions, and draining hours. Modern textile brands are designed for efficiency and results, ruining the art of fashion. 

    Fashion has slowly become an art of destruction. Society’s obsession with mass producing and efficiency has led to suffocating overproduction, drowning our world in waste. To keep up with trends, brands release new lines every month, causing the production of billions of textiles that end up in a dump by the end of the year. This leads to toxic pollutants and greenhouse gasses killing our home. The cotton cultivation for clothing depletes our water sources and pollutes rivers. The synthetic materials, used to reduce cost, are made from fossil fuels and shed microplastics that contaminate our body and oceans. The dyeing and finishing processes throw the environmental impact a mile over the finish line, filling our waters with toxic chemicals. Fast fashion has transformed our world’s natural resources into waste that has begun to kill us, all for the fleeting moments of joy when purchasing clothes.

    In our search for style, we have become victims of consumerism and materialism. Our concern for our earth has turned into worries of what we are going to wear to school. This promotes shallow values based on attire instead of on quality self-expression. As a society, we have begun normalizing waste, leading to the casual disposal of clothing that erodes our planet. The convenience of it all has led to the emotional detachment of individuals who do not realize their true impact. For money, we have continuously undermined creativity and authenticity, slowly turning fashion into imitation. We must take the moral responsibility for what we have done and break down the moral complacency we have all experienced. 

    Fast fashion is an industry built on suffering and exploitation, tearing away from its roots of creativity. The devastation has begun too much for our earth and it is time to stand up to it. We can choose to dress with conscience, not convenience. We have lost fashion as an art, transforming us into mindless consumers. It is not too late to become better than our impact. True change begins with awareness.

    Works cited

    https://sustainablecampus.fsu.edu/blog/clothed-conservation-fashion-water

    https://www.wwf.org.uk/articles/fast-fashion-disaster

    The Environmental Impact of Fast Fashion, Explained
    Beneath the Seams: The Human Toll of Fast Fashion

  • Environmental discrimination: A Precursor to Climate Justice

    Cancer Alley is an 85-mile stretch of communities along the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. These communities live close to around 200 fossil fuel and petrochemical operations that pollute the area. The people of these communities, black and low-income, have long reported high rates of cancer and diseases, hence the name. Communities were intentionally placed in the area due to racist zoning laws and economic inequality. Despite the high risk of living there, residents are often too poor to move out. These communities have less access to health care, legal representation, and political power to fight back. This injustice is commonly known as environmental discrimination– a recurrent phenomenon where marginalized communities bear the weight of environmental harm.

    Environmental discrimination is a variant of the deep-rooted systemic racism prevalent all around the world. In the early 1900s, industries like oil refining, chemical production, and waste disposal often began establishing in marginalized neighborhoods. A pattern failing to be an accident. Cities used racist zoning laws and housing segregation to keep these communities in more polluted areas. Communities in the area didn’t have the political power or money to fight back. In the 1930s-1960s, the Home Owners’ Loan corporation began creating “redlining” maps in order to assess mortgage risks. Marginalized communities were marked red, deeming that they were too risky for investment. Because of this, redlined communities had a lack of investment in infrastructure, sanitation, and parks. Instead there was a flood of landfills and polluting industries. Redlining laid the foundation for environmental inequality that is prevalent today. In 1982– a poor, Black community was chosen as a location for a toxic landfill. Protests exploded nationwide– sparking the environmental justice movement. In 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, directing federal agencies to address environmental racism. Today, environmental inequality has finally garnered more attention– but communities still continue to struggle.

    The South Bronx, a low income area, is home to a diverse community. Approximately 60% percent of its residents are Latino and 39% are Black. Everyday, 15,000 trucks make their commute through the South Bronx– releasing harmful pollutants near communities. Many students walking to school inhale this toxic air daily. The children of the community are hospitalized for asthma at a rate of 3 to 8 times higher than the national average. They are continuously blamed for “bad health choices” when in reality, corporations are the real culprit. Pahokee, Florida is a rural town with high poverty rates. It is a home to primarily Black and Latino communities, and is overrun with pollution. The town is known for its sugarcane farming. During the farming season, the corporations set fire to the sugarcane fields in order to make harvest easier. The process releases thick, black smoke and pollutants into the atmosphere. The ash raining down on the community is commonly known by inhabitants as “black snow”. This has been linked to countless respiratory problems in both elders and children of the community. In wealthier communities east of the sugarcane fields, burning is restricted when wind blows smoke toward them. This reinforces the environmental double standard. These case studies prove environmental discrimination is a pattern built into our systems. This isn’t an accident, it is the cold-blooded murder of countless marginalized communities.

    These communities aren’t just struggling– they are systematically deprived of basic necessities. Because of redlining, they commonly suffer from food insecurity. Fast food and gas stations line the streets, making healthy food a scarcity. Many of these areas have become urban heat islands. Forcing residents to suffer in extreme heat due to the lack of trees and green spaces. Corporations continuously place waste sites and toxic industries in these neighborhoods, forcing clean air and water into a luxury. These residents aren’t just physically struggling– they are emotionally worn. Not just from environmental harm, but also from a deep sense of neglect and injustice.

    Massive corporations believe they can continue damaging and polluting communities with no power or voice to stop it, but we have to be strong enough to fight back. Cities will not stop redling low-income areas until we petition. Marginalized communities deserve better homes. We must invest in all communities. By holding representatives accountable, we can push for action.

    Greta Thunberg once said, “Environmental justice means climate justice. You cannot have one without the other.” We cannot only fight pollution and global warming, without addressing the discrimination, inequality, and classism involved. Marginalized communities are living through the worst of it, while doing the least of it. Why is it that the ones who have hurt the world the least are struggling the worst? If we continue to ignore these issues we will only protect the privileged. Climate justice begins with environmental justice. 

    Works Cited

    Human Rights Watch. “US: Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” | Human Rights Watch.” Human Rights Watch, 25 Jan. 2024, http://www.hrw.org/news/2024/01/25/us-louisianas-cancer-alley.

    Ihejirika, Maudlyne. “What Is Environmental Racism?” NRDC, NRDC, 24 May 2023, http://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-environmental-racism.

    Peña-Parr, Victoria. “The Complicated History of Environmental Racism.” UNM Newsroom, 4 Aug. 2020, news.unm.edu/news/the-complicated-history-of-environmental-racism.

    Ramirez, Ivana. “10 Examples of Environmental Racism and How It Works.” YES! Magazine, 22 Apr. 2021, http://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2021/04/22/environmental-racism-examples.

    Smith, Robert F. “12 Examples of Environmental Racism to Know.” Robert F. Smith, 26 Sept. 2023, robertsmith.com/blog/examples-of-environmental-racism/.

    Yale Sustainability. “How to Support Environmental Justice Everyday | Yale Sustainability.” Sustainability.yale.edu, 13 Nov. 2020, sustainability.yale.edu/blog/how-support-environmental-justice-everyday.