Is Plastic Natural?

Plastic pollution is an issue of serious concern
that needs to be understood through the lens of chemistry.

“Plastic” is a category word. What does it mean? Polyethylene, polypropylene, polyurethane and other molecules are lumped into the word plastic, but they have different properties and present different issues in the environment. The “poly” (Gr. many) refers to chains of molecular units, usually made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen (CHON) – atoms which are very common in nature and the most common atoms in our own bodies. It’s how the molecules are put together, and how quickly they degrade, that matter in discussions of environmental pollution (see our 5 June 2020 entry).

The miracle material of the 1920s that revolutionized food storage, packaging and everyday objects like pens and drinking straws, plastic lately has a bad ring to it. Laypeople think of containers thrown into landfills or polluting the ground and getting washed into the ocean. Environmentalists warn of gigantic globs of plastic drifting in ocean gyres emanating from our throw-away society. We hear of huge pallets of crushed plastic from recycling bins being sent to China but refused and forced to turn back, undoing the good that people assume they are doing by recycling. We hear of marine biologists finding microplastic particles in fish and other marine life, with overtones that plastic is a permanent poison to every creature in the food chain.

It’s understandable that people view plastic pollution as a huge and growing crisis with no solution other than to stop using it. To become better informed, let’s investigate some facts of chemistry about plastic in recent news.

Plastic pollution in lakes provides a habitat for microscopic algae, research finds (Keele University, UK). In this study, researchers found algae growing on plastic in lakes, forming biofilms. Although she knows that the negative effects of plastic are well-documented, lead researcher Imogene Smith undertook this research because “we identified a distinct lack of research systematically characterising the plastic-biofilm relationship in freshwater environments.” The algae differed within the water column; some algae colonized plastic in the photic (sunlit) zone; other species did in the dark depths. These algae, found growing on various kinds of plastic within two weeks, contributed to the decay of the plastic in a surprisingly short time.

Plastic samples also showed evidence of degradation within six weeks of being placed in the water, even in the absence of UV light. This was consistent across all three types of plastics that were studied (Polyethylene Terephthalate, Polypropylene and Low Density Polyethylene). These findings may indicate that algal biofilms may play a role in helping plastics in the bottom of lakes to break down.

This work is reminiscent of findings about oil spills (another environmental crisis that the media hypes to scare the public, rightfully so to a degree). Scientists found that cleanup of oil on the ocean surface was being undertaken naturally by bacteria. After all, oil is a hydrocarbon, as are many molecules within living creatures. Some microbes can “eat” oil and break it down. Apparently some algae can live on plastic. This does not erase its harm, but it’s something to consider in policy discussions. To gauge the harm of plastic, one needs to measure the rate of ingress and the rate of natural egress: in short, sources and sinks.

A clean ecosystem in balance reflects the glory of God.

Call to recycle plastic waste (EcoVoice Australia, Flinders University). This is a typical press release about pollution. Because plastic particles have been found on Australian beaches and waterways, people need to recycle more. It sounds so simple, but leaves questions unanswered: What kind of plastic? Are there any natural sources of plastic degradation? And what if recycling does no good, because the containers of plastic are refused in China and Indonesia where westerners send it? What if it ends up in landfills and gyres despite recycling efforts? “Out of sight, out of mind” is not a responsible solution.

Sunlight can break down marine plastic into tens of thousands of chemical compounds, study finds (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute). Researchers at the prestigious oceanography lab ran some experiments on plastic degradation by sunlight. They were astonished to find that sunlight broke down plastic bags into “tens of thousands of compounds that dissolve in water,” contrary to conventional wisdom that has long taught that “sunlight exposure merely physically fragments macroplastics to microplastics, which subsequently persist forever in the environment.”

Sunlight was once thought to only fragment plastics in the marine environment into smaller particles that chemically resemble the original material and persist forever. However, scientists more recently have learned that sunlight also chemically transforms plastic into a suite of polymer-, dissolved-, and gas-phased products.

Now, a new study finds that this chemical reaction can produce tens of thousands of water-soluble compounds, or formulas. The breakdown into this many formulas, in a matter of weeks, is at least ten-fold more complex than previously understood.

The team does not yet know the impacts of these water-soluble compounds on the environment, but the findings give hope that some forms of plastic will degrade naturally far more quickly than thought.

“I am excited about this work because it provides actionable and attainable approaches for making less persistent plastics in the future,” says co-author Christopher Reddy, senior scientist in WHOI’s Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry Department. “By simply modifying the ingredients in their recipes, the plastic industry can make their products more susceptible to breakdown once the product reaches its useful lifespan“.

After all, plastic is mainly just C, H, O, and N – some of the most common atoms on earth.

River research reveals scale of macroplastic pollution (University of Leicester). To balance out the issue, this article shows that “macroplastic” (e.g., water bottles) can clog rivers and streams, lasting longer than expected.

Macroplastics – or plastic litter more than 5mm in size – travel much slower through river systems than previously believed, at an average speed of less than 0.01 km per hour, and can remain in place for significant periods of time.

The solution seems simple enough: don’t drop plastic trash on the ground! Re-use plastic bottles rather than buying new ones for every drink of water. Educating people, who can be naturally careless, in good hygiene habits can help mitigate this problem.

One often sees ugly pollution in third-world countries: dirty diapers on the ground, piles of filthy trash, smoke from trash fires. It’s a shame how careless people can be without character training. Education in Christian character increases responsibility because it values loving one’s neighbor. If you love your neighbor you won’t expect somebody else to pick up your trash. Education can also help people learn what happens to your plastic bottle when you drop it in a forest or toss it in a river. Even then, one has to care about that to stop doing it. If a person is taught there is no purpose in life because we evolved from slime, would they care if also taught that plastic bottles remain in rivers for significant periods of time?

Christians believe we should be good stewards of the environment. A necessary prerequisite for effective stewardship starts with understanding the situation. A good steward of nature needs to understand how nature works. Did you catch the fact that scientists had merely assumed things that were not true? ‘All plastic–bad. It lasts forever. It pollutes. It’s toxic. Recycle!’ Well, collagen is a natural polymer in vertebrates that can persist in the environment for thousands of years (see 28 Sept 2021). Does that make it a pollutant?

Good stewards must not fall for propaganda. They need to carefully research the workings of nature. Instead of jumping to conclusions—like ‘recycle and send all the plastic to China’ (that doesn’t want it)—there might be better ways. Poor thinkers go for feel-good quick-fix maxims that don’t do any good, like ‘visualize world peace’ or telling children that if they reduce their carbon footprint at home it will stop global warming. We prefer what the scientists at Keele University and at Woods Hole did. They ran experiments. They measured things. They did not stay content with conventional wisdom.

Uncritical thinkers use the word “natural” loosely, but it is a nuanced word with multiple meanings. Think about this: if evolutionists who think humans are material beings take natural materials and make new materials out of them, aren’t the new materials natural? Are toxins made by snakes natural? Is poison ivy natural? Is wildfire smoke or volcanic lava natural? Stars produce polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, that are carcinogenic on earth like tailpipe soot. Are those natural? If oil is pumped out of the natural earth, in what sense do we call its presence in a gas tank unnatural? We cannot simply call things that cause harm “unnatural” because humans were involved. If humans are natural, then everything they produce is natural. To say otherwise is to grant an exceptional ontological status to human beings, which evolutionists don’t want to do.

None of this should be construed as minimizing the harm of pollution. We need to be good stewards of the environment. This article is intended to promote better thinking and better research for solutions that actually work. A quote attributed to H.L. Mencken quips, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” Propagandists use Thumb’s Second Postulate to their advantage: they know that “An easily understood workable falsehood is more useful than a highly complex incomprehensible truth.”

Go for truth, even when it is difficult.