Lay AFF

C1: Innovation
American plastic companies show no regard for their environmental impact.
George 23 - Sarah George, edie, Published 3rd August 2023 “‘Dangerous complacency’: Big
businesses accused of underestimating plastics-related risks” [https://www.edie.net/dangerous-
complacency-big-businesses-accused-of-underestimating-plastics-related-risks/] Accessed 2/15/24 SAO

according to a new analysis from Planet Tracker today (3 August). The organisation analysed more than 8,200 documents from major plastic
That is

companies and found that 83% make no mention of any kind of risk. Documents were analysed from all parts of the plastic value chain, including fossil fuel extractors like
ExxonMobil and TotalEnergies; chemical processors such as DOW and INEOS; packaging manufacturers such as Huhtamaki and consumer goods firms. Included in this latter cohort are the likes of Unilever, Nestle, Danone, Coca-

Documents covered include

Cola, Pepsico, Modelez and Kraft Heinz. Within this category, Unilever was the most frequent discloser of information, accounting for 24% of all disclosures.

filings, transcripts and documents sent between companies and external contacts such as Government
bodies, standard-setters, suppliers and investors. Planet Tracker found that these documents rarely mention plastic-related risks. Of those that did, almost three-quarters
(73%) mentioned risks relating to waste management at the end of the product’s use. The primary focus was recycling, not reuse . Only 6% of the documents mentioned risks
relating to environmental and social issues upstream. Planet Tracker did uncover an increase in plastics-related risk disclosures through annual reports, but concluded that this has not yet translated into a change in everyday
conversations with key stakeholders. Instead, it is more likely to result from tightening legal requirements on environmental disclosures. The number of annual reports from the companies including some kind of plastic-related risk
disclosures was six times higher than it was five years ago. Again, disclosures were typically about recyclability and waste management than upstream risks such as pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Planet Tracker’s senior
investment analyst Thalia Bofiliou said: “The plastics industry today faces one of the longest lists of risks of any sector, which should be on the mind of every executive and every financier. The risk disclosures of these companies

should include exposure to CO2 emissions, harmful toxic discharges, visible and invisible plastic pollution and rising harm to people and nature through chemical additives exposure. “ Plastic companies
across the value chain are displaying a dangerous complacency to very real, and very material, risks. We call for the capital markets to consider these
factors in their investments, and push for more concrete change, challenging assumptions and raising these issues with management frequently”.

Bans solve. UK saw innovation triple after legislation on plastic

Thaman 23 - Akshay Thaman, Member of the British Patent Information Professionals
group, June 5th 2023 “Decomposing the facts on plastic waste”
[https://sourceadvisors.co.uk/insights/our-research/sector-research/decomposing-the-facts-on-plastic-
waste/] Accessed 2/15/24 SAO * chart shows triple

In recent years, the UK Government has identified the use of single-use plastics as a source of avoidable waste. In an attempt to eradicate
avoidable waste, the Government published its ‘25-year plan to improve the environment’ in 2018, the strategy contains ambitious targets to: Achieve zero
avoidable waste by 2050; and To eliminate avoidable plastic waste by 2042. Recently, several policies have been implemented to position the UK toward
achieving these targets, the policies are primarily behavioural in nature and include (but are not limited to): A mandatory charge for single-use plastic bags in large
retailers. A ban on single use plastic items comprising of plastic straws, stirrers, and cotton buds. From October 2023, this will be extended to
plastic plates, trays, bowls, cutlery, balloon sticks, and certain types of polystyrene cups and food containers. A Plastic Packaging Tax applied to plastic goods
manufactured or imported with less than 30% recycled plastic. Now, policy changes can only get you so far, innovation will have a complimentary role to play in
reducing the impact of plastic waste globally. Patent
data is a great source of information that can be utilised to identify
and monitor technology trends over time. It is a powerful resource used by many top global innovation and technology players to analyse
and predict innovative activity within a technology area. In this article, I will briefly use patent data to illustrate past innovative activity related to plastic packaging
and recycling. Innovation activity over time

Figure 1 shows the number of patent filings relating to plastic packaging and recycling from 2001-2021.
Patent filings can give a good indication of the level of innovation in a particular technology area. This graph
demonstrates that patent filings were relatively stable between 2001 and 2015, eventually leading to an upsurge

in filings from 2015 onwards. Drivers for increased innovative activity may have been a combination of
legislative action such as the Paris Agreement and policy initiatives, such as the single use plastic bag
charge adopted by various countries, including the UK and France. Innovation by country Figure 2 shows a breakdown of patent filings (accumulative
volume) by country up to 2021. This gives a geographical representation of where inventions related to plastic packaging and recycling are being developed. It is worth noting that filings from China tend to top the charts for most
technology areas, as of data in 2021, China accounts for approximately half of all patent applications filed globally in that year. The UK comes in at no.7 for plastic packaging and recycling, although they may be amongst the top

Technologies developed in the UK Figure 3 shows the top technologies filed in the UK (by accumulative volume)
filers, this suggests that the UK could do more to become world leaders in this area.

including:
within the field of plastic packaging and recycling up to 2021. The technologies described in the chart above can be summarised by the following categories: Improvements in plastic composition,

Biodegradable compositions made from biopolymers. Alternative materials made from recycled plastic. Improvements in plastic recycling, including: Novel processes
and machinery to recover, separate and recycle plastic waste. Improvements in plastic products such as bottles and containers, including: Recyclable plastic products. Biodegradable plastic products made from the
use of a biodegradable polymer composition. The technologies listed above all attempt to reduce the persistence of plastic products, enabling plastics to better decompose or be recycled. The data above also suggests that novel
technical solutions to this problem are likely to be eligible for patent protection in the UK. Green Channel Interestingly, the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) launched a scheme to incentivise the development of green
technologies in the UK through implementing the Green Channel in 2009. The Green Channel allows for an accelerated application process, provided that the technology you wish to patent offers an environmental benefit. The
acceleration can dramatically reduce the time taken from application to granted patent. Usually a typical patent application takes, on average, approximately 3 years to grant, the Green Channel can reduce this to lower than 18
months. The Green Channel can provide a useful tool for environmentally beneficial innovations that require a quick grant for investment purposes or are looking to immediately market your solution. GovGrant has helped clients

Well, the increased policy

utilise the benefits of the Green Channel, contact us if this may be of interest to you. What does this tell us about the future direction of plastic waste innovation?

measures to curb avoidable plastic waste, coupled with the increase in innovative activity in this area,
suggests that there is political and societal pressure for novel solutions. The increase in innovative activity also suggests that this is becoming an
increasingly competitive market and one that is still developing.

Innovation creates jobs

UNEP 23 - United Nations Environment Programme, 05-31-23 “Côte d’Ivoire sets sights on
plastic pollution,” [https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/cote-divoire-sets-sights-plastic-
pollution#:~:text=Research%20shows%20that%20shifting%20to,sector%2C%20largely%20in
%20developing%20countries.] //AL

“It is important for the government to support companies that engage in the circular economy and recycling, as this can generate
jobs and income for populations,” says Rahmane, who has developed a machine to transform plastic waste into pyrolytic oil, which
can be used to power generators. Research shows that shifting to a circular economy by 2040 could create
700,000 additional jobs globally and improve livelihoods for millions of workers in the informal sector,
largely in developing countries.
 C2: Developing World
The US is divided with the rest of the world now.
Tabuchi and Corkery 21 – 03/12/21 – "“Countries Tried to Curb Trade in Plastic Waste. The U.S. Is
Shipping More.” –

[https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/12/climate/plastics-waste-export-ban.html] Accessed 01/31/24 by

Zayn

more than 180 nations agreed last year to place strict limits on exports of plastic waste from richer
When

countries to poorer ones, the move was seen as a major victory in the fight against plastic pollution. But
new trade data for January, the first month that the agreement took effect, shows that American
exports of plastic scrap to poorer countries have barely changed, and overall scrap plastics exports rose ,
which environmental watchdog groups say is evidence that exporters are ignoring the new rules. The American companies seem to be relying on a remarkable interpretation of the new rules: Even though it’s now illegal for most countries to accept all but the purest forms of plastic scrap

there’s nothing that prevents the United States from sending the waste. The main reason: the
from the United States,

United States is one of the few countries in the world that didn’t ratify the global ban. “ This is our first hard evidence that nobody
seems to be paying attention to the international law,” said Jim Puckett, executive director of the Basel Action Network, a nonprofit group that lobbies against the plastic waste trade. “As soon as the shipments get on the high seas, it’s considered illegal trafficking. And the rest of the

Recent history,
world has to deal with it.” The scrap industry says that many of the exports are quite likely compliant with the new rules and that the increase in January reflects growing global demand for plastic to recycle, and use as inputs for new products.

however, shows that a large of amount plastic scrap exported from the United States does not get
recycled but ends up as waste, a reality that was the impetus for the new rules. The new rules were adopted in 2019 by most of the world’s countries, although the United States isn’t among them, under a framework known as the
Basel Convention. Underlying the change was the need to stem the flow of waste from America, and other wealthier nations, to poorer ones. Though many American communities dutifully collect plastic for recycling, much of the scrap has been sent overseas, where it frequently ends up

American companies
in landfills, or in rivers, streams and the ocean. China, which once accepted the bulk of that waste, in 2018 banned all plastic scrap shipments, declaring that it no longer wanted to be the “world’s garbage dump.” Since then,

have looked to ship plastic scrap waste to countries like Malaysia and Indonesia instead. Last year, an
industry group representing the world’s largest petrochemical makers lobbied for United States trade
negotiators to press Kenya, one of Africa’s largest economies, to continue importing foreign plastic
garbage. .
But because Basel rules prohibit member nations from trading waste with countries that have not ratified the convention, the new regulations now effectively ban the trade in most kinds of plastic waste between the United States and the rest of the world

American companies, for now, appear to have opted to continue to put their scrap onto ships out of the
country at an even faster pace. And the scrap industry says that much of the plastic that was being shipped in January is considered legitimate under the Basel rules by the companies around the world that are purchasing it to use in
manufacturing. “The contention that all of these plastic scrap exports from the United States are not legitimate is factually incorrect,’’ said Adina Adler, vice president of advocacy at the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, a trade group. Data for January showed that exports of scrap
plastic from the United States edged upward, to 48 million tons from 45 million tons the previous January. Exports to poorer nations were virtually unchanged from a year ago, totaling 25 million tons. Advocates say that there are clear red flags in the data. Malaysia, which had signed on
to Basel, remained a major destination for American scrap plastic in January. A shipment containing bales of plastic scrap left Los Angeles on Feb. 14, for example, and is scheduled to arrive at a port outside the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, this month, according to data provided by
Material Research, a Maine-based research firm. That shipment was sent by Georgia-based Sigma Recycling Inc. on a cargo ship operated by the French shipping company CMA CGM. In a statement, Sigma said its shipment involved “clean pre-sorted plastic scrap” and that the company
was confident it would be accepted by Malaysian customs. “Sigma has followed all the rules and regulations to best of our knowledge,” the statement said. In a statement, CMA CGM Group said it was “totally committed to responsible trade” and would not knowingly violate international
standards. “According to documentation received at the time of booking, the commodity carried is not in violation of the Basel Convention.” A shipment of PVC plastic, sent by New Jersey-based Scan-Shipping on a ship operated by Maersk, the Danish shipping company, that left Newark
on Feb. 16 for Gujarat, India, could potentially run into obstacles under Basel rules because India is a Basel signatory, and PVC trade is restricted under the rules. Scan-Shipping, which is headquartered in Denmark, did not immediately provide comment. Maersk said in a statement that it
“works to ensure it is compliant with all trade control laws, including the Basel Convention. However, there are times in which shippers, who are responsible to load cargo into containers and declare the commodity, may mis-declare cargo to avoid trade control laws.” The company added
that Maersk “works with the authorities to either destroy the illegal cargo or have it returned to origin.” Broadly, Ms. Adler said, there are legitimate markets for the material being exported from the United States in January. Ms. Adler said in Malaysia, for instance, there is a robust plastic
manufacturing industry that incorporates recycled plastic into its products, as well as rigorous standards on what plastic can be imported. While acknowledging that some noncompliant scrap may be slipping through the cracks, Ms. Adler said there were many shipments of plastic scrap
from the United States that she believed conform to Basel. One reason for the rise in plastic scrap from the United States, she said, could be the manufacturing of personal protective equipment that has been booming in Asia during the pandemic. “I can say with confidence that there is
compliant material’’ being shipped, she said. But illicit material, once it arrives by ship, can be difficult to turn away. The worry, advocates say, is that the difficulty of getting American plastic scrap exporters to take the shipments back will mean they slip through customs around the
world, or get shipped off again to an alternative destination. “There’s going to be a bit of chaos,” Mr. Puckett said. “If a shipment does get returned, the question is, where is it going to go next? It could just end up on another ship, or in some other country that brokers are going to find is
the next weak link out there.” If the United States were to ratify the Basel agreement — which would require Congress to pass legislation — traders found to be shipping plastic waste overseas could be prosecuted. But short of that, the United States government is limited in its ability to
stop plastic waste exports. Still, growing awareness could start to change things, said David Azoulay, a Geneva-based lawyer with the Center for International Environmental Law, a nonprofit environmental law firm. Even ardent opponents of the agreement may be shifting their position.
The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries has opposed the United States joining the Basel agreement, arguing that it hampers legitimate trade of plastic scrap that can be recycled. This week, Ms. Adler said that the trade group’s position on Basel was under an internal review. “You’re
starting to see an outcry in countries being flooded with waste. And we are already seeing more countries starting to put their foot down,” Mr. Azoulay said. And the more Americans “learn that their waste ends up in fields in Malaysia, or openly burned in Indonesia or Vietnam, it’s not
going to sit very well.” “I do think that we’re in a pivotal moment,” he said. “Is illegal trade of waste going to continue to happen? Yes, without a doubt. But can it continue at the scale that it is currently happening? I don’t think so.”

This division has started the vehicle of America’s colonial enterprise; and plastic is the
fuel.
Liboiron 19 – 12/21/18 – “How Plastic Is a Function of Colonialism” –

[https://www.teenvogue.com/story/how-plastic-is-a-function-of-colonialism] Accessed 01/31/24 by

Zayn
Nain is the most northern Inuit community in Nunatsiavut, Canada. It was one of the first places in Newfoundland and Labrador to ban plastic grocery bags in 2009 after villagers saw hundreds of plastic bags snagged on rocks underwater when they went out to fish. The bag ban has
appeared to reduce the number of grocery bags in the water, but many of other types of plastic bags, as well as food packaging, ropes, building insulation, and tiny unidentifiable fragments, line the shores and waters of the area. None of these plastics are created in Nain. But since
plastics have been found in the Arctic, government and scientific projects are looking to find ways to reduce plastic pollution coming from Arctic communities with initiatives like recycling and treating sewage. But these solutions look at the end of the pipeline — the point after plastics
have already arrived, thousands of miles from their point of production to the Arctic. These types of solutions assume that plastics can and will continue to be produced and imported to the North, and Northerners are supposed to deal with this import of pollution.

Colonialism refers to a system of domination that grants a colonizer access to land for the colonizer's
goals This does not always mean property for settlement or water for extraction. It can also mean access
.

to land-based cultural designs and culturally appropriat[ing]ed symbols for fashion. It can mean access
to Indigenous land for scientific research. It can also mean using land as a resource[s], which may
generate pollution through pipelines, landfills, and recycling plants. Lloyd Stouffer, editor of Modern Packaging magazine, declared in 1956 that “The future of plastics is
in the trash can.” This call for the “plastics industry to stop thinking about ‘reuse’ packages and concentrate on single use” came at the start of a new era of mass consumption of plastics in the form of packaging, which now accounts for the largest category of plastic products produced
worldwide. He saw that disposables were a way to create new markets for the fledgling plastics industry. This idea assumes access to land. It assumes that household waste will be picked up and taken to landfills or recycling plants that allow plastic disposables to go "away." Without this
infrastructure and access to land, Indigenous land, there is no disposability. Nain does not have an "away." Neither do many other places whose lands are colonized as places to ship disposables or are used for landfills. Nor do many extractive zones that provide the oil and gas feedstock

In fact, the term “waste

for producing plastics. They’re in the Far North, Southeast Asia, and western Africa, among many other places. Some of these same places serve as an "away" for wealthier regions who export their waste.

colonialism” was coined in 1989 at the United Nations Environmental Programme Basel Convention
when several African nations articulated concerns about the disposal of hazardous wastes by wealthy
countries into their territories. China has been the place where nearly half the world’s plastic waste has
been sent to go “away”. This ended in January 2018 when China banned the import of scrap plastics and
other materials, which will leave an estimated 111 million metric tons of plastic waste displaced . Recycling programs in

Currently, this next round of waste

the United States and around the world that depend on using other countries’ land for waste have slowed down, shut down, or are stockpiling plastics as new solutions are sought.

colonization is headed for Southeast Asia. Perhaps you've heard that the top five countries responsible
for most marine plastics are China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka. Some of these countries are also the ones receiving
a disproportionate amount of plastic waste from other regions. They also happen to be places where waste systems do not mimic American curb-to-landfill systems. These regions are framed in scientific articles, the media, and policy papers as “mismanaging” their waste. This is a
perpetuation of colonialist mindset, discourses that have long associated some uses of land as civilized and moral and other uses as savage and deficient. As Cole Harris writes in his book Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance, and Reserves in British Columbia, historically, when
local people were not using land "properly," colonizers would come and take it away to use it “better.” In 1876 a white Indian reserve commissioner on Vancouver Island in the region currently known as Canada addressed members of “a Native audience” (Nation unspecified) who were
being moved to reserves that were a fraction of the size of their previous land bases. He explained, “The Land was of no value to you. The trees were of no value to you. The Coal was of no value to you. The white man came he improved the land you can follow his example.” Similar
mindsets still exist today.

Yet, these countries don’t have the infrastructure to keep up with demands of the US.
McCormick 19 – 6/17/19 - “Where does your plastic go?” -

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/17/recycled-plastic-america-global-crisis] Accessed
02/05/24 AARON
What happens to your plastic after you drop it in a recycling bin? According to promotional materials from America’s plastics industry, it is whisked off to a factory where it is seamlessly
transformed into something new. This is not the experience of Nguyễn Thị Hồng Thắm, a 60-year-old Vietnamese mother of seven, living amid piles of grimy American plastic on the
outskirts of Hanoi. Outside her home, the sun beats down on a Cheetos bag; aisle markers from a Walmart store; and a plastic bag from ShopRite, a chain of supermarkets in New Jersey,
bearing a message urging people to recycle it. Nguyễn Thị Hồng Thắm is paid $6.50 a day to sort recycling on the outskirts of Hanoi.Photograph: Bac Pham/The Guardian Tham is paid the
equivalent of $6.50 a day to strip off the non-recyclable elements and sort what remains: translucent plastic in one pile, opaque in another. A Guardian investigation has found that

hundreds of thousands of tons of US plastic are being shipped every year to poorly regulated
developing countries around the globe for the dirty, labor-intensive process of recycling. The consequences for
public health and the environment are grim. A team of Guardian reporters in 11 countries has found: Last year, the equivalent of 68,000 shipping

containers of American plastic recycling were exported from the US to developing countries that
mismanage more than 70% of their own plastic waste. The newest hotspots for handling US plastic recycling are some of the world’s poorest
countries, including Bangladesh, Laos, Ethiopia and Senegal, offering cheap labor and limited environmental regulation. In some places, like Turkey, a surge in foreign waste shipments is
disrupting efforts to handle locally generated plastics. With these nations overwhelmed, thousands of tons of waste plastic are stranded at home in the US, as we reveal in our story later
this week. These failures in the recycling system are adding to a growing sense of crisis around plastic, a wonder material that has enabled everything from toothbrushes to space helmets
but is now found in enormous quantities in the oceans and has even been detected in the human digestive system. Reflecting grave concerns around plastic waste, last month, 187
countries signed a treaty giving nations the power to block the import of contaminated or hard-to-recycle plastic trash. A few countries did not sign. One was the US. A new Guardian
series, United States of Plastic, will scrutinize the plastic crisis engulfing America and the world, publishing several more stories this week and continuing for the rest of 2019.

A ban solves.
FFPAP 23 [Break Free From Plastic Asia Pacific, "Calling Asian countries top plastic polluters is waste
colonialism", 03/03/2023, Break Free From Plastic,
https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/2023/03/03/misleading-graphics-on-ocean-plastic-pollution/
#:~:text=%22Exporting%20plastic%20wastes%20to%20countries,environment%20but%20also
%20human%20health.] // accessed 2/14/24 AARON

"Developed nations have been shifting their responsibility for waste management to under-resourced
nations," said Mageswari Sangaralingam of Consumers' Association of Penang (Malaysia). "Besides
dealing with our own waste, we now have to manage other people's waste which potentially leads to
leakage into the environment. Plastic pollution does not respect borders. We must end waste
colonialism, and stop injustice." "Exporting plastic wastes to countries in Asia is just another form of
colonialism, harming the most vulnerable communities," said Aileen Lucero, National Coordinator of
Ecowaste Coalition (Philippines). "Plastics not only harm the environment but also human health. If we
want to see an end to plastic pollution, governments must act to address plastic pollution at every stage
and cap plastic production. Letting corporations continue its business as usual practices will simply
propagate false solutions to the plastic waste crisis and will not bring us any closer to addressing the
climate crisis and social injustices."

Whats happening now is mass death.

Resource.co 19 – 05/15/19 - “Plastic Pollution Causing Health Crisis in Poorer Countries, Says Report” –

[https://resource.co/article/plastic-pollution-causing-health-crisis-poorer-countries-says-report]
Accessed 02/05/24 by Zayn

plastic waste, is responsible for the death of one person every 30 seconds in
Dumped and burned rubbish, especially

developing countries, according to a new report.

in developing countries, 30
The report highlights some arresting facts, stating that every 30 seconds in the UK, enough plastic is thrown away to fill two double-decker buses – while

double-decker busloads of plastic waste are burned or dumped. It notes that between 400,000 and one
million people every year are dying from illnesses and diseases caused by living near plastic pollution –
that’s up to one person every 30 seconds.
 C3: Microplastics
According to,
Harshit Poddar, Medium, April 13th 2021 “How The Loss Of Phytoplankton Could Lead To Our
Demise” // https://medium.com/climate-conscious/how-the-loss-of-phytoplankton-could-lead-to-our-
demise-8f9c91b937a8 // accessed 1/21/24 AARON
The base of the entire aquatic food chain is the phytoplankton. Essentially what plants do on land, phytoplankton does in the ocean. It is the foundation on which
the entire aquatic life is built. Any threat to this species would ultimately lead to a complete collapse of aquatic life. Unfortunately, the phytoplanktons are dying,
and we are the ones killing them. These microscopic algae have been critical in making life on Earth possible for a number of key reasons. Oxygen Phytoplankton are
responsible for over 50% of all the oxygen in our atmoshpere. These microscopic algae in our oceans are some of the most laborious workers in our
ecosystem. Day and night, they absorb the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and convert it into oxygen through photosynthesis. Food All the food in the ocean is
ultimately produced by phytoplankton. Through photosynthesis, they produce carbohydrates which are in turn consumed by small fishes. These fishes are
then consumed by larger fishes and so on. Kill the phytoplanktons and the oceans will be left with no food. Carbon Sequestration Another important contribution of
the phytoplankton is the fact that they sequester (remove and store) a large amount of atmospheric carbon. This reduces atmospheric carbon content and
thereby mitigates the greenhouse gas effect. Phytoplanktons are resilient enough to survive climate variations. They have done so for thousands of years, through
the ice ages and back, when natural phenomena caused changes in the Earth’s temperature. They have, however, not been able to adapt to the changes being
caused by humans. These changes have happened too fast when compared with natural planetary changes. Phytoplankton has simply not had the time to evolve.
Below you can see why the decline of phytoplankton is directly attributable to a changing climate. Warming of the ocean As the planet heats up, so does the water
in our oceans. According to NASA, a warming ocean reduces the mixing between surface water and deeper nutrient-rich water in the oceans. This reduces the
nutrients available near the surface. Hence, there are lesser nutrients available in the phytoplankton-rich top surface of the water. A warming ocean creates
conditions similar to growing food on barren land, meaning productivity would be extremely low. Ocean Acidification The increased carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere increases the dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean water. This further increases the acidic levels of the ocean. The pH levels of the oceans have

already dropped significantly and a further drop is expected by the 2100s. According to a team of researchers from MIT, this is having multiple negative
impacts on the phytoplankton. Many species are expected to become extinct while some will have to migrate. These migrations are expected to be towards the
poles, so densely populated zones of the tropical oceans will lose a major food source. Increased Salinity Climate change has increased ocean salinity by nearly

4%. While this figure may seem small, it is important to understand the vastness of the oceans. Causing a 4% shift in such a quantity of water would require
significant greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, we have done just that. If total global heating increases to 2–3 degrees Celsius, these figures could rise to
nearly 25%. Saline water is heavier and moves deeper into the ocean. This reduces the nutrients available at the ocean surface, which once again harms the
phytoplankton population. In
half a century, we have managed to kill almost 40% of all phytoplankton in our
oceans, and further warming would only make this worse. If the phytoplankton were to indeed die, it would be the end of almost all marine life on Earth. With
that, a major source of our food would disappear. That, however, is not the only concern. Without them, the capacity of our oceans to serve as carbon sinks will
diminish greatly, which would further broaden the scope and impact of climate change. Not only this, the air around us will lose a lot of oxygen. Consequently, life
on Earth itself would be challenged and humanity’s days would become numbered. Saving the phytoplankton is therefore a significant step in maintaining the
delicate balance of life on Earth. As long as we continue to emit large amounts of carbon, the conditions that are causing the demise of the phytoplankton will
persist. Hence, the only way to save these organisms is to reduce our emissions. Even then, it will take decades for their numbers to increase. Unfortunately, we
cannot save the phytoplankton without stopping climate change, something that we seem all too determined to do nothing about. We are ultimately altering the
basic conditions they need to survive. If they die, in time, so will we.

This will continue.

Oceaneos, 2018 “Plankton Decline” https://www.oceaneos.org/state-of-our-oceans/plankton-decline/#:~:text=A%20global%20rate%20of
%20decline,The%20Earth%27s%20oceans%20are%20warming. // accessed 1/21/24 AARON

Phytoplankton – microscopic organisms that form the foundation of the oceanic food chain – account for approximately half the production of
organic matter on Earth. Through satellite imagery, researchers have established that phytoplankton concentrations have been declining at an
alarming rate since the 1950s. A
combination of ocean transparency measurements and in situ chlorophyll
observations has allowed scientists to estimate the time dependence of phytoplankton biomass at
local, regional and global levels. In eight out of ten ocean regions, declines have been observed. A global rate of decline
of more than one percent of the global median per year is projected. The fluctuations in phytoplankton levels are believed to
closely correlate with climate changes and the ongoing rise in sea surface temperatures. The Earth’s oceans are warming. Scientists have
demonstrated how rising ocean temperatures and carbon dioxide levels can stress marine life. A new model developed by the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate reveals that if global temperature trends continue, by the end of this
century, half the population of phytoplankton that existed in any given ocean at the beginning of the century will have disappeared. “That’s
going to have impacts up the food chain,” says Stephanie Dutkiewicz, principal research scientist at MIT. Tiny phytoplankton, the major food
source for fish and other sea creatures, could perish as temperatures rise. The organisms in the coldest waters are at the greatest risk.
Researchers believe that phytoplankton could evolve to alter their body chemistry or migrate, but such a change could mean that species
higher up the food chain will be unable to feed themselves.

This is largely due to single-use plastics.

NIRANJANA RAJALAKSHMI, Slate, DEC 14, 2022 “When Plankton Gobble Plastic” // https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/plankton-
micro-plastic-kill-fish-pollution-marine-biology.html // AARON

Plastic pollution in oceans has been increasing at an alarming rate over the years. According to the World Wildlife Fund, 88 percent of
marine species have been affected by plastic contamination. People are familiar with seabirds dying from eating cigarette lighters, or
turtles suffocating as a result of mistaking plastic
bags for jellyfish, but there is very little awareness about plastics that harm creatures at a
smaller level, Kirby explains. Ingesting microplastic can even kill plankton that are crucial sources of food to other marine life,
including fish. This is because plankton cannot get a sufficient amount of food into their guts if they’re
already occupied by little shreds of plastic. Plastic is almost ubiquitous in oceans, and can even be found in environments that used
to be considered pristine, ,.mbn,m.says Kirby. “You can even find plastics in plankton samples collected in Antarctica, for example.” Plastic
shreds from clothing are a significant polluter at the micro level. Microplastic can also come from tires, road markings, and personal care
products. Plankton aren’t mistaking microplastics for food, exactly, says Bill Perry, an associate professor of biology at Illinois State University.
They are filter-feeding , during which they extract small pieces of food and particles from the water. In doing so,
they gather up microplastics, too. The damage that microplastics cause is not just confined to microscopic marine organisms like
plankton. In fact, it is more pronounced in species that are located higher in the food chain, explains Perry, and which eat smaller creatures that
have themselves consumed microplastics. In 2020, Perry conducted a study that examined the presence of microplastics in two different fish
species in drinking water reservoirs that belonged to McLean County in Illinois. Perry’s research group collected 96 fish, and they detected
microplastics in all of them. “The fish seemed to be swimming in essentially a soup of microplastics in the reservoirs,” he says. Eating
microplastics, as you might imagine, is not very good for marine animals. Fishes can face problems with growth and reproduction, says
Grace Saba, an associate professor who also researches organismal ecology at Rutgers University. Their guts start to have more and more
plastic and less food, and they don’t have enough energy to put toward growth and reproduction like they would if they weren’t eating
microplastics. The microplastic problem is only going to get worse: A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency projects that the
amount of microplastics in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean will rise by 3.9 times in 2030 as compared to the microplastics level in 2008 in the
region. Once microplastics enter the ocean’s food chain, it’s hard for them to leave. Individual animals may excrete microplastics, but “the thing
about poop in the ocean is that it serves as a food source for marine animals, including plankton and filter feeders,” Saba explains. In this way,
microplastics get continuously recycled. Marine scientists in the future will probably be spotting microplastics in their samples, too.

‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
Thus. We need to ban plastics, as letting plankton continue to die from plastics
will lead to the death of humanity.
Poddar 21 – Harshit Poddar, 2021, Medium: How The Loss Of Phytoplankton Could Lead To Our Demise,
https://medium.com/climate-conscious/how-the-loss-of-phytoplankton-could-lead-to-our-demise-
8f9c91b937a8 JWU 1/16/24

The base of the entire aquatic food chain is the phytoplankton. Essentially what plants do on land,
phytoplankton does in the ocean. It is the foundation on which the entire aquatic life is built. Any
threat to this species would ultimately lead to a complete collapse of aquatic life. Unfortunately, the
phytoplankton are dying, and we are the ones killing them. These microscopic algae have been critical in
making life on Earth possible for a number of key reasons. Oxygen Phytoplankton are responsible for
over 50% of all the oxygen in our atmosphere. These microscopic algae in our oceans are some of the
most laborious workers in our ecosystem. Day and night, they absorb the carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere and convert it into oxygen through photosynthesis. Food All the food in the ocean is
ultimately produced by phytoplankton. Through photosynthesis, they produce carbohydrates which are
in turn consumed by small fishes. These fishes are then consumed by larger fishes and so on. Kill the
phytoplankton and the oceans will be left with no food. Carbon Sequestration Another important
contribution of the phytoplankton is the fact that they sequester (remove and store) a large amount of
atmospheric carbon. This reduces atmospheric carbon content and thereby mitigates the greenhouse
gas effect. If the phytoplankton were to indeed die, it would be the end of almost all marine life on
Earth. With that, a major source of our food would disappear. That, however, is not the only concern.
Without them, the capacity of our oceans to serve as carbon sinks will diminish greatly, which would
further broaden the scope and impact of climate change. Not only this, the air around us will lose a lot
of oxygen. Consequently, life on Earth itself would be challenged and humanity’s days would become
numbered. Saving the phytoplankton is therefore a significant step in maintaining the delicate balance
of life on Earth. As long as we continue to emit large amounts of carbon, the conditions that are causing
the demise of the phytoplankton will persist. Hence, the only way to save these organisms is to reduce
our emissions. Even then, it will take decades for their numbers to increase. Unfortunately, we cannot
save the phytoplankton without stopping climate change, something that we seem all too determined to
do nothing about. We are ultimately altering the basic conditions they need to survive. If they die, in
time, so will we.
 Extra
Single use plastics create microplastics.
Stanley 23 - Morgan Stanley, 2023, National Geographic, Microplastics,
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/microplastics/# JWU 1/15/24

Some of this environmental pollution is from littering, but much is the result of storms,
water runoff, and winds that carry plastic—both intact objects and microplastics—into
our oceans. Single-use plastics—plastic items meant to be used just once and then
discarded, such as a straw—are the primary source of secondary plastics in the
environment. Microplastics have been detected in marine organisms from plankton to
whales, in commercial seafood, and even in drinking water. Alarmingly, standard water
treatment facilities cannot remove all traces of microplastics. To further complicate
matters, microplastics in the ocean can bind with other harmful chemicals before being
ingested by marine organisms.

Poorer countries are especially affected.

McCarthy 23 – 11/07/23 - “Lifetime cost of plastic 10 times higher for low-income countries than
rich ones, revealing crippling inequities in plastics value chain” -

[https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/lifetime-cost-of-plastic-10-times-higher-for-low-
income-countries-than-rich-ones-revealing-crippling-inequities-in-plastics-value-chain] Accessed
02/05/24 by Zayn
New report estimates low-income countries, despite consuming less plastic, incur a total lifetime plastic cost that is 10 times higher than wealthier countries. The structural inequities built into the current plastics value chain not only distribute the burdens of plastic pollution
unequally among countries, the burdens are also disproportionately borne by those least equipped to remedy them, thereby worsening the crisis. WWF calls on all governments to agree on a treaty with harmonized, binding global rules that can remove inequities reinforced and
exacerbated through our current take, make, and waste plastics system. A WWF-commissioned report developed by Dalberg¹ warns that the true cost of plastic on the environment, health and economies can be as much as 10 times higher for low-income countries, even though

that the total lifetime costs of a kilogram (2.2.lbs) of plastic is

they consume almost three times less plastic per-capita, than high-income ones. The report estimates

around $150 in low- and middle-income countries, which is eight times the $19/kilogram (2.2 lbs)
incurred by high-income countries². When comparing just low-income countries and their wealthier
counterparts, the cost differential rises to 10 times with low-income countries hit with costs of $200 a
kilogram. These unequal costs have substantial implications for low- and middle-income countries like
Kenya, where negotiators will converge from November 13-19 for the third negotiations of the global
treaty to end plastic pollution. Six years ago, Kenya [which] took a bold step against plastic pollution
by banning single-use plastic bags. Today, the country continues to struggle with illegal imports of
single-use plastic bags, highlighting the problem’s transboundary nature and the crippling inequities
inherent in the current plastics value chain that put countries like Kenya at a disadvantage no matter
what bold action they take . “Our take, make, waste plastics system is designed in a way that unfairly impacts our planet’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged countries. Instead of resolving the world’s plastic pollution crisis in the most
efficient way, the system shifts the bulk of the costs to those least equipped to manage them, with no accountability placed on those who produce and use the products in the first place,” said Alice Ruhweza, WWF International’s Senior Director of Policy, Influence and Engagement.
“The report signals the urgency of an immediate overhaul of the current plastic system. Business-as-usual could be a death sentence, not only for a growing number of animals but also for many of our world's vulnerable and marginalized communities as a result of increased health
risks including ingestion of harmful, toxic chemicals and increased risk of flooding and disease. The global plastic pollution treaty is our chance to change this by including binding and equitable global rules on production and consumption." The report finds that low- and middle-
income countries bear a disproportionately large burden of the costs associated with plastic pollution as a direct result of three structural inequities that reinforce the current plastic system. The first inequity is that the system places low- and middle-income countries at a
disadvantage in that they have minimal influence on which plastic products are produced and how they are designed and yet are often expected to manage these products once they reach their end-of-life. Product and system design considerations are typically made further

As of 2019, only 9% of plastic waste is being recycled.

upstream in countries with extensive plastic production and by multinational companies headquartered in high-income countries.

Currently, around 60% of global plastic production is for single-use products, which are designed to be
(and so cheaply valued that they can be) thrown away after just one use. The second inequity is that
the rate of plastic production, particularly for single-use plastic, is far outpacing the availability of
technical and financial resources for waste management when it reaches its end-of-life in low- and
middle-income countries. Without reducing plastic production and consumption, low- and middle-
income countries will continue to bear the highest burden of plastic pollution’s direct environmental
and socio-economic impacts. The third inequity is that the system lacks a fair way for holding
countries and companies to account for their action, or inaction, on plastic pollution and its impact on
our health, environment and economy (for example, through mandatory extended producer
responsibility schemes in each of the countries they operate in). With no common obligations across all jurisdictions and companies for supporting a circular, just and non-toxic plastics economy, low- and middle-income countries end up paying the steeper price. Establishing and implementing a UN global plastic pollution treaty based on harmonized and binding global rules can help us create a fairer system that empowers low- and middle-income countries and prioritizes the most

effective and efficient solutions. An example of such a rule would be regulating the most high-risk plastic products, polymers and chemicals - those that can cause the most harm or are most likely to cause pollution - so that we can lessen the strain on countries, especially those with fewer resources, in managing plastic waste. Similarly, the opportunity to create global product design rules can help to ensure that products are designed to be reused and/or recycled regardless of which country they are produced or used in. In November, countries will join the third of five negotiating sessions on a global treaty to end plastic pollution3. WWF calls on all governments to agree on a treaty that includes: Banning, phasing out or phasing down high-risk and avoidable plastic products, polymers and chemicals of concern. Global requirements for product design and systems that can secure a safe and non-toxic circular economy, which prioritizes reuse and improvements in recycling. Robust measures for supporting considered and effective implementation that includes sufficient financial support and alignment of public and
private financial flows, particularly for low- and middle-income countries. "Ahead of the next round of negotiations, this report underscores the need for countries to choose a path forward that is guided by science and calls for global rules and requirements to curb plastic production and consumption. It is not economically, socially or environmentally sustainable to prioritize the production of single-use plastic products," said Erin Simon, Vice President & Head of Plastic Waste and Business, WWF-US. "By elevating the voices of those most impacted by plastic pollution, we will get closer to a treaty that ensures a more equitable future. Securing a truly sustainable, healthy future for humans and our planet is too important to leave up to voluntary action. Without a just transition to an equitable plastics value chain, communities in the US and around the world will continue to pay the price of inaction." ENDS 1. How is the “true cost” of plastic calculated: The ‘true cost’ of plastic is based on a model devised by experts at WWF and Dalberg that considers the minimum lifetime cost of both upstream production and
downstream waste management, and compares these costs between high, middle and low-income countries as of data from 2019. While many of the costs cannot be quantified, reflecting the gaps in available data and understanding of the full impact of plastic pollution, it does include quantifiable costs such as the cost of producing virgin plastic, greenhouse gas emission costs, costs on ecosystem services of marine ecosystems and direct waste management costs. Though presented as ‘monetary costs’ of one kilo of plastic, it’s important to note that countries do not actually pay these costs, the costs are used as an indication of the disproportionate burdens plastic poses on countries with different national incomes. The multiplier of eight and 10 are predominantly linked to the mismanagement of plastic waste and costs to the marine environments. Wealthier countries for example often displace and reduce their waste management costs by exporting their plastic waste to lower-income countries to process. The total lifetime cost for one kilogram block of plastic waste in a high-income country for example, is US$19,
compared to eight times that for middle and lower-income countries at an average of US$150, and 10 times that for lower-income countries, at US$200. When we compare costs across lifetime marine ecosystem services, and how plastic leakage impacts these, it yields a cost of US$149 for low and middle-income countries compared to US$17 for high-income countries. Even still, the true impact borne by low and middle-income countries from plastic pollution is likely to be far greater. The third session of the UN’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop a globally binding treaty on plastic pollution (INC-3) will run from 13-19 November in Nairobi, Kenya. For a briefing note on what to expect from INC-3, and what WWF would like to see the negotiations accomplish, click here. For an explainer on the Zero Draft, the first version of the treaty text that will form the basis of the upcoming negotiations, click here. For WWF’s Global Plastic Navigator, a platform for tracking countries’ positions on the inclusion of global bans and phase-out requirements for certain plastic categories of concern in the global treaty
to end plastic pollution, click here. From the report - selected case studies by region: Latin America Brazil: Marine and terrestrial impacts of plastic pollution • More than 10 million tonnes of plastic enter the Brazilian domestic market each year. • In addition, Brazil imports 12,000 tonnes of plastic waste each year, a rate that grows by 7% annually. As waste imports increase, so does the amount of waste that is being mismanaged. If current trends continue, Brazil could become the 4th largest generator of mismanaged plastic waste. • The growing rate of plastic pollution in Brazil results from system gaps, in particular limited infrastructure and capacity for waste collection and recycling. Only 22% of cities in Brazil collect waste for recycling • Brazil’s precious coastal ecosystems, wildlife and communities bear the greatest brunt. And pollution is now threatening the Amazon Basin. Africa Kenya: Efforts to reduce pollution hampered by absence of global regulation • Kenya banned single-use plastic bags in 2017 in a bold step to reduce plastic pollution, but a lack of similar rules in neighboring countries has resulted in plastic
bags piling up in Kenya. • Plastic bags continue to pollute Kenya through porous borders which give way to the smuggling of the bags in shipments of plastic materials exempt from the ban, like packaging products. • Six years after the ban, plastic bags are piling up in Kenya’s Dadach Boshe dump. Locals have reported the deaths of goats from swollen stomachs and fatal health issues caused by the ingestion of plastic bags. Asia Pacific Fiji: Structural barriers in waste management • Tourists, who arrive in the small island state of Fiji, generate seven times more plastic waste per person per day than Fiji’s residents. • Despite developing environmental legislation and strategies for waste management, Fiji’s capacity constraints (small economic scale and workforce) has meant that only one of its eight disposal sites satisfy current environmental standards, resulting in a plastic leakage rate of 25%, or nearly 4,000 tonnes of plastic pollution each year, equivalent to filling 80 swimming pools with 500ml plastic bottles. • In addition, Fiji’s remote location, limited scale and a lack of investment mean that Fiji has struggled to
establish viable recycling markets and is seeing an increased reliance on burning its waste or filling up its landfills.

ban empirically works

Arellano 21 - Lizu Garcia Ramirez de Arellano, 2021, Pitt ELI: Time to Get
Rid of Single Use Plastic Bags, https://www.eli.pitt.edu/time-get-rid-single-use-plastic-
bags#:~:text=This%20shows%20both%20the%20serious,effect%20in%20reducing%20those
%20consequences. JWU 1/16/24

Some advocates of the plastics industry think that the ban on plastic bags would not
have a visible effect because the garbage caused by plastic bags is very little compared
to all garbage (O’Mara, 2017). However, the California Coastal Commission said that
plastic bags are triggering a problem in the oceans because they decompose into
smaller pieces of plastic. This means they become more harmful to marine life because
these little poison balls called microplastics are ingested by them (O’Mara, 2017). As an
example of how plastic bags end up in the ocean, in the state of California, it was
reported in 2010 that during an annual beach cleanup 65,000 single-use plastic bags
were found strewn all over the water (Phillipe, 2020). In that same study, it is also said
that thanks to the ban on single-use plastic bags in 2007 that the state imposed, there was a
decrease of 72% bags on [in] the water. This shows both the serious consequences that
single-use plastic bags have because they are spreading rapidly through the oceans as
[of] microplastics, and that banning them can actually have a positive effect in reducing those
consequences.
 Extensions
innovation analytics

1. We would say in the future innovation allows companies to improve upon their designs. So,
although it might be bad at first, in the long term fruitful innovation will occur.

2. The reason data shows innovation in the form of substitutes will be bad is because companies
have no incentive to innovate right now. If we ban single use plastics, then companies will have
huge amounts of incentive to innovate and innovate well.

We must ban single use plastics for 3 reasons.

Our first argument was innovation. In an analysis by Sarah George of 8,200 documents describing
plastic companies’ data, she found that 83% mentioned that they did not care about the environmental
consequences of their actions. A ban is needed, as it increases innovation. This was seen as our Thaman
23 evidence is key in telling you that innovation tripled under the UK ban. This innovation was primarily
in the form of biodegradable alternatives to plastic. Yet, this innovation will expand into more
alternatives, creating 700,000 jobs and improving the livelihoods of millions. That was our United
Nations Environmental Program evidence.

Our second argument was plastic colonialism. Hiroko Tabuchi and Micheal Corkery document the
division in the current world. Over 180 nations placed limitations on export of plastics from richer
countries to smaller ones. The issue is that the United States is quite frankly doing the opposite. As
proven by Erin Mccormick, last year alone the US sent over 68,000 shipping containers of plastic from
the US to developing countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia. This is terrible because these countries
don’t have the infrastructure to deal with this, as they mismanage more than 70% of this waste. An aff
ballot is imperative, 1 person dies every 30 seconds due to the US perpetuating plastic colonialism.

Our third argument was microplastics. Harshit Poddar led a study evaluating phytoplankton levels on
the Earth. Unfortunately, he found that humans have managed to kill over 40% of phytoplankton in our
oceans. This is heavily due to single use plastics, as researcher Niranjana Rajalakshmi finds that
phytoplankton filter feed, and as a result of pollution, they ingest high amounts of plastic. which kills
them. We cannot redeem ourselves from past mistakes, the only solution is looking to the future.
Banning plastics is the first step of the solution, as the only way to solve this issue as Claire Asher,
scientific researcher at the BBC, states microplastics are impossible to remove with the current
technology we have, so preventing pollution in the first place is a priority. Our Harshit Poddar evidence
affirms that an action is needed. Phytoplankton will continue to die without action. This is horrible as
plankton are responsible for over 50% of oxygen in the atmosphere, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions,
and are ultimately responsible for all ocean life.