Plastics Misinformation

Billionaires Funding Fiction

A reporter contacted me and said he felt something fishy was going on because he noticed how well-coordinated and persistent the attacks on plastic are. He asked me to keep my eyes open and alert him if I got any clues or insights into who was funding the effort. Imagine my surprise when a friend sent me a link to an article where the billionaire Michael Bloomberg openly declared that he funds the nonprofits Beyond Coal, Beyond Carbon, Beyond Petrochemicals, and now also Beyond Plastics.

Bloomberg takes on the plastics industry

Ironically, Michael Bloomberg’s anti-plastic effort goes against his own goals. He claims to be against plastics because he believes they consume fossil fuel and increase greenhouse gas when, in fact, as we have seen, science proves the exact opposite. Plastics reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas. This is what happens when powerful people are hoodwinked by the popular narrative and do not do their due diligence by checking the evidence. He is spending a fortune to campaign against his own stated targets. I wish I had that kind of money.

When I found out that it was Michael Bloomberg helping to fund the anti-plastics lobby, I wrote to the reporter, but interest in investigating was not forthcoming, perhaps because of the news organisation he works for. Maybe you can guess which one it is. The reporter did say that he would take a look at the CIEL and Safe Piping Matters, two organisations that raised his suspicions. What qualifies as suspicious? Simple — organisations that make claims that go against what the peer-reviewed evidence says.

When I was at INC-4 in Ottawa, I was fortunate to meet H. Fisk Johnson, CEO and Chairman of the Board at SC Johnson. We chatted, and he seemed to genuinely care about the environment, especially the oceans. I explained to him that the science shows vastly less ocean plastic than originally guessed by Jambeck and offered to show him the evidence. He said he was very interested and that his press team would contact me for a recorded video interview. Unfortunately, that never happened, and to this day, he is out there campaigning for policies that make matters worse — all because he didn’t check the facts.

The lunacy is not limited to the USA. In Australia, a husband and wife who made their billions in the iron and steel industry founded the Minderoo Foundation in the name of philanthropy.

That sounds virtuous until you read the output from Minderoo, which includes unjust attacks against plastics. The science clearly shows that their iron and steel industry creates vastly more environmental impact than plastics do. Some say that the best defence is offence, so it could be handy to have your own organisation to point the finger elsewhere.

Minderoo’s anti-plastics reports raised such concerns regarding accuracy that I reported it to their “Integrity Hotline” via the Deloitte whistleblower link they provide. Do you think they replied or acted? One would imagine that an organisation genuinely interested in aiding humanity would have engaged in a conversation.

Many NGOs are lying to us, and the media are only too glad to spread their message of doom because bad news sells. “What bleeds leads,” as they say in the press.

NGO Credibility Test

How can we tell which NGOs lack credibility? There are some signs to watch out for.

Firstly, NGOs where it has been announced that they are funded to attack plastics, rather than to protect the environment or respect the facts. Beyond Plastics is an obvious example. Organisations that state their desired outcome, no matter what the evidence is, are not to be trusted.

Also, look at their people. Is it a list of respected scientists or a bunch of marketing people and lobbyists? That could be a sign that they are not so interested in checking facts and are more motivated to spread some message they have been asked to share.

Compare what they say to what science says. Do they match? If an organisation consistently makes statements that are false, then that is a definite red flag.

Are they genuine enough to retract a statement if it is shown to be erroneous?

If not, then they lack integrity and cannot be trusted. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation made the infamous “More Plastic than Fish in the Ocean by 2050” statement, which has been debunked by the BBC, the CBC, and my own investigation. Did they act with honour and publish a retraction, or did they stick with the claim that suits their agenda? I have seen no retraction — have you?

The WWF told us all that we eat a credit card of plastic a week, even though that was found to be wrong, with the real number being tens of thousands of years. Did they retract their statement or are they still collecting donations based on that claim? I just checked their website, and the misinformation is still there next to a “donate” button. According to Forbes, the WWF’s revenue was over $500 m. People think of NGOs as virtuous warriors that stand up to big business, but the numbers reveal they are big business, too.

Do they only show one side of the equation?

Are they living their life based on what they claim they believe or are they typing their anti-plastics mantra on a plastic keyboard, wearing polyester clothes and cellulose acetate glasses? That is a sign that they are not genuine.

A person genuinely against plastic would be in a cave on a wooden bench without electricity, a computer, internet, or a cell phone, not being paid to wage a smear campaign against the greenest choice we have. The sooner they are exposed as charlatans, the better.

When applying these simple criteria, we can make a list of some organisations with suspiciously low credibility. They include:

• Greenpeace
• WWF — World Wildlife Fund
• Sierra Club
• UNEP — United Nations Environment Programme
• WEF — World Economic Forum
• Beyond Plastics
• Break Free From Plastic
• Plastic Soup Foundation
• Ellen MacArthur Foundation
• Plastic Pollution Coalition
• Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty
• Minderoo
• A Plastic Planet
• Chatham House
• SourceMaterial
• Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA)
• Safe Piping Matters
• CIEL — Center for International Environmental Law

Many assume that the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) is a reliable source of information, but when you compare their statements to the science, we see repeated and serious divergence. That includes them supporting the debunked “more plastic than fish by 2050” and other false claims about plastics related to fossil fuel and greenhouse gases. Another example is the list of 11,646 chemicals they presented that are allegedly present in plastics but that are not registered in any chemical toxicological inventory.

“UNEP’s Chemicals in Plastics Report (2023) sought to document the reportedly ‘often-overlooked chemical-related issues of plastic pollution, particularly their adverse impacts on human health and the environment as well as on resource efficiency and circularity’. The UNEP report was followed in March 2024 by the ‘PlastChem’ report, published with funding support from Norway. To highlight the abundance of information that already exists for these chemicals, ICCA compared and validated the 13,000+ chemicals identified in UNEP’s Chemicals in Plastics Report to information available from global chemical inventories and toxicology information.”

That headline spread quickly, but scientists checked and found that over 88% of those chemicals were registered and most with sufficient information to confirm that they are safe. So, once more UNEP made anti-plastics claims that turned out to be nowhere close to accurate.

“ICCA’s analysis reveals that 88.3% (11,646) of UNEP’s catalogue of 13,186 chemicals are already referenced and indexed on one or more chemical inventory.”

Plastics Additives report Fact Sheet, The Global Partners for Plastics Circularity, 2024

Every industry has room for improvement, but grossly misleading the public is deeply unhelpful. The very organisations that we turn to for reliable advice have been weaponised against us. One must realise that no politically driven organisation can be expected to serve anything but their own interests. They have virtually unlimited funds and resources and thus no plausible excuse for getting the facts wrong.

UNEP also orchestrated the INC-1, INC-2, INC-3, INC-4, and INC-5 events around the world in which thousands of people flew to discuss a plastics “emergency” that NGOs invented. I calculated that the greenhouse gas emissions created from just one of those events were equivalent to 40 million PET bottles, so their events have a vast impact.

Speaking of events, people always talk about cutlery and drink containers, but a recent study confirmed what I just alluded to about events. The travel to and from the event dominates impact, not plastic knives and forks or bottles.

SPC Impact 2024 Sustainability Report

The Media

The media would do well to take their job more seriously. Rather than parroting salacious nonsense, do some real investigating and break a real story, such as the one about the environmental NGOs, who have sold out and now peddle fiction for donations. That is a huge, important story, but in 5 years, I have not found one reporter who will cover it.

They should also read The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking, in which a famous scientist guides us through the process of deciding what is true and what is not. That would help them to do their job better.

Over the last 5 years, I have written to many journalists and reporters, providing feedback supported by strong, peer-reviewed scientific evidence. The fraction of reporters who respond to facts is worryingly low. About 10% of the time, they bother to look at facts sent to them by a respected independent scientist. One time, I posted an appeal on LinkedIn asking for one true professional reporter, the kind who cares about evidence, to contact me. That post got thousands of views, but not one called me.

I found one famous investigative reporter who had won all kinds of awards. He promised to cover the story of the corrupt NGOs spreading misinformation about plastic materials for profit. He asked me to remind him, and I did once every 6 months for 2.5 years. Eventually, he showed up with a camera guy, shot hours of footage, then never aired it. And that is the state of “journalism” today.

Corporations

Household name companies like Google and Amazon have announced their plan to move from plastic to paper envelopes even though every life cycle study found that this increases GHG, fossil fuel use, and waste.

Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment E-Commerce Mailer Packaging Case Study, Flexible Packaging Association

These companies may regret these virtue-signalling choices, assumedly designed to please their customers when those same customers realise they have been misled by the companies they trusted. In my experience, publicly traded companies often bow to such pressure to maximise shareholder profit, while privately held companies are more likely to check the facts and then do what is right, rather than what is easy. That is just my observation over recent years.

Plastics Industry

The industry is partly to blame for letting lies go unchallenged year after year. It seems that they hoped the false accusations would go away or that their trade associations would step up and present the facts. Neither one has happened, so now we are years on, and everyone has been brainwashed with falsehoods. That is a real problem because it is much harder to change someone’s mind once it is made up.

Even today, the efforts are too little, too late. I have been dismayed to see that not only are some major trade associations not showing the facts, but they have not even looked for them. Instead, they message and email me begging for help. They have had millions of dollars a year to rise to the challenge and have failed. Some of the smaller trade associations have done a much better job, but they have limited resources at their disposal.

The Public

The public is partly to blame as well. They form strong opinions on no or bad evidence, even evidence they know is not to be trusted. They also enjoy virtue-signalling and obsessing over bags and straws because they don’t want to make any sacrifice that would really help the environment and future generations.

Also, the public prefers natural products and sees plastic as synthetic. They are right that plastic is synthetic, but concrete is synthetic and so is steel. We think of paper as natural, but it is made using lots of chemicals and synthetic materials. Even wool and cotton require chemical processing and modification, such that life cycle studies find that polyester causes less impact than either cotton or wool.

Our tendency for anything that looks natural to be considered safe and good is deep within us, in our “gut,” but it is a faulty way of making choices. Rattlesnake poison is natural, but that doesn’t mean we should drink it.

From the public’s perspective, cheap implies inferior quality and bad. So, while plastic is the least expensive and least impact-creating option for packaging, our perception of it is no doubt tainted because we throw it away every day after unwrapping whatever product it was protecting. I call it packaging amnesia. One minute we are elated that our precious cell phone or computer arrived undamaged, protected by packaging. Then, 30 seconds later, we stare at that same packaging and wonder why there’s so much waste. People need to be made aware that the net effect of packaging is positive for the environment.

Many people are too busy pretending to be good. Taking a paper bag or straw is like giving a dollar to a homeless person on the street. It makes us look good and feel good, but we know it does not really help and may even make things worse. This virtue-signalling is getting in the way of progress.

Plastiphobia Diagnosis

People are easily misled and reluctant to change their minds, no matter what evidence is presented. They either find an excuse not to look or ignore the evidence. Over tens of thousands of online interactions, I have seen this behaviour and the symptoms of plastiphobia again and again.

A person says that plastics are bad, but when you offer them a one-page summary of evidence, they will not even look at it. That means that they do not actually care about the environment.

They say that the study you showed is too old, so they can discount it. That argument makes no sense because science is valid until disproven. An experiment done a hundred years ago should give the same result today. They are just looking for a way to cling to their prejudice against plastics.

They say that the people cannot be trusted because they work for the plastics industry. That is an especially bizarre line of illogic for several reasons:

• It would imply that the only people who really understand the topic may not provide input. I wonder if when these same people are sick, they get a diagnosis from a medical professional, aka a doctor, or do they ask their car mechanic or hairdresser for their insights?
• The evidence is not my own scientific studies, anyway. Instead, I cite independent peer-reviewed science, so it is not my opinion that is in question.
• They claim that the person showing hundreds of peer-reviewed studies is “biased” when a person who has not read the science cannot possibly judge that.
• They accuse the person who cites hundreds of peer-reviewed studies of “cherry-picking” when they themselves have presented no evidence at all.
• They change the topic repeatedly, every time one of their misguided opinions based on internet myths is disproven.
• They say they are against single-use plastic but are not concerned at all about the zero-use spam that comes through our letterboxes every day and directly into the trash. They don’t care about that because it’s paper, and in their mind, it is good and natural, even though it is neither.

It is sad to see just how far people will go to cling to their plastiphobia, but it is somewhat understandable. Consider arachnophobia, for example. It would be hard or impossible to convince someone to stop fearing spiders.

It may help if people were to acknowledge their bias against plastics, as a first step in fighting their plastiphobia.

Scientists & Policy

A survey found that trust in scientists is relatively high. Even so, only 50% of respondents thought scientists should be actively involved in policymaking, with the rest feeling that it is better if scientists deliver facts for others to turn into policies.

Tyson & B. Kennedy, Public Trust in Scientists and Views on Their Role in Policymaking, Pew Research Center, 2024

This gives some reason for hope. Perhaps we can present credible evidence from scientists to make some people see the light. Although, even here, the anti-plastics campaign is one step ahead, as they have their own organisations of so-called “scientists” who make bold proclamations alleging that plastic materials are a threat. These appear to be sham organisations because their “scientists” make claims counter to what the peer-reviewed science tells us.

Also, the idea that our politicians will gather evidence and then do what is best for us does not have a good track record.

Vaccination against Misinformation

The spread of misinformation has now been recognised as a real danger and even a threat to democracy.

“Concerns about misinformation are widely held, with a recent UN survey suggesting that 85% of people worldwide are worried about it.”

S. van der Linden & D. R. Grimes, Misinformation really does spread like a virus, suggest mathematical models drawn from epidemiology, The Conversation, November 5^th, 2024

The book Foolproof: Why We Fall for Misinformation and How to Build Immunity by Sander van der Linden is an excellent resource if you want to protect yourself against misinformation. It turns out that misinformation spreads like a virus; thus, the same mathematical models used in virology can be applied to combat it. It has been found that inoculation, or “prebunking” as they call it in the book, is effective at boosting our defences to prevent infection and the spread of misinformation to others. We need to teach our children how to defend themselves, and this should become a vital part of the school curriculum. Nowadays, we have information overload, and discerning fact from fiction will be a powerful tool and a competitive edge for those who know how.

Psychology of Plastic

At the end of my keynote talks, when people have seen convincing evidence that plastics are not to blame, one of the most common questions I get is: “Why do people dislike plastic then?” I’m not a psychologist and I could not find a scientific study, so I asked ChatGPT 4. My hopes were not high, but the answer made a lot of sense.

“What are the psychological reasons for people disliking plastic materials?

ChatGPT’s reply:

The psychological reasons behind people’s dislike of plastic materials are rooted in a combination of aesthetics, cultural narratives, and cognitive biases. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Perceived Unnaturalness

• Artificial Appearance: Plastics are often seen as unnatural due to their synthetic origins and their glossy or artificial textures, which contrast with organic materials like wood, metal, or glass.
• Cultural Associations: Natural materials are culturally linked to sustainability, craftsmanship, and authenticity, whereas plastics are associated with mass production and disposability.

2. Durability Paradox

• Too Permanent Yet Disposable: Plastics’ durability makes them environmentally problematic when discarded, yet their use in single-use items creates cognitive dissonance. This paradox triggers a sense of guilt and frustration.
• Immutability of Waste: The idea that plastics “last forever” in the environment amplifies fear and resentment, even when this perception is scientifically overstated.

3. Negative Symbolism

• Mass Production and Overconsumption: Plastics are seen as a symbol of consumerism, cheapness, and the throwaway culture.
• Pollution Iconography: Media often show plastics as the primary cause of pollution, particularly in oceans. These images evoke strong emotions, like anger and sadness, which are projected onto the material itself.

4. Aesthetic Preferences

• Lack of Warmth: Plastics often lack the tactile and visual appeal of materials like wood or stone, which are associated with warmth, elegance, and tradition.
• Perception of Fragility: Lightweight plastics can feel less substantial or “cheap,” reducing their perceived value compared to heavier, denser materials.

5. Media and Misinformation

• Emotional Framing: Headlines and visuals focus on dramatic narratives about plastics (e.g., harm to wildlife), which stick in people’s minds due to the availability heuristic—people judge the severity of an issue based on memorable examples.
• Confirmation Bias: Once individuals internalise negative beliefs about plastics, they unconsciously seek information that reinforces these beliefs, ignoring contradictory evidence.

6. Moral Judgments

• “Purity” and “Naturalness”: In psychological terms, plastics violate notions of moral “purity” by being synthetic and seemingly disconnected from the natural world.
• Eco-Guilt: People internalise narratives that their use of plastics is personally contributing to environmental destruction, creating an emotional aversion.

7. Misplaced Blame

• Simplification of Complex Issues: Plastics become a scapegoat for broader environmental concerns, as they are visible and tangible compared to abstract contributors like fossil fuel extraction or inefficient waste management systems.
• Focus on Material, Not Behavior: It’s easier to blame plastics than to address systemic issues or individual habits, like littering or overconsumption.

8. Bandwagon Effect

• Social Norms: Dislike for plastics can be amplified by social norms and peer influence. People are more likely to align with anti-plastic sentiments if these are popular or trendy within their communities.

9. Legacy of Past Innovations

• Broken Promises of Plastic: Plastics were once marketed as miraculous materials that would solve many problems, but their widespread misuse has led to disillusionment. This broken promise fosters resentment.

End quote.

Understanding these psychological drivers can help frame more effective communication and education strategies that address misconceptions and guide people toward sustainable behaviours without demonising plastics. Considering these factors, it makes sense why it has been so easy for interested parties to turn us against our greenest option, and this gives us clues about how we might fight back against the ongoing smear campaign. Hopefully, the evidence discussed in this book goes a long way to refuting those perceptions about plastic.

The Positives of Plastic

Readers of The Plastics Paradox book and people who follow me online will know that I avoid saying anything positive about plastic. Books usually dedicate a chapter to that topic, but I have avoided the subject for various reasons. One reason is that it feels cheap to me. Often, I see plastics people say, “Look at the benefits,” and it sounds to me like a desperate attempt to distract people from talking about the real issues that we face. A huge plastics industry association was in front of the US Congress to testify, and instead of presenting actual evidence, they too relied on flimsy arguments such as plastic has many benefits. Another one they tried was that the plastics industry employs many people, so please leave us alone. When I heard that argument, I couldn’t help thinking to myself, “Drugs and prostitution employ a lot of people too, but that doesn’t make them a great idea.”

So, after 5 years of avoiding this topic, what changed? Well, a university professor who uses The Plastics Paradox to teach his students asked me to add something on the benefits of plastic. I asked why, and he said that if I wanted to be truly balanced, then it would only be fair to do so. I realised that he was right. After all, the paradox of plastics is that we’re told that they are our greatest enemy and our best friend at the same time. To answer the paradox and work out whether plastics are a force for good or evil, we are duty-bound to look at both sides of the equation.

A major problem when it comes to plastic use is that we are not really that aware of the implications. There is an almost limitless list of items that are better and cheaper because of plastic materials spanning packaging, construction, automotive, electrical, healthcare, consumer goods, textiles, aerospace, defence, and agriculture.

While the layperson is likely to think of things like hair dryers, toothbrushes, and packaging, others will also think of medical equipment, and indeed, I have even seen some articles written by former plastiphobes who had an epiphany when plastics saved their life or the life of a loved one. Defibrillators, MRI machines, X-rays, EKGs, and all the other gear that has helped to extend our lifespan would not be possible without plastics.

But it goes way deeper than that. Modern civilisation would end overnight without plastics and so would the long-term future of humanity. That sounds a little melodramatic, but allow me to explain.

I asked ChatGPT 4 the following question:

What would happen to the electricity supply if all the plastic insulation for wires was gone?

Its reply:

“The absence of plastic insulation for electrical wires would lead to a near-total collapse of modern electricity-dependent systems, posing severe safety risks and causing unprecedented economic and societal disruption. Immediate adaptation would be nearly impossible, highlighting the critical role plastic insulation plays in modern infrastructure.”

Building a rocket ship and escaping the planet without plastics would also be impossible for us. As that is our only long-term strategy for the survival of the human species, it might be good for people to reflect upon the sagacity of demonising and eliminating plastics. The phrase “cut off your nose to spite your face” springs to mind.

Even the most avid anti-plastics protester has no interest in living the life they advocate for others. For example, they type furiously on a plastic keyboard, wiggling a plastic mouse, all to tell us how plastic is the work of the devil and must be eradicated.

If these people were genuinely against plastics, as they claim to be, then they would turn off the electricity to their house, throw away their computer and cell phone, and then sit in the dark to ponder the wisdom of their beliefs. At least then, we wouldn’t have to listen to their nonsense anymore unless they started protesting against plastic using smoke signals and carrier pigeons! I hope they do just that and give us all a laugh.

Sometimes, when some anti-plastics nut goes too far, I tell them that if they are truly so anti-plastic, then next time they have a serious illness, be sure to mention that you want to be treated entirely without plastics. That would likely be their last decision and a win for Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Summary

The evidence could not be clearer — comparing vast amounts of peer-reviewed science and the story from NGOs highlights an alarming mismatch between the two. The NGOs have given us the wrong advice in every instance, and the probability of that happening by chance is zero because the scientific evidence can be found in seconds by anyone.

I can only come up with three explanations for the fact that so-called “environmental” groups are giving us advice that dramatically intensifies harm to the environment.

• Stupidity: This is statistically impossible because while any one individual may have a low IQ, NGOs have many thousands of employees, and they cannot all be morons.
• Incompetence: But these organisations manage huge campaigns that bring in billions of dollars in donations, so they cannot be called incompetent.
• Corruption: This is what the former President of Greenpeace stated, and it appears to be the only explanation that fits the evidence.

That would mean that the public and our governments are being advised by corrupt entities that have abandoned the environment in favour of slick marketing and greed. Participants at the UNEP’s INC-4 event in Ottawa watched in amazement and suspicion as the NGO attendees arrived in a fleet of fancy black Escalade cars. I tried to talk to the WWF people about the scientific evidence, but they were not interested. Now, why would that be?

My comment on a LinkedIn post from A Plastic Planet was:

“This person appears to enjoy saying the opposite of what helps the environment.”

That is another organisation that consistently spouts counterfactual nonsense with no disclosure about who pays them to do it.

Break Free From Plastic likes to make silly claims online, and whenever I see them, I think to myself, “Break free from the 0.5% of material that usually causes the least impact? Why?” I asked them that question, but they had no reply.