# data[].attributes.body
Pollution is a widespread issue in our world. To solve the issue we have to start somewhere and I personally think that plastic pollution is something that has a pretty simple solution. Plastics are harmful to wildlife and can be mostly found damaging the ocean waters and life. Our oceans are crucial to human life and therefore we need to collectively, as a society, work to clean up the plastic and become more sustainable.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should there be regulations on plastic production and distribution in order to protect oceans?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should there be regulations on plastic production and distribution in order to protect oceans?

# data[].attributes.body
There are two main opposing viewpoints when answering this question. They are mostly divisible by political views because left leaning individuals are more environmentally conscious and want to correct the human error causing pollution, however right leaning individuals believe environmental damage has occured over time and the government should not be regulating resources humans use like plastic. I personally support the side that is fighting for plastic distribution regulation because I agree that humans are at fault for the damage and we need to find a solution before the damage irreversible.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Legislative Policy that Impacts this Issue

# data[].attributes.subject
The Legislative Policy that Impacts this Issue

# data[].attributes.body
This legislative policy was introduced by representative Thomas Suozzi and the bill would create a tax on single use plastic in hopes to reduce waste and incentivize businesses and society to seek out more sustainable options. The tax would start at 10 cents per pound in 2022 and then by 2024 the tax would increase to 20 cents per pound and the money collected from the tax would go to a new fund to pay for plastic waste reduction as well as recycling strategies. For non single-use plastics that are used for medical and personal hygiene products, the businesses would receive a rebate and be reimbursed for the taxes paid on those products. This impacts my issue because single use plastics, such as plastic straws, bags, and utensils, are one of the biggest contributors to plastic pollution in the oceans. This tax is attempting to decrease single use plastic which would overall decrease plastic in the oceans.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the viewpoints on this issue is that the government should set regulations on plastic to assist in decreasing plastic pollution in oceans because it is an urgent issue.

Evidence #1:
A pro of banning water bottles that was stated in an article was “a nationwide ban on bottled water would lead to an estimated 68 billion fewer plastic water bottles being manufactured, purchased, used, and discarded”.  If the government bans bottled water it would lead to a large decrease in manufactured/distributed plastic. This supports the want for government regulation because it expresses the significant effect that would result from the ban, and without the government it would be close to impossible to achieve. (source)

Evidence #2:
Another article about straw bans states, “Straw bans aren’t going to save the ocean, but they could jump-start much-needed conversations about the level of non-biodegradable trash in it”. This person recognizes that banning plastic straws is not going to single handedly end plastic pollution and save the oceans, but it is a simple way to start decreasing plastic and encouraging people to find more sustainable options. This supports the government regulating plastic because they support straw bans being more widespread from the government’s assistance in order to jumpstart more conversations about saving the oceans and eventually leading to more significant regulations. (source)

Evidence #3:
“Plastic is environmentally damaging across all stages of its life cycle: Its creation involves the use of use a number of hazardous chemicals—including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene, carcinogens—that then end up in air and water supplies, emitting planet-warming gasses along the way.” Also, “Last year, microplastics were located in the placentas of unborn human babies for the first time.”

This evidence illustrates support for government regulation because of all the damage caused to the environment from plastic pollution. This is left-leaning because they believe that human error is the cause of the damage and it is our responsibility to clean it up and make changes. (source)

Evidence #4:
Clothing has microfibers which are classified as microplastics which are making their way into the oceans and causing damage; “‘It simply illustrates just how contaminated our planet has become with synthetic polymers,’ says Peter Ross, an ocean pollution scientist and marine pollution adviser at Ocean Wise Conservation Association, a conservation NGO, and lead author on a new paper in Nature Communications describing the findings”. Also stated in this article, “But we as consumers can demand that brands abandon fast fashion—cheaply made synthetic clothing that easily shreds into microfibers. Governments can also legislate that washing machine manufacturers add fiber-trapping filters to their products”. This evidence demonstrates concern for ocean pollution that is specifically coming from clothing and laundry. Clearly, this article supports government regulation because they give solutions for the problem and state that governments can regulate this and that we should be demanding companies change. (source)

# data[].attributes.body
The opposite side of advocating regulation is the position in which people believe the government should not set regulations on plastic because the pollution in the ocean is not human error but happened over time and it is not an urgent issue.

Evidence #1: The pro/con article states that "one blogger said, ‘everyone tells me that I’m wasting away money and harming the environment, but if it weren’t for bottled water I honestly wouldn’t drink any water at all… My personal choice is just not tap. I don’t like it.’” This blogger is against the ban on water bottles because they do not believe it is a big deal if they waste money or harm the government since it is the only way they drink water. (source)

Evidence #2: When it comes to the plastic straw ban, an individual's opinion was "'As I've written many times in the past, straw bans are a useless environmental measure. San Francisco's is no exception. The United States is responsible for less than one percent of the world's plastic marine waste, and straws make up a tinier portion of this still. The best way to cut back on plastic pollution in the oceans is to improve waste management systems in China and other parts of the developing world, not to tinker with individuals' consumption habits in the States.'" Government regulation is not supported through this evidence because they believe that the U.S. is not responsible for a lot of the plastic so they don’t need regulations. This demonstrates a political bias because it is right-leaning since the individual expresses the U.S. is doing nothing wrong, nothing needs to change, and the ocean pollution is not an urgent issue. (source)

Evidence #3: Another article expresses that "These claims and others like them are rooted in alarmism enabled by the papers’ authors, who neglected to provide a tangible, objective context for their findings and then exaggerated them by making dire, subjective statements to the press." This article was very critical of left-leaning articles because they believe they are exaggerating their evidence in order to persuade people to change. Right-leaning individuals typically believe that there is not an urgent issue and the government especially does not need to be regulating Americans, so since the evidence states that there is no reliable evidence that expresses that they do not believe any of this is happening and that there is actually no environmental issue. (source)

# data[].attributes.headline
Plastic Pollution & The Executive Branch

# data[].attributes.subject
Plastic Pollution & The Executive Branch

# data[].attributes.body
1. Donald Trump - Republican - President 2017-2021;
During Trump's presidency he expressed views both opposing and supporting the issue of plastic pollution. In October 2018 he signed the bipartisan Save our Seas Act into law which funded the NOAA's Marine Debris Program. However after several claims of being supportive of cleaning up the ocean and keeping waste to a minimum, he visited the Shell plant, produced plastic straws, and criticized liberals for creating paper straws. Environmental groups were disappointed by this because they were under the impression that he was supportive of their cause, but in reality he was making claims in support of both sides of the issue. Trump's actions illustrate he supports the companies more than the environmental groups and is more opposed to the issue of plastic pollution in the ocean and does not see it as a priority.

2. Joe Biden - Democrat - Current President;
Biden supports the efforts to decrease plastic pollution and waste. He has introduced infrastructure plans that are geared towards green jobs and clean energy products as well as claims phasing out plastics are necessary. He also vowed to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement that Trump removed America from. This agreement is a policy that establishes restrictions on plastic production as well as several other environmental issues.

3. Howie Hawkins - Green Party - Presidential Candidate 2017;
The Green Party as a whole sees shifting the US to clean production and a zero-waste society as essential. This candidate says it would support an international agreement for the full clean up of all plastic waste currently in the oceans. Hawkins and his party members are passionate about cleaning up the planet and would not only work to reverse damage in the US but also help out internationally.

source

# data[].attributes.body
On July 16, 2021, Earth Island Institution filed a lawsuit against Coca Cola because of their false advertisement and claims in which they said they were environmentally friendly and sustainable when in reality their company has been and still is one of the main contributors to plastic pollution. Throughout the case, the courts agreed with Earth Island Institution and did not find Coca Cola's argument and reasoning in defense to be enough against the Earth Island Institution. Since this was a civil case in state courts the courts ruled in favor of the Earth Island Institution which means the company, Coca Cola, would have to pay the lawsuit settlement which was $75,000. This impacts the issue of plastic pollution because it will force companies to avoid false advertisement so they either need to be honest about their plastic use which may decrease customers or they can actually change to the sustainable options and then advertise truthfully. (source)

# data[].attributes.body
I have taken action by raising awareness on social media. Specifically I follow the account @Karmagawa which has several different charities, one being @SaveTheReef, and they post environmental issues that people can take charge and help to end. They include a lot about saving animals and helping countries less fortunate than us. I have bought a sweatshirt from them where all of the proceeds go to their charities. I repost their posts on my stories to help bring awareness and their social media posts are emotion provoking to try and force people to see the issue at its worst and realize it is more damaging than we can all even imagine. Along with raising awareness on my social media, I will also make changes to my daily life that will decrease my personal contribution to the plastic pollution. I can do this by reducing use of single-use plastic like not using plastic bags or water bottles and instead buying reusable options.