The Boston City Council is considering a controversial proposal that has been trending in many municipalities. Its a proposal that has widespread daily impacts on citizens and businesses and stimulates unusually fiery passions: banning plastic bags. Along with reducing visual pollution and solid waste, a primary goal of Bostons proposal is to reduce marine pollution, something Ive investigated for decades. But when proponents and opponents of bag banning ask me whether a ban would meaningfully achieve the goal, I give them an answer that neither they, nor I, nor society is satisfied with: We dont really know. We know plastic products have negative impacts. The images of turtles ingesting plastic bags that look like their favourite food, jellyfish; of birds and seals choked by six-pack holders; of bags polluting beaches, and the Great Pacific Garbage Patch all provoke legitimate sadness and concern. A plastic bag ban is a relatively quick and painless, and clearly beneficial, action to address marine pollution, but it highlights societys mixed relationship with science and its role in public policy. To develop effective public policy, policymakers must evaluate and balance several factors and perspectives, including economics, the environment, quality of life, and science. But in reality, stakeholders arent so egalitarian in weighing all the factors. I learned just how charged the debate on banning plastic bags can be in 2013 when I testified on proposed legislation by the State of Rhode Island to ban plastic bags. As a scientist, I dont come down on either side. My job is to investigate and compile objective evidence that should inform wise decisions and effective policies. In my testimony, I cautioned against drawing any conclusions about whether banning plastic bans would or would not effectively help mitigate marine pollutionwithout having rigorous research to prove those conclusions. But my statement was either misconstrued or misused by advocates on both sides who labelled me as against the banand misinterpretations of what I said still linger as alternative facts on the internet. Plastics are going to continue to flow into the ocean for decades from a variety of sources beyond bags: microbeads, bottles, containers, balloons, pellets, etc. Minimising any individual source is helpful, but it is important to understand and weigh the relative costs and benefits of policy decisionsto help focus limited public and private resources on those which will have the greatest impact. But we lack a comprehensive and rigorous scientific understanding on the relative sources of plastics that reach the coastal and open ocean; how they behave, react, and degrade; how far they travel from land and, if and when, they sink; and the injuries they impact at each and every level of the entire ecosystem. To gain that understanding requires an investment in additional research. If society really wants to implement effective public policies that make progress toward reducing this major problem at all levelslocally, nationally, and globallyit will have to devote more time and resources to find them. As plastic bag banning proposals continue to pop up in coastal communities across the country, I wonder if we will finally decide to devote the resources needed to meaningfully answer the question about plastic bags? impact on the environment? And while plastic pollution is also a visible problem, will we devote as much passion and energy to less visible marine pollution issues where the science, in fact, is clear? Ironically, when I testified in Rhode Island, I noted that its coastal waters faced problems that were well recognised by scientific research and demanded attention. One problem, which Massachusetts also faces, is run-off or leakage from yard, farm, and golf-course fertilisers, faulty septic systems, and sewage overflows that are overdosing the ocean with nitrogen. This has caused fish kills and have been linked to harmful algal blooms that threaten food supplies, economic hardship, and public health. Rhode Island didnt ban plastic bags, and we cannot say what impact that has had. But nitrogen pollution has likely led to the closure of shellfish beds and had large economic impacts on Rhode Islanders. In todays polarised society, science can be the honest broker and should be weighed in among the emotional and economic arguments. Unfortunately, science doesnt provide instant, black-or-white answers, or in some cases, the answers people want to hear. But its not good for society when science is misconstrued or ignored.
The Huffington Post, 28 March 2017 ;