Plastic consumption a reason behind port expansion?

Photo / Brett Phibbs

Many people are up in arms about the port expansion in Auckland. The main reasons stated for why we need this are so that we can receive cruise ships and expand our exports: economic growth.

My problem is that we don't seem to be making a determination as to what is "good economic growth" versus "bad economic growth".

People seem not to realise how we contribute to the exports that occur. Plastics and rubber, at $1.43 billion were the second biggest product moved by the Ports of Auckland in 2012 after dairy. A great deal of this is recycling the plastic that is used by Aucklanders. In 2010, TV1 claimed that 10 containers a week, of plastic bottles alone, were being sent to China.

It would be fair to say that part of the reason for the port expansion is the increase in consumption by us. In 2002 The Ministry for the Environment said that each New Zealander consumes approximately 31 kg of plastic packaging per year and recycles 5.58kg - the rest goes into landfill or is carelessly left in the environment to cause major destruction to our ecosystem and threatening the health and viability of our fisheries.

Consumption of plastic rises steadily but that is seen as a "good" thing because it indicates the ever-so-important economic growth.

Recycling will not, (as one company that is a major profit-earner from waste says all over its bins) - 'save the world'. Its very existence was developed by the plastics manufacturers when people complained about the persistent litter that plastic packaging causes. It is an excuse to use more plastic that is fed into us by big marketing budgets. It is the very production of plastic that is causing the problem.

Don't get me wrong on this - I am not saying 'don't recycle' - I am saying use the least amount of plastic that you possibly can and then recycle what you have to use. We can do much better on this - our recycling rates are abysmal with only 24 per cent of plastic being recycled - but it is not the solution.

If you look at the item with one of the biggest volumes - plastic bottles - and think about recycling as an excuse it does not stack up. Recycled PET does not get made into another bottle of unnecessary water - it gets downgraded (or 'downcycled') and made into something else. Then the multinational business who sells us this unnecessary product and generates massive profits that are sent offshore has an excuse to ream more oil from the earth to make another one.

The true cost of plastic packaging is not taken into account when it is bought. To me, this is not good economic growth, in fact it is a big, stinky and dirty subsidy. Public waste infrastructure (currently paid for through our rising rates) and those of us who remove it from the environment to reduce destruction caused by a bad product are subsidising the producers who are able to sell single-use plastic for cheap.

Let's get rid of the single use plastic, reducing the amount of rubbish we are sending on diesel-hungry boats. It would stop the harbour from filling up with plastic and possibly the extended port.