Plastic Pandemic: A Green Criminological Investigation into the Ecological Impact of Covid-19

Carrie Lee

Abstract

Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, single-use plastic (SUP) became crucial to healthcare workers and the public, resulting in significant amounts of waste. Since there were no alternatives to SUP and society adopted a ‘throw-away culture’, ecological health was inevitably set to deteriorate. This study provides a critical review of plastic usage throughout the pandemic. It gathers public opinion on both use and comprehension of plastic and the environment and establishes the link between ecological and human health. The findings conclude a change in the items consumed throughout the pandemic. However, since SUP is still widely used, it confirms that the general notion of plastic is that it serves as a protector rather than a polluter.

Introduction

The severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) is the precursor to the potentially lethal COVID-19 virus. In December 2019, a novel coronavirus strain that had never been seen in humans was discovered in the Chinese province of Wuhan. The primary source of transmission is respiratory tract fluid droplets that are typically larger than 5 micrometres in size and are released during speech, coughing, sneezing, or breathing (Duguid, 1946). With infection rising at an exponential rate, the primary aim became to protect the public health system from becoming overwhelmed, thus introducing the national lockdown during which healthcare workers were outfitted head to toe in personal protective equipment (PPE), including gloves, aprons, masks, and visors. Though what began as a worldwide health disaster swiftly became a social, economic, and environmental concern, the subsequent PPE shortages exposed the vulnerability of the underfunded yet overwhelmed public healthcare system (Cohen, Rodgers & Van der, 2020).

Prior to COVID-19, single use plastics (SUP) were mostly viewed as a polluter; but, as a result of COVID-19, their main position shifted to that of a protector, resulting in less emphasis on the environmental impact. This disregard has been exacerbated by the withdrawal of various national and state-level agreements on the use and consumption of plastic (HM Government, 2018). Each covid test strip, is made up of around 10g of plastic. Therefore, if every child and adult in the UK was testing twice a week, there would have been more than 1000 tonnes of plastic garbage produced per week - enough to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool in less than a month (Dunn, 2021).

Green criminology is informed by a variety of ideas and views, including ‘Eco-feminism,’ a term established by Françoise d’Eaubonne (1974), which uses gender to examine human-nature relationships (MacGregor, 2006). Non-human victims are rarely deemed attention worthy since they are rarely seen as victims of crime. Environmental, ecological, and species justice are three types of justice that are proposed from an eco-justice perspective as a notion of “equal victimhood,” but the concept of differential victimisation informs the idea that some groups are more likely to experience environmental risks and harms, including indigenous people, ethnic minorities, and women (White, 2018). According to Raty and Carlsson-Kanyama’s (2010) study on environmental harm, men are more prone to engage in environmental harming behaviours (Wyatt, 2020). This study looks at how people acted toward SUP during the pandemic, with the goal of predicting how this may have affected the environment. Although the study and research were conducted in the UK, it is crucial to keep in mind that eco-crimes and the pandemic are global problems. As a result, there are times when making references to other countries is necessary to clarify and support the points raised. It aims to increase public awareness of a subject that hasn’t received enough attention, and endeavours to provide recommendations to prevent prolonged damage to the environment as this will only exacerbate another multiplicity of problems (Hatton, 2020).

Literature Review

Subsequent analysis revealed that the first positive covid test result came from a 75-year-old woman from Nottinghamshire on February 21, 2020. Unfortunately, it’s thought that she was also the first person in the UK to pass away after getting the virus (Roberts, 2020). To prevent the NHS from becoming overburdened, the UK went into national lockdown shortly after the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on March 11. With tougher laws in place and increased infection rates, the need for sanitary conditions became unavoidable (WHO, 2020). For the healthcare industry to achieve a COVID-19-free environment, items like single-use masks, gloves, aprons, hand sanitizer, and visors became necessary; however, the demand for PPE was largely driven by the introduction of mandatory face masks in public places worldwide, which caused price increases and shortages throughout the world. This resulted in Chinas’ daily manufacturing rate increasing from 20 million to 110 million (Burki, 2020).

Single-use face masks typically feature three layers: an inner layer made of soft fibres, an inner layer made of a melt-blown filter, and an outside layer made of coloured non-woven fibres (Fadare & Okoffo, 2020). Melt-blown filters, which make up the majority of the mask’s filtration system and are constructed of polymeric materials like polypropylene (PP), polyurethane (PU), and polyethylene, are effective at blocking particulates (PE). These materials, however, cannot be recycled at conventional recycling facilities due to their design (Potluri & Needham, 2005; Konyn, 2020). This frequently results in inappropriate disposal. Waste frequently finds its way to open waters due to improper disposal and environmental factors like wind and storms; it is predicted that a face mask left in water might take up to 450 years to organically decay. While there is a danger to marine life during this period, such as turtles being tangled or whales ingesting, there is also another less evident issue. Due to climatic conditions and natural breakdown, plastics in water transform into microplastics, which are pieces smaller than 5 mm (Schmidt et al., 2018). These are regularly consumed by aquatic species, leading to human ingestion through food and water but also to air inhalation (Wright & Kelly, 2017). A recent study by Cox et al indicated that one source of swallowing microplastics is through fruit and vegetables cultivated in contaminated soil, while sugar, salt, alcohol, and bottled water also exhibited traces of microplastics ranging from 0.03 MPs/g to 0.44 MPs/g (Cox et al, 2019). With the increase in plastic trash, particularly disposable PPE containing PP and PE plastic, this problem will worsen.

Several observational studies have found a connection between microplastics and airway inflammatory response, which has symptoms that are very similar to those felt by textile industry workers who work near materials like polyolefin, polyester, and acrylic fibres, despite the fact that there is currently little evidence to support this association between microplastics and human harm (Prata, 2018). Additionally, data shows that the chemical toxins used to produce plastics are extremely dangerous, including associations to respiratory disease, cancer, lower fertility, and birth defects (Landrigan & McGlade, 2021). Environmental risks are thought to be responsible for 23% of premature deaths, according to a study by WHO that looked at how 85 of the 102 major diseases are linked to environmental factors that can be avoided (Zarocostas, 2006).

Green criminology is an interdisciplinary theory that adopts a variety of theories and perspectives, such as Eco-Feminism and Marxism, to examine the ecological crimes and harms that are frequently minimised and ignored in mainstream criminology (Nurse, 2017). For orthodox criminologists, the key argument revolves around the criminal justice system, resulting in a fundamental discussion over whether green crime should be dealt with by core agencies such as police, or whether the crime is beyond the purview of core agencies. Lynch and Stretesky (2014) highlight the view that environmental harms and crimes, such as pollution, pose a serious threat to human survival, and hence call for ecological justice on non-human animal and environmental harms (Lynch & Stretesky, 2014).

The green movement and Marxism are combined in the theory known as ecological Marxism. Contrary to environmentalists, eco-Marxism centred its theory on Marx’s critique of capitalist production from 1845 and championed the notion that human production alters the natural environment (Dagmang, 2019). Although PPE has been essential, some would contend that the increase in productivity is reliant on capital creation, which is harmful to the environment. The use of SUP had been heavily debated prior to the pandemic, and some countries had passed and implemented legislation outlawing use. For instance, the legislation required large retailers and supermarkets to start charging for carrying bags in 2015 since large supermarkets in England gave out more than 7.6 billion bags to customers the year before. Similar figures show that this number fell by more than 80% by 2020, proving the effectiveness of the charge. Unfortunately, COVID-19 saw the suspension of this law and others because of potential transmission problems. (HM Government, 2020; Lewis, Verghese, & Fitzpatrick, 2020). Due to safety concerns surrounding stores, a lot of individuals also chose home delivery, which led to more packaging and the use of carrying bags. Because many firms had already begun using alternatives to SUP following the ban, according to Silva et al., lifting the bans may have been premature. This is because science shows that the SARS-CoV-2 virus can survive longer on plastic than on materials like cardboard (Silva et al, 2020). It is still unexplained why wearing one’s own clothes or shoes would have a lower risk of viral transmission than utilising reusable shopping bags.

Methodology

This section offers an understanding to the approach from an epistemological viewpoint, providing an account of the process used to obtain primary data, and resonate the strengths of the applied research method. Also considered here are the methodological and pragmatic considerations, along with the validity and reliability of the data collection method.

There are two key paradigms which can be applied to data collection – interpretivism and positivism. This research is designed to obtain primary data through an inductive approach as it seeks to develop existing theory. By using a questionnaire, with a combination of open and closed questions, a wider understanding of the issues surrounding the usage of plastic throughout the pandemic can be obtained, correlating this to secondary sources to support and so strengthen the validity of this.

This research method favours quantitative data since it is thought to provide a measure of dependability and validity, which defines the overall effectiveness of the investigation. This study would be simple to duplicate, giving it high dependability. By trusting the participants to answer honestly, the validity of the research is likewise high, however as previously said, this is dependent on the participants’ honesty. As a result, an additional research design would be advantageous to triangulate the data.

To achieve a random sample of replies, the questionnaire was distributed on social media platforms. This method was chosen over opportunity sampling to improve the findings by achieving greater generalisability and so providing a realistic representation. The questionnaire was open for one week and received 112 replies. Because this is a small sample size, the representation cannot be compared to that of the general population.

Findings

Analysis determined that participant 105 submitted the questionnaire without answering any questions, resulting in erroneous data. As a result, unless otherwise specified, the data presented is based on 111 individuals.

Basic demographics were initially collected from participants. These determined over 50% of participants were aged between 18-34 years old, 84.7% of which were female and 23 of which worked in the healthcare industry, the additional 88 participants were of varied occupations.

On a linear scale with a rating of 1-5, the participants were asked to rate how they would describe their knowledge about the affect and impact plastics have on the environment. 45 people selected number 3 showing they felt their knowledge was neither strong nor weak.

It was important to consider how SUP habits had changed throughout the pandemic therefore a pre and post pandemic question was produced.

Prior to the pandemic, plastic carrying bags and beverage bottles were the two SUPs that were used the most frequently. The results demonstrate a considerable shift in behaviour, with nearly half of people who used plastic carrier bags and drink bottles before the outbreak currently using them. However, hand sanitizer and PPE have increased by more than 100% when taken together.

This work has identified a research gap in the relationship between ecological damages, specifically microplastics, and human health, indicating that this needs to be investigated further.

Conclusion

This study provides a critical analysis of plastic use throughout the pandemic. Due to COVID-19, PPE inevitably evolved into a form of life-saving protection, which is consistent with research showing a change in the types of plastics being utilised. This implies that a mindset has developed where sustainability in healthcare is not a top priority because it is believed that plastic has turned into a protector rather than a polluter (Hatton, 2021). A significant amount of plastic garbage was also produced as a result of the absence of recycling facilities; much of this debris is improperly disposed of and ends up being burned, dumped in landfills, or buried, all of which are harmful to the environment. The idea of sustainable plastic is frequently disillusioning because 91% of plastics are not recycled, and those that are frequently only have a limited number of recycling opportunities. The majority of plastics are non-degradable, which means that they breakdown over time rather than composting as was previously said. Microplastics are produced as a result of this, endangering both marine life and human health through inhalation or tainted food (seafood, vegetables, fruit). The ‘throwaway culture’ that has been developed throughout the epidemic presented an ideology that the transmission risk lowered, despite the knowledge of the negative effects associated with plastic. However, it must be argued that a reusable shopping bag cannot possibly present a greater danger of transmission than one’s shoes or clothing.

According to the research, women are more concerned about environmental issues than men. This could, however, be suggested due to a significantly higher rate of females filling out the questionnaire. It is recommended that the study be repeated using a representative sample of 50 males and 50 females to ensure equal sample bias, as this would provide more information that is more representative and, therefore, more valid. Additionally, subject to time restrictions, a semi-structured interview with one male and one female would offer extra qualitative data that could be triangulated with the statistical results, strengthening the data presented.

Green criminologists continue to be concerned about environmental issues and work toward ecological justice. Eco-Feminism, environmental movements, and studies, including the demographics of this study, all demonstrate a significant gender disparity in environmental concerns, with women leading the way. The globe is engaged in a plastics battle that calls for everyone to be accountable for their consumption and disposal, businesses to commit to extra plastic reduction programmes, and governments to establish supportive policies. There is still hope for a better, greener future with these improvements.

While the Covid pandemic is still among us, it is no longer at the forefront of the average day, and nearer to being a period in history. Although damaging, the degree of the ecological damage is still unknown. In order to be ready for similar situations we may face in the future, it is crucial to look for alternatives to SUP.

References

Burki, T. (2020). Global shortage of personal protective equipment. The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 20(7). P.p. 785–786. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30501-6> [Accessed 19 February 2021]

Cohen, J., Rodgers, & Y. van der M., (2020). Contributing factors to personal protective equipment shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prev Med, P.p. 141, 106263. Available at <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed. 2020.106263> [Accessed 25 January 2021]

Duguid J. P. (1946). The size and the duration of air-carriage of respiratory droplets and droplet-nuclei. The Journal of hygiene, 44(6), P.p. 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022172400019288

Dunn, D., (2020). ‘Climate crisis last on agenda in G20 summit conclusion’. Independent. 23 November. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/climate-change-g20-summit-conclusion-b1760492.html [Accessed 11 February 2021]

HM Government1. (2018). A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment. London.

Cox K.D., Covernton G.A., Davies H.L., Dower J.F., Juanes F., & Dudas S.E. (2019). Human Consumption of Microplastics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53: P.p. 7068–7074. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01517.

Dagmang, F. (2019). Amplifying Laudato Si’ With the Science of Epigenetics. 21. P.p. 1-20.

Fadare, O. O., & Okoffo, E. D. (2020). Covid-19 face masks: A potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment. The Science of the total environment, 737, 140279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140279

Hatton, G. (2020). Plastic waste in the pandemic. RSA. Available at: <https://www.thersa.org/comment/2020/11/ plastic-waste-in-the-pandemic> [Accessed: 28 January 2021]

HM Government. (2020). Carrier bags: why there’s a charge. Department for Environment Food and Rural affairs

Konyn, C. (2020). Another side effect of COVID-19: The Surge in Plastic Pollution. Earth. Available at: <https:// earth.org/covid-19-surge-in-plastic-pollution/> [Accessed: 6 February 2021]

Landrigan, P., & McGlade, J. (2021). Why ocean pollution is a clear danger to human health. The Conversation. Feb 1. Available at: <https://phys.org/news/2021-02-ocean-pollution-danger-human-health.amp?__twitter_ impression=true> [Accessed 21 February 2021]

Lewis, H., Verghese K., & Fitzpatrick L. (2010). Evaluating the sustainability impacts of packaging: the plastic carry bag dilemma. Packag Technol Sci. (23). P.p 145–160. Available at: <doi: 10.1002/pts.886> [Accessed 27 January 2021]

London: HM Government.

Lynch, M.J. & Stretesky, P.B. (2014). Exploring green criminology: Toward a green criminological volution. Ashgate, Farnham.

MacGregor, S. (2006). Beyond mothering earth: ecological citizenship and the politics of care. Vancouver: UBC Press. P.p. 286. ISBN 978-0-7748-1201-6.

Nurse, A. (2017). Green Criminology: Shining a Critical Lens on Environmental Harm. Palgrave. Commun 3, 10. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0007-2> [Accessed: 10 February 2021]

Potluri, P., & Needham, P. (2005). Technical textiles for protection. In Scott, R.A., editor. Technical Textiles for protection. 1st edn. (6) Elsevier. P.p 151-175

Prata, J. C. (2018). Airborne microplastics: consequences to human health?. Environmental pollution, 234, P.p. 115-126.

Roberts, M. (2020). Coronavirus: Nottinghamshire woman, 75, ‘first positive test within UK’. [online] BBC News. Available at: <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-53907629> [Accessed 20 February 2021]

Schmidt, N., Thibault D., Galgani F., Paluselli A., & Sempéré R. (2018). Occurrence of microplastics in surface waters of the Gulf of Lion (NW Mediterranean Sea) Prog. Oceanogr. 163: P.p. 214–220. doi: 10.1016/j. pocean.2017.11.010

Silva, A.L.P., Prata J.C., Walker T.R., Campos D., Duarte A.C., & Soares A.M.V.M. (2020). Rethinking and optimising plastic waste management under COVID-19 pandemic: Policy solutions based on redesign and reduction of single-use plastics and personal protective equipment. Sci Tot Environ. 742. Available at: <doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140565> [Accessed 3 February 2021]

White, R. Green victimology and non-human victims. International Review of Victimology. 2018;24(2):239-255. doi:10.1177/0269758017745615

WHO - World Health Organisation. (2020). Rational use of personal protective equipment for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and considerations during severe shortages. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/ item/rational-use-of-personal-protective-equipment-for-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-and-considerations-duringsevere-shortages [Accessed 27 January 2021]

Wright, S.L & Kelly F.J. (2017). Plastic and Human health: A micro issue? Environ. Sci. Technol. 51. P.p 6634-6647

Wyatt, T. (2020). Gendering Green Criminology [webinar]. Available at: <https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/gendering-green-criminology-tickets-124094003505>

Zarocostas, J. (2006). Millions of deaths from environmental causes are preventable, says WHO. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 332(7555), 1412. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7555.1412-b