The pandemic has seen politicians and courts promptly responding to life-saving interventions. The precedent created during the pandemic can be used by activists in the future to address “failure-to-protect” suits as well as fight "misinformation" by news media outlets. Judicial decisions have strength as once legal precedent is established, it can be used by future plaintiffs to shape cases.
The argument that the government has failed to protect its Constitutional duty to protect people has been used by convicts during the pandemic. Suits against correctional facilities have been filed all over the United States. The suits seek to release incarcerated persons who have committed minor crimes from correctional facilities in light of the pandemic. Its focus is people with high risk of life-threatening complications such as immunocompromised individuals. Plaintiffs argue that putting high-risk individuals in such risk is unconstitutional. The precedent could transfer to climate change cases. Similar rhetoric has been used and dismissed in Juliana v. United States. The youth-led suit claimed that the U.S. government has implemented an energy system knowing that it harms the environment and causes a threat to human-life. The case was dismissed in The Ninth Circuit and has been since then appealed. However, with the precedent of "failure-to-protect" formed during the COVID-19 pandemic, cases such as Juliana have legal precedent to make their claim.
Another suit that is forming promising precedent is the suit filed against Fox News for misinformation. During the pandemic, a nonprofit brought the news outlet before the court for violating state's consumer protection act as it misinformed viewers about the impact of COVID-19 and thus committed a tort of outrage. New media outlets also continuously misinform readers about climate change, despite the overwhelming consensus by scientists that climate change is human-caused. The possibility for a misinformation precedent gives hope to hold media outlets to a higher standard over climate change.
Precedents formed during the COVID-19 pandemic are promising tools for climate change activists. The pandemic has showed us the importance of measures taken to protect lives. The precedents formed by failure-to-protect and misinformation cases spark hope for future climate change lawsuits.
The consumption of single-use plastic has been on the rise ever since the breakout of COVID-19. Previously mentioned use of PPE alone has produced a completely new market on plastic. In addition to PPE, consumers also prefer the use of disposable plastic packaging. Despite research showing that the virus can survive on plastic for 72 hours, plastic use is growing because people think it is safer due to its disposable nature. [1] The rise of plastic is also attributed to the increased use of delivery platforms and reduced and the lack of fresh, unpackaged produce consumed (read more about this in Varun's discussion "Millions of gallons of milk, millions of eggs...").
Some members of the plastics industry are taking advantage of the fear and uncertainty around COVID-19 to push rollbacks or suspensions originally aimed to reduce plastic pollution. For example, state governors of New York, California and Maine have temporarily repealed (or delayed) their bans on plastic bags. In the United Kingdom, the government has temporarily dropped its 5 pence charge on plastic bags for deliveries as a precautionary measure. [2] Such measures are taken despite the research showcasing that the virus can survive on plastic for 72 hours. Over a 100 scientists have collectively stated that reusable items are safe to use. Reusable items can be easily sterilised from viruses and bacteria by washing them with hot water and soap.[3]
In addition to the use of PPE, the production of virgin plastic has been on the rise.
The academic paper: Dynamic linkages between international oil price, plastic stock index and recycle plastic markets in China by Fu Gu and others explores the linkages between crude oil, recycled plastics and plastic stock index.[1] The panel data spans from 4th Jan 2010 to 4th Jan 2018. The finding suggests that the oil price and the performance of plastic manufacturers is highly related. Since most plastic is made from oil, its reduces price means that the cost of plastic resin production has fallen too. This makes it cheaper than ever to produce new plastic products. The low prices of oil thus disincentivizes plastic producers to invest in sustainable alternatives as the use of virgin plastic is more profitable.
During the COVID pandemic, we’ve seen a massive drop in oil prices. Editor of OilPrice Nick Cunningham has stated that "the demand of oil may not recover to pre-pandemic levels until 2022 at the earliest", citing a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).[2] According the the IEA report, global oil supply has dropped by 12 million barrels per day (mb/d) in May in a year-on-year comparison.[3] The demand has lowered the price of oil and made it cheaper to produce virgin plastic.
On top of the surge of single use plastics in PPE and the use of disposable bags/ cutlery in restaurants and supermarkets, we cannot rely on recycling centres to handle the surge of plastic waste. The pre-pandemic world was already struggling to recycle plastic. Science Advances stated that “As of 2015, approximately 6300 megatons of plastic waste had been generated, around 9% of which had been recycled, 12% was incinerated, and 79% was accumulated in landfills or the natural environment”.[4] As the cheap price of virgin plastic has lead to a drop in recycled plastic demand, recycling centres are closing and cannot be expected to recycle plastic at a higher than the 9% rate that was experienced as of 2015.
The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has sharply increased the amount of plastic ending up in our oceans. PPE is often disposed of incorrectly and end up in waterways, finding their way to the oceans. Gloves and masks are oftentimes mistaken to be jellyfish - the favourite food of sea-turtles. Fish and birds end up ingesting the PPE and have a high risk of entanglement due to their elastic properties.
"COVID-19 triggered an estimated global use of 129 billion face masks and 65 billion gloves every month." [1]
And that's just PPE alone. COVID has also rapidly increased our overall use of single-use plastic.
COVID-19 - New Precedents for Sustainability?
The pandemic has seen politicians and courts promptly responding to life-saving interventions. The precedent created during the pandemic can be used by activists in the future to address “failure-to-protect” suits as well as fight "misinformation" by news media outlets. Judicial decisions have strength as once legal precedent is established, it can be used by future plaintiffs to shape cases.
The argument that the government has failed to protect its Constitutional duty to protect people has been used by convicts during the pandemic. Suits against correctional facilities have been filed all over the United States. The suits seek to release incarcerated persons who have committed minor crimes from correctional facilities in light of the pandemic. Its focus is people with high risk of life-threatening complications such as immunocompromised individuals. Plaintiffs argue that putting high-risk individuals in such risk is unconstitutional. The precedent could transfer to climate change cases. Similar rhetoric has been used and dismissed in Juliana v. United States. The youth-led suit claimed that the U.S. government has implemented an energy system knowing that it harms the environment and causes a threat to human-life. The case was dismissed in The Ninth Circuit and has been since then appealed. However, with the precedent of "failure-to-protect" formed during the COVID-19 pandemic, cases such as Juliana have legal precedent to make their claim.
Another suit that is forming promising precedent is the suit filed against Fox News for misinformation. During the pandemic, a nonprofit brought the news outlet before the court for violating state's consumer protection act as it misinformed viewers about the impact of COVID-19 and thus committed a tort of outrage. New media outlets also continuously misinform readers about climate change, despite the overwhelming consensus by scientists that climate change is human-caused. The possibility for a misinformation precedent gives hope to hold media outlets to a higher standard over climate change.
Precedents formed during the COVID-19 pandemic are promising tools for climate change activists. The pandemic has showed us the importance of measures taken to protect lives. The precedents formed by failure-to-protect and misinformation cases spark hope for future climate change lawsuits.
COVID-19: Single-Use Plastic & Plastic Bans
The consumption of single-use plastic has been on the rise ever since the breakout of COVID-19. Previously mentioned use of PPE alone has produced a completely new market on plastic. In addition to PPE, consumers also prefer the use of disposable plastic packaging. Despite research showing that the virus can survive on plastic for 72 hours, plastic use is growing because people think it is safer due to its disposable nature. [1] The rise of plastic is also attributed to the increased use of delivery platforms and reduced and the lack of fresh, unpackaged produce consumed (read more about this in Varun's discussion "Millions of gallons of milk, millions of eggs...").
Some members of the plastics industry are taking advantage of the fear and uncertainty around COVID-19 to push rollbacks or suspensions originally aimed to reduce plastic pollution. For example, state governors of New York, California and Maine have temporarily repealed (or delayed) their bans on plastic bags. In the United Kingdom, the government has temporarily dropped its 5 pence charge on plastic bags for deliveries as a precautionary measure. [2] Such measures are taken despite the research showcasing that the virus can survive on plastic for 72 hours. Over a 100 scientists have collectively stated that reusable items are safe to use. Reusable items can be easily sterilised from viruses and bacteria by washing them with hot water and soap.[3]
Read more:
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200320192755.htm
[2] https://oecd-environment-focus.blog/2020/07/07/covid-19-and-the-looming-plastics-pandemic/
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/22/reusable-containers-safe-during-covid-19-pandemic-say-experts
COVID-19: Single-use Plastics & Oil
In addition to the use of PPE, the production of virgin plastic has been on the rise.
The academic paper: Dynamic linkages between international oil price, plastic stock index and recycle plastic markets in China by Fu Gu and others explores the linkages between crude oil, recycled plastics and plastic stock index.[1] The panel data spans from 4th Jan 2010 to 4th Jan 2018. The finding suggests that the oil price and the performance of plastic manufacturers is highly related. Since most plastic is made from oil, its reduces price means that the cost of plastic resin production has fallen too. This makes it cheaper than ever to produce new plastic products. The low prices of oil thus disincentivizes plastic producers to invest in sustainable alternatives as the use of virgin plastic is more profitable.
During the COVID pandemic, we’ve seen a massive drop in oil prices. Editor of OilPrice Nick Cunningham has stated that "the demand of oil may not recover to pre-pandemic levels until 2022 at the earliest", citing a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).[2] According the the IEA report, global oil supply has dropped by 12 million barrels per day (mb/d) in May in a year-on-year comparison.[3] The demand has lowered the price of oil and made it cheaper to produce virgin plastic.
On top of the surge of single use plastics in PPE and the use of disposable bags/ cutlery in restaurants and supermarkets, we cannot rely on recycling centres to handle the surge of plastic waste. The pre-pandemic world was already struggling to recycle plastic. Science Advances stated that “As of 2015, approximately 6300 megatons of plastic waste had been generated, around 9% of which had been recycled, 12% was incinerated, and 79% was accumulated in landfills or the natural environment”.[4] As the cheap price of virgin plastic has lead to a drop in recycled plastic demand, recycling centres are closing and cannot be expected to recycle plastic at a higher than the 9% rate that was experienced as of 2015.
Read more:
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1059056020300678
[2] https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Oil-Market-Recovery-Threatened-By-Weaker-Fuel-Demand.html
[3] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WGFUPUS2&f=W
[4] https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700782
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/key-facts-about-plastic-pollution/
https://theconversation.com/why-the-pandemic-could-slash-the-amount-of-plastic-waste-we-recycle-139616
COVID-19: PPE and Ocean Plastic Pollution
The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has sharply increased the amount of plastic ending up in our oceans. PPE is often disposed of incorrectly and end up in waterways, finding their way to the oceans. Gloves and masks are oftentimes mistaken to be jellyfish - the favourite food of sea-turtles. Fish and birds end up ingesting the PPE and have a high risk of entanglement due to their elastic properties.
"COVID-19 triggered an estimated global use of 129 billion face masks and 65 billion gloves every month." [1]
And that's just PPE alone. COVID has also rapidly increased our overall use of single-use plastic.
Read more:
[1]