Re: Garbage based on one word: Plastics (The Leader, Aug. 7).

I must say that a more unobjective response than Mr Kim’s to the issues first raised about an overflowing trash can at the new dog park, is impossible.

The writer lashes out at ‘big companies’ in an effort to villainize – completely ignoring that small companies package products in a similar fashion. Similarly, death or injury in Korea due to plastics manufacturing is singled out, as though plastics are the problem. Because similar manufacturing takes place uneventfully in many other countries, logic places the blame on non-existent worker safety policies and negligence, rather than plastics.

In general, packing materials fall into one or both of two categories: aesthetic and functional. The vast majority are functional, which enables the safe transport of ie. medical instruments, delicate food items, and many easily-damaged consumer products. Without them, much of what we require today as a society would require premature replacement, due to damage inflicted during transport. So much for any realized environmental or energy benefits.

Naptha and ethylene are two by-products of the oil refining process. 50 years ago they became the raw materials in the manufacture of our multipurpose lightweight shopping bags which now fill merely 0.3 per cent of our landfills and contribute to only 5 per cent of the litter on our streets. Prior, they were simply flared off, contributing to ‘greenhouse gases’. Now, their frequent re-use and multipurpose nature makes them a welcome addition to a typical household. In comparison, the heavier plastic bags – whose increased use has been inadvertently encouraged by regulation and punitive taxation of the widely misunderstood shopping bag – require exponentially more resources to produce, and correspondingly greater lengths of time to break down in landfills.

Because of the unique moldability which Styrofoam and styrene possess, petroleum-derived packing materials hold an undisputable weight advantage. Some quick ‘napkin-math’ reveals that a typical container ship from China, loaded with goods packed in ‘renewable’ packaging materials such as paper and wood fibers, would typically use several thousand pounds more fuel to transport the same volume of goods, similarly packaged. Again, any environmental benefit is completely lost.

If protection of the environment is Mr. Kim’s priority, he should encourage re-use and recycling of the efficient, useful materials we have ingeniously developed over decades to effectively solve nagging problems, rather than villainizing a significant product and industry which in many ways has helped to place the Dark Ages well behind us.

Randall Semrau

Surrey