A great piece in the New York Times a couple days back points out that when looked at honestly, the environmental condemnation of plastic is far from as certain as many would have you believe.

Originally, plastic was hailed for its potential to reduce humankind’s heavy environmental footprint. The earliest plastics were invented as substitutes for dwindling supplies of natural materials like ivory or tortoiseshell. When the American John Wesley Hyatt patented celluloid in 1869, his company pledged that the new manmade material, used in jewelry, combs, buttons and other items, would bring “respite” to the elephant and tortoise because it would “no longer be necessary to ransack the earth in pursuit of substances which are constantly growing scarcer.”

As the article argues, the problem with plastic isn’t necessarily its specific impact on the environment.  There are many great environmental benefits of plastic other than saving the lives of a few hundred thousand tortoises.  For instance, lighter materials mean considerably better gas mileage for our vehicles.  How do you weigh that against millions of plastic bags at the bottom of the ocean?

The real problem with plastic is the way we use it.  Plastic is SO versatile, SO cheap – and thus SO convenient – that time-strapped first-worlders can’t help but use it and lose it.

Therefore, cutting plastics from our lives or banning it from our stores doesn’t seem like it will solve any of our larger problems.  Even worse, it may make us feel like we’re doing something beneficial when we’re actually not doing anything.

Maybe that’s why the old mantra reads “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”, not and “Replace, Reuse, Recycle”.