The History of Plastic: Are We Repeating Mistakes?

What comes to mind when you hear the word ‘plastic’? For many, it is the image of synthetic waste polluting our surroundings — a material so durable it lingers in landfills and oceans for generations. It is a natural association, given how easy it is to spot a piece of plastic waste lying around. The durability that makes plastic so useful in our daily lives has also become its greatest flaw.

Interestingly, the story of plastic did not start with synthetic materials — it began with natural ones. And now, as innovations like plant-based biodegradable plastics emerge, it feels like we are coming full circle. This makes us wonder — have we truly learned from the past?

Let’s start from the beginning, shall we?

How was plastic invented in the first place? You can find a short explanation about it in this interesting TED-ed video. But let’s talk about it a little bit more here.

1600 BC — Natural plastics

The term plastic comes from the Greek word plastikos, meaning “capable of being shaped or molded.” Originally, plastics were derived from natural materials like rubber, amber, horn, ivory, and tortoiseshell. Though these materials produced less waste and were naturally sourced, their prolonged use led to environmental harm, especially through biodiversity loss. This highlighted the need for alternative materials to replace natural plastics.

19th century — The beginning of a new plastic

Ivory, a popular material at the time, was perceived valuable for its use in billiard balls, a luxury item favored by the upper class. However, extensive use of elephant tusks led to a decline in elephant populations, spurring the search for a replacement material.

In 1862, Alexander Parkes introduced the first artificial plastic, Parkesine, a groundbreaking invention that not only helped mitigate the risk of elephant extinction but also made previously exclusive items more accessible. Parkesine was later refined by John Wesley Hyatt into celluloid, a synthetic material derived from cellulose, a natural polymer. Despite its innovation, celluloid proved unsuitable for billiard balls and was highly flammable, posing significant safety risks.

1907 — Even better than celluloid

In 1907, Leo Baekeland developed Bakelite, a less flammable and fully synthetic plastic that laid the foundation for modern plastics. Bakelite became widely used in iconic products such as old-style cameras, telephones, and radios.

1920s & 30s — The rise of plastic

With Bakelite setting the stage, the 1920s and 1930s saw a surge in plastic innovation. Many of the plastics we know today were introduced during this period, including polystyrene (PS) for styrofoam and egg cartons, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) for vinyl records and pipes, and polyamide (nylon) for stockings. These advancements marked the beginning of plastic’s dominance in manufacturing.

Present time — Mitigating the adverse effects of plastics

The 1940s brought further advancements with injection molding, making plastic production more efficient and widespread. During World War II, plastics were integral to war efforts, used in items like parachutes, helmets, and water-resistant coats.

While plastics revolutionized manufacturing and accessibility, their environmental consequences became apparent over time. From pollution to ecosystem disruption, the long-term effects of plastic have raised significant concerns. Ironically, manufacturers are now revisiting natural materials to create eco-friendly solutions, echoing the early days when plastics were originally derived from nature.

Plastic and its alternatives: A case study on shopping bags

After examining the history of plastic, it is clear that its development was driven by good intentions: to conserve natural resources and provide affordable alternatives. But why are we now repeating the same pattern, risking the depletion of yet another resource? And, perhaps more importantly, are these alternative materials truly better?

To help us understand better, let’s compare the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of different types of shopping bags.

The flexible one: Plastic bags

When we are talking about plastic bags, several concerns come to mind, the raw materials extraction and the waste at a later phase. While these are valid, production of plastic bags turns out to have the lowest environmental effects — a pretty surprising fact to know.

According to a 2014 LCA study for the Progressive Bag Alliance, plastic bags produce lower carbon emissions, generate less waste, and release fewer harmful byproducts than cotton or paper bag production. For instance, producing plastic bags consumes 14.9 kg of fossil fuels, compared to 23.2 kg for paper bags. Similarly, plastic bags produce only 7 kg of waste, while paper bags generate 33.9 kg. Greenhouse gas emissions for plastic bags are equivalent to 0.04 tons of CO2, whereas paper bags emit 0.08 tons.

However, these studies often assume that the plastic bags are used at least twice during its lifetime, once for its initial use, and once as a trash bag before getting recycled — an assumption that overlooks the common behavior of discarding plastic bags after a single use. Therefore, these studies do not take into account the waste production, which is actually the big problem to be considered within the LCA.

The natural one: Paper bags

Paper bags seem to be more environmentally friendly because of their biodegradability. However, it requires a specific environmental condition to be able to degrade completely, meaning that paper waste may not decompose as easily as we expect.

According to a Washington Post analysis, paper bag manufacturing takes about four times more energy than plastic bag manufacturing. Additionally, the process requires many toxic chemicals, making them responsible for 70% more air pollutants and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags. To offset the impacts, paper bags need to be used from 3 to 43 times during their lifetime — a difficult thing given their lack of durability.

However, compared to cotton bags, paper bags are a safer option due to their significantly lower environmental impact during production. Research by A. Ahamed et al. (2021) shows that cotton bags have a carbon footprint 34.6 times higher than paper bags, consume approximately 127.8 times more energy, and require 871 times more water during production.

Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that paper bags rely completely on trees which are important components of ecosystems. Therefore, their sustainability hinges on effective forest management to prevent deforestation and ensure responsible sourcing.

The long lasting one: Reusable bags

Reusable bags, often seen as the gold standard for sustainability, vary significantly in environmental impact depending on the material used. Cotton bags, for instance, have some of the highest environmental costs — as mentioned in the previous section. It requires huge land, water, and chemical fertilizers and pesticides to grow. Additionally cotton bags are hard to recycle because there is a limited amount of textile recycling facilities available.

To match the environmental footprint of a plastic bag, a standard cotton bag must be reused 131 times, while an organic cotton bag must be reused a staggering 20,000 times. When compared to paper bags, a cotton bag must be reused anywhere from 35 to 871 times to match their environmental impact.

A full circle: Breaking the cycle of material shifting

The case of shopping bags illustrates just how challenging it is to identify the most sustainable material. While reusable and paper bags demand substantial energy upfront, plastic bags inflict greater damage at the end of their lifecycle — a factor often overlooked in LCAs. Each material comes with its own pros and cons, highlighting that merely shifting from one material to another is not a real solution to the plastic pollution problem. It requires more than that.

Addressing plastic pollution demands a systemic transformation, and one key approach is adopting the waste hierarchy. The waste hierarchy provides a practical framework for managing resources responsibly, from preventing waste generation to ensuring its environmentally safe disposal. This does not apply only to individual consumers, but also to businesses. Adopting the waste hierarchy enables companies to create more sustainable product designs, optimize internal waste management, and empower consumers to make responsible choices.

Moreover, implementing the waste hierarchy can drive governments to develop better waste infrastructure, including recycling facilities. These facilities not only help prevent plastics from polluting the environment but also boost the supply of secondary plastics. By increasing recycling rates, we can reduce dependence on virgin raw materials, thereby cutting back on the extensive use of non-renewable fossil fuels.

Finally, history reminds us that simply replacing one material with another will not save us from environmental problems. The production of goods will inevitably rise alongside growing human needs. Without wiser actions and systemic change, we risk coming full circle yet again. The solution lies not only in shifting materials but also in transforming our actions and systems. It is time to act — before history repeats itself.

References

1. https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution

2. https://thesustainableagency.com/blog/the-history-of-plastic/

3. https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/chemistry/age-plastic-parkesine-pollution

4. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-brief-history-of-plastic-world-conquest/

5. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/plastic-bags-pollution-paper-cotton-tote-bags-environment-a9159731.html

6. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/sustainable-shoppingwhich-bag-best/

7. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/04/30/plastic-paper-cotton-bags/

8. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/10/03/GR2007100301385.html?referrer=emaillink

9. https://www.americanchemistry.com/chemistry-in-america/chemistry-in-everyday-products/plastics

10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620340014