Systemic injustices and corruption have become especially salient throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Public consciousness and civic action are soaring amidst record levels of unemployment, sensationalized video exposing the horrific realities of police brutality, and intensification of the climate crisis.

Scientists have come to an overwhelming consensus that climate change is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activity, and high-level decision-makers across the globe are increasingly recognizing the climate crisis as a threat-multiplier. This term is intended to convey how the risks and hazards associated with climate change overlap with and exacerbate existing sociopolitical, economic, and human health issues.

Well stated by Rosemary DiCarlo, Head of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs for the United Nations (2018):

“The risks associated with climate-related disasters do not represent a scenario of some distant future. They are already a reality for millions of people around the globe – and they are not going away.”

Inherently oppressive policy mechanisms, such as redlining, have concentrated polluting infrastructure responsible for excessive emissions in Black, Latino, and Native American communities (1) (2) (3). While accelerating global warming and amplifying climate-related risks, pollution exposure increases racial and ethnic minority communities’ vulnerability to a number of developmental and chronic respiratory illnesses. Unsurprisingly, disproportionate exposure to pollution likewise contributes to the greater vulnerability of marginalized communities to contracting and dying from COVID-19.

A demonstrator addresses protesters in Harlem. [The Guardian/Flo Ngala]

Acknowledging the parallels between these intersecting crises, the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee of the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce held a remote hearing on June 9, 2020 entitled Pollution and Pandemics: COVID-19’s Disproportionate Impact on Environmental Justice Communities.

Mustafa Santiago Ali, the Vice President of Environmental Justice, Climate, and Community Revitalization of the National Advocacy Center at the National Wildlife Federation was among the witnesses. In his testimony, Ali draws an unsettling parallel between deeply rooted systemic racism, the militarization of policing in the United States, and exposure to toxic air- and water-borne pollutants:

“Black communities are dealing with the systemic racism that has infected the policing in our communities that is literally choking us to death. The rolling back of environmental rules and regulations has us gasping for air due to the cumulative public health impacts from the burning of fossil fuels in our communities. Covid-19 continues to devastate black, brown and indigenous communities both in infections and deaths. When we say, “I Can’t Breathe” we literally can’t breathe.”

Jacqueline Patterson, Senior Director of the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program, also highlighted the intersections between the current crises and expressed the need for an integrated approach for recovery in her testimony.

Frontline communities across the nation are actively seeking and testing their own interventions to recover and adapt in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, economic downturn, systemic inequality, and climate change. Community-led approaches acknowledge and build upon the distinct capacities and strengths of their neighborhoods, organizations, businesses, government institutions, and individuals’ identities to address social needs.

Rising sea levels threaten the Louisiana coastline where offshore drilling occurs. [Getty/Drew Angerer]

Amid historic protests against the injustices that have long oppressed Black Americans, President Trump signed an executive order to eliminate regulations used by and for the protection of frontline communities fronted with potentially harmful, federally-funded development projects.

Among the most significant environmental laws in the United States, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) creates a pathways for citizens to partake in a thorough review process for federal actions. For example, state or local officials must complete an environmental review before federal funds may be allocated for any project they’d like to propose. Any American citizen can comment on the proposal and call attention to environmental impacts not previously accounted for by the responsible federal agency. It is required that this feedback be taken into account and acted upon before the project can receive approval for federal funding. This process enhances transparency, holds decision-makers more accountable to the American public, and sheds light upon alternatives with potential co-benefits not previously identified.

The NEPA review process is among a slate of environmental statutes and regulations weakened by President Trump’s recent executive order. This is significant—even more so in the context of the compounding crises burdening historically marginalized communities. NEPA is widely considered landmark legislation, representing a historic achievement in the face of development projects that generated detrimental consequences by exacerbating environmental injustices. Rather than being perceived as obstacles to recovery, thoughtful regulations merit consideration as instruments for ensuring that long-term value is derived from federally-funded projects.

As we navigate violently compounding crises, we must hold public officials accountable for the bigger-picture outcomes of their actions and demand that they prioritize the democratic participation of frontline communities.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an excellent example of how collective action can reduce our environmental impact and mitigate severe social problems. When everyone takes action based on the evidence-based recommendations of public health experts, we collectively slow the spread of the virus and protect our communities. Similarly, as more individuals (including our elected officials and corporate elites) heed the insights of climate and biological scientists regarding the impacts of climate change and plastic pollution, we reduce the risk of exacerbating harsh impacts for frontline, coastal communities.

In spite of all lessons that we could learn from this global devastation, multinational fossil fuel corporations have driven up oil production and created a rather undesirable situation for environmental interests. The supply of oil is at a peak, meanwhile demand has collapsed due to lowed economic activity during the pandemic. This has driven the price of oil below zero for the first time in history! Global oil consumption has been in free-fall as more countries introduce unprecedented measures to fight the coronavirus outbreak. The fossil fuel industry has failed to profit from this overproduction, and they shifted their efforts from fuel refinement to ethane cracking.

Simply stated, they’re diverting the methane gas and oil that we are not consuming as fuel to produce more plastic products. Ethane cracker plants are the facilities used to process the carbon-rich inputs used to create all kinds of plastic products. Their industrial activities cause immediate health and environmental detriment to nearby communities, known as frontline or fence-line communities, while exacerbating plastic pollution impacts around the globe. 

There’s more: Our team identified direct efforts by fossil fuel industry giants to ramp up demand for non-essential single-use plastics, especially plastic bags, by taking advantage of public fear and uncertainty during this time. What better time to take advantage of the public and run a manipulative campaign than a global pandemic? We are not surprised, as the fossil fuel industry has a long history of using misinformation to advance their profits at our expense. Still, this is upsetting and it’s actively misleading many concerned consumers.

The Plastics Industry Association is currently lobbying to quash plastic bag bans, even going so far as requesting that the United States Department of Health and Human Services publicly declare that banning single-use plastics during a pandemic is a health threat. Click here to read their letter.

The spread of misinformation has led many of us to question whether it’s okay to continue using reusable bags for our occasional, ultra-cautious grocery trips.

In a study cited by the Plastics Industry Association in their letter to the US DHHS, researchers at the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University found that reusable bags can contain bacteria, and users don’t wash reusable bags very often. The study was funded by the American Chemistry Council, which represents major plastics and chemicals manufacturers. Most notably: the study recommends that shoppers simply wash their reusable bags, not replace them.

There is no evidence that single-use plastics are safer than reusable items, and it’s important for all of us to recognize that single-use plastics have a number of opportunities to become contaminated during their manufacture, distribution, inventory stocking, and use. They are exposed to open air and surfaces like any other item you may be concerned about cross-contamination from. Single-use plastics could only be proven more sanitary if packaged individually in sterile conditions and handed to the customer in intact sterile packaging—much like you would imagine a syringe is packaged before use to draw blood. Clearly, that isn’t practical or realistic.

Here’s a breakdown of our options based on currently available scientific evidence:

The New England Journal of Medicine, the world’s leading medical journal for over 200 years, published data in mid-March of this year that shows SARS-CoV-2 is more stable and has a longer lifetime on plastic and stainless steel than on copper or cardboard. Viable SARS-CoV-2 was detected up to 72 hours after application on plastic, while none was measured on cardboard after 24 hours.

There is no evidence presented here to back the claim that “single-use plastics are often the safest choice” as has been pushed upon the US DHHS. In fact, the findings suggest that cardboard is a safer single-use material than plastic with respect to COVID-19 viability.  

Another scientific study focused on the stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental conditions showed that the virus is more stable on plastic than on printing or tissue paper, wood, cloth, glass, or banknotes. SARS-CoV-2 remained detectable on plastic for 4 days, while on paper it was not detected after 30 minutes, on wood or cloth after 1 day, and on banknotes after 2 day.

According to the Center for Disease Control, COVID-19 is most often spread directly from person-to-person. However, viral spread from contact with contaminated surfaces or objects is possible. Guidelines issued by the CDC do not make a distinction between the items this may include, so we can safely assume that their recommendations apply to single-use and reusable items equally.

Single-use items are not sterile and are bound to be exposed to microbes before reaching their end users. This means that handling a single-use plastic bag, utensil, container, or cup likely poses an equal risk of infection as any reusable item.

That said, Maine, Massachusetts, and a growing number of other states are still moving quickly to allow for delays and suspensions of plastic bag bans. In New Hampshire, the governor actually issued an emergency health order requiring stores to use single-use paper or plastic shopping bags. 

We, at Debris Free Oceans, acknowledge that the nature of COVID-19 poses unusual risks. The virus may be contracted and transmitted asymptomatically, and it is understandable that reusable items such as shopping bags may be an object of concern. We urge you to make that decision based on your individual circumstances, but acknowledge that banning reusable items is an unsupported attempt that will not be a long-term solution to cross contamination.

Judith Enck, a former regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, has called the plastics industry’s recent actions “shameless” and exploitative. We agree with her statement that it is understandable to use single-use materials occasionally, when necessary or beyond our control, but “in terms of overturning or delaying laws, [Enck sees] no independent data that supports that move.”

We are all struggling in some way to navigate this new normal. Pro-environmental habits, plastic waste reduction among others, may bring about a sense of normalcy and fulfillment amidst all the current uncertainty. 

First and foremost, we strongly suggest that you wash all materials that may pose risks for cross contamination: reusables (bottles, bags, wash cloths) as well as commonly touched surfaces (steering wheel, door handles, cell phone, credit cards and wallet). If you find yourself under circumstances where you must resort to single-use materials, we suggest that you prioritize non-plastic alternatives in the best interest of your well-being and environmental health.

We stand in solidarity with all those who have made sacrifices to stay home, stay distanced, and protect our communities. We are privileged with the time and resources to consider reusables when so many of our neighbors, family members, friends, coworkers, and local leaders are charged with the challenges directly posed by this dangerous pathogen. Adhering to the guidance of public health professionals is the least we can do to support the courage and generosity of the healthcare workers and first responders at the frontlines of this crisis.