Today, a shocking 150 million tons of plastic debris contaminates the world's oceans; over a million marine creatures are killed every year as a direct result of plastic waste. Plastic, unlike other substances, is not biodegradable. This means that they cannot be broken down by living organisms. They are instead photodegradable or decomposed by sunlight. Decay by the sun is a long and exhausting process; they sometimes take up to 1,000 years to fully decompose. During the long deterioration process, animals ingest small fragments and the plastic enters the food chain. Experts, including David Azoulay, believe that plastic poses a risk to the health of people and animals. He goes so far as to claim that plastic causes tumors and birth defects. Many countries have begun to take action: developed nations such as India, South Korea, the United Kingdom, along with other less developed nations, have implemented a plastic ban in some form. However, people rely heavily on plastic in their daily lives and a plastic ban could have negative repercussions. Other experts argue that a ban on plastic would cause more harm than good. The question at the heart of the debate is this: should single-use plastic be banned? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Attorney John Hite Answers Yes. He argues that banning plastic bags is a good first step towards a plastic-free future and, ultimately, a cleaner Earth. John Hite is a policy analyst working to establish guidelines for the Zero Waste project. His reputation is admirable; it not only collaborates with the zero waste project, but also with other international waste management organizations. Furthermore, he is a promoter of the plastic free campaign in New England. His vast experience earns him the respect of others and helps increase his credibility as a source of discussion. As well as demonstrating its direct experience in the plastic waste sector, increasing its reliability. John studied geography and Spanish in his high school education. Although he focused on environmental policies in Mexico during his studies, geographic education and Spanish do not meet the type of skills needed to understand the biological effects of plastic. Considering his education, his credibility diminishes. He includes many of his own opinions in his writings, sometimes at points where his thoughts on the subject seem unnecessary. A bias as this could potentially diminish its credibility. The other side of the argument responds that a plastic ban will have the opposite effect than desired, actually harming the environment and the economy. Bob Lilienfield questions plastic ban. He claims that our current alternatives to plastic will have even worse effects. Lilienfield's environmental work dates back to 1990, when he began his career initiating recycling programs for fairs and sports arenas. He went on to create the ULS Report, a now famous journal designed to spread awareness about environmental issues; wrote an article for a major news source known as the New York Times and published a book on an environmental solutions topic; currently writes about packaging and assortments for many other well-known publications; collaborates with numerous agri-food companies including the infamous WalMart. His great achievements are evidence of a good reputation and competence which enhances hiscredibility as a source. It could be argued that his immense experience makes up for the fact that he has no university education in the subject. Others may argue that business-based education is inadequate. His lack of scientific education undermines his credibility. Lilienfield's variety of experiences provide him with an acceptable ability to see from a broad perspective, adding to his credibility. The second source gives the public a picture of the economic impact of a ban. Authors Pamella Villareal and Baruch Feigenbaum argue that a ban on plastic will destroy the economy. Villareal is a longtime member of the National Center of Policy Analysis (NCPA), and Feigenbaum is an influencer at the Reason Foundation. Both of these institutions meet high standards and were founded more than thirty years ago (NCPA est. 1983 and (The Reason Foundation est. 1968). Furthermore, both are non-profit. When taken into consideration, their credibility increases Although , according to Wikipedia, both institutions are exclusively American, the fact that the institutions do not exist globally reduces their ability to see and, ultimately, their credibility. Together the writers have enormous experience in social sciences and business , however, is that their credibility is diminished in this way. The organizations for which the authors work, the NCPA and the Reason Foundation, are based in California (i.e. the NCPA) and Texas (i.e. the Reason Foundation). both places the data was recorded; the writers may have a vested interest against plastic bans in California and Texas, as financially helping their home states weakens their credibility further. John Hite's argument begins with the issue of recycling plastic waste, arguing that plastic is extremely difficult to recycle compared to other materials. This is due to the many different properties that plastic could have; Different color, density and electromagnetism make the sorting and separation process almost impossible. Recycling plastic is complicated to say the least; some plastics are not recyclable at all. John Hites says: “Plastic is sorted alongside more recyclable items such as glass jars, metal cans and paper items. But not all types of plastic are recyclable. And if the recyclable plastic becomes contaminated with non-recyclable plastic, the entire bale is sent straight to landfill.” You have to assume that the majority of people recycle for this reason to strengthen your argument. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the average recycling rate of developed countries around the world (Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Australia) is more than fifty percent lower. Hite's reasoning that plastic is difficult to recycle is not significant because most people don't recycle to begin with. Hite's next point is about the dangerous effects of plastic on the environment at every stage of the life cycle. He acknowledges and counters the other point of view, which serves to strengthen his argument. ” which shows that the carbon impact of paper, reusable plastic and cotton bags is higher than single-use plastic bags when considering the production, use and disposal of each… What this report does not includes is no attempt to calculate the toxicity of plastic or the dangers from abandoned plastic bags,” he counters. There are many reasons why poisonous and carcinogenic gases are released during the initial eras. Hite's point is well made and convincing some cases, but having said that,.