A shocking 150 million tonnes of plastic debris are now contaminating the world's oceans; more than a million sea creatures are killed each year as a direct result of plastic waste. Plastic, unlike other substances, is not biodegradable. This means they cannot be broken down by living organisms. Instead, they are photodegradable or broken down by sunlight. Sun damage is a long and tedious process; It can take up to 1,000 years to completely decompose. During the prolonged deterioration process, animals ingest small fragments and the plastic enters the food chain. Experts, including David Azoulay, believe that plastic endangers the health of people and animals. He goes so far as to claim that plastic causes cancer and birth defects. Many countries have started to take action: developed countries like India, South Korea, the United Kingdom, as well as other less developed countries have implemented a plastic ban in one form or another. However, people rely heavily on plastic in their daily lives, and a plastic ban could have negative repercussions. Other experts say a plastic ban would do more harm than good. The question at the center of the debate is: should we ban single-use plastics? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Attorney John Hite says yes. He argues that a ban on plastic bags is a good first step towards a plastic-free future and, ultimately, a cleaner Earth. John Hite is a policy analyst working on establishing guidelines for the Zero Waste Project. His reputation is admirable; it works not only with the zero waste project, but also with other international waste management organizations. Additionally, he is a promoter of the plastic-free campaign in New England. His extensive experience earns him the respect of others and helps increase his credibility as a source of argument. In addition to proving its direct experience with plastic waste, thus increasing its reliability. John studied geography and Spanish in his graduate studies. Although he focused on environmental policies in Mexico during his studies, teaching geography and Spanish does not meet the type of expertise needed to understand the biological effects of plastic. Given his education, his credibility is diminished. In his writings he includes much of his own opinion, sometimes in places where his thoughts on the subject seem unnecessary. A bias because it could potentially diminish its credibility. The other side of the argument responds that a plastic ban will have the opposite effect of the intended effect, actually harming the environment as well as the economy. Bob Lilienfield questions plastic ban. He says our current alternatives to plastic will have even worse effects. Lilienfield's commitment to the environment dates back to 1990, when he began his career implementing recycling programs for fairs and sports arenas. He then created the ULS Report, a now-famous journal designed to raise awareness of environmental issues; he wrote an article for a leading news source known as the New York Times and published a book on the topic of environmental solutions; he currently writes about packaging and sorting for many other well-known publications; he workswith many agri-food companies, including the famous WalMart. Its great achievements demonstrate a good reputation and expertise that increase its credibility as a source. One could argue that his immense experience makes up for the fact that he has no academic training on the subject. Others might argue that business-based education is inadequate. His lack of scientific training weakens his credibility. Lilienfield's variety of experiences gives him an acceptable ability to see in a broad perspective, thus increasing his credibility. The second source gives the public an idea of ​​the economic impact of a ban. Authors Pamella Villareal and Baruch Feigenbaum argue that a plastic ban would destroy the economy. Villareal is a long-time member of the National Center of Policy Analysis (NCPA) and Feigenbaum is a Reason Foundation influencer. These two establishments meet high standards and were founded over thirty years ago (NCPA founded in 1983 and Reason Foundation founded in 1968). They are also both non-profit. When this is taken into account, their credibility is strengthened. Although, according to Wikipedia, both establishments are uniquely American, the fact that they do not exist on a global scale diminishes their vision and, ultimately, their credibility. Together, the writers have enormous expertise in the social sciences. What is lacking, however, is expertise in the scientific field; their credibility is thus diminished. The organizations the authors work for, NCPA and the Reason Foundation, are based in California (i.e., NCPA) and Texas (i.e., Reason Foundation). These are two locations from which the data was recorded; writers might have a vested interest against plastic bans in California and Texas, in an effort to financially help the states in which they live. The possibility of direct interest weakens them. 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 plastics can have; differences in 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: “Plastics are sorted with more recyclable items like glass jars, metal cans and paper items. But not all types of plastic are recyclable. And if recyclable plastic is contaminated with non-recyclable plastic, the entire bale is sent directly to the landfill. You have to assume that the majority of people recycle for this reason to strengthen his 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 lower. than fifty percent. Hite's reasoning that plastic is difficult to recycle is not meaningful because most people don't recycle in the first place. Hite's next point concerns the dangerous effects of plastic on the environment at every stage of its life cycle. He acknowledges and refutes the other view, which strengthens his argument. ” which shows that the carbon impact of paper, reusable plastic and cotton bags is higher than that of single-use plastic bags when we consider the production, use and disposal of each. This report does not include, it is an attempt to calculate..