Microplastics and pollution: separating fact from fiction. An Insider’s Perspective

They say we are swallowing five grams of plastic every week, the equivalent of a credit card. It makes a lot of panic, everybody was having fear, what is happening. We are five grams, it's a lot. Even for yesterday, I was on the biggest French radio and the journalist said, yes, we are ingesting five grams every week. And I said, no, it's not true. It's fake news. Our BA innovator today is Joseph Taieffe, General Secretary of the European Plastics Alliance and author of Plastic Bashing Fake News. In this episode, he breaks down some of the biggest myths about plastics, from whether we really eat a credit card of microplastics each week, to claims that oceans will have more plastic than fish by 2050. He also explains why bans on plastic production in Western countries may be creating a trap of their own. This is BA Innovators and I'm your host, Steve Esposito. Joseph, welcome to our program. Hello, thank you very much for this invitation. Well, glad to have you here. We have you indirect from Le Mans, France, and I had to look it up on the map. It's about an hour west of Paris and also about an hour south from Normandy, where the D-Day happened in 1944. Very significant place, obviously. It started the Western Front, World War II, and it was the beginning of the end of the war. Now, you're involved with plastics and we hear so much about plastics, mostly negative. We hear about the pollution, we hear about microplastics infiltrating into our bodies and into our foods and things we consume. And now, in your book, which I looked at yesterday, it's very interesting. It's a lot of data, a lot of evidence, a lot of survey. I was very impressed to the degree that you went to explain plastics in your book. And you're countering this narrative of plastics being so evil and you're explaining the science and the information about it. So, let's start with the microplastics because among everything that we know about plastics, this may be people's first concern about their health, right? So, tell us a bit about your studies, what you know about microplastics and how much of it, how much is true what we're hearing and then you can go into more detail about plastics. Yes, thank you very much. The story of the microplastics, they exist. It's not something that don't exist. It's a reality. The question is, what are the origins of the microplastics? It comes from what? From packaging or from something else? And the second question is, what are the effects of the microplastics on the human health, on the animals? And is there some studies which can show that there is a problem? Or maybe it's a narrative that some NGOs are using for creating some fear for the consumer, creating some fear for the politics, for the politicians and push them to maybe take some law and some new decree against the plastic industry. And what is very important, we start by the origin of the microplastics. There are several studies, independent studies. If we look at the independent study, we have all the results about the origins. And the origins are very simple. Microplastics come from tires, the tires of the cars. So it's a big source. Even the European Commission make a text, a regulation, is working on a regulation about that. Because they say it's a big source of microplastics. So in fact, if you don't want any microplastics in the environment, you need to stop the cars and stop the bike, stop everything that has a tire. So are they coming from the tires, from the usage of the tire, as the tires get worn out or if they burn? No, it's because of the use. Because when you take a new tire and the same tire after several months or several years of use, you have a loss of between one or two kilos between the same tire. So there is one or two kilos which are lost in the nature. And in fact, there is proof about that. So this is the first. And the other point, very important, is that for the electric car, because they are very heavy, the use of the tire is increased by 20 to 30 percent. So it's interesting to know that sometimes we present the electric car like very green. But in fact, there is more use of the tire because they are very heavy. The second source are the clothes, in fact, the textile. In fact, because most of our textile, the clothes that we are wearing, they are made from synthetic polymers. When you look on your clothes, you can see polyester, you can see polyamide, you can see some very chemical word or some word linked to the chemical industry. And actually, most of the clothes are made from plastic. And when they are washed, when they are in the washing machine, you have a lot of microplastics which are linked in the environment. There is proof about that. For example, in France, there is a new law that pushed the company which built the machine, the washing machine, to put a filter for the microplastics for the clothes. The fishing gear in the ocean, it's a big source of microplastics because sometimes these fishing gear, they are completely abundant in the sea or in the oceans. And in fact, they stay. And with the time and the time, the products start to be degraded. And at the end, you have microplastics in the environment. You have the road because you use sometimes the waste of the plastics when you incinerate them. In France or in Europe, it's the case. I think in the US, in America, it's the same. You use the one part of the waste which comes from the incineration and comes from plastic waste for making roads, in fact. So it's good. It's like recycling in a way. Some people say like that. But because in fact, you don't use new raw material. You use the secondary material. It's OK. But in fact, you use, in fact, plastic products for the road. And with the use of the cars, of the truck, of the bus, at the end, you have microplastics in the environment. What about from a plastic bottle or a plastic container that one may eat from? That might be many people's concern. You drink water from a plastic bottle or you have some food stored in a plastic container. Are there microplastics? Yes, there are some studies which found microplastics in tap water and in the water in a plastic bottle. In the tap water, you can find, because in fact, a lot of pipes for the water are made from plastic. You don't use a lid, actually. It's now you use a plastic pipe for the water. So it's possible to find microplastics because of that. And we found some microplastics in plastic bottles. But the cause of that, it's not from the degradation of the bottle. It's because of the cap. Because when you turn the cap, in fact, it starts a little degradation and you have some microplastics that come in the bottle. But what is very interesting is that there is a new study from France, and I can tell you France is not really a pro-plastics country about that. They make a study funded by the government, the French government. And in fact, they found more microplastics in a glass bottle than in a plastic bottle. And when they looked, it was very strange. And in the plastic bottle, the quantity was very low, you can say, very low. But in the glass bottle for beer, for tea, for soda, it was very, very high. And in fact, it was caused by the caps, but the caps were metallic. So you can see how it's possible from something from metal, from steel, for example, there you can have microplastics. It's because you cannot have direct contact with the soda because there is gas, it's acid, with something with metal. So you need to put something for protection. And the protection, it's a kind of plastic. In fact, it's a kind of, we can say, of color, of painting, we can say. It's a kind of painting. And this painting released a lot of microplastics in the bottle. That's why there is another source of microplastics, it's the painting. The painting for painting your house, the painting that you use for painting your car, the painting for the boat, etc. So there are several sources. So even if you want to ban all the packaging, all the plastic bottles, all the single-use plastic around you, you will have microplastics around you. Now let's talk about the dangers and the quantities. I looked at a study, I think it's in your book, in 2019, there was a study that said that on the average, a human ingests, I forgot which country it was, maybe it was Europe or the US, but a human ingests about 5 grams of microplastic per week, which is the equivalent of the size of a credit card. Please tell us about that. Because obviously there would be a lot of concern. This Bay Area Innovators episode is sponsored by Peter Cassara Clothiers, an Italian menswear store that brings timeless European style with a modern edge to Sunnyvale and the Bay Area for over 50 years. From top Italian suits and shoes to the exclusive Tami Bahama line, they've got your look covered. Check out their website at petercassaraclothiers.com to find out more. And now, back to our interview. It was a study from WWF. So it's not a neutral study. They funded a study from the New Zealand Research Center, I think, I have to look exactly the name of the university, in fact, they say we are ingesting, we are swallowing 5 grams of plastic every week, the equivalent of a credit card. And this affirmation, this study, in fact, made a lot of damage in Europe and in France, because it makes a lot of panic. Everybody was having fear. What is happening that we are 5 grams is a lot. You know, you can imagine it's a very high number. And I can show you. They put that on the internet. You can find that. And they say we are eating the 5 grams every week. But there is a science and the science, in fact, new scientists, independent scientists, start to look more precisely to the study of WWF. And in fact, the study of WWF, they keep it very high. In fact, they show the results, but the detail of the study, we only had it two years after, in fact, one year and a half after. And when we had the real methodology, the method and the conclusion and how they arrived to these results, and there are new studies that arrive and they say that, I can read you exactly, there is a study, the name is ingested microplastics, do humans eat one credit card per week? You can find it on the web. It's open. It's the Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters. And the scientist says, the statement that humans ingest 5 grams of microplastics per week is reviewed. The calculation of 0.1 to 5 grams per week contains several errors, contains several errors. Great care must be taken when combining microplastic data of different measurements. In fact, the study of WWF, and I say like that in the book, it's a fake news at the end. It was not true because, in fact, there was a lot of mistake, a lot of errors. And when we look in the detail, there is new study that say that, in fact, we are swallowing 5 grams every 23,000 years. Every 23,000 years and not every week. So the quantity are very low. You know, it's very, very low. So the study that make his effect, in fact, and the France start to make new law, it was a few months later, the France take a law for banning all the single-use plastic packaging in 2014. They say we have to ban all the single-use, all the single-use packaging on the market. Tomatoes wrapped in plastic film, aubergines in plastic netting, or these pre-packed peppers will soon be off the shelves in France. Single-use plastic is still widely used to package fresh fruits and vegetables. In France, a third of produce is sold this way, from large supermarkets to smaller green grocers. But from the 1st of January, that will be changing. Fortunately, we fight with the European Commission and the European Commission make a new regulation that, in fact, doesn't let France go to this way. So now we are protected about that. Yeah, one point I want to make is that 2019, the results of the study came out, and what would bother me as a consumer is that not so much the debate between the studies, because there's always going to be different studies, you learn from one from the other, maybe the answer is in the middle somewhere. But what would bother me is that there were decisions made in 2019 based on these results, but the study itself was only made public two years later, in 2021. So no one actually was able to understand the study, they just saw some summarized results, and the decisions were made based on that. Is that common? Does that happen in France normally? Or why would this happen? Why would the decisions be made without seeing the actual results? I hope it's an exception in the history of science and the history of the industry. But it's true, it's very strange to have only the conclusion of a study in 2019. In 2020, you make a law, let's say, you will ban all the single-use plastic packaging because you have a lot of microplastics and we are invaded by microplastics and we are ingesting five grams every week. And two years after, you have the results on the table. But the medias in France, most of them, they didn't say that we make a mistake. We didn't say that we are sharing fake news, that in fact there was some errors. And even for yesterday, I was on the biggest French radio and the journalist said, yes, we are ingesting five grams every week. And I said, no, it's not true, it's fake news. And I brought a book published in 2023 that showed that it's not true. There is study in 2021 and 2022. And even until now, there is several studies that show that the WWF studies was completely wrong. But, you know, it's very easy to propagate something very false. But for the true, it takes more time to show something is true. My big concern is that with all these events, in fact, the first collateral damage, in fact, is the science, you know, is the science. Because in fact, the consumer and the people, they will lose their confidence about the science with all this story, you know. Because one day they say, everybody say that we have a story study, we say five gram. And two years after, we show that, no, it's not the truth. So it's a very big damage for the science. Yes. Now, again, in your book, you explain pretty clearly a lot of these studies. And I really, I was pretty impressed by that, as I said before. Let's talk a bit about NGOs. You mentioned there's a lot of NGOs that are involved in pretty much studying this aspect and coming with conclusions and, you know, and results. Now, tell us a bit about the background and some of the, you know, who funds these NGOs and basically, are they independent? What is their goal? What are they trying to accomplish? We hear they are NGOs, non-governmental... Organization. Organization, association. But it's very interesting to see when you look at their finance, they have a lot of funds from governments, from public funds. So it's very interesting to have the public fund and say we are not governmental organization. And the NGOs, actually, in France, it's more than Germany, more than Spain or Italy. We have a lot of people say we have a continent of plastic. I can say in France, we have a continent of NGOs. They are all here. And in fact, they don't have the same ideas or the same proposal. When they are in France than when they are in Germany or in Switzerland or other countries. For example, WWF. I know some people of WWF that participate in Germany with some meeting with plastic industry. It's okay. It's very good. And they say that plastic packaging is wonderful. And when you use recycled content, when it's reusable, et cetera. But in France, they come and they say, no, plastic, it makes cancer. Plastic, five gram every week. There is problem with plastic. So it's very strange to see that they don't have the same position in one country and in other. And actually, the NGOs, they are not neutral because in fact, they have agendas. Sometimes there is some interest behind them. In my book, I show that about some NGOs funded by German funds, public German funds for attacking the plastic industry in France. A few months before, there was the School of Economic Warfare. Based on my book, there is some NGO paid by foreign countries which they come in France to make some propaganda against the plastic industry. Because it's very efficient to use an NGO to destroy local industry. But when the local industry is destroyed, the factory closed, shut down. At the end, the country will need the plastic. At the end, it will need that. So the other country can come and say, I will be your saver and I will import, give you the plastic you need. The NGOs, they can become, not all of them, there is some honest NGOs too. But in the plastics case, I see a lot of bad faith. In the same radio emission of yesterday, there was an NGO too. And the person said, I never say that we are swallowing five grams every week. We never believe that. It's not true. I found on internet from his NGOs documents that they support this theory. And now, because now the science and we arrive with the document and you show to them that it's fake news. Now they say, we never see that. It was just communication. It was just for communication, for making reaction in the public. But we didn't believe in that. It's very, they are using very bad methods, yes. Now you are, it seems like there is a movement or a push in France to ban manufacturing of plastics. And if that happens, you can tell me more about this. But from your book, it sounds, and from looking around ourselves, it seems like it's not possible to survive in this age without plastic. You cannot replace plastic. And I'll ask you more about that. But who is to benefit if factories in France are being stopped or banned? You know, the plastics, Europe represents around 15%, 14% of the plastic industry in the world. USA, America is around 18, 19%. China is 41. And France is 9% of the 14, 15. So it means we represent 1% of the plastic production of the world. It's not a lot, but we have 3,000 factories, companies. We have 120,000 workers, if you want a direct worker in the plastic industry and in the various sectors. And at the end, if the plastic industry disappears, in France, it doesn't mean that the plastic will disappear. In France, we had a lot of textile industry, for example, which disappeared from France. It doesn't mean that we don't have synthetic textile now, but actually, they are coming from China, most of them, or from Korea, or from a country that can manufacture the clothes with a cheap price. And this is my big concern, because in fact, I'm not defending the plastic. For the plastic, it's material. You know, it's inert material. I'm defending the companies and the women and the men who are behind the plastic industry. And what I want is that France and other countries in Europe, because in fact, we represent all the European industry, they can have their independence for the plastic industry. They need to have their own factory for making their products for themselves and not depend on other countries. When we had in France the COVID-19 crisis, you know, the government said we have to put masks. Everybody has to put face masks. And we look, and there were no factories in the capacity to do that. So in fact, we ordered masks from China. And at the end, we depend on China for our face masks. And some companies start to build new factories for the masks. They say, okay, we love our country. We want to be independent. And we start to make some factories. But at the end, when the crisis was finished, France, the French government, continue to order masks from China or from other countries more cheap. And so we have a lot of new factory of face masks just built after the COVID-19. They just closed. So when you don't have public policy for support your industry, and when I say public policy, it's not to give money. It's moral support and regulation support. We need to really to have the good regulation. We need to have the confidence that if you have factory, when the public authorities will want to buy something, they will ask to us to deliver. And actually, the price is the first reason for a choice for a company or another, actually. And this is the shame. Let me ask you, through your research and through your studies, have you seen any direct evidence that an NGO is being sponsored or held by a foreign country with the purpose of switching this manufacturing, with the direct intent to do that? Have you seen that? For Germany, yes. We had the foundation. The name of the foundation is Heinrich Boll. And in fact, it was the same NGOs which attacked the French nuclear industry. Because a few years before, the French start to leave the nuclear facilities. They say, we have to stop the nuclear facilities. We have to go to renewable. We have to go to wind turbine. We have to use solar. And they start to shut down some very big nuclear facility. And this NGO, there is proof, not from me, but from the School of Economic Warfare. They make several years before some studies about that. And they show that there is some interference, we can say, from these NGOs. Because these NGOs is 99% funded by the German government. It's linked to the Green Party in Germany. You know, the Green Party. It's not just a friend of the party. It's really linked. It's a satellite, you can say, of this Green Party. And these NGOs start in 2019 to attack the plastic industry. They start to found some comic strip, for example, in France. And the author of the comic strip was paid by the, or sponsored by the NGO. And they start to make event in the National Assembly, in the Parliament. And you have some member of the Parliament which are against plastic. We have to found why they are against and start to make the promotion of this comic strip, of this book, of the event. And so we have the proof of that. And the report on the economic war on the plastic industry, it's in French, but it demonstrate that what I said in the book, the theory I had in the book, in fact, was the reality. Yeah, let me change gears a little bit and go back to recycling and to some of the critics are saying. There's critics saying that by 2050, there's gonna be more plastic in the oceans than fish. Can you tell us about that? What are your thoughts on that? This is another sentence for making fear in the people. They are very good for marketing. You know, the NGOs, we can say that to them. It's for marketing and for using the good sentence and the good image. They are very strong about that. But there is a big problem. The problem is that nobody knows that how many fish you have in the ocean actually. So when you don't know how many fish you have, you cannot say that there will be more plastic or more fish. And this affirmation come from Helen MacArthur organization. It was a study on the San Francisco Bay. And they say, we found that on San Francisco Bay. So in fact, we can extrapolate for the world and we can imagine that there is, there will be more plastic than fish, but it's not true because in fact, we don't know the data about the fish. But for the people, if you don't think more, but you just really take the sentence and you are scared and you say to yourself, okay, I have to stop to use plastic. I will go to see my congressman and say to him, make a law against plastic because it's not possible to have so much plastic in the environment. There is a lot of manipulation. Now, let me also clarify, you are a proponent of recycling, right? And from what I understand, you are also representing the recycle organization. So when you have the recycling organizations working hand in hand, is that doing enough in your opinion to take care of the plastic industry? In fact, the recycling, there is a lot of recycling sector. You have the mechanical recycling, the plastic, it's the most common. And now you have the chemical recycling, which is coming and you have big company, for example, the Eastman Chemical. It's a big American company who had the project to make a 1 billion euro investment in Normandy. In fact, he has this project, but the NGOs in France attacked the project. They sued the company and they are trying to cancel the project. 1 billion euros of chemical recycling project in France. In fact, actually, Europe is very in advance for recycling because the NGOs always say the recycling doesn't work. The recycling is a lie. The recycling is just a way for the industry to continue their business. But when you have actually 9% of the plastic in the world, global world, which are recycled actually, it's true. It's only 9% if you take the average in the world. It's not a proof that the recycling is not working. It's just proof that the recycling didn't start, in fact. Because if we want to show that the recycling of the plastic doesn't work, you need to have something like 60, 70% of recycling rate and you need to have the same pollution at the end. But it's sure that when you have only 9%, you will have in one way or another some pollution. So it's possible to do better. And Europe with his regulation show it's possible because the rate of recycling in Europe is 41%. It's 41%, but the NGOs never say that. They always talk about the 9% with all the world. And you have some countries that the recycling rate is zero. You know, it's not one, it's not two, it's zero. But in Europe, it's 41%. You have some countries like Germany, it's 50%. Slovakia sometimes approach the 60%. So it's a lot. France, we are not very good. We are around 25%. It's possible to increase that. But actually, the big problem for our companies is sometimes the plastic which come from China. We have a big issue in Europe, not only France, from the plastic coming from China. Tell you one story about what happened. In fact, in 2024, there was a lot of dumping. And the European Commission confirmed some anti-dumping measures against China because there is a big importation of PET. PET is the same plastic you use for a bottle of water, for example. And in fact, the European Commission, I quote them, they considered that the dumping practiced by China represented a clearly forcible and imminent threat of injury to the EU industry. So in fact, we need to protect ourselves against the importation of polymers from China because the polymers which come from China, we can say they are from good quality. We cannot say that they are bad quality. They are good quality. But they are very cheap. And they are very cheap. And it's not possible for the people who are making recycling content here to compete with China. It's not possible. So at the end, actually, we have a lot of factory of recycling, of plastic recycling. They are closing, actually. So it's even virgin material they are recycling. We have down chemical. They are closing in Europe, a lot of factory, too. So it's a very big danger. And because if you don't have the factory for making some recycled content, we will be really blocked for business because the European regulation gives some target of incorporation of recycling content in the packaging. So we need to have the second type of material, the recycled content material. If you don't have that, we will depend from China. So it's very dangerous. Now, speaking of that, the automotive federation, the European Automotive Federation, has decided that by 2035, all cars that are to be sold in Europe have to be electric cars. EU's upcoming ban on the sale of new internal combustion engine cars after 2035. That, of course, one of the EU's key climate policies. And some have said that this is a gift to China because China is a big producer of electric cars. Do you see any similarities with the plastic industry? And do you see any evidence that China has any paid for any research in France or in other countries that would influence to stop the production of plastic in France so that China can benefit? Have you seen anything like that? Me, myself, no. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it exists. We have to study that. But it's true that for the electric car, the winner actually is China. A reaction to the extraordinary rise of China's electric vehicle market. They make up over half of all EV sales globally. And in just a few short years, have brought slick and affordable electric cars to the market. Key to this rise is the electric vehicle battery. This part of the EV is where China has really come to dominate the global market. As you can see on the number, the BYD, for example, company, I see a lot of BYD in France, actually, they have a very low price. The quality is not bad. You cannot say that they are working bad. But you can say that, yes, it's a gift to China because they have the industry of battery. It's more than the European Commission who take this decision, but with the support of the automotive industry and of the leader of the automotive industry at this time. And maybe, it's not sure, but maybe we will have some shift, maybe, or some change. Because I think the European Commission start to see that there will be some problem. It would be very difficult, maybe, to put electric car everywhere. The price is very high. And maybe, there will be some change. So it's not finished, maybe, for the terminal one. We have to see. But in the plastic industry, from China, we can have some suspicion. We need to look more. But it's sure that from some kind, for example, of plastics, if we give priority to them, it can be on the benefits of China and maybe Korea or some country that they are very strong in this technology. That's why we have to be careful when we want to put the technology in priority. You need to put the technology that you are, in fact, you masterize it. If you put the technology that you are not good in it, you will lose your sovereignty at the end. And actually, you have some debate about some biodegradable plastics and compostable plastics. We support this kind of plastics because they are plastics, in fact. At the end, it's just the material sometimes is different and the way that they finish in the end of life is different. You don't need to recycle them. They have a way of biodegradability which needs some specific condition, humidity, oxygen, light, and temperature. But at the end, the product can disappear. This is the advantage. You cannot use it everywhere. You cannot use it for making a car, biodegradable car, for example. It would be very complicated. But in some aspect, it can be useful. But we can see that sometimes you have some people that make intervention in the medias, in fact, against the recycling system, against the conventional plastic. In fact, they are working on this kind of plastic or they are working only sometimes in a way or another, maybe to China. And we have to be careful about that. But I think we need more investigation about that and to be very careful and not to be naive. Now, let's talk more about the alternatives. You know, the critics say, you know, stop plastic. Again, from your book, and I did some research on this as well, a car, about half of it is plastic. And then, but it only weighs about 10% of the car. And again, plastic is everywhere. Now, talk to us about what the alternatives can be to replace plastic, if there are any. I will talk to you about a new study. It's a study of 2024. So it's after my book, but it confirms exactly what I said in my book with other study. And this study said, replacing plastics with alternatives is worse for greenhouse gas emissions. In most cases, this is these studies. You can find it on the Internet. This is the title. And I quote you the study. It's very clear. Our results show that in 15 of the 16 applications, a plastic product incurs fewer greenhouse emissions than their alternatives. In this application, plastic products release 10 to 90% fewer emissions across the product life cycle. And it's in all application, not only car, it's in construction, it's in the food packaging. And they say it's very important in some applications, such as food packaging, no suitable alternatives to plastic exist. No suitable alternative to plastic exists. And these results demonstrate that care must be taken when formulating policies or interventions to reduce plastic use, so that we do not inadvertently drive a shift to non-plastic alternatives with higher greenhouse emissions. This is a very big, important topic because plastic, the end of life of plastic can be problematic. Yes, if you let the waste in the street, if you mismanage, yes, it can be a problem. Yes, if it's finished in the sea or in the ocean, you can have a fish or can swallow it and then we can have a problem. Yes. But the product didn't finish in the ocean by itself. Somebody threw it or there is a big problem of collecting and sorting in the country. But what is sure is that the greenhouse emission of the plastic industry, in fact, the plastic product is very low because it needs very few energy to build a plastic product. That's why it's cheap. In fact, the cost of the plastic is very lower than if you compare to steel, if you compare to aluminium, if you compare to paperboard, if you compare to ceramic, if you compare to glass. A lot of NGOs present the glass like the solution of the future. For me, it's a solution of the past. It's 1,400 degrees from making glass up to recycling it and you need gas. So it's from fossil industry, you know. Nobody says that glass is linked to the fossil industry. But in fact, for making glass, you need the gas to do that. And in fact, the same people who are saying that we have a climate change, we have the greenhouse emission are the key, are the target. We have to reduce our greenhouse emission. They are proposing to replace plastics but products which emit more greenhouse emission. So it's very strange for me. And in the book, in one page, I say that, in fact, if you are against plastic, you are climate sceptical because if you really believe in the climate change, you will be for plastic because it's the greener. And even the European Union, they can say it's official. It's an official document. It's the future of the European competitiveness. It's on the internet. You can find it. It was published by Mario Draghi, the past president of the Central Bank. And he gives his report to the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. And you have, on page 102, big parts about the plastic and the rubber. And what he says, he's not an NGO. He's not an industry. He's a politician. And he says that rubber and plastic production generates much less direct greenhouse emissions than the four energy-intensive groups that have been the focus of the chapter. And the four groups are ceramic, glass, paperboard, steel, aluminum, and chemical products. So in fact, even the politicians may know that. So that's why, if we want to change and shift plastic to something else, we will have biggest greenhouse emissions. The greenhouse emission is one aspect, but there is a second aspect that the NGOs never talk about. It's the use of the water. It's the use of the water because water is, I think it's a very rare resource. We need to take care of the water. We need water. There is some countries in the world that don't have water for the people. And when you look to the amount of water that you need for making a product, it's astonishing. You need, for example, for making one kilo of steel, you need 300 to 600 liters of water. For making one kilo of paper, 500 liters. Compare that to one kilo of plastics, it's one or two liters. One or two liters compared, for example, the paper, 500 liters. So if you want to put alternatives, you will have to take alternatives that emits more greenhouse emissions and use more water. And I can say you will not have the same property of the plastic. You know, the plastics, the family of material with specific properties, it's very light, and it's protected against oxygen, against the gas. You can do whatever you want with the plastics. And in fact, it combines all the advantages of all the family of other materials, you know. Fascinating. That's very interesting. Joseph, what is it that motivates you? What is the factor that's the most important to you in doing your work and talking about this and writing the book? What's the first thing that comes to mind? You know, all the men and the women of the plastic industry, every day they are constantly being singled out as polluters, out as criminals. Even they are working hard and under very conditions that are very difficult if you compare to other countries like Africa or Asia where there is no regulation about the plastic. They are working very hard. And in fact, in France, or you can say maybe in Europe too, the most of the professional organizations are more, they have more and more institutional, you can say, approach. You know, they have messages that may resonate with industry, but in fact, not with the general population, not with the general public, you know. And they are always on the defensive. They are always defend. And me, when I see that, I say we have to fight back. It's time to stop the suffering, stop to always being hijacked by the very vocal minority in the media. And I say that we have to react. And when I look to the industry and people in the industry, I say that there is nobody who wants to defend. Nobody wants to take the risk to face the NGOs. Nobody wants to take the time to go to the media. Nobody wants to make a book about that. And when I look to the amount of books against plastic in France, it's incredible. And when I look, if I can find, I looked, found maybe one book for plastic. I saw no one. And I say, no, I have to write a book. And I am actually inside the system, you know. And some people say you represent the plastic industry. So you write a book. It's not natural. Maybe. But when, I don't know, some can say some lawyer talk about a case and write a book about one of his biggest case. Nobody say there is a conflict of interest. You talk only about what you know, about what you live every day. And me, I am living that. I live with, I see the people of the plastic industry. I see the worker. And I don't want to wait to be out of the system when I will be retired, when I be out of the decision to start to say, yes, we have to do that. We have to do that. And you know, when the ship is rocking, it's, you have to steer the rudder, you know. It's not after the ship has sunk, you know. It's, you cannot arrive after the battle and become resistant after the battle. We have to resist when there is the battle. And because it's worth it. It's the industry of the future, you know, the NGOs. And I agree with them. They say plastic industry will have a growth of two or three during the next 20 years. The production and the growth, the plastic industry in the world will be multiplied by two or three. I agree with that. Maybe more, maybe more. Minimum two or three, more production. For the NGOs, it's a big problem. But for me, business, it's a very big opportunity. We can say how many sectors you know that they have this kind of horizon, you know. No one, no one. So the question is, who wants to be part of this evolution and of this business? If we don't do the plastic in France and in Europe, it will be the Chinese or India. India is starting to be a very big industry, a plastic industry too. The Turkey, Turkey starts to be very strong in recycling too. The South Korea, they are very strong. The Brazil, of course, the United States, you have historically a very big plastic industry. But now we are seeing the new emerging country. You know, the South Africa started to be a very big country for the plastic industry too. So, and I don't want that we say, no, we have to stop our industry ourselves. We have to kill our industry and let the product of the other countries come here. No, we have a strong industry. And we have to share another point of view in the media. We have to fight back. And that's why I picked my plastic keyboard and I start to make this book. And I can say that even I make no money with this book because I choose, it was my decision, not the decision of the board or somebody else. I start to give all the money from this, when you buy this book to directly to my organization. So for me, I do it that for really for the heart, you know, because I'm believing of the cause and I don't want that somebody can say that I am making myself rich with a book on the plastic bashing or something like that. No, so I do it because I believe really to what we are doing. And this is one of the big reasons why I wrote the book and I start the battle. Also, I want to talk about the polluters. Who are the biggest polluters, the biggest waste polluters of plastic in the world? And how does that relate to the whole plastic industry? What is very interesting is that it's not the country which produced, was the big production of plastic, that they are the polluter of the world. People sometimes think that if you are a big producer, it means that we are a big polluter. It's not exactly the case because for example, the Philippines, only the Philippines, is 36% of the plastic pollution in the ocean. And if you look, for example, India, India is 12%, 12% and India is a very biggest country than, of course, than the Philippines. But in fact, the pollution is only 12. North America, it's 4.5, 4.5. China is 7, it's 7.2, around 7.2. It's more than North America, but it's less than Philippines. And all Europe is 0.6. In fact, the more you have coast and you have contact with the water, the more there is risk for pollution. And the Philippines, it's a multitude, in fact, of islands. So in fact, there is no possible for collecting the waste. The bin is the street at the end. So if they use one straw, one plastic bag, they don't have the choice to send it in the water. But if we want to look on the macro view, Asia is 81% of the plastic pollution and Africa is around 8%. So in fact, 90% of the pollution in the ocean in plastic come from Asia and Africa. That's why it's important to develop some system of collecting and sorting in these countries. My final question is, you're thinking of writing a new book and I think it's called Whoever Controls the Plastic Industry Controls the World. I think you touched a little bit on it. Please tell us more. What are your thoughts on that book? Exactly. This is the subtitle of the book. It's not exactly the title of the book, but this is, in fact, the summary of the book. Because in fact, the plastic family material is the only material which is present in every sector. In the military sector, you have it in the construction sector, in the automotive sector, in the spaceship sector, in the airplane sector, and for the farmer industry, for the food packaging, everywhere. You have plastic everywhere. And if you don't have the plastic for your military, for a construction, for your automotive, for your food in the supermarket, at the end, you depend from the other countries. And you know when your plastics come sometimes from other countries, the final product will come from other countries too. So the risk is there. And when you look to the history of the plastics, you can see that, in fact, it was not possible to win the Second World War without the plastic. You know, the Manhattan Project, for example, the atomic bomb, you need a specific kind of plastic for making it. When there was the big attack on the Normandy, you need the plastic for the parachute, you know. So without plastic, it's not possible for the radar, for the plane. So if you don't have plastic, you will lose the war. It's sure. There is a big example, a funny example I put in the book with some plastic tank used by Ukrainian army and by the Russian army. They are using that for making some deception to the plane and to make them bomb, not the real tank, but the plastic tank, in fact. And they are using that in both sides, you know. It's very interesting to see that. So that's why it's very important to realize that the plastic industry is the industry of today and tomorrow. And it's a new industry. And all the innovation, in fact, in the plastic industry, they are very high. Actually, they found some bacteria that they can eat the plastic. They found you can make some paracetamol. It's a medical substance that you can use plastic waste to use that for making that. So there is innovation every day. And actually, China, for example, is investing a lot in the plastic industry. You know, there are 31% of the plastic production come from China. And in fact, they are a very strong industry. And they support their industry. So it's really helped the Chinese companies for developing themselves. And what we are waiting is that in our area, in Europe, and I hope for you in the USA, we will have this support too. Because in fact, you need the support of the government. And I'm not talking only for the money. I'm talking really for regulation and even on the media, on the public. You know, having a good word on the plastic on television, sometimes it's worth more than having money from the government, you know. And we need our politicians to protect and say that we are proud of our plastic industry. It's more important, I think, for the manufacturer than having money or having something like that. We need to have the politicians say, there is a pollution. We will fight against the pollution. But it doesn't mean that we want to fight against the pollution that we have to shut down the factory. You know, in the European Commission of the Environment, Jessica Roswaal said two days before, we like the plastic. We don't like the plastic pollution. So it's exactly what we have to do. Joseph, thank you so much for your time. Thank you for understanding and letting us know more about this interesting topic on plastics. It's been eye-opening, I think, for me and I hope for our audience as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for watching another episode of Bay Area Innovators. If you enjoyed this episode and you know someone who should be on our show, please send us an email at sfbay.epochtimes.com. We would love to hear from you. Thank you and see you next week.