Alot - and in particular the negative - has been said about plastic, and one wonders what then should man embrace to to ensure carbon neutrality.

It is well known to us that plastic is not eco-friendly, with its dangers rooting straight from the manufacturing process to its waste state. The question then, is what can be done to solve it all. 

Well, the revolution is now to eliminate plastic as much as possible and the main substitute that has emerged is paper! "Switched to paper, no more plastic" is now the trend among commercials. 

While this is convincingly good at first thought, we surely face greater friction when we think deeper about it. No more plastic is a good message, but switching to paper is rather saddening as it means more trees will be cut down. 

Paper comes from trees and the more paper produced, the more trees that are cut. We questionably tend to sidestep this fact pretending that we know the importance of trees in reducing carbon emissions, ensuring carbon neutrality for that matter. 

Think about how many trees are being cut to make the paper for the various uses. Ponder about the books, magazines and newspapers produced on a daily basis around the world, and of course the amount of trees from which they came, before advocating for more paper carrying bags. Why isn't the e-magazine and e-newspaper campaign not as strong? Why do we instead advocate for more paper magazines and newspapers in our "beautiful" slogan of "switched to paper"? 

I am not advocating for plastic use, but rather comparing it to paper use to show that they are both a greater disadvantage in our carbon neutrality struggle and that another alternative is highly desired. 

I have come to think about it deeply, and realized that it is not the plastic that is the problem but rather the human way of using and disposing it. Yes, carbon emissions maybe released during its manufacturing (just like in the manufacturing of paper), but its greater consequences that arise from it ending up in oceans and soil (animal, fish and birds stomachs too!) is primarily up to man. 

It is the way man disposes this plastic that threatens the environment. It is this essence that has caused the once cherished and convenient invention to be labeled dangerous. I am on the thinking that things would have been different had man acted appropriately in disposing it.

While the campaign for reusing, and perhaps recycling of plastic gets hold, the paper campaign is merely the use of paper materials, without mentioning that they need to be reused too!

The same challenge will definitely catch up with us in the future, with paper use! Once man does not embrace the habit of reusing, more paper will be on demand which means more trees to be cut down. Hence, my argument is that man has to primarily embrace REUSE, if we are to progress in our carbon neutrality struggle. 

All in all, I suggest that man should find alternative solutions excluding paper and plastic because they both have huge disadvantages. Advocating for paper bags is advocating for deforestation yet a cotton bag is a better alternative with reduced negative effects.