Butting Out Cigarette Litter

In a previous blog post, we have discussed the world’s most prevalent form of beach litter – plastic.

But can you guess what specific type of plastic is found most on the beach? Well, it might surprise you to find that it is actually cigarette butts.

Yes, cigarette butts are in fact made of plastic despite looking like paper. There are an estimated 5.6 trillion cigarettes manufactured every year worldwide, of which only a third is estimated to be disposed of properly. Out of the remaining two thirds, a large amount finds its way into the ocean from beaches and other water bodies that people casually throw their cigarette butts in.

In the 2018 summary by The Ocean Conservatory of litter co

llected during their annual beach clean-up day, over 2,4 million cigarette butts were collected, which when lined up is equal to the length of 5 marathons!

Picture by Brian Yurasits on Unsplash (https://unsplash.com/photos/yK3ydPK2ZBo)

The usual issues when it comes to ocean litter apply to cigarette butts, like animals mistaking them for food, and acting as a source of bioaccumulation. However, cigarette butts, especially their filters, also absorb many chemicals such as nicotine and tar from cigarette smoke and these are especially harmful to animals if consumed.

A study showed that one cigarette butt in one liter of water was enough to poison and kill a fish. These chemicals also slow the growth rate of plants and would probably affect aquatic plants in the same way.

It is quite ironic that the small part of the cigarette that is supposed to protect humans from these harmful chemicals is poisoning other lives instead.

What makes this problem worse is the time that it takes for cigarette butts to decompose. According to this study, even when incubated in soil, after 2 years the smoked cigarette butts only lost less than 40% of its mass, imagine how much longer it would take in the cold ocean waters.

Picture by Brian Yurasits on Unsplash (https://unsplash.com/photos/Tlo9kM6u__E)

Now, let us take a look at why there are so many cigarette butts in the ocean. The main reason behind this s the sheer number of cigarette buds produced in the first place. Due to the nicotine in cigarettes, smoking is highly addictive and thus it is difficult for people to quit once they start. This leads to a large number of smokers, demanding an even larger amount of cigarettes for them to smoke.

One possible way to prevent smoking would be to do something that the government here in Singapore has implemented, to restrict smoking to only specific areas. This way, trash cans can be put near those areas, for convenient access and throwing away of the butts once smokers are done smoking. However, smoking is still allowed in beaches in Singapore, showing that more still can be done to prevent these butts from entering the ocean.

Perhaps another possibly more controversial solution would be to promote other forms of nicotine for smokers to get their nicotine fix, such as electronic cigarettes. Despite still having similar health risks as the regular cigarette, these electronic cigarettes do not have the same disposable plastic filters as normal ones, reducing the amount of single-use waste generated.

In conclusion, the problem of cigarette buds in ocean litter is a serious one but not one that is easily solved. So let us remember to dispose of our cigarettes properly and butt out cigarette waste today!

 

7 Replies to “Butting Out Cigarette Litter”

  1. Hi Mark!
    This is such an interesting read and I’ve learnt a lot from this post! I never knew that cigarettes are mainly made of plastic!
    I would like to ask for your opinion on why do you think that the government still allows smokers to smoke on the beach even though they know that it harms the beaches?

    1. Hi Chloe! Nice to see you here, in the case of Singapore, the smoking bans are actually more targeted towards preserving the health of second-hand smokers with the reduction of litter is just an unintended outcome of it. As such the rationale behind allowing smoking on beaches is because of the large, open area that reduces the risk of second-hand smoke. It is quite a shame that the environment is not taken into account when administering these rules but there is still hope that eventually the health and environmental rules will coincide, as seen in the case of parks, where smoking is already banned.
      Thanks
      Mark

  2. Joanna Coleman says: Reply

    Hi Mark,

    Very interesting post. My favourite line is:
    “It is quite ironic that the small part of the cigarette that is supposed to protect humans from these harmful chemicals is poisoning other lives instead.”

    Can I ask why any society accepts the sale and merchandising of a product (tobacco) whose main component (nicotine) is among the most addictive compounds out there and whose habitual use is a leading risk factor for heart disease (the world’s top killer) ? If governments can crack down on, e.g., mushrooms & marijuana, which are far less harmful, then I would think logic dictates they ban the sale of tobacco.

    On another note, you may be interested to know that a growing number of studies document the intentional use of littered cigarette butts by nesting birds. Check out this short article, for instance, or just Google “cigarette butts bird nest”
    https://www.nature.com/news/city-birds-use-cigarette-butts-to-smoke-out-parasites-1.11952

    jc

    1. Hi Dr Coleman,
      Thanks for reading this post!

      I feel that society accepts the sale of tobacco in a similar way that it does alcohol. Since it is already such a widely accepted (even more so for those addicted to it) part of our society, that if a ban or restrictions were to take place, there would be a major public backlash as some may feel that it would be infringing on their right to free will. I remember last year when in Singapore the legal age to buy cigarettes was raised to 21 from 18, there were many people who were angered.

      Also, another possible reason why the government might not want to impose restrictions is due to a large amount of revenue they earn from taxing tobacco. Tobacco, to addicts, is considered a necessity and thus they would be willing to pay a high price for the good.

      Thanks also for the article, it is really so amazing how these birds are able to identify cigarette butts as a way to exterminate parasites in the first place, not even considering their ability to differentiate smoked and unsmoked butts. However, I must worry for these birds and their young being in such close proximity to the harmful chemicals in the butts.

      Thanks
      Mark

      1. Joanna Coleman says: Reply

        Hi Mark,

        Thanks for your reply ! Very interesting what you said about public reaction to raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco – I had no idea. And here’s something that occurs to me. You were old enough to serve in the NS (e.g., handle a firearm !) but not to vote or buy cigarettes.

        And I certainly take your point about govt revenue from taxes on tobacco. I guess for me, here’s the thing. The vast majority of smokers are addicted. And smoking tobacco has absolutely no health benefits – it only does harm. In contrast, the vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so responsibly, and alcohol in moderation, has certain health benefits, depending on the type consumed.

        So I guess I feel that while there’s a case to be made for banning smoking, I still acknowledge that the backlash could be significant and there could be negative consequences, such as simply driving the tobacco trade underground, and thus increasing criminal activity. And we know that’s true from the impact of the alcohol prohibition during the 1920s. And opposite evidence, specifically that legalising marijuana in certain jurisdictions may be linked to lower crime rates. All that said, I’m angry at the entire tobacco industry and its links to taxation and governments because of how many people have died from smoking. My mum smokes and all my life I’ve worried about how this will end up affecting her.

        And as you hypothesise, despite the anti-parasite benefits to nesting birds, using cigarette butts in their nests may be damaging to their fitness too.

        https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2017.00004/full#B71

        Thanks for engaging so meaningfully !

        jc

  3. Hello Mark!

    Thank you for your post, wow I never knew cigarettes contained plastic filters within them, no wonder they take so long to degrade in the environment! :( For the controversial solution that you shared on replacing cigarette butts with electronic cigarettes, although they reduce the amount of single-use waste generated, they still require electricity to work. Given how electricity-hungry our world already is and our huge reliance on fossil fuels for energy, do you think that e-cigarettes would still be a better alternative to normal cigarettes?

    Something else I’ll like to ask about would be the magnitude of the plastic waste generated by cigarette butts! Each cigarette is really small, meaning that the plastic filters within them are even smaller. As such, I’m not sure how big the amount of plastic waste generated by cigarette butts is – is the amount of plastic generated much smaller in comparison to plastic generated from other sources of waste (e.g. plastic bottles, plastic bags)? If so, do you think that governments should prioritise this problem of cigarette butt waste?

    Looking forward to hear what you think, thanks so much!

    1. Hi Yee Qi!
      Thanks for giving my blog a read!
      The electricity consumption of electronic cigarettes is actually not that high! They usually run on batteries or even USB chargers and have a similar consumption as a mobile phone. That, however, is an interesting point and could be used to argue against the use of electronic cigarettes.

      Another interesting way to think of e-cigarettes considering the fossil fuels used would be similar to the problem of metal straws or other “sustainable” products whereby the initial energy cost of production is many times more than the cost of producing a single-use one, but if used in the long run, the more metal straw will have a lower accumulated energy cost than many single-use items.

      As for your second question, for me, I feel that honestly these two problems are interconnected and as such it is hard to prioritize one over another. The methods of solving them are also very similar as they both would have to do either with the prevention of throwing them plastic items into the sea, or a reduction in the total amount even used.

      Thank you so much!
      Mark

Leave a Reply