It is everyones moral obligation to make the world a better place however they can manage. A single water bottle won't melt the polar icecaps, but if every person decides to discount one water bottle, we'd have 7 billion pieces of trash. Sadly many people don't even bother trying to clean up, but you, yes you, must be the person who properly disposes of plastic to at least keep your conscious clean, even if your air, water, food, and medicine arn't
Landfills all over the place arnt very attractive and they dont smell very good. Its wasteing resources if your not trying to be self sustainable and try to reduce the need for landfills. Landfills are wasteing space and resources needed to transport waste to it and manage it. Use cloth reusable bags, wash them regualary and try to avoid getting them dirty. Public places are very germy, $ is espcially very germy. Grow and store your own food so you dont have to go to the grocery store.
The argument that governments or businesses can do it is a poor one. For one, it's an unnecessary expense for any government to carry out. For another it's imperative that environmental protection measures start at a grass root level, and this is a perfect way to do it. Contrary to what the con has said, a single person starting to pursue these actions can actually have an incredible impact. If everyone were to follow the philosophy which the negative champions our environmental issues would compound upon themselves faster than they already do. By a single person cleaning up at a local level it relieves environmental stress at a very basic level, and no matter how minimal the impact may seem it's still a step in the right direction. Even if only a few people were to work on reducing plastic waste it's still decreasing a current problem, all without placing the economic cost upon already strained government budgets (could you imagine detroit finding the money to pay for these programs?).
Individuals do have a moral obligation because no matter what they can do, their moral obligation doesn't ride on that. It doesn't matter what they can do. It's their moral obligation whether or not they can change the world significantly doesn't matter. A moral obligation doesn't ride on how much the matter can be changed.
Reducing the amount of "waste" that and individual produces would require the reduction of that individual's consumption as well. Doing that would reduce his standard of living and violate his rights as a human being. Landfills are not a waste of space as environmentalist say they are. They are spaces where societies garbage can be safely and cleanly disposed of. That is land being utilized. That is the opposite of waste. Waste would be having to pay twice as much at the grocery store for food and other products that were produced without the use of plastic (in the product or the entire process). Waste would be having to bring with you everywhere containers that you could use to carry groceries instead of using single-use bags. Waste of labor, time, money. Waste is not the convenience, safety, and efficiency of modern society. Waste is the massive destruction of human labor efficiency for the benefit of the minimal preservation of a few acres of land.
There are a couple things you might want to look at. First, there is nothing an individual can do that a government and/or a company can't do better. It's pointless, and it directly defies the topic. They can try to recycle, but it won't work because that just causes more pollution which is the basic argument on the Pro. They can't hope to do anything because an individual can't solve for much. By placing a false burden-something they can't do-towards an individual, you are being morally incorrect.