|
The following is a letter sent to the Hindi, a national
newspaper in India. It is a response to the ongoing debate regarding
a proposed ban on disposaible plastics.
Dear A.N. Bhat,
I appreciate your comments on the recent attempts to ban disposable
plastics in India. Nonetheless, I disagree with many of your statements.
As an Environment and Development specialist I have witnessed
the effects of the plastic industry in numerous countries, predominantly
in the Caribbean, Africa and in the United States. Without exception
plastics, especially single-use disposable plastics have lessened
the quality of the environment and have served to undermine public
health and convenience. I would like to respond to several of
your comments.
Firstly, your statement that “preconceived views on use of
plastics, (are) unfortunately popular amongst certain upper and
elitist classes of society,” is both presumptuous and incorrect.
I am a member of the International Plastics Task Force, a global
action group of over 25 Non Governmental Organizations and Popular
Movements. The majority of these groups work with or consist of
poor and peasant peoples, especially in developing countries.
They all oppose plastic production and use of plastics (especially
disposables). Moreover, on a recent trip to Haiti, I spoke with
numerous urban and rural poor people who opposed plastic for several
reasons. Often cited is the displacement of traditional handicrafts
(an important means of self employment) by plastic products. Environmental
pollution is also widely acknowledged as a problem. Both of these
problems serve to impoverish communities rather than improve the
quality of their lives. It is without doubt the stockholders and
executives of the plastic industry who reap the greatest benefits
from the production of plastic.
Additionally, wastes and plastic in particular have always disporportionally
effected the poor, from the locational siting of landfills and
dumps to the incineration of refuse. Specifically, in many developing
countries plastic and other portions of the waste stream are frequently
burned in “back-yard” fires. These fires emit toxic
gasses like dioxin, which cause cancer and respiratory difficulties.
The immediate victims of the toxic fumes released by these fires
are the poor who have no other choice but to burn their waste
materials.
In regards to your statements that most plastic “…packing
material is of polyethylene or polypropylene, which are made from
Carbon and Hydrogen… (and) …are inert materials and
there is no question of any toxicity,” I must take issue
. While these are component elements of these plastics, you conveniently
forget the numerous other compounds included in plastic products.
For example, plastics regularly contain the following toxic substances
(these are part of a larger list): Benzene (which causes cancer),
Styrene (ranked in the US as “extremely toxic”), Sulfur
Oxides (which harm the respiratory system), Nitrous Oxides (which
adversely effect the nervous system and child behavioral development),
and Ethylene Oxides (harms male and female reproductive capacity).
PET bottles often contain lead barriers and Plasticizers, which
are known Hormone Endocrine Disrupters (ED’s). ED’s
can migrate into the liquid contents of drinks, causing serious
health problems including, but not limited to cancer, brain damage
reproductive disorders, and infertility. Studies into these effects
are ongoing at the US Food and Drug Administration and other independent
research centers (they are unfortunately under-funded). Fishermen
worldwide cite increased difficulties in securing adequate harvests
as fish are eating and choking on plastic particles which they
mistake as food (plankton). A recent study by Captain Moore, a
US based marine scientist found a 6 to 1 ratio of plastic pollutants
to plankton marine life in the central Pacific Ocean . This in
turn effects the poor who depend upon marine catches for their
livelihood. Similarly, farmers have complained of pollution to
the soil as a result of plastic waste dispersal in urban fringes
and rural zones. These are just several instances of countless
examples cited by the wolds poor against plastic products.
Moreover, I take issue with your comment that anti-plastics groups
would want to return to a “romantic or nostalgic view of
pastoral society.” I would argue that we are for the advancement
of humanity along the lines of ecological sustainability. This
does not mean reversion to a pre-technological society. We are
merely questioning industries that have continued to pollute in
the name of profit, especially when they try to hide this fact
under the guise of advancing the “value of today’s life.”
Modern technologies must be used selectively, taking both social
and environmental impacts as considerations. Numerous previous
technologies were, like disposable plastics, touted as “beneficial
to humanity.” Take for example CFC’s (which aid in global
warming), DDT (a widely banned pesticide), Agent Orange (a nerve
gas produced by the pharmaceutical company Monsanto), nuclear
and large scale hydroelectric energy (both of which is now widely
opposed worldwide).
You claim that plastic has served to benefit humanity, and that
it should be recycled to suit environmental sustainability. Really,
the situation is much more complex. Plastic, even recycled, depletes
natural resources. Made from the petroleum refining process, plastic
is a non-renewable oil based fossil fuel. In order to manufacture
plastic we are in effect mining the earth’s resources. Because
plastic can not be recycled into it’s original form (for
example, a soda bottle can not be reprocessed back into a 100%
recycled content soda bottle—this is due to chemical and
molecular structural difficulties and is called down-cycling)
we must continue to mine these resources to produce plastic. Reprocessing
of plastics involves the creation of a secondary product such
as plastic lumber or clothing fibers. These new products are not
recyclable, non-biodegradable, and can not be recycled again.
As a consequence, the further production of the soda bottle requires
the constant extraction of virgin natural resources. Therefore,
plastic recycling not resource conservation—it is part of
a process of mining of non-renewable resources—the antithesis
of sustainable development.
The introduction of plastics products has created a huge problem
in developing countries as these materials do not decompose as
previous packaging materials have. What has the plastic industry
done to educate consumers regarding waste management strategies
for plastics? Why have producers not been held responsible for
making sure that there are litter alternatives? Why is this burden
placed on the consumer alone rather than the manufacturers who
produced the problem in the first place? As a representative of
the Berkeley Ecology Center in California, we are opposed to the
design and production of any product that can not be easily recycled
(instead of down-cycled) or that is not biodegradable. We are
in favor of Zero Waste policies rather than simply waste management
strategies. Zero waste is a budding global movement aimed at holding
manufacturers responsible for the materials they produce and profit
from. I argue that products should be designed with these factors
in mind, otherwise they should not be considered culturally or
ecologically sustainable.
Your comment that plastic entails less of an energy requirement
than paper, glass or tin is equally wrong. Studies produced in
1999 by the Grass Roots Recycling Network (USA) concluded that
only virgin aluminum requires more energy to produce and reprocess
than plastics. PET (#1) plastic required approximately 98 million
BTUs of energy per ton produced and HDPE (#2) required 73 million
BTUs/ton to produce and recycle. Conversely, Newsprint required
46 million BTUs/ton, 30 cardboard BTUs/ton, Tin Cans 22 BTUs/ton,
and Glass 13 million BTUs/ton. More importantly, Glass and Tin
do not down-cycle—that is they can be reprocessed into their
original form again and again. I would like to know where you
got your facts from regarding energy consumption and plastic production.
Without a citation, I question their integrity.
Moreover, production of a 16 ounce PET bottle produces nearly
100 times the air pollutants that a 16 ounce glass bottle. The
energy required to produce a 16 ounce PET bottle is enough o power
a regular household light bulb for 56 hours. Particulate pollution
for cardboard, paper and tin are similarly low (for more information
see the Berkeley Ecology Center’s “Plastic Task Force
Report” at www.ecologycenter.org). Based upon the above,
I challenge you to reconsider your statements. Education regarding
waste is an important first step. Still, why have manufacturers
not been held responsible for educating their customers regarding
waste management? What have plastic manufacturers in India (and
indeed the world) been allowed to produce materials without designing
them for ecological sensitivity? What have these manufacturers
not created appropriate waste management systems? Why have they
not made certain that litter of their products is not a problem?
In absence of action on the above, I fully support a ban on disposable
plastics in India and in other developing nations. It is precisely
the profit motivate that perpetuates industry misconceptions such
as those outlined in your letter. The world is now looking to
the Government of India to act on behalf of the health and safety
of its environment and citizens, notably the poor. As a leading
importer of industrialized nations’ wastes, India has suffered
under a disproportionate amount of the world’s toxic legacy.
Bold new leadership from India is now needed to show the world
there are safe and ecologically sound paths to sustainable development.
Banning disposable plastics is one of the most successful ways
that a country can protect it’s people and environment from
industries motivated more by profit than by a concern for humanity.
Sincerely,
Tim Krupnik
The Berkeley Ecology Center and member of the International Plastics
Task Force.
|
