The principle of sustainable development stated in treaties and conventions aim for economic and social development, without detriment to future generations. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, the Millennium Declaration Summit, the International Conference of Financing for Development, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, among others, all centre on the sustainability of future generations. The principle was even described by the 1987 Brundtland Commission Report as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. How are we living a sustainable life if we disrupt the earth with anthropogenic activities which have long-lasting effects on the environment? Why do our way of life and our desire to live comfortable lives have to affect future generations negatively? Why do we use and trash the earth with plastics? Why do we produce and keep producing this cheap commodity that does not disintegrate?
Regional contributions
Governments the world over do have a range of mechanisms at their disposal which can be used to curb the situation. For instance, if authorities impose levies, introduce bans on the use of plastics or littering, make agreements for certain single-use and other harmful plastic products to be taken off the market within a given time frame, impose penalties on plastic-producing companies, increase import charges on plastic ware importations, reward desirable behaviour in this area, and make agreements with neighbouring countries and others to so act, we would definitely be heading to a place where these so-called sustainable development goals would be achievable.
Can the ‘polluter pays’ principle be useful?
The problem with environmental harm is that the cost is generally shifted onto the community at large, and eventually, onto future generations who will face the repercussions later. Sometimes, however, it is more efficient to tackle these problems at the source rather than to deal with the negative consequences that turn up later. Should the good old ‘polluter pays’ principle be reintroduced in these situations? Should the person who pollutes the environment be financially responsible for eliminating or reversing it? In essence, should plastic packaging companies and other companies responsible for making plastic products that add to the plastic soup situation be made responsible for the damage done to the environment? I believe it to be a very powerful concept that could be used to mitigate the negative impacts of pollution, and go to the extent of helping formulate policies and measures which will allow for decisive action to identify pollution sources and their liability, reduce pollution levels, and even provide some compensation to those affected. For example, plastic-producing companies could be made responsible for plastic trash to foster their reuse or actual recycling purposes in order to reduce the plastic soup menace the world is currently faced with.
Is living plastic-free possible?
Consumers who want to live plastic-free lives and want to buy products without plastic currently have to make quite an effort as every item – even in the fresh produce section of the supermarket – is wrapped in single-use plastics. Foodstuffs, such as fruits and vegetables, are all wrapped up in plastics even at the point of sale. Banks are wrapping up their bill bundles in plastic bands, which are basically ripped off and trashed at the point of usage by the consumer. What a waste! It must, however, not go without mentioning that there are a few plastic-free supermarkets around the world, with many more joining in the fight for plastic-free shopping; and this proves that not using plastic is absolutely possible. One such example is the first plastic-free shop that was opened way back in 2014 in Berlin. Also, the Dutch supermarket chain – Ekoplaza – opened its plastic-free shop in 2018. Over the years, an increasing number of such shops have appeared, all sharing the same waste-free philosophy, trying not to add to the plastic soup menace. Good effort!
The Ghana situation
In Ghana, our single-use plastic issues stem from the use of good-old black ‘takeaway’ bags –there are other colours these days, pure water packaging, and other small-packaged ingredients – all wrapped in nice-looking packets which ironically seem to be even more expensive than its contents. The idea of selling products in mini-packages has become a norm and they are everywhere. Spice and dry ingredient companies as well as some giant corporations – such as Nestlé, have resorted to using mini-packaging which may seem convenient on the surface. But where do these plastics end up when we trash them? Yes, we may not litter, and we may be conscious enough to properly trash these plastics, but do they really go away? Is there some sort of negative externalities that are dealt with in the long run? Using taxpayers’ money to clean up after does not seem prudent to me.
The price of pricelessness
Unbelievably, the priceless single-use plastic that we mainly get for free at the point of usage without paying a premium becomes so expensive to deal with when we dispose of them. The thought of spending so much to clean up churns my stomach. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), every year it costs more than US$32billion to collect, sort, dispose and recycle the huge quantities of plastic waste generated. The cost to governments, NGOs and concerned citizens is usually as high as US$15billion per year. Marine plastic pollution alone can create huge economic costs in the form of gross domestic product (GDP) reductions estimated up to US$7billion for 2018 alone. This is driven by the loss in revenue from tourism, fishing, aquaculture, and others. Of course, who wants to tour a plastic-infested country swimming in plastic soup? To worsen the situation, it is even costly to informal waste pickers as they are known to be exposed to significant health risks throughout the plastic waste processing cycle.
The story of straws
Another story that needs to be told is the story of straws. Why do we need these plastic tubes for just one drink, after which we will toss them anyway, contributing to the plastic soup menace? Statistically, 500 million plastic drinking straws are used every day in the United States alone. And to think they have invented metal and wooden straws is preposterous. The thought that straws are used once only, and rarely for longer than twenty minutes or so, after which it is trashed anywhere anyhow just kills my vibe. These little nuisances are everywhere, also adding to the plastic soup hazard. In fact, scientists say plastic trash never goes away, every single piece of plastic ever produced still exists because, guess what? They do not disintegrate; the worse situation is that they get broken down into microplastics which turn out to be more dangerous as they are hardly visible. They find their way into the sea through rivers and streams, litter the ocean floor, and killing marine mammals and even sea birds. And that’s not all, humans all fall prey to these microplastics day after day, year by year.
The story of fishing nets
Another concern about the dangers of plastics is the fishing net threat. Hundreds of thousands of sea mammals, large and small fish alike get entangled in discarded fishing nets every year, causing their death. These nets used to be made of wool and silk, but now are mostly made of nylon – a strong and cheap form of thermos plastic – that does not disintegrate even in sea salt. They are mostly spotted on high seas by researchers and scientists, destroying the coral reefs as they roll with sea currents.
The photo
The photo is the content of a dead grazing albatross found in Midway Atoll in the North Pacific Ocean. The situation there is horrific as hundreds of these birds are found dead each day, collected and disposed of by what has come to be known as the ‘undertaker’. The Midway Atoll is one of the locations where tonnes and tonnes of plastic trash is sent by the ocean gyre each year.
Submission
Truth is, plastic is not evil; it is what we do with it, how much of it we produce and use, and how we dispose of it. The world certainly needs intervention measures, and these measures could even be as basic as the introduction of deposit systems to encourage complete recycling, reuse and reduction of plastics, encouragement of innovations and alternatives, bans on microplastics in cosmetics, the introduction of levies on plastic ‘packaging’, fines for littering, and extension of informational programmes to create awareness. Indeed, the situation is a threat that must be a first-hand concern of authorities as it affects all living things – both large and small. Particularly, the damaging consequence of plastic soup in the ocean and the potential damage to public health as well as future generations should provide more than sufficient legitimacy for preventive intervention measures by authorities the world over. What is being done about the situation? This is certainly a worldwide emergency!
