LETTER TO THE EDITOR
BENEFITS OF PLASTIC BAG BAN FAR OUTWEIGH
INCONVENIENCE
The Selangor State
Government’s ban on polystyrene food packaging and free plastic bags has been
in force for over a week, and so far the objections to the ban are as follows:
(i) That having to buy
reusable bags and containers or pay for plastic grocery bags is a financial
burden on consumers;
(ii) That consumers end
up having to buy plastic rubbish bags for waste disposal;
(iii) That the ban will
not reduce waste or pollution; and
(iv) That plastic bags
can be safely and cheaply recycled or incinerated and there is therefore no
need to ban or restrict their use.
In response to the
above arguments, it is pointed out as follows:
(i) Reusable cotton
and canvas bags and washable food and beverage containers can last for years
and over hundreds of uses. Therefore, investing in good quality reusable items
is better for human and environmental health and makes economic sense in the
long run. The only reason that ‘free-of-charge’ plastic bags and polystyrene
packaging appear affordable to the average citizen is because they are not
aware of the cradle-to-grave environmental and economic costs of plastic waste.
Plastics Kill!
The United States Environmental Protection
Agency reports that between 550 billion and a trillion plastic bags are
consumed worldwide each year and most of it end up in our oceans.
Worldwatch Institute reports that at least 267 species of marine
wildlife are known to have suffered or died from entanglement or ingestion of plastic
marine debris. A European Commission study on the impact of litter on North Sea
wildlife found that over 90% of the birds examined had plastic in their
stomachs.
If consumers had to bear the cost of rescuing and rehabilitating
wildlife, mitigating and repairing damage caused by flash floods and clogged
waterways and cleaning up plastic litter, plastic packaging would not be free
or inexpensive at all.
The reason states and nations have had to impose bans or taxes
on disposable plastics is to encourage and expedite behaviour change, which
would not take place on its own with sufficient effectiveness if we were to
rely on voluntary plastic bag reductions. Governments, retailers and
environmental organisations have spent millions on outreach and awareness
campaigns with only minimal results. Education and awareness campaigns have
little positive impact on an informed but apathetic population, and as such,
different strategies are needed. Bans and fees for plastic bags are the
catalyst for consumers to reduce their plastic bag usage.
(ii) The most common
argument of consumers who claim to ‘need’ free plastic bags is that they need
the bags to dispose of household rubbish in, and would now have to pay for rubbish
bags. However, most of the plastic bags given out by retailers and vendors are
lightweight, single-use plastic bags that are almost never reused. To resolve
this problem, the authorities should implement a policy allowing only the distribution
of plastic bags above 20 micron (0.02 mm) in thickness and with a minimum
capacity of 5 litres, and to charge consumers for it, to ensure that these
plastic bags are reused for storage or waste disposal.
Unfortunately, the
regulations and policies currently in place seem to mostly encourage the
replacement of plastic bags with paper bags, purportedly ‘biodegradable’ bags
and cheap non-woven shopping bags. None of these are environmentally
sustainable alternatives.
Oxo-degradable, oxo-biodegradable,
oxy-degradable, oxy-biodegradable, and degradable plastic bags are merely
plastic bags with a chemical additive. This chemical additive breaks the
plastic molecular ties and expedites the disintegration of the plastic. Over
time, these bags break down into smaller, more toxic petro-polymers, which
eventually contaminate our soil and water, and enter the animal and human food
chain. Only bags that conform to compostability standards ASTM D6400 or EN
13432 are truly biodegradable.
Paper bags have a
high carbon and water footprint, as more water and energy are used in the production
of paper bags compared to plastic bags. However, as they are less harmful to
wildlife and less toxic to human health, they can be safely used as food
packaging. Considering their high water and energy use and low durability, the
use of paper bags should be restricted to the sale and serving of food, and not
as grocery bags and shopping carrier bags.
Non-woven polypropylene bag
Non-woven shopping
bags, referred to colloquially as ‘recycle bags’ although this is grammatically
and factually inaccurate, are made of polypropylene and are therefore also
plastic although they look and feel like fabric. These should be avoided as
they are not durable, break down into plastic fibres easily, and cannot be
repaired, recycled or composted. Further, tests by consumer groups found that a
large percentage of these bags contain lead.
It is thus
reiterated that paper bags, non-woven reusable shopping bags and most brands of
‘biodegradable’ plastic bags do not reduce waste or harm to the environment. The
solution to the problem of plastic pollution and waste reduction should
incorporate the banning of small, lightweight plastic bags, the distribution
only of larger, thicker plastic bags for a small fee, the elimination of ‘greenwashing’
alternatives such as non-woven polypropylene bags, the restriction of the use
of paper bags only to food vendors and the implementation of incentives such as
rebates and express checkout counters. Long-term solutions include practical
initiatives to encourage and increase recycling and composting to reduce
household waste and correspondingly reduce the need for rubbish bags.
(iii) In response to the claim that the ban will not
significantly reduce plastic pollution, it is pointed out that many countries
have banned, taxed or charged for plastic bags, and these measures have been proven
successful.
In Denmark, since the introduction of a charge on plastic bags
in 1993, the usage of plastic bags has been halved from approximately 800
million bags to 400 million bags, or only 80 bags per person annually. The
People’s Republic of China banned lightweight plastic bags and imposed a charge
for thicker, bigger bags, and reported a 66% drop in plastic bag usage. CNN Asia reported that China will save 37 million
barrels of oil each year due to its ban on free plastic bags.
A plastic bag tax levied in Ireland in 2002 has reportedly led
to a 95% reduction in plastic bag litter there. A study by San Jose, California
found that a 2011 ban instituted there has led to plastic litter reduction of
approximately 89% in the storm drain system, 60% in the creeks and rivers, and
59% in city streets and neighbourhoods. The European Union, Rwanda, Bangladesh,
India and many other nations already have plastic bag bans or taxes in place,
and these jurisdictions have seen significant gains from less plastic pollution.
Considering that plastic bag bans and taxes have been successfully implemented
and upheld in both developed and developing countries and jurisdictions, there
is no reason why it cannot be workable and effective in Malaysia.
(v) Despite the claims of the plastics manufacturing industry, most plastics
and polystyrene cannot be recycled. Only plastics categorised under codes 1 and
2 are actually separated and collected for recycling. Polystyrene is hardly
ever recovered for recycling due to its light weight, low scrap value,
prohibitive cleaning and transportation costs and the fact that it is almost
always contaminated with food, grease and other matter.
It costs more to recycle a bag than to produce
a new one, and as such less than 1% is actually recycled. According to Jared
Blumenfeld, Director of San Francisco’s Department of the Environment: “It
costs USD4,000 to process and recycle 1 ton of plastic bags, which can then be
sold on the commodities market for USD32.”
As polystyrene and plastics are still made from
petroleum, a non-renewable and heavily polluting resource, benzene used in the
production of polystyrene is a known human carcinogen, and polystyrene and
plastics release noxious gases including styrene, xylene and hydrogen bromide
when broken down and incinerated, one should seriously question the flippant
claim that plastics and polystyrene products could be safely and cheaply incinerated.
Some tips to help consumers remember to bring
their reusable shopping bags and takeaway containers with them include the
following:
1. Choose lightweight and portable reusable
bags that can be folded neatly and tucked into your handbag or backpack. Make a
habit of carrying them with you whenever you leave the house.
2. Keep your shopping bags in your car if
you are in the habit of driving to run errands and go shopping.
3. Keep your reusable bags by the door that
is the most frequently used in your home, where you will be most likely to see
and remember them as you are leaving the house or putting on your shoes.
4. Plan your shopping and include a written
reminder in your shopping list.
5. Purchase or DIY a foldable, lightweight
bag that is small enough to hook to your keychain, so you will always have at
least one reusable bag with you even when you are not driving or carrying a
backpack.
6. Wash your fabric reusable bags on
laundry day (they hardly take up any space) to kill germs and remove dirt and
odour, and hang them out to dry. Once they are dry, fold and stow them away
immediately in your car, handbag, or backpack so you don't leave them behind on
your next shopping trip.
Plastic
waste reduction measures should not be seen as a burden or sacrifice, but
merely an adjustment. The environmental, societal and human health benefits of
reducing plastic usage and waste are numerous and far outweigh the initial
inconvenience of having to remember your reusable bags and containers.
WONG EE LYNN
COORDINATOR,
GREEN LIVING SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP,
MALAYSIAN NATURE SOCIETY
No comments:
Post a Comment