LETTER TO THE EDITOR
MAKING A BAN ON SINGLE-USE PLASTICS WORK
Our Minister of Housing and Local Government YB Datuk Zuraida Kamaruddin and Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow’s proposal to ban single-use plastic packaging for environmental reasons is a welcome move.
We have seen both within Malaysia and abroad that
voluntary plastic bag reduction campaigns have not worked. Trying to engender
voluntary change often means investing a lot of money into public education and
outreach efforts for very low success rates. Statistics have shown that
awareness does not always translate into a shift in consumer behaviour, even in
developed nations such as the USA and Australia. For plastic waste reduction
strategies to work, public education campaigns must be held together with
plastic packaging bans. Behavioural change will take place only when a binding
policy with a system of penalties and enforcement is in place.
It must be pointed out, however, that a
nationwide ban on single-use plastic packaging can only begin to register
positive results if the ban is extended to the retail sale of packaging and to fast
food outlets, food courts, markets, hawkers, petty traders and businesses other
than supermarkets and major retailers. Currently, plastic bags, disposable
plastic tableware and styrofoam and plastic food packaging can still be
purchased from supermarkets and retail stores. This defeats the purpose of banning
free plastic bags and the sale of food in styrofoam packaging if consumers can
still purchase these items cheaply off supermarket or shop shelves.
In fact, one of the major complaints by consumers
following the Selangor State Government’s ban on polystyrene food packaging and
free plastic bags in 2017 is that the ban is a financial burden on consumers
since they now have to pay for the plastic bags and packaging by buying them
from shops rather than obtaining them for free with every purchase. From this
complaint, it is clear that the move has not resulted in sufficient behavioural
and attitude change and has only resulted in consumers purchasing more
packaging instead of giving up or using less plastic packaging for environmental
reasons. To wean the nation off single-use plastics, we need to remove the
option of being able to purchase single-use plastics cheaply and conveniently.
If the protection of wildlife and the natural
environment is our objective in reducing plastic waste, then this policy must
necessarily extend beyond plastic bags and also cover other single-use plastics
including all styrofoam products, plastic drinking straws, plastic cup lids,
plastic meat and produce trays, clingfilm, plastic cotton buds, disposable
cutlery, food takeaway packaging and other environmentally harmful products
such as plastic glitter and toiletries containing microbeads. Oxo-degradable
plastic bags that are not truly compostable and biodegradable and non-woven
shopping bags should also be banned, as they disintegrate into toxic
petro-polymers and should not therefore be marketed or used as alternatives to
conventional plastic bags. As long as these items are not included in the ban,
it will be very difficult to mitigate the environmental damage caused by
plastic bags.
To resolve the issue of consumers claiming that
they now need to purchase rubbish bags since retailers are no longer giving out
free plastic bags, we can introduce a policy allowing only the distribution of
plastic bags above 20 micron (0.02 mm) in thickness and with a minimum capacity
of 10 litres, the cost of which will be borne by consumers to increase the
chances that these plastic bags are reused for storage and waste disposal, and
are only purchased if necessary. Over time, conventional plastic bags and rubbish
bags, including pet waste bags, should be phased out and banned and replaced
with compostable bags that conform to compostability standards ASTM D6400 or EN
13432.
Retailers and manufacturers need to be given some
time, for example, one year, to phase out the production, sale and distribution
of single-use plastics. This will give both businesses and consumers time to
make changes and source for alternatives. This will require regulations that
will not only regulate the sale and distribution of plastic bags and other
single-use plastics by retailers, but also regulations to stop fast food
outlets and eateries from giving out plastic lids, straws and plastic cutlery
for free, clinics and service providers to stop distributing medicine and other
items in lightweight plastic bags, and food and beverage manufacturers to phase
out excessive plastic packaging such as individually-wrapped biscuits and snack
foods and 3-in-1 beverage sachets, which are convenience products and were not
even common until the last decade or two. Incentives must be created to not
only allow but encourage consumers to buy items such as vegetables loose or
using their own produce bags, and to phase out the practice of wrapping
individual fruits, vegetables and other products in clingfilm and selling such
products in trays covered in clingfilm. Styrofoam and soft plastic supermarket
produce and food trays are generally not recyclable, and even those that are
made of recyclable plastics are not recovered for recycling due to its low grade
and the fact that once contaminated by food and grease, it is no longer
accepted for recycling. As paper bags have a high carbon and water footprint
despite being less harmful to wildlife and human health, they should be used only
sparingly as an alternative to plastic bags, for example, its use should be restricted
to the sale and serving of food, and not as grocery and shopping bags. Alternatives
to single-use plastics can include either biodegradable and compostable trays
and packaging, or higher-grade recyclable plastic containers with lids (to
eliminate the need for clingfilm and shrink wrap) that are recovered for
recycling through a container deposit and recycling buyback system.
Volunteers who participate in beach and jungle clean-ups
in Malaysia will find that a lot of the litter consists of items with a purportedly
high recycling value, such as aluminium cans and PET bottles. This would
indicate that there are not enough financial incentives for recycling in
Malaysia. To increase solid waste recycling rates and reduce littering, I would
recommend introducing a container deposit legislation such as those in place in
Norway, Germany and Sweden. To make the financial incentive for recycling
higher, the deposit needs to be of significant value, for example, 20 to 50 sen
per item. The consumers bear the cost of this deposit, which they can then
recover by collecting and returning the items for recycling. This container
deposit system should include aluminium, steel and unbroken glass containers,
plastic bottles including shampoo and detergent bottles and plastic containers
such as the ones recommended above to replace plastic supermarket and food
trays. It is not necessary to have expensive automated reverse vending machines
or door-to-door collection systems to implement this container deposit system.
We can use existing recycling collection centres and buyback centres and
existing infrastructure such as local council offices, schools, residents’
association centres and community centres as recycling buyback centres.
To reduce littering in national parks and areas
of ecological significance, entrance fees and hiking and camping permits should
include an entry inspection system to charge hikers, campers and picnickers a
deposit for each item in disposable packaging brought into the park, and refund
the same only when these items are brought back for disposal upon exit.
Bans on lightweight plastic bags and single-use
plastics are neither new nor revolutionary, and countries and cities that have
implemented it report of positive consumer behavioural change and a reduction
in littering. Since Denmark introduced a charge on plastic bags in 1993, the
usage of plastic bags has been halved from 800 million bags to 400 million bags
annually. The People’s Republic of China reported a 66% drop in plastic bag
usage since its ban on lightweight plastic bags. Ireland’s plastic bag tax
resulted in a 95% reduction in plastic bag litter. Kenya’s ban on plastic bags,
described as the World’s Toughest Plastic Bag Ban, has shown such positive
results within a year that neighbouring countries – Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda
and South Sudan – are considering following suit. The European Union has also
in May 2018 proposed a ban on plastic cotton buds, drink stirrers, drinking
straws and balloon sticks to cut down on marine litter. Considering that bans and
taxes on single-use plastics have been successfully implemented and upheld in
both developed and developing nations and jurisdictions, there is no reason why
it cannot be effective and similarly successful in Malaysia.
A reduction in plastic waste and litter is not only beneficial
to wildlife and the natural environment. Governments and local authorities
stand to gain economically from the reduced costs of cleaning up public spaces
and processing waste in landfills. Less plastic litter would result in fewer
clogged drains and streams and fewer flash floods. There would be fewer
breeding grounds for mosquitoes, rats and other disease vectors if there were
less litter and fewer landfills. Governments and local businesses would benefit
from increased tourism opportunities when recreational areas and tourist
destinations are cleaner and free from litter. Clearly a ban on single-use
plastics will require minor adjustments and behavioural change on the part of
Malaysians, but the long-term benefits to the environment, society and the
economy will outweigh any initial inconvenience.
WONG EE LYNN
COORDINATOR,
GREEN LIVING SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP,
MALAYSIAN NATURE SOCIETY
No comments:
Post a Comment