Less than a century ago, most products in Asia were made mainly from natural materials and were built to last or to biodegrade easily. People wrapped food in leaves or paper and carried it in reusable containers; returned glass milk bottles so that they could be sterilized and used again; and ate in restaurants using ceramic plates and stainless-steel cutlery. Low-income communities in particular embraced a prevalent micro-retail culture of buying small quantities of condiments and other household kitchen needs. The plastic bag had yet to be invented.
All this changed dramatically after World War II, when many parts of Asia underwent rapid industrialization and urbanization. The introduction of single-use plastics appealed to an ideal of convenience and hygiene, nurturing a mindset that ushered in disposability on an unprecedented scale. Companies started wrapping their products in single-use plastics and effectively hacked Asia’s micro-retail culture by emphasizing how the region’s poorer consumers could benefit by purchasing small packaged amounts.
Plastic has thus been the most popular and ubiquitous material in Asia for decades, and more than half of the world’s plastic is produced there, but the increasing use of plastic is having adverse environmental effects that extend far beyond the vast quantities that litter land and clog bodies of water across the region.
Illustration: Yusha
To gauge the nature and scale of this pollution crisis and identify possible solutions, the Heinrich Boll Foundation and Break Free From Plastic Asia Pacific collaborated with the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies Japan to produce the Plastic Atlas Asia Edition.
The atlas includes facts and figures about the toxic world of synthetic polymers and shows how pervasive plastics have become in nearly all aspects of our lives, from clothing, food and tourism to human and environmental health. For example, we might not realize how much plastic we wear in the form of polyester and other synthetic fibers made from petroleum or natural gas. Making a polyester shirt might emit 3.8kg to 7.1kg of carbon dioxide. Plastic waste and microplastics in the world’s oceans are much-discussed problems, but few realize that plastic pollution of agricultural lands can be between four and 23 times higher.
The atlas provides comparative regional data as well, especially on grassroots issues such as illegal dumping of waste from more developed countries, the unequal gender impact of exposure to plastic, and the plight of waste pickers and waste workers in Asia who play a critical role in diverting plastic residuals from open dumps, incinerators and the environment.
Moreover, it outlines the responsibilities of Asian governments and corporations in tackling the threat of plastic pollution.
Although the region’s plastic pollution was bad before COVID-19, the pandemic has exacerbated the problem. Plastic production and pollution have accelerated as demand for single-use plastics — including for online merchandise and food delivery during lockdowns — has surged.
This has jeopardized previous hard-fought gains, with the oil and gas industry planning to ramp up investments in production of plastic products and byproducts — more than 99 percent of which comes from fossil-fuel feedstocks — in the next few years. As a result, the environment is most likely to become a long-term casualty of this public-health crisis.
At the same time, a rising tide of community-based organizations and grassroots-led initiatives across Asia could lead to the emergence of a more inclusive, sustainable and just economic system that could address the entire lifecycle of plastic pollution.
Members of the #breakfreefromplastic movement believe that decentralized, community-led innovation represents the way forward in addressing the plastic pollution crisis.
These groups have demonstrated how an approach involving ecological resource management and at-source use reduction, with an emphasis on product redesign and systematic waste separation and collection, can help to counter the growing environmental threat posed by plastics.
In some Asian cities, such as San Fernando in the Philippines and Kamikatsu in Japan, and in Kerala state in India, Break Free From Plastic’s grassroots member organizations are implementing zero-waste management programs that divert huge amounts of waste from landfills, thereby preventing it from polluting land and entering waterways.
Such initiatives have shown that the false solutions — including chemical recycling, plastics-to-roads, ecobricking, plastic credits and plastic collection in exchange for basic goods for low-income families — that are being pushed by industry groups and corporations are merely greenwashing. Their methods require ongoing extraction of resources, because they fail to keep valuable materials within a circular economy and generate harmful emissions of heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants and greenhouse gases.
Asian governments must enact and properly implement policies and regulations that can help scale up grassroots initiatives and hold plastics producers accountable for addressing the crisis, such as by filing lawsuits and demanding remediation of the pollution and its effect on health, human rights and environment.
Companies urgently need to abandon their aggressive growth targets for plastic production and use, which is expected to quadruple by the early 2050s, and offer credible alternative delivery systems and reusable packaging for their products.
Generations of Asians have become accustomed to the apparent convenience of plastic, but without the continent significantly reducing its production, the world cannot hope to stop the plastic pollution crisis.
This year’s Earth Day theme was Restore Our Earth. To do that, we need to foster innovative ideas and solutions that can repair the world’s ecosystems.
With the publication of the Plastic Atlas Asia Edition, we hope to shine additional light on a complex regional crisis and spur further efforts to combat it.
Jed Alegado is senior communications officer of Break Free From Plastic Asia Pacific. Clemens Kunze is deputy director of the Heinrich Boll Foundation’s Hong Kong office. Kevin Li is program manager for environment in the Heinrich Boll Foundation’s Hong Kong office.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS