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
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS