E-waste is a growing menace in Bangladesh

There has been a phenomenal increase in e-waste in the past few decades in Bangladesh. Increased usage of mobile phones, electronic household appliances, office equipment and ship-breaking yards have mainly added to this problem. Bangladesh produces about three million metric tonnes (MMT) of e-waste, including at ship-breaking yards, each year (Roy et al, 2022).

Electrical and electronic devices contain heavy metals like mercury, lead, nickel, cadmium, barium, zinc, flame retardants etc. The adverse effects of these heavy metals on human health and the environment are enormous.

Given the size of the country's population and the growth of e-waste, Bangladesh faces a huge challenge, especially since there is not enough infrastructure available for the public to dispose of e-waste. 

These days, waste is no longer regarded as waste. It can be an extra source of revenue if you can make use of unwanted materials. Strange as it may sound, countries that have managed to establish efficient waste management and recycling systems are earning a substantial amount of money by providing complete recycling and resource management services to the local communities, effectively creating new jobs, bettering the quality of the environment and improving public health.

E-waste management can be more attractive compared to general waste as it has considerable economic merit. According to Straits Research, the global e-waste management market had a revenue holding of USD 56.56 billion in 2021. It is expected to reach USD 189.8 billion by 2030, growing at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CARG) of 14.4% during the forecast period (2022-2030).

Critical raw materials such as gold, silver, nickel, copper and palladium can be taken out, reused or recycled. Mobile phones may have manganese, lithium, tungsten and other materials which are also valuable. A silvery-white metal, indium, is used in touchscreens and solar panels. Also, tantalum, a shiny silvery metal that is highly corrosion resistant, is used in micro-capacitors for a range of applications, from mobile phones to wind turbines. Losing these critical raw materials and aggravating resource scarcity may not be in anyone's best interest.

In 2021, the Department of Environment (DoE) in Bangladesh published Hazardous Waste (e-waste) Management Rules under the Environmental Protection Act, 1995. The rule covers many products related to IT and communication equipment, home appliances, monitoring and control equipment, medical equipment and automatic machines. It establishes obligations on various parties, from manufacturers, assemblers, collectors, sellers and consumers, to prevent the risks posed by e-waste. 

This rule also restricts the limits of 10 hazardous substances which are covered by the EU RoHS Directive. The EU RoHS Directive has similar aims, restricting the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, which was adopted in 2003 by the EU countries.

The violation of the main provisions of the Hazardous Waste (e-waste) Management Rules entails imprisonment for a maximum period of two years or a fine up to BDT 2,00,000 or both for offenders. Repeat offenders may face imprisonment ranging from two to ten years, or a fine ranging from BDT 2,00,000 to BDT 1,000,000, or both. 

It is a new regulation which was recently adopted in Bangladesh and it is certainly a step in the right direction. But having a national regulation is not enough for the approach needed to mitigate the consequences of such excessive e-waste. A holistic approach on the ground is equally needed to fulfil the requirements.

A significant amount of e-waste is uncontrolled and disposed of incorrectly, subsequently, it ends up in landfills. This sector is dominated by the informal recycling industries. People who live in big cities are generally unaware of proper disposal routes for their e-waste. Many computers and mobile phones are disposed of in litter bins, and open dumping in and fills is common practice. 

To start with, all the informal recycling facilities should be formally recognised, provided with financial incentives and operated under strict occupational health and safety and environmental regulations. It will help to create a culture of health, safety and environmental commitments. 

The public should be able to discard their e-waste at the local recycling facilities, hence more recycling centres should be built. Finally, licensed waste disposal companies should take discarded electrical equipment from recycling centres to reprocessing plants where all the components can be taken out to reuse and recycle, empowering the circular economy.

But this is easier said than done. In countries like the United Kingdom where waste management and recycling systems are highly advanced, households still throw away 1,55,000 tonnes of waste electricals in general household rubbish bins each year - according to research recently carried out for Material Focus.

Apart from financial difficulties, segregation problems and lack of infrastructure facilities, the crux of the issue is to raise public awareness, to change people's behaviour and practices. Changing the mindset, internal culture and behaviour is difficult, and a genuine commitment across the public is required at all levels and in all sectors, for meaningful changes to occur. 

Finally, we rarely think about where all our rubbish goes when we throw it. This simple knowledge will change our attitudes on proper rubbish disposal immensely and help raise awareness of the environmental issues we face. E-waste management systems in Bangladesh are still in their nascent stage and are expected to grow in the future. Bangladesh should not miss out on the opportunities to develop and expand its existing

sector.

Corporate environmentalism, ecological modernisation, and climate change

Corporate environmentalism or making money by polluting the ecosystems is a dichotomy, which has been debated over the last several decades. It is still questionable whether the gaps between making money and saving environment is narrowing down.

Undeniably, the economic growth inspired by industrial revolution, growth of capitalism, improved working condition and wellbeing for people had a price to pay, which ultimately resulted in pollution of water, air and soil. Significant pollution also released to environment by industrial accidents over centuries. There are countless examples in our recent memory.

Nevertheless, this piece is not about finger-pointing and blaming the industries who have been the major contributors to the damage to our environment. On the contrary, I would argue that there have been major changes in corporate attitude towards environmental responsibility for over the last 25 years. Industries have shown far better responsibilities towards environmental protection yet winning the public trust and confidence have been harder, and in many cases, businesses experienced uphill task to win customer’s hearts and minds.

It is often debated whether the big businesses are locked into vicious cycle of self-interests, politics and ideologies, which would eventually decide the fate of our planet’s natural resources. I do not think for a single moment that big businesses have suddenly woken up and became more environmentally conscious.

Another supposed dichotomy that perhaps became blurred is a distinction between green consciousness and corporate honesty. It may invert our traditional mindset, but we can say that the wind is blowing in the right direction. Many businesses have realised that there are scopes to increase financial bottom line by going green and that eventually have triggered them to change their attitudes.

Destined to perpetual profits, one might, therefore, wonder where ecological modernisation fits into the corporate behaviour and practices. Ecological modernisation is a simple concept that links up with ecology to economy. It is an innovation-based approach to environmental policy. More specifically, ecological modernisation combines with the natural market logic of modernisation and eco-innovation, de facto drive the businesses to the needs of global environmental concerns.

Big businesses are in a unique position to adhere to this concept, developing eco-friendly innovative solutions, making money and at the same time mitigating the impacts of environmental pollution.  

It is almost impossible to separate the connections and dependence that exist in corporate environmentalism and ecological modernisation. Producing environmentally responsible products and carbon neutrality are the new mantra in the world that we are living in today. Many of these green values have now embedded within the DNA of many business organisations.

The universal human penchant for innovation is extraordinary. Finding new technologies to resolve problems, do things differently for our own advantages have shown the cachet of genius and it continues till today. Technology begets more technology and we are witnessing the marvels of technology in our lifetime be it Information Technology, Artificial Intelligence or Genetic Engineering to Cyborg Engineering. The list can go on.

It can also be argued that the present primacy is no guarantee for the future primacy. Despite this, it is natural to ask a sensible question, “what we will do with all technological advancement if we cannot even save ourselves from an existential threat to humanity i.e., climate change?”

Climate change is affecting everybody. Increased heat-trapping gases such as CO2 mean increased global temperature and the impacts of increased temperature are already well known. It is marked in particularly by the biophysical consequences e.g., stronger cyclones, increased coastal flooding, frequent droughts, freshwater scarcity and increased water salinity.

These biophysical consequences will continue to affect people and their livelihoods and the whole economy across sectors and human development would suffer because of the changing weather. It is a global problem and a collective technological approach would certainly need to drive of change in the fight against climate change.

“Necessity is the mother of invention” is a well-known proverb and there is no better way to put it in this context. If the necessity is the mother of invention then what is our biggest necessity in the face of climate change in the 21^st century? The answer to that question is unequivocal: green innovation and technological changes to combat climate change and its impacts.

 The above point can be illustrated by a brief example. Thinking about the packaging waste which is one of the top environmental issues in recent time. We throw packaging waste; some cannot be recycled and some can be. Our aim should be to use less packaging, supply chain responsibility and the packaging materials should be designed in a way that it could be reused, recycled or even quickly decomposed into natural materials.

So, eco-innovation is the key factor in this regard.

I believe big businesses lie at the heart of the new technological innovation. A convenient starting point would be to drive the green innovation which would touch the fundamentals of sustainable business practices with the aim of reduced waste, innovative manufacturing processes that would require less water and energy, minimising greenhouse gas emissions, using more recycled and alternative materials to manufacture the same products.

It is also important to encourage the entire supply chain as well as their customers to drive the green technological innovation to achieve similar benefits. By doing this, it is possible to bring everyone on board within the sustainability obligations. And those businesses are unable to innovate and modernise perhaps will be left to wither.

In brief, corporate environmentalism and ecological modernisation show a strong bond of compatibility and they are true companions of goodness, which will eventually help to reduce human vulnerability to the adverse effects of climate change. It will also help in supporting adaptation and mitigation responses to the climate crisis.

 

Biodiversity loss, but we must stay focused on restoration

Dreadful feelings of anxiety and sadness grip my mind when I read news about mass deforestation and habitat loss. We are losing species at a rate 1,000 times greater than at any other time in recorded human history, and one million species face extinction. Forests are our greatest defence against climate change, but we are losing the forests in rapid scales.

It is very sad to know that the world has failed to meet a single target to stem the destruction of wildlife and life-sustaining ecosystems in the last decade, according to a devastating new report from the UN on the state of nature. All the 2010 Aichi goals to protect wildlife and ecosystems have been missed. It is a frightening statement of the status quo.

Like you, I strive to fathom how we got to this situation and worry about the future of humanity. In his recent documentary film ‘A Life on Our Planet’, Sir David Attenborough eloquently explained and presented some heart-rending evidence, which shocked many people around the world.

Human greed and arrogance are too powerful to comprehend that they have been shooting their feet by destroying the nature. Humans have succumbed to endless temptations for far too long, which led them to destructive paths by thinking that nature will only provide. We have ignored the simple fact that nature cannot be just an endless provider.

Global biodiversity is at tipping point. One tipping point would lead to another tipping point, and then another, and finally trapped in vicious cycles that undermines our present and the future human well-being. This threat hovers over our heads. Our common future is hanging by a thread, and the stakes are very high.

We can feel sorry for the past mistakes, but it will not help anyone. Unless we accept our past mistakes, learn from it, and prepare to make the right decisions that would ensure restoring the Earth’s self-recovering capabilities. The sooner we understand this simple message and replenish biodiversity and eco-system, the better for everybody.

This raises an age-old question - are we all together in this journey? My intuition immediately answers the question – ‘there is no alternative, we must stand together!’ We cannot just carry on doing what we have been doing best – take, make, use, and dispose.

To turn the tide, we must enhance our shared responsibility and global solidarity. That said, 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) took place from 15-28 October 2020, in Kunming, China. The year 2020 has been billed as “super year” to bring nature back from the brink. Although the pledge is a voluntary declaration, but it is undoubtedly a step in the right direction.

In the mist of all the chaos, there are still some reasons to feel positive about biodiversity conservation around the world.

For example, China. We usually do not hear about their achievement, but China has significantly progressed in biodiversity conservation in recent years. Out of 30 priority actions set in China’s national biodiversity strategy, great progress has been made in 20. Along with the promulgation and revision of their laws, China’s philosophy of ‘ecological civilisation’ has been the backbone of running successful biodiversity campaign.

Same with the African countries, their success stories hardly get any credit. They are on a brink of momentous revolution with the ‘Great Green Wall’ project. Its aim is to grow an 8,000km of green belt across the entire width of Africa. By 2030, the wall aims to restore 100 million hectares of currently degraded land, become a natural carbon sink of 250 million tonnes of CO2, and create 10 million jobs. It is an excellent news but how many people know about it?

Being the second most densely populated country on the planet, a small island state Singapore has found an innovative way to blend urban living with the nature unlike any other nation. It is an excellent example of a biophilic (bio is life and philia are friendly towards) city. Growing number of comparable examples can be drawn around the world such as cities like Oslo, Wellington, Virctoria-Gasteiz in Spain, Milwaukee in the USA etc. It is a unique way to rewild the cities, and a way forward in the face of rapid urbanisation, poverty, and environmental degradation challenges in 21^st century.

Viewed from a different perspective. A small country like Netherlands has become an agriculture giant since they committed to sustainable agriculture two decades ago under a rallying call ‘twice as much food using half as many resources.’ The Dutch has become one of the world’s pioneer of agriculture innovation by using less water, small scale in land use, no pesticides in food and cut the uses of antibiotics to the poultry and livestock. Technological solutions have given the Dutch to avoid destruction of eco systems on a much larger scale. If the Dutch can do it then other technologically advanced countries can do it, which will eventually spill over to the least developing countries.

These are just a few good examples. Some countries have achieved great things, but the others falling behind. A collective approach would certainly need to drive of change in the fight for a sustainable future. The desire for reversing biodiversity loss has gathered momentum and we must seize it. The World must stay focused on biodiversity restoration. After all, reversing biodiversity loss is about preserving ourselves.

 

Waste-to-energy hardly get the respect it deserves

Let me start with a simple question. How are we going to tackle the ever-growing mounds of waste problems when, globally, each year, we dump a massive 2.12 billion tons of it? Then, there’s another question: Is there an easy and straightforward answer to this question? Increased population, consumer culture, inadequate waste disposal facilities and lack of waste disposal awareness have been long identified as the basic causes of waste issues across the world. Different countries have different ways of tackling the problem, but the bigger question remains whether the methods being used are sustainable or the impacts are relatively low on the environment and people’s lives.

There are a number of ways waste can be treated. For example, incineration, plasma gasification (extreme thermal processes), pyrolysis (high temperature in absence of oxygen), dumps, landfills, biological waste treatment (composting, anaerobic digestion) etc. For many years, the incineration has been one of the most common ways of tackling the waste problem, but lately, generating energy in the form of heat and electricity from residual waste (general waste which are not easily recyclable) has become an emerging trend towards achieving environmental sustainability and circular economy goals.

It may sound bizarre how burning waste can be linked to environmental sustainability and circular economy goals. Compared to other methods, generating energy from residual waste is quicker, commercially viable and sustainable. Obviously, this process is far better than sending waste to the landfill and it is less carbon-intensive than coal. Time is of the essence too, it is no brainer that we need a quicker method to get rid of waste, otherwise the amount of waste will be increased over time, which will even usher in bigger problems for the present and the future generations to manage the impending crisis. Generating electricity and supply to the national grid to power millions of households is an effective way to combat energy crisis. In the process, it generates new jobs for the local communities.

To my mind, it is a win-win situation and meets the current needs without compromising the future generations’ ability to tackle waste problems. Therefore, in this case, sustainability and circular economy, in their broadest contexts, comprise not only environmental but it also embraces social and economic factors where everything has value and nothing is wasted. When we say, ‘nothing is wasted’, which effectively touches the core value of the circular economy. It is a start-to-finish circular concept that rejects the traditional economic approach, instead it embraces a new economic approach that opposes the usual narrative – ‘take-make- consume and dispose’ pattern of growth. 

As the waste-to-energy process gets rid of residual waste quicker and supports economic development and prosperity, hence attracting many interests around the world to build more waste-to-energy plants. According to the British government data, there are currently 90 interactions in the UK and 50more proposed. In China, there are now over 300 and another 200 currently under construction. In the United States, there are 84 waste-to-energy plants in operations.  

According to a recent report by Research and Markets, the world market for waste-to-energy is expected to grow at a combined annual growth rate of approximately 6.45% during the forecast period of 2020-2025. Clearly, there is an upward trend around the world. However, critics opine, it is not good enough and may not be the right yardstick for measuring success, as it pollutes the air by emitting noxious gases and particulates like carbon-dioxide, nitrous-oxides and fine particles, bottom ashes as by-products, vehicle emissions, and CO2 emissions from other activities. Critics go further saying that waste-to-energy process discourages waste recycling.

However, I believe these claims are quite ambiguous and the pollution concerns have been overblown. The opponents are extraordinarily good to sell the concept of fear, uncertainty, and doubt factors. It is quite easy to criticise, however, the critics have, so far, failed to come up with a cost-effective, viable and easy solution. The waste-to-energy plants operate under strict regulations (may vary country to country) which allow only minimum threshold of air emissions and any continuing breaches would be seriously dealt with by the government regulatory bodies. Ferrous metals are taken out from the left-over ashes to be processes to recycling centres, and the rest are sent to further processing to be used as an aggregate and very little remaining of which goes to the landfill sites.

Also, the argument about the process that discourages waste recycling is false as we are talking about generating energy from waste which are not easily recyclable. Besides, evidence have shown from the five European countries with the highest recycling rates (Germany, Austria, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium) are amongst the countries with the most waste-to-energy facilities in Europe.

Surely, we should look for new technologies and more efficient ways of tackling waste as the credo of more stuff will continue to dominate, effectively the amount of waste will increase over time. Green innovations are great for the environment, but at present, we cannot just wait and hope for the new technologies to take over. We need to act now with a cost-effective and available technology that we have in our disposal. The state-of-art and expensive technology e.g., plasma gasification can emerge as triumphant in all environmental debates and talks but it is simply a convenient facade where the basics barely touch with the reality.

Moreover, the poorer countries are usually been side-lined in the prospects and potentials of new technologies. Can the poorer countries simply leapfrog to the new and expensive technologies that are being proposed by the critics? Waste is a universal menace, and we need to tackle the problem head- on and hence it is required to get everyone on-board. The waste-to-energy is doing that and should get the respect it deserves. That does not mean waste-to-energy process can rest on its laurels, rather in time, it needs to get technologically better.
 

Integrated waste management approach is long overdue in Bangladesh

Bangladesh has a huge population approximately over 160 million and it is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. One can imagine the size of its enormous waste that could be generated, in particular, by the domestic, industrial and commercial activities in the larger cities. The urban area of Bangladesh generates approximately 16,015 tons of waste per day, which adds up to over 5.84 million tons annually. It is projected that this amount will grow up to 47,000 tons/day and close to 17.16 million tons per year by 2025, due to growth both in population and the increase in per capita waste generation (Country Analysis Paper Draft BANGLADESH, Bangladesh Third Meeting of the Regional 3R Forum in Asia Technology, Singapore, 5-7 October 2011). 

Waste is no longer regarded as waste these days. It is considered as extra sources of revenue if you can make use of unwanted materials. It may sound very strange, but it is true. Countries that have managed to establish efficient waste management and recycling systems are earning substantial amount of money by providing complete recycling and resource management services (by their public and private companies) to the local communities, effectively creating new jobs, better quality of environment and improved public health. Bank of America Merrill Lynch analysis predicts boom in global waste industry as resource crunch bites. The report says Global waste industry could double to $2tn by 2020 (Murrey, 09 April 2013 in Business Green Sustainable Thinking). Bangladesh should not miss out the opportunities to develop and expand its existing waste management systems. An integrated waste management approach is long overdue in the face of rapid creation of waste, which eventually will help Bangladesh stepping towards a sustainable future. 

Waste Concern; a social business enterprise founded in 1995 has been working with a vision to tackle waste issues in Bangladesh. Waste Concern Group was formed to achieve a common vision to contribute towards waste recycling, environmental improvement, renewable energy, poverty reduction through job creation, and sustainable development (http://www.wasteconcern.org/). It is a drop in the ocean but a huge step forward. There are also irregular small scale (informal) recycling centres are growing around the country. If they are managed and organised properly then it is possible to revitalise the local economy. On the other hand, a caveat, having hundreds of recycling centres wouldn’t help if the recycling centre employees do not practice what they preach. Meaning if they dump their unwanted materials as waste into the local drains, water courses or fly-tipping (illegal dumping) to open lands, then the purpose of doing recycling business would be useless. Therefore, waste legislations should dictate how waste should be managed and disposed. Also, appropriate environmental training and education are essential for those who run casual recycling centres. 

On 29th December 2011, Bangladesh Government had launched a National 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) waste management strategy, which was developed in collaboration with the support from The United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD),Government of Japan and Waste Concern would support waste reduction, reuse, recycle and appropriate disposal of waste. It is hardly surprising that a new set of National Waste Strategy was required to resolve waste related problems; however, at this point it feels like the strategy should have been adapted at some point earlier in time. Under the national 3R goal for waste management, complete elimination of waste disposal on open dumps, rivers, flood plains were to be achieved by 2015. As well as promoting recycling of waste through mandatory segregation of waste at source, create a market for recycled products and also to provide incentives for recycling of waste (National 3R Strategy for Waste Management, Government of Bangladesh, 2010). However, the dream could yet to become true, having different ranges of other priorities, the deadline year 2015 seemed too near considering the implementation costs, lack of institutional and infrastructure facilities, amount of waste and public cooperation in achieving above mentioned goals. 

Apart from the lack of financial, institutional and infrastructure facilities, the crux of the matter is to raise public awareness in order to change their behaviour and practices. Changing the mind-set, internal culture or behaviour is the hardest thing. A genuine commitment across the general public is required at all levels and in all sectors for meaningful change to occur. It is noteworthy to mention that my observation in early 1990s in Sweden was an excellent one. I came across many times extraordinary behaviour and practices among general public when it came to respect to the common good and understanding the potential risks from waste. Someone behind you would pick up the rubbish and put it in the nearest bin if you had thrown it on the street. It took Swedes over many generations to build up this kind of attitude, also some of the environmental problems e.g. effects of acid rain in 1980s raised green consciousness even stronger. In the context of Bangladesh, it is still a long way to go to enshrine such mentality as the irresponsible practices of handling and disposing waste on individual level has been going on for so long that people consider it part of their daily routines.

With the increasing amount of waste that is generated, Bangladesh has fallen behind in waste handling and disposing and will fall even further if the waste issues are not taken very seriously and the conclusion drawn is that it has to be at the forefront of environmental sustainably agenda.

Do you think you can get away with greenwashing? Think again!

In the past, understanding of green and non-green products and its impacts on the environment and human health were little-known. Over time, the environmental knowledge continues to grow among public and the society as a whole; hence it has become inevitable that the production of goods and services are expected to be eco-friendlier. However, in the midst, there are still many who continue to spend needlessly more money and time, falsely claiming that their products are eco-friendly. It is time to distinguish between green winners and greenwashing.

Since the environmental movement gained momentum in mid 60s, many companies rushed to create green images to stay on competitive advantage, without looking at the consequences what might happen if their false claims were to be found out, and how harder it would be to rebuild the good reputation again. Companies or business organisations can no longer play with people’s mind while promoting misleading environmental claims through so called ‘green marketing’. In the USA & EU, there have been some environmental regulations which were developed and even modified the existing legislations to counter these issues. For example, the US Federal Trade Commission updated its environmental marketing guidelines to intervene when businesses are falsely claiming that their products are green and European law requires that advertisers list their CO2 emissions in advertisements.

However, the question is - how the customers will know about the green products if the business organisations do not disclose the information? Customers should ask the questions and create pressure on the businesses to reveal the truth of the environmental claims. In this context, Corporate Reporting has been playing its priceless role separating between green heroes and greenwashing, however yet in many cases the consistency and accessibility to quality data have not been satisfactory, therefore it is important that the information in the reporting is accurate, verifiable, consistent and clear.

It is a fact that Corporate Reporting on economic, environmental and social issues has entered a new phase. It has moved from an experimental phase to a standard practice. In its recent survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017, KPMG found that the majority (78 percent) of the world’s top companies (G250) now do this, indicating that they believe CR data is relevant for their investors. The practice has shown remarkable growth in recent years: in KPMG’s 2011 survey only a minority 44 percent of G250 companies included CR data in their annual reports. Among the N100, the underlying trend is also one of growth, with the rate of companies including CR data in their annual reports up to 60 percent in 2017. There has been a particularly significant increase in the number of US N100 companies integrating CR information into their financial reporting – 81 of the top 100 US companies now do this compared with only 30 just two years ago in 2015.

Finally, those who are still thinking that they can get away with greenwashing, they should think again. Business organisations should grab the green opportunities as the sources of strength rather than barriers to their business growth. Greenwashing is not just worth anymore. Customers will find out and you as a business will lose the integrity and credibility.

Is plastic the main problem or what we choose to do with it?

Plastic pollution is not a recent phenomenon; it has been there for many years. Based on various types and sizes, plastics have been polluting the wildlife habitats, environment and human population since it was invented more than hundred years ago. Until recently, we have realised that the pollution crisis have reached to pandemic proportions. BBC series ‘Blue Planet II’ presented by the famous natural history presenter David Attenborough, who eloquently explained and showed some of the shocking images how plastic waste are polluting our oceans. It is estimated that eight million metric tons of plastics end up in our oceans each year. Furthermore another estimated 150 million metric tons currently circulating our oceans. According to research by The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, by 2050 the ocean will contain more plastic by weight than fish. Plastics are basically everywhere from shopping bags to packaging materials, rigid plastics, foams, nylons, cigarette filter tips, synthetic fibres in clothing and even in the cosmetics as micro-beads. A single shower could result in 100,000 plastic particles entering the ocean. We are living in a plastic world, and it is one at a scale that we simply cannot ignore. Plastics are even finding its way to human food chains and we still do not understand the full extent of the human health impacts.

Plastics are very popular around the world due to its physical properties and cost-effectiveness. It is light, can be easily shaped, strong and cheaper compared to its other contenders. That is why plastics have reached to every corner of the planet and the rapid growth of plastic users after the post-world war 2 scenarios have been staggering. The uses of plastics have grown exponentially in the last 70 years without realising its negative effects. Now, we are trying to turn the wheel around but how? The questions to be asked are – what can we do about the pandemic of plastic pollution? Is plastic the main problem or what we choose to do with it?

‘Beating plastic pollution’ has been the theme for 2018 UN Environment Day, which has raised a lot of public awareness around the world and many countries have taken substantial steps to beat the plastic pollution. Many European countries have introduced a levy on plastic bags. China is one of the biggest users of plastics has implemented a ban on thin plastics. India’s Prime Minister has recently pledged to eliminate all single-use plastics in the country by 2022, with an immediate ban in Delhi. Bangladesh Government banned plastic bags in 2002 for different reasons; however it is now helping to limit the pollution levels. Not only governments but also many private companies, NGOs, charities etc. are now refusing single-use of plastics. The Coca-Cola Company has promised to make bottles containing a higher percentage of recycled plastic packaging to be reused and recycled. Despite the progress being made, we are way behind tackling the problems. It is therefore the momentum to beat plastic pollution should continue to progress. A train certainly has started rolling from its breakdown but it needs to roll faster.

Our society has been enjoying the benefits of plastics over hundred years but at the same time we let the plastic pollution go for too long. We didn’t realise that the pollution levels would be skyrocketed in such an astonishing way. Even If we completely stop using the plastics from today, it will still take hundreds of years to be non-traceable in the ecosystems and the environment, or it may never be fully recovered. Instead of blaming the plastics, the main attention should be on how the plastics get into the oceans? Why are there so many gaps in consumers’ knowledge and behaviours? The answers to these questions are very straight forward, yet they are complex as they have got socio-economic and cultural factors associated.

Public knowledge and behaviour vary widely from country to country. It happens often in the developing countries, people throw all sorts of things on the street including plastic packaging e.g. shopping bags, bottles, and food packaging etc., thinking it is government’s job to clean up. Plastics are comparatively lighter than other packaging products, therefore there is a greater risk that it will be blown away by wind to the roadside drains, ditches, canals, rivers and finally find its way to the oceans. Even in the richer part of the world, we have witnessed time and again in our holidays that people leave behind their rubbish after spending time on the sea beach. It could be purely due to lack of knowledge or laziness – people do not want to walk up to 100 meters to dispose their rubbish in the appropriate recycling bins. They are not bothered if plastic straws or bottles end up in the ocean, they may have the knowledge but do not care about the impacts of plastics on marine life.

To reduce plastic pollution, the behavioural issues are particularly complicated. The changes of behaviour will not occur until people understand the adverse effects of plastic pollution. No matter how many regulations will be brought into by the Government but it will not work. Citizens cannot just wash their hands off, thinking they are exempted to participate. They should be doing their parts too. We cannot expect that the Government will get all the necessary done without the help from the citizens. What Government can do? They can provide more waste management and recycling facilities, more awareness campaign activities, making sure the recycling plastic is economically viable, promote educational activities in the schools and looking for further opportunities to close the gaps. In order to carry out these activities, huge investments are required, but where will the funds come from? Environmental priorities always go at the bottom of the list when there are other so called important issues to be tackled.

Plastics cannot be completely eliminated as it has got many benefits. Society must strive to create sustainable plastics supply chain that benefits both the environment and economy. One of the biggest challenges in our hands is that the use of plastics will increase across the globe but collection and recycling efforts will not grow simultaneously, therefore we will fail to keep up with the pace. It says where there is a problem, there is an opportunity. I believe there are real opportunities particularly for the developing countries to turn this plastic menace to a profitable business by improving the Health, Safety and Welfare at work, CSR & Sustainability practices within the waste management and recycling sectors.