By Leony Garcia, Businessmirror, 5 Mar 2020
Some eight million tons of plastic wastes find their way into the oceans every year, of which almost two million tons are generated by the Philippines, according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation which has reported that the country is the third leading plastic polluter in the world, after China and Indonesia.
Given the gravity of the situation, more than 30 bills have been filed in Congress addressing plastic pollution, most of which seek to ban or phase out single-use plastics (SUP).
However, with its wide-ranging applications, there are currently no alternatives that approximate the benefits and usefulness of plastic packaging. Notably, banning or phasing out plastics will hurt consumers, especially those in the lower income brackets, because the prices of products packaged in plastic—especially food—will increase significantly.
Plastic is the most commonly used material for packaging, such as by the food and pharmaceutical industries, because it is inexpensive, durable and lightweight. Plastic packaging maintains the integrity of products, prolongs shelf life, and makes them affordable to consumers. The demand for product affordability among Filipinos, particularly among those near, at or below the poverty level has resulted in the popularity of single-serve sachets.
Alternatives to plastic, including glass and metal, will be more expensive. As for paper, its inherent biodegradability makes products in paper packaging susceptible to contamination from the elements. Biodegradable plastics do not readily degrade from the elements but require industrial intervention to degrade. Some environmental groups advocate refilling stations but this proposal cannot apply to manufactured foods since food hygiene and safety cannot be assured.
Plastic has proven its usefulness, but it is a hazard to the environment once discarded. What if there was a way to exploit the benefits of plastic, yet keep it from harming the environment? A ban on the use of plastic, or a phase-out of plastic without a suitable and affordable replacement, would deprive consumers of the benefits of plastic and come at a higher price.
Enter a policy approach called Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which is being implemented in various countries including those in the European Union.
Simply put, EPR requires that producers and importers of plastic products, mainly plastic packaging, will collect the plastic waste generated after the products are used. The volume each manufacturer will collect will be proportionate to the amount of plastic it has sold. The collection target will progressively increase until the amount of plastic collected will be at least equal to the amount of plastic sold.
The cost of collection will be borne by the producers of plastic, under the “producer pays” principle. Producers too small to set up a collection system can engage another operation, called a “Producer Responsibility Organization,” to collect their plastic waste. No plastic packaging material will be exempt.
Congressman Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro, 2nd District) has filed House Bill No. 6279 mandating EPR. “If you look at the plastic waste collected from the oceans, these are made of both recyclable and non-recyclable plastic, and both single-use and multiple use plastic. So the problem is not what kind or design of plastic is used by a manufacturer, but rather, how to prevent all types of plastic waste from polluting the environment,” he said.
With every producer of plastic covered by an EPR law, all plastic produced will be taken out of the environment. Moreover, producers seeking to avoid the cost of collection will have a reason to seek out cheaper alternatives to plastic. Any producer that switches to an alternative packaging material will thus gain a competitive advantage.
The plastic collected can then be put to use again. The abundance of material collected will encourage recyclers to use the plastic to make new packaging materials or manufacture other products. For example, waste plastic is now used to make school chairs, eco-bricks, and even roads. Further, waste plastic is used by the cement industry as an alternative fuel to coal. There is also potential in using waste plastic for waste-to-energy purposes; countries like Japan generate a substantial amount of electricity from plastic waste.
“With the right incentives to introduce appropriate technologies, plastic waste can be viewed as a potentially valuable and abundant resource,” Congressman Rodriguez noted.
Supporters of EPR hope that other legislators and manufacturers will study the bill and conclude that it is the best course of action to address plastic wastes.
“If we adopt EPR, we can divert waste plastics from our water ways and oceans. It will definitely protect nature. At the same time, manufacturers will still be able to use plastic but they will be motivated to use less of it or find alternatives,” Congressman Rodriguez said.
#WearMask #WashHands
#Distancing
#TakePicturesVideos
