It was only a few years ago that the world got to know that by 2050, plastics in the oceans will outweigh the fish in the oceans.
The disaster was further nuanced when microplastics were found in the fish we eat. The problem further transformed to an emotive one when plastics were found in baby’s placenta, and finally it was personalised when plastics were found in male testicles.
Even with all this, I am sure, undesired proximity to plastics in our biology the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) projects plastic use to triple by 2060.
Let’s not forget that 9% of plastic waste is being recycled. Plastic Recycling is a buzzword as has the concept of repurposing. The spirit of recycling plastics encompasses its use as a fuel, as an ingredient to road laying mixtures, and down-cycled into other products. Repurposing includes making threads of certain types of plastics which are then woven into apparel and footwear.
Ultimately, this is just delaying the plastic’s destiny of becoming an unwanted part of natural biology. If recycling and repurposing are so beneficial then why don’t companies stop using natural material and stick to plastic? It would give the earth a much-needed breather.
Why is it forecast that recycled plastic will constitute only 6% of the total 736 million tonnes global production and use of plastics by 2040?
Delaying plastic’s eventual destination as waste by recycling and repurposing does not prevent plastic pollution. Take for example its use in apparel and footwear. Washing leads to abrasion and the creation of microplastics. These minute plastic particles disperse into the waterways and finally enter into our food and bodies.
Does the repurposing really solve the hazards of plastic pollution or does it exacerbate it?
Let’s face it; the suggested solutions to the plastic problem don’t solve the problem. They are placebos manufactured by marketers and industries to create new markets and give existing consumers a feel good and guilt free purpose.
Solutions to a problem don’t make it go away. It becomes manageable and therefore acceptable. In other words, the problem remains as it is, but we see it in a new light.
So, in the case of plastics, even if it is seen as a global environmental problem, its magnitude is reduced by converting it into a resource. Never mind that the level of use of plastic waste is a drop in the ever-increasing ocean of plastic waste.
There is a certain inexorable banal eventuality to the solutions we provide ourselves. This is present in other streams of life too. Take for example the issue of influx of refugees into Europe and America. The belief that refugees will be deleterious to the current way of life is slowly taking hold in these places. Therefore, it is not surprising that the way to resolve the issue is through xenophobia.
This has become part of political campaigns and is winning elections. Trump does not seem to appreciate the irony of railing against migrants even though the US was formed by migrants, taking over land from native Americans and two of Trump’s three wives were immigrants. Many Indians have a thing against Muslims but have no compunction in enjoying Biryani.
If we are progressing, then why are we getting better at harming ourselves? Why are solutions that we come-up with worse than the problem? Why is our getting better in adapting to incongruity detrimental to the planet?
Often our actions suggest that we work against our own best interests. This hypocritical duality permeates, and in fact, is the bane of our modern existence.
While non-stick pans are heralded as a way to reduce oil in cooking, they expose the user to polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) - known as “forever chemicals”. Our concern for the environment guides us to choosing EV vehicles but blinds us to the problem of batteries and power source.
We are surrendering to solutions that force us deeper into the mire. To what end? The floods in Spain and the recent hurricanes in Florida in the US have been made worse by climate change.
The human race has had approximately 40 years to deal with climate change. The solutions to prevent climate change have increased manifold and has got many people and governments involved. However, what has not changed is the increasing consumption and use of fossil fuels. This results in catastrophic climatic events like those recently seen in Spain, Florida and Dubai.
The situation is such that one glibly ignores the irony of fossil fuel producing nations hosting international summits on climate change. The 2024 Conference of Parties (COP) on climate change is being organised in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. The country is a major exporter of oil and gas. COP 28 was held in Dubai.
The outcome of COP28 was countries failing to agree to ‘phase out fossil fuels’, instead they chose the weaker “transitioning away from fossil fuels”.
So, solutions for climate change are pointless if fossil fuel dependence remains unchecked. The one and true solution to climate change is complete removal of fossil fuels from our everyday life.
Everything done until now only dulls the resistance and quietens the demand for the drastic reduction, if not elimination of fossil fuels.
Just as continuing dependency on fossil fuels makes all efforts to combat climate change redundant, so too is the hope that a leader whose election plank is fear and divisiveness, will be good for the country.
Modern solutions often mask the problem rather than address it. On the other hand, modernity also means the promotion of scientific thought and critical thinking.
Is it better to buy individual EV vehicles or use public transport fuelled by renewable energy? Why are we susceptible to a leader's hate and divisiveness? We need to hold truth to power. We need to ask questions, we need to think beyond ourselves to what is good for our community, country and planet.
(Samir Nazareth is an
author and writes on
socio-economic and
environmental issues)