What'SUP?

History Repeating Itself? 

The Government's policy of the use of plastics has turned a full circle. In my childhood days during the 1970s and the 80s the then environmentalists shouted hoarse about the dangers of using paper bags. Their main argument was about how our environment was being destroyed due to excessive cutting of trees to make paper. They vociferously advocated the use of plastic bags. They hammered home the fact that it was imperative to stop using paper bags pronto.

Everyone was truly convinced and we saw the shift to plastics as the material became increasingly popular. No doubt the advantages were many. The chief reasons to switch were the low cost and being waterproof (and oil proof). Thongas became consigned to history and plastic bags of myriad sizes, shapes and colours took over the carry-bag space.

The changeover was gradual and was aligned with economic forces. As supply of plastic bags soared in the market, old-style paper bags disappeared. It happened naturally without upsetting the proverbial apple cart. Normal shopping transactions were not hampered, nor were livelihoods connected with the bags disrupted.

View From the Top

More than a quarter of a century later, this wonder material never ceases to awe us with its wide range of properties. Polymers (that's what plastics are) can be created with desired characteristics, its properties tweaked to specific uses. By itself it is neither good or evil, it is only the way that it is being handled that is the crux of today's problem.

That plastics are not biodegradable was known to our policy makers right from day one. The correct way to dispose it, reuse it or recycle it was never a secret. Over the years, there have been many process improvements, both in production and disposal of this material. It was a foregone conclusion that by not creating awareness about its environmental impact, not educating the end consumer about the correct way to dispose off plastic items, by not facilitating the right economic channels at the local levels, it was a disaster waiting to happen, almost balanced at the tipping point.

Today, in mid 2022, we know that the disaster is here. Plastics have pervaded the environment and percolated into the global food chain. And what we get is a draconian reaction from the policy makers and law enforcers. No more manufacturing of single use plastics (SUP) from the 1st of this July; and imposing stiff fines for both buyers and sellers at local markets. This is a typical knee-jerk reaction we normally get at the highest policy making level. And then our lawmakers leave it for the local authorities to implement it in their own fashion.

View From the Ground

I will share a Sunday morning incident at one of the local markets in Salt Lake. A person from the municipal corporation was using a loudspeaker to inform all about the impending plastic ban and warning us about the fines that were in the offing if we dared to ignore it. I went up to him and said that as a customer there I was in total agreement with not using plastics, but as a local officer, could he please suggest what could be used instead for wrapping fish and meat? He told me quite rudely that it was none of his business, all he could say was not to use plastic bags. Probably he was anyway disgruntled having to work on a Sunday morning and was not interested in interacting with either shopkeepers or buyers.

This real-life incident brings out clearly how local authorities work. For them, being strict about fines, and catching "violators" is the be-all and end-all for any issue. Understanding the problems of the citizens and trying to solve these probably don't feature on their list of priorities. That is why I had to face such a reaction from an officer on duty. If an officer is on duty visiting markets during the busiest hour of the week, then why wasn't he clear about the issues? If he was deputed for this job, then why wasn't he briefed adequately to be able to effectively engage with people, and at the very least try to understand their problems? After all, if the sole objective is to broadcast a message then an audio system can play a recorded tract endlessly without the need of a human.

Questions

The prime question is how do we go about tackling the environmental concerns in a socially responsible manner. If the natural world is suffering because of our indisciplined approach in understanding the real issues, it isn't a wise way either to adopt drastic measures while ignoring the social consequences. Many people's livelihoods depended on the manufacturing and supply of plastic bags. At one stroke, by fiat, their occupations will be impacted. As it is they do not belong to the financially resourceful category, and neither are they, in general, well educated so as to be able to explore other viable business opportunities.

As I ponder on the issue some questions that come to my mind are:

1. Do tea vendors replace paper/plastic cups with clay ones (bhanr in Bengali)? Is that a sustainable policy? Will potters be interested in making large numbers of clay cups year round and earn a respectable income from it?

2. How do you carry small amounts of fresh produce, such as, chillies, coriander leaves, eggs, etc.? Paper bags seem to be the obvious choice. But it has its own set of consequences. Do village folks now take up paper bag making as a cottage industry? Will it be financially rewarding?

3. Wrapping small amounts of fish and meat has its own challenges. In absence of small plastic bags, maybe using banana leaves is an alternative. But again, it will be not a drip-proof packaging. Incidentally, on the same day the loudspeaker campaign was going on, I had asked a rickshaw puller if he would not mind if the fish dripped blood inside his rickshaw. He flatly refused to allow even a drop of blood on his rickshaw floor.

4. Will packaged drinking water now be sold in tetrapacks and not in bottles? After all, the PET bottles are SUP.

5. What about packaging of bread, buns, biscuits, etc. that all use SUP? Do we shift to paperboard cartons? This will increase costs and also shoot the demand for boards. 

6. Will not increasing the use of paper products mean a higher demand for wood pulp? Will that be good for us? Were the environmentalists of yesteryears right or wrong?

Reflections

It should be clear to even the most dull witted that polymers as a class of materials is extremely useful to mankind. Neither the material nor the users are to be blamed for today's environmental crisis. The sole reason for this situation is the lack of balanced use of such plastics. There never was any awareness at the grassroots level about how to responsibly dispose off plastic items, including bags. The local authorities failed miserably in putting in place a waste segregation and disposal system.

Also, it is the SUPs that have caused the main damage to our planet. We have to understand (we refers to both users and the authorities) that replacing SUP with another single use material will not really help matters. Whatever be the material, we should strive to reuse each item as long as possible and then dispose it off in the correct manner.

Even as we repeat it ad nauseam that SUP should be banned, it can't be denied that there are occasions when SUPs are needed, for example, milk pouches. Everything has its uses and its pros and cons. Swinging from one extreme to another like a pendulum only shows a lack of equilibrium, in this case, a lack of balanced thinking. Even for a pendulum, the equilibrium point is in the middle, not at the extremes.

Concluding Thoughts

I am quite dismayed that even in today's knowledge based society, local authorities still stick to archaic political machinery for making and enforcing decisions. The ban on SUP only highlights this basic inadequacy in our system. What is needed is a balanced and well thought out approach to plastic waste collection and recycling processes so that it makes for economic activity. Making our planet greener is justifiably of essence, but surely it can be done in a wise manner.

Just digressing a bit into another green story before I conclude. 'Plant more trees' is the present motto of the local authorities. But does that mean that no trees can be cut down or trimmed even when that is the need of the hour? When I stand on my balcony, I see a tree that has grown taller beyond its own normal limits and can't withstand storms. During strong winds it leans against our house. Its branches have broken off and damaged my car on the street below. Just beyond this tree stands another dead tree. It's dead because its roots were irrevocably damaged during a beautification drive of the surroundings. The skeleton still stands. Then there are bushes and trees that have grown at different street intersections and obstruct a clear view for motorists. One of the basic safety norms for traffic is a clear view of an intersection so that a motorist can see vehicles and pedestrians on all sides. Unfortunately, our authorities have turned a blind eye to real problems. For now, it will be a hectic period of activity to curb plastic bags at our markets until the next big issue comes along.

Making Salt Lake a better place seems to be receding farther away.