Trivia: It's Black Friday!

Hello all,

Before I move on to talk more about legislations, it would be highly seasonal and appropriate to talk about Black Friday as the weekend sales come to an end with Cyber Monday.

Black Friday

Figure 13: The tweet that nicely summarises this post (Source: @squeezyjohn on Twitter)

Plastic toys and large electronic goods are among the most popular items promoted during Black Friday, and in their manufacturing process large amounts of plastic have been used. The largest problem lies in the excessive and wasteful behaviour that Black Friday encourages amid the rush to get items at a marked-down rate. These reduced prices are often compensated by the price paid by our oceans, forests and wildlife as the plastic that feeds our shopping habits becomes waste within a year or less, eventually contributing to our plastic ocean as succinctly stated in Figure 13. 

No amount of recycling or incineration may ever stop the harmful effects from such excessive consumerism. Therefore, do we really need these plastic products? Does that need justify the environmental damage, mainly plastic pollution and vehicle air pollution in transportation? Using these thought processes, we would be doing much more with less.

Mitigation Measures: ↓ Supply and Demand

Hello all!

Following up from the list of legislations I collated (recall: Table 1), I will elaborate about the mitigation measures over two blog entries and my personal thoughts.

↓ Supply

Mitigation measures such as taxing suppliers and prohibition of plastic manufacture and distribution aim to target plastic waste at the forefront of its life cycle, where manufacturers respond by reducing supplies when the quantity demanded by consumers fall. Examples include the Recycled Plastics Rules implemented by India in 1999 and the SB 270 implemented in the States where grocery stores and pharmacies were banned from distributing single-use carrier bags (defined as <40μm). Environmental groups backed these moves, although they sparked outrage from manufacturers arguing against it for weak reasons such as: a) jeopardise thousands of manufacturing jobs, b) does not help the environment, and c) line the pockets of grocery shareholders. 

I would refute opinions (a) and (c). Recyclable and reusable bag production create an alternative packaging market, fulfilling a positive brand image at the same time by exercising CSR as a strategic move. They are even provided with assistance in transition to greener production methods. Although the higher cost of recyclable bag production has controversially allowed large grocery stores (eg. Sainsbury) to cut costs by reducing their share to charity, I am in support. The stoppage in distribution of single-use carrier bags, the replacement with thicker 'Bags For Life', and one-for-one exchanges when the bags wear out - these create economic incentives for consumers to use and reuse their plastic bags, changing consumer behaviours with regard to thinner plastic bags over time. In my opinion, they are way ahead in this battle against plastic bags, compared to other stores that continue to charge for thin brittle plastic bags and justify it by donating the proceeds to charity.

For opinion (b), the manufacturers argued that the legislations were passed to affect them undesirably under "the guise of environmental stewardship". I argue that these bans were actually politically difficult to make for its unpopularity to businesses, as they affect not just the plastic bag industry but the entire retail scene by increasing their costs.

↓ Demand

A reduction in demand works through consumers, where they decrease their use of plastic through motivations such as saving money by avoiding the plastic bag charge. Using a case study from Portugal, a plastic bag tax saw a 74% decrease in number of used plastic bags and extensions on the life of reusable plastic bags for up to 2 months. There was a trade-off however, as there was a 12% increase in the purchase of garbage bags - overall, this is still likely to be in favour of the charge, as economic disincentives by a cost on garbage bags will control the purchase of plastic bags by consumers.

On many occasions, it is likely that a coupling of these approaches take place; there have been qualitative studies in Portugal where the implementation of the plastic bag tax has been cited to increase awareness of environmental problems related to plastic bags. It was also mentioned that there is room for improvement in forging a greater environmental identity by encouraging alternative bags, although I am ambivalent about this statement at present. I will explain why in the next post.

See you!

List of Legislations

Hello all!

If you recall, my first entry was inspired by a legislation implemented back at home that was not well-received by some. Since then, I have come across recommendations by several authors for the reduction of plastic waste and I have collated them in this post, categorised by the familiar terms of mitigation measures (see Table 1) and adaptation measures after plastic has emerged within the Earth system (see Table 2).

Table 1: Mitigation measures through reducing supply or demand of plastics.

Mitigation Measures	Methods	Description/Example
↓ Supply	Prohibition	- Ban single-use carrier plastic bag production. - Ban the use of plastic containers.
	Pay-as-you-throw taxation	- Charge tax on manufacturers.
↓ Demand	Plastic bag charge	- Decrease usage by consumers.
	Alternative materials	- Paper bags and cotton bags to replace plastic bags. - Non-plastic exfoliating substances to replace microbeads.
	Expanding use of plastic	- Increase life of plastic by enhancing reusability and durability (circular plastic economy), reducing overall demand.
	Public awareness campaigns	- Discourage use of plastic consumption.

Reduction of negative externalities in adaptation measures can come in the form of preventing their output into coastlines, oceans and sewage systems, or by extending the social benefits from plastic bags.

Table 2: Adaptation measures through reducing negative externalities arising from plastic bags.

Adaptation Measures	Methods	Description/Example
↓ -ve externalities	Legal frameworks to prevent dumping	- UNCLOS 1982 - International Convention for Preventation of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) - Convention on Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention) 1972
	Beach and waterway cleans before discharge	- The Plastic Bank. - Volunteer beach cleans.
	Technology to clean up water bodies	- The Ocean Cleanup (1, 2) - Seabins (blog post by fellow colleague) - Remora.
	Technology to prevent discharge of plastics	- Guppy Friend preventing microplastic fragments from fleece
	Technology to boost recycling	- Agylix - BioCellection - CadelDeinking - Separatec
	Energy recovery from plastics via incineration	- Increase social benefits, but done in conjunction with development of C capture and storage to balance trade-off with greenhouse gas emissions.

As with climate change, both types of approaches are needed. I will conclude this entry here after several weeks of relatively longer posts, and I will elaborate on these legislations and their usefulness as mentioned previously in the following weeks.

See you next week!

Impacts: Microfibre, the less known evil

Hello all!

I have spoken extensively about microplastics in my previous post, and how they may potentially impact human health. However, plastic bags and their fragmentation are only secondary sources of microplastics. Microplastics in the oceans may result directly from primary sources, and the major sources include our familiar microplastic-sized fibre from textiles and microbeads from cosmetics.

Microfibre

Microplastic contamination along the South African beach coastlines has been cited to hail largely (80-90%) from the synthetic plastic fibres that are released during a machine wash cycle. These small plastic fibres are able to pass through preliminary sewage treatment screens (>1.5mm) and are not readily decomposed by bacteria, Eventually, they end up in aquatic environments where they form a substantial volume of microplastic pollution. Based on the results seen in Figure 11, a washing load of polyester-cotton blend, polyester and acrylic clothing release 140k, 500k and 730k of fibre respectively when rounded off to the nearest 2 significant figures. 

Figure 11. Diagram to show the original garments, their typical fibres, the mean fibre dimensions and estimated fibre released per wash cycle (assume a wash load of 6kg).

In another study done by popular apparel company Patagonia in partnership with academics, it was found that an average of 1.2g of microfibers are released from the washing machine when synthetic fleece jackets are washed. Up to 40% of these microfibres make their way into water bodies, depending on the quality of the local sewage treatment. By estimating the volume of plastic microfibre in sewage effluents, it was estimated that the sewage affluents of a population of 100k people would produce approximately 1kg of fibres a day, with more of this produced during winter due to greater washing machine usage (700% greater) from the usage of more clothes.

Microbeads

In the last few years, there has been increasing potential for microplastic pollution through the use of cosmetic products. Microplastics have increasing replaced natural exfoliating materials, such as oatmeal or apricot husk, in facial cleansers, toothpastes and shower gels (see Figure 12). They are often being marketed to consumers in forms such as "micro-beads", "microbead formula" or "micro exfoliates". These plastic microbeads are mostly made of PE (93%), are present in sizes at most up to 1mm, and after usage they similarly travel through wastewater systems for their eventual discharge into oceans due to the inability to degrade naturally.

Figure 12. Exfoliating scrubs in the market (picture source). Find them familiar? Me too.

The average consumer now has a microplastic-containing product in their home and uses it at least on a weekly basis. A case study based in Europe estimated that 680 tonnes of microplastic beads are used and disposed of by the United Kingdom, regionally 4130 tonnes are used in EU countries plus Norway and Switzerland. In the worst case scenario, the relative contributions of microplastic beads to marine litter may constitute up to 11%, although the contribution to the North Sea environment from cosmetic products in 2012 was likely between only 0.1-1.5%.

Thoughts

Microplastic pollution is on a worsening trajectory, as the increases in human population encourage a greater use of cosmetic products and an increase in synthetic textile production. Textile washings are important as part of daily domestic activities, regardless of social and cultural backgrounds; the application of facial scrub exfoliants is also estimated to be used by around 1.1 million women in the UK with daily application. Our plastic behaviour has been very much normalised, with our lifestyle habits damaging the oceans in ways we do not know.

Overall, I have covered the bulk of land-based sources which make up of 80% of plastic debris in the marine environment, namely beach litter (eg. plastic bags), material discarded in landfills, textile fibres from washings and synthetic components of personal care products. Notably, microplastics are extremely difficult to remove from water bodies due to their small size and ubiquitousness. Therefore, the best way to reduce plastic pollution is to minimise it at its source, and after reading week I will broadly cover the legislations and alternatives to plastic waste and packaging.

See you next week!