Polythene pollution

by Dr. A.C. Visvalingam

(November 05, Colombo, Sri Lanak Guardian) In June 2006, the Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance (CIMOGG) summarised what appeared to be the most practical ways of looking at the disposal of various types of garbage, technically referred to as "Solid Municipal Waste." Regrettably only one of the nine newspapers to which this summary was sent thought it worth sparing some space for this contribution.

Among the matters that this overview covered were foul odours from wet garbage, visual pollution caused by the indiscriminate dumping of waste, dealing with hazardous chemicals leaking out of accumulated refuse, composting, separation of different types of solid waste, infectious hospital refuse, power production from decomposing garbage, incineration without separation, chemical treatment of wet waste and, not least important of all, the problems caused by polythene bags and other thin-film wrapping materials.

Because it is so easy and emotively satisfying to say "Ban polythene" or "Charge a punishing levy on polythene," this has been the chosen path of a number of vocal advocates of this sledge-hammer type of approach. However, as we were of the view that there is really no economical and technically satisfactory substitute for a thin plastic film to act as a barrier against the penetration of water and other fluids associated with the packing and transporting of raw and cooked food products, we suggested that the authorities should look into the question of encouraging the adoption of bio­degradable plastic film in place of polythene or other plastic film.

We also recommended that manufacturers of the non-degradable type be given one or two years’ grace to change over to the new material. The price of biodegradable plastics, if used on a sufficiently large scale, would, we understand, be only a little higher than that of the common variety of polythene.

A point worth bearing in mind is that making the public pay Rs. 5 per bag at supermarkets, was not going to change the chemical composition or polluting characteristics of plain polythene bags. Thus, the imposed remedy was hardly a logical solution to the problem. Thankfully, for other reasons, the Supreme Court showed its disapproval of this way of dealing with the polythene bag problem.

We need to state that although we are reasonably well informed on technical matters, we are not specialised in this area of science and technology and should, as a matter of ordinary prudence, like to call upon the Industrial Technology Institute to tell the public whether there would be any significant adverse consequences which might arise from replacing ordinary polythene with bio-degradable plastic — that is, before the authorities possibly commit themselves rigidly to the latter.

We also call upon the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (M/E&NR) to obtain the advice of the relevant departments in our universities and the industrialists concerned to give the public an objective assessment of our recommendation.

The troublesome issue of the blocking of road gullies by polythene would be the same whether the plastic film is bio-degradable or not. In any event, this is an urban problem which probably affects only Colombo in a serious way and which, therefore, could be handled as a special case by the M/E&NR applying strong pressure on the city fathers and the garbage collection contractors to carry out their responsibilities properly, failing which they may be made subject to penalties of an order that would encourage strict compliance. - Sri Lanka Guardian