PLASTIC KAYONG LAHAT!!!!

Caring for the environment is just one of those corporate buzzwords that eventually reveal the hypocrisy and schizophrenia of its corporate communications.

Well known beauty product maker, Unliever, makes a big deal about its beauty products but denies that the plastic wrappers and containers its products come in UGLIFY the environment.

Procter and Gamble, Nestle, and other companies market sachet products intensively, even sponsoring some running events to "SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT" while the discarded sachets of the products they make end up blocking storm drains and water ways -- even littering beautiful natural scenery all over the country.

Anyway, here are some basic concepts about PLASTIC POLLUTION.

This comes from Plastic Pollution Coalition:

Plastic is forever

Plastic is a material that the Earth cannot digest. Every bit of plastic that has ever been created still exists, except the small amount that has been incinerated, and has become toxic air and particulate pollution.

Plastic is poisoning our food chain

In the environment, plastic breaks down into smaller and smaller particles that attract toxic chemicals. These particles are ingested by wildlife on land and in the ocean, and contaminate our food chain.

Plastic affects human health

Harmful chemicals leached by plastics are already present in the bloodstream and tissues of almost every one of us, including newborns.

Single Use plastics and Disposable plastics are the main source of plastic pollution

Consumption of single use and disposable plastics has spiraled out of control. They are used for seconds, hours, or days, but their remains will last hundreds of years.

Recycling is not a sustainable solution

Unlike glass and metal, recycling plastic is costly and does not stem the production of virgin plastic product. Most of our plastic waste is landfilled, downcycled or exported to other countries.

The oceanic gyres

Patches of plastic pollution cover millions of square miles of ocean in the North Pacific and in the North Atlantic. Scientists expect to find similar accumulation areas in the remaining oceanic gyres. There is no known way to clean up the plastic pollution in the oceans: the plastic particles are very small and circulate throughout the entire water column. The amount of plastic pollution in the oceans is expanding at a catastrophic rate.

It is “plastic pollution”, not “marine debris”

We believe that the term “marine debris” (used consistently by the plastics industry) is euphemistic, vague, and ineffective. We are here to talk about plastic pollution in the oceans, plastic pollution on land, and plastic pollution in our bodies. Let’s call it what it is.

Kapihan sa Sulo:ACE talks about plastics pollution and remembering Ondoy Floods

Last Saturday, members of the Alliance for a Cleaner Earth (ACE) and myself were able to get some time at the Kapihan sa Sulo at the newly refurbished Sulo Hotel in Quezon City.

ACE is a group of outdoor sports enthusiasts who live out their environmentalist causes by collecting aluminum cans, practicing Earth Day everyday by shutting down their household's power for two hours everyday, by giving up smoking, using E-10 fuels, lessening their plastic wastes, and once a year, holding a rock concert cum clean up drive in areas endangered by climate change.  We also participate in the projects of other groups whose cause is to fight for climate change adaptation measures.

Members of the group present were Abbie Modino, Jojo Menorca, Chi Martillo, Au Martillo, Salvs Beleo, and myself.

It was a good thing that some of our friends in the media allowed us some time to share our message about remembering Ondoy and stopping plastic pollution.  This despite the fact that the organizers of Kapihan would probably have wanted more time discussing the present brouha-ha over police brutality sparked by the torture video played excessively on television.

I don't know how many people have suffered from police brutality and the worst thing I ever experienced from a policeman was to get a ticket for beating the red light.  The thing is, I think, you only have to be worried about police brutality if you are a chronic street protester, a criminal, or a vagrant.  

Ordinary law abiding citizens don't have to worry much about the police, unless, of course, they are victims of a crime and the perpetrators are relatives or friends of a policeman.

In any case, out of every ten people I talk to about the Ondoy floods last year, about seven have their own stories to tell and of those seven, four or five were actually victims of Ondoy.

And talk about brutality... There's nothing more brutal than mother nature showing up at your front door in the form of a raging flood carrying all sorts of debris.  There's nothing more brutal than losing almost everything your own to a flood.  There nothing more brutal than watching your loved one drown in a flood.

photo credit 

http://livingtogetherblog.com/tag/ondoy/

Almost always, there'll be stories to tell and among those stories will be stories about the fears of another Ondoy flood happening.

It's not the sort of irrational phobia that one ends up having all their lives after, say, getting struck by lightning or some other incident that has more than one-in-a-million odds stacked against it happening again.

The fear of another Ondoy flood is actually grounded on the certain likelihood that it is bound to happen again, if not this year, then next year or the year after that.

Do you think I'm wrong? I've got two words for you.  Typhoon Basyang.

While we were 'lucky' -- YES LUCKY -- that Typhoon Basyang didn't cause the floods that we experienced with Ondoy, but there were still floods and a very major power disruption that lasted for days in some areas of Metro Manila.

In any case, the likelihood of having another Ondoy is premised on the fact that our country experiences an average of 20 typhoons every year and despite this, the national government has not adopted or implemented any long range plans for Climate Change Adaptation.

So far, the only things that have been done by the present administration so far is:

- the President visited a number of esteros near Malacanang

- the DENR, DPWH, and PRRC showed up at another estero to pose for cameras as they ordered a clean up of ONE estero

- the President spoke at the Bayer Young Environmentalists event and said that he'd go after polluters in neckties.

- a flood mapping project is being finished up, but no mention yet of a real flood control system being put into place 

- the President ordered an anti-littering drive on the Pasig river

- the relocation of squatters along the Pasig river is being done

- Pagasa is being beefed up, or so we're told, so that we'll get better warnings of impending destructive typhoons. 

- the MMDA is asking private companies to lend heavy earth moving machinery to the government so that esteros can be declogged.

- a Pasig River marathon organized by the PRRC that doesn't go anywhere around or near the Pasig River! 

All of these steps can do some good, but perhaps, not on the scale of what really needs to happen in order so that a great number of lives and property can be saved when we are faced with another Ondoy.

At the Kapihan sa Sulo, ACE came out to call for measures that would drastically reduce the use of plastic packaging -- sachets, pouches, bags, bottles, etcetera -- and at the same time build up necessary funds that could be used for the retrieval and proper disposal of plastic waste.

Telling companies such as Unilever, Proceter and Gamble, Nestle, SM, Rustans, Puregold, and other large companies that they ought to lessen the plastic pollution they create is just one of the number of things ACE has in mind.

Why is it important to curb the country's production of plastic waste?

It is because plastics are the major cause of flooding in Metro Manila and if you are wondering just how much plastic trash the consumption of goods in plastic containers generate, here are a couple of estimates:

Here's one estimate:

http://pinoybiz.blogspot.com/2010/08/tax-to-curb-plastic-sachets-and-plastic.html 

Giant consumer goods manufacturer Unilever claims that every day, it sells 160 million products.  Assuming that the sales volume of the other manufacturing giants, Procter & Gamble and Nestle is in the vicinity of Unilever’s, that would be some 500 million products sold daily.

Let’s peg a conservative estimate that 10 percent of all products sold are in plastic sachets, then that’s 50 million.  That’s 50 million plastic sachets and pouches that will eventually find its way to our oceans, waterways, landfills and drainage systems ready to clog the free flow of water and trigger floods or kill marine wildlife.

But it is really reasonable to think that of the 500 million products sold daily by the three giants, only 10 percent of are in tiny plastic sachets?

And here's another way of figuring it.

http://pasigriveravenger.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/saw-dingdong-dantes-and-angel-locsin-endorse-a-product-then-picture-this-people/

According to Unilever’s vice president for corporate planning Chito Macapagal, 70% of Unilever Philippines 2007 sales is from the sachet market. That’s 70% of 30 billion pesos, or 21 billion pesos three years ago. That’s nine zeroes following 21. The company was enjoying double digit growth rate from the previous year, so expect that by now those numbers are now not just big, but big big.

Can you picture how many sachets 21 billion pesos’ worth of Unilever products are? Well, let’s see. Which brands of theirs have sachet variants? Sunsilk, Creamsilk, Rexona, Clear, Knorr, Lady’s Choice, Close-Up, Best Foods, and Vaseline come to mind. 

Moving on, 21 billion pesos in sachets, if say, the average price for any given sachet were 20 pesos conservatively (I say conservatively because first, most of those mentioned cost less than 20 pesos, and second, 21 billion pesos in Unilever’s sales is at supplier-to-distributor prices, which are lower than retail), would be equivalent to 1,050 million sachets. If a given sachet has 10mL of product inside, it’s like they’re producing- no, selling at least one Olympic size swimming pool’s worth of product every 3 months. That doesn’t sound like much, but you could shampoo all 90 million Filipinos 20 times over with that much shampoo, if it were all shampoo.

What’s difficult to imagine is the sheer quantity of packaging material that went into the making of all those sachets. If 1,050 million sachets were sold, then the waste would be 1,050 million multiplied twice to include front and back of the sachet, times 3 inches by 4 inches (I took an estimate of a Clear shampoo sachet), which equals 25,200 million square inches. This is the equivalent of about 16.26 square kilometers worth of sachet or wrapper material. Now, before you do take the initiative to shoot me for driving you nuts with numbers, picture this: 16.26 square kilometers of sachet is enough to cover all of Ilog Pasig.

Paying to clean up our own mess... taking a look at carbon taxes and plastic pollution taxes

Ben Kritz made a good point about Juan Ponce Enrile's calls for a shift to a compensatory character of funding from The Adaptation Fund, established by the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Internationally, official delegations sent by the Philippines to negotiate the international climate treaty have taken strong positions to treat climate finance not as aid or charity but as compensation to be paid by countries responsible for the problem. This, I believe, is the correct stance.

In fact, legally, I would analyze and look at this matter as a "tort". Harm was inflicted on our people, and more injury is expected in the future arising from impacts emanating from the profligate and polluting practices and lifestyle of developed countries. There is a climate debt that needs to be paid and reparations are in order.

Unfortunately, laudable positions taken by the Philippines abroad on climate-related finance are not reflected here at home. We still conduct our business with a beggar's bowl. We accept climate-related concessional loans from countries responsible for this climate crisis.  We accept climate-related grants with conditions that are onerous and injurious to our financial health and ultimately, to our people's welfare.  We have exercised national leadership so poorly, particularly with the agency that is tasked to be leading and coordinating the national climate effort.

Ben had this to say:

When the Philippines decides to clean up its own act and enforce what environmental/anti-pollution laws it already has on the books, it will then be in a position to dare talk about "compensatory funding." This was one of my biggest beefs with GMA last year -- the environmental harm that causes direct human harm in this country does NOT come from across the seas.

Her position, which is what JPE seems to be agreeing with, was that global environmental effects -- of which Ondoy would be an individual example -- are made worse by the countries that are responsible for the greatest amount of pollution that contributes to global warming, and that the countries who do not contribute significantly to that problem should be compensated proportionally in order to withstand the effects.

Okay, so on principle, that is not completely off-base. But what aggravates the effects of a typhoon (or even an ordinary heavy rainstorm) here? It is the LOCAL pollution, poor infrastructure planning and design, poor land management, etc. If all else was equal, i.e., if the Philippines was rationally managing its own environment, then yes, the idea of 'balance in mitigation' might well come into play. But singing the sad song about "we suffer from the effects caused by the rest of the world" just doesn't wash at this point. 

 And just now, I came across Alex Magno's column which talks about the introduction of a carbon taxes:

 http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=603441&publicationSubCategoryId=64

In our own little economy, we will need to quickly build a dozen or so power plants over the next few years to avert a power shortage. Since we have renounced nuclear power, nearly all these plants will use fossil fuels — even as we all know demand will soon outstrip supply of fossil fuels over the next decade.

We can no longer rely on token gestures aimed at mitigating climate change. At the rate we are going, the Antarctic might melt away before we actually begin reversing the greenhouse effects of the carbon we emit.

The “inconvenient truth” now requires taking inconvenient steps to confront it. Nobel laureate Jeffrey Sachs, who now advises the UN secretary-general, has proposed a truly inconvenient tool to wield against the challenge posed by climate change.

We will make no progress in the battle against climate change, says Sachs, if people can freely emit carbon without penalty. He proposes that all governments now introduce a “carbon tax” on all activities that result in carbon emissions. That will create greater market impetus to either shift to renewable energy or to at least reduce the carbon footprint enterprises or private citizens make.

If we charge a road-users tax on people who use the roads, a sin tax on people who consume unhealthy products and every sort of property taxes on people who own land, why not impose a tax on carbon footprints? The revenue from such a tax will provide enough money for really meaningful public investments in reversing climate change. Let’s give this idea some serious thought.

What are carbon taxes?  Here's a definition from the Wikipedia:

A carbon tax is an environmental tax that is levied on the carbon content of fuels.[1] Carbon atoms are present in every fossil fuel (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) and are released as carbon dioxide (CO2) when they are burnt. In contrast, non-combustion energy sources—wind, sunlight, hydropower, and nuclear—do not convert hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide. A carbon tax can be implemented by taxing the burning of fossil fuels—coal, petroleum products such as gasoline and aviation fuel, and natural gas—in proportion to their carbon content. Accordingly, a carbon tax increases the competitiveness of non-carbon technologies compared to the traditional burning of fossil fuels, thus helping to protect the environment while raising revenues.

From what I can understand, this will in effect force people to shift to non-carbon or non-combustion energy sources.

Although, certainly a good idea, one would have to consider that non-combustion energy sources are not easy to come by or affordable -- unless, of course, the carbon tax is expressly levied to subsidize the shift to non-combustion energy sources.

Now, if you said that carbon taxes will do just that, you'd have to figure out if we have enough rich people or industries who'll basically pay the higher priced combustion energy sources.  Otherwise, we'll just end up with higher priced fuels and energy whether it is combustion based or non-combustion based.

In any case, I think as far as taxing as a way of curbing the use of products and processes that are harmful to the environment is concerned, we can also look at taxing producers of plastic wastes (companies and consumers of products that come in plastic bags, pouches, sachets, and bottles).

This represents a larger base for taxation.  Just consider, if you will, the amount of revenue you can raise from taxing the use of plastic sachets by figuring it from the volume of plastic sachet products that are produced and marketed on a daily basis.

Here's one estimate:

http://pinoybiz.blogspot.com/2010/08/tax-to-curb-plastic-sachets-and-plastic.html 

Giant consumer goods manufacturer Unilever claims that every day, it sells 160 million products.  Assuming that the sales volume of the other manufacturing giants, Procter & Gamble and Nestle is in the vicinity of Unilever’s, that would be some 500 million products sold daily.

Let’s peg a conservative estimate that 10 percent of all products sold are in plastic sachets, then that’s 50 million.  That’s 50 million plastic sachets and pouches that will eventually find its way to our oceans, waterways, landfills and drainage systems ready to clog the free flow of water and trigger floods or kill marine wildlife.

But it is really reasonable to think that of the 500 million products sold daily by the three giants, only 10 percent of are in tiny plastic sachets?

And here's another way of figuring it.

http://pasigriveravenger.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/saw-dingdong-dantes-and-angel-locsin-endorse-a-product-then-picture-this-people/

According to Unilever’s vice president for corporate planning Chito Macapagal, 70% of Unilever Philippines 2007 sales is from the sachet market. That’s 70% of 30 billion pesos, or 21 billion pesos three years ago. That’s nine zeroes following 21. The company was enjoying double digit growth rate from the previous year, so expect that by now those numbers are now not just big, but big big.

Can you picture how many sachets 21 billion pesos’ worth of Unilever products are? Well, let’s see. Which brands of theirs have sachet variants? Sunsilk, Creamsilk, Rexona, Clear, Knorr, Lady’s Choice, Close-Up, Best Foods, and Vaseline come to mind. 

Moving on, 21 billion pesos in sachets, if say, the average price for any given sachet were 20 pesos conservatively (I say conservatively because first, most of those mentioned cost less than 20 pesos, and second, 21 billion pesos in Unilever’s sales is at supplier-to-distributor prices, which are lower than retail), would be equivalent to 1,050 million sachets. If a given sachet has 10mL of product inside, it’s like they’re producing- no, selling at least one Olympic size swimming pool’s worth of product every 3 months. That doesn’t sound like much, but you could shampoo all 90 million Filipinos 20 times over with that much shampoo, if it were all shampoo.

What’s difficult to imagine is the sheer quantity of packaging material that went into the making of all those sachets. If 1,050 million sachets were sold, then the waste would be 1,050 million multiplied twice to include front and back of the sachet, times 3 inches by 4 inches (I took an estimate of a Clear shampoo sachet), which equals 25,200 million square inches. This is the equivalent of about 16.26 square kilometers worth of sachet or wrapper material. Now, before you do take the initiative to shoot me for driving you nuts with numbers, picture this: 16.26 square kilometers of sachet is enough to cover all of Ilog Pasig.

Taxing plastic containers can easily generate several billions of pesos in additional funds which can fund the acquisition of technologies that will help reduce the amount of plastic trash, clean up our drains and rivers, etcetera...

Moreover, it will also force people to shift to the more ecologically sound practice of using reusable containers for all sorts of products.