Art vs Pollution

Just a brief post, and I'll start us off with a photo and captain part of a display I saw in the UCL North Cloisters.

Witches Knickers

Miss Ulijona Odisarija
Slade School of Fine Art

"Disposable plastic bags trapped in the trees phenomenon is sometimes called "witches knickers" or "urban tumbleweed" and is a big issue with the waste, as it takes from 10 to 20 years for a bag to decompose. Trees with trapped bags can often be found around big supermarkets, and when it's more than one, it starts to look intentional as if the tree was decorated or the bags are strange toxin blossoms. I collected a few disposable bags and adorned a tree in the country side with them, mimicking the ones seen in urban environments. Photographed against the sun the bags became illuminated and kewel life, making a beautiful image out of something that's considered ugly, dull, misplaced and unwanted.



I'm finding it really interesting (and innovative) how different people are using littered plastic items in art. This is first and foremost to draw attention to their presence - and the detrimental effects of that presence.

http://grist.org/living/these-artists-turn-ocean-trash-into-really-classy-art/
The link above shows some famous artwork comprised of plastics recovered from the sea. Some of the exhibits are actually really aethetically pleasing.

Source: Mandy Barker

However I'm finding it a little bit unnerving that I like the look of these photos - that I find them beautiful. I think that's the point. It's drawn my attention, but it's also uncomfortable because these items do not belong in the ocean. Some others have called it 'haunting'. I agree.

http://www.boredpanda.com/beach-waste-sculptures-plastic-overuse-washed-ashore/
This is a final link - this time it isn't paintings but actual sculptures comprised of plastic soup material. Again, pretty cool, pretty attractive, and definitely got some media attention toward the problems of plastic soup.

What to do yanni?

Addressing plastic pollution

Ongoing research over the last couple of decades has shown plastics to be ubiquitous within global marine environments, even those most remote at the poles. Over 75% of debris littering global shorelines have been reported as plastic. The numerous impacts of these – ingestion by marine life, attracting harmful chemicals onto their surfaces, novel transport pathways for pathogens, compounding within the food chain, and the potential transfer to humans has been discussed widely.

However, there are still massive research gaps concerning their presence in both marine and freshwater environments. Not only are they extremely difficult to quantify – especially microplastics – but the range of processes surrounding their degradation, transport, and effects globally is still under-researched.

As with all globally environmental problems, this lack of knowledge and data is what is preventing action and policy to reduce plastic pollution. The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) was adopted in 2008 (after several years of negotiation) with the design for EU Member States (MS) to reach Good Environmental Status (GES) by 2020. Addressing marine litter (of which plastics contribute a massive part) is just one of 11 Directives.

Marine litter, described as ‘any persistent, manufactures, or processed solid material discarded, disposed of, or abandoned in the marine or coastal environment’ (UNEP)  includes plastics. Proposed action by the MSFD in regard to this demand a harmonised mode of monitoring the presence of litter in the environment. Not only does this provide more information and research into the problem, but it also allows for continuous assessment of litter trends and as a result, insight into the effectiveness of the targets that MS are striving toward.

Academics are in wide agreement that litter already present in the ocean is too difficult to clean up, and that efforts toward that motion are almost a waste of time. I agree. Even the removal of a portion of microplastics would prove ineffective when considering the continued fragmentation of larger plastics over time. This problem truly needs to be tackled at the source. Different sources of plastic pollution have been discussed in my previous posts; loads of it comes from South East Asian countries (particularly China), but also through transfer from freshwater environments, particularly the overflow or ineffective filtering of waste water treatment plants. If legislation and policy targets these prime offending sources, then there is a good chance of an effective reduction of litter physically entering the environment.

However, this is where more research is needed. Oceanographic processes such as winds and currents can transport litter great distances between the source and eventual deposition site. Increasingly globalised markets make the sourcing of litter problematic. A solution is to understand what kinds of litter are in the ocean, and addressing ways to improve that. A study in Taiwan found that the most littered plastic debris was bottle caps at 33.58%, while bottles themselves comprised only around 2%. It was later suggested that the government could do more to educate its citizens that the caps were recyclable too in an effort to reduce their prevalence in the area.

The efforts of using citizen-scientists as a man-power resource to monitor and quantify litter has been suggested by a number of academics, who also tested the reliability of their results when compared with professional surveyors. Even schoolchildren proved effective at collecting data on litter prevalence in a Chilean study, and the use of citizens has been regarded by UNEP as an ‘essential component of sustainability’. Not only can they provide reliable data globally, but their participation increased public awareness and responsibility toward the environment, with the possibility of campaigning for local solutions. The education of citizens, and attempts to understand the social behaviours that lead to individuals littering is also a large issue that needs to be addressed.

The MSFD outlines that each MS is required to set their own national circumstances depending on their circumstance. However, given the prevalence of litter already dispersed in terrestrial, marine, and freshwater environments, within the water column, as well as within marine sediments, it has been agreed that 0% litter is not a reasonable goal. So while we can hope for increased efforts to monitor and understand the processes acting on marine litter and plastics, and pray for actions that effectively combat the release of litter into the environment from the source, there will forever more be traces of litter in our oceans. 

Ain't no mountain high, ain't no ocean deep (or something like that) - the curse of Microplastics

What are they?

They are quite literally micro-plastics; tiny bits of plastic. Their size is usually defined at <5mm, but sometimes at <1mm. The problem is that they end up in oceans.

Where do they come from?

Predominantly, microplastics come from onland sources. Their provenance is usually from either

1)      Manufactured microplastics used in personal care products (PCP’s) or abrasive cleaners

2)      Via the degradation and fragmentation of larger plastic particles. This can be through natural means (wave/weathering action), or through anthropogrenic means (such as washing machines)

By and large, they enter waterways and oceans due to lack of effective waste management. In previous posts, you’ll see case examples from Bangladesh and California outlining the struggles different nations face when it comes to waste management. While Bangladesh may be a big offender on a general plastic waste basis, more developed countries such as the UK and USA are also responsible. Many waste water treatment plants (WWTP) cannot effectively filter out microplastics and microbeads that end up in sewage. As a result, and particularly after heavy rain, these particles are released intothe environment. 

So what’s the big deal- why are they so harmful to the environment?

With up to more than 240 million tonnes of plastic used annually, debris entering the sea are ever increasing. While macroplastics are a significant problem, recent focus has shifted to the prevalence of microplastic throughout the ocean, both in surface waters, but also deeper within the water column. The subsequent effects on the ecology of the ocean are wide-ranging. Not only does evidence suggest  these particles are being ingested by biota and accumulating in the food chain, but plastics can also sorb harmful pollutants onto their surfaces. 

 This contamination can be transported around the ocean via currents, but when digested can also release toxins into animal species and throughout the food chain, potentially endangering human health too.

Where can they be found?

The presence and effect of microplastic particles in the ocean has dominated research. The bulk of research has focused their investigations on shorelines and near-coastal regions in attempts to quantify plastics and address the problem. However, there is an increasing realisation that many microplastics end up in oceans via rivers, and later research has shifted toward exploring the prevalence and impact of microplastics within these alternative waterways. The sections below explore in more detail:

The Seas:

Probably the most abundant form of plastics in the seas, microplastic quantities are increasing. While 80% of plastics in the ocean are sourced on-land and would therefore be assumed to be most commonplace in coastal regions, microplastics have actually been found in remote areas that were previously regarded as pristine. 

A study found evidence of microplastics in deep-sea sediments in the Southern Ocean, off the polar front at depths of up to 4800m. The complex ocean currents at work that transport these particulates make detection of long-term trends extremely difficult. 

Possible oceanographic processes aiding their transfer include downwelling, severe storms, and saline subduction . As these processes spread microplastics further and further afield, it means increasing amounts of deep-sea water columns become a sink for plastics. This plastic ubiquity in ocean environments makes them a great threat to marine habitats and ecosystems worldwide.  

But it is the detrimental effects on ecosystems that makes their spread throughout the oceans so worrying. They accumulate harmful chemicals onto their surfaces, and release them into animals when accidentally digested, compounding toxins within the  foodchain. An independent study into 101 peer-reviewed papers shows the extent of the threat. We have the obvious problems of ingestion by animals, with the case in the Canadian Arctic, where over 80% of fulmars (bird species) had signs of plastic ingestion. But more than that, plastics have become a mode of transport for both pollutants and invasive species. In the western Atlantic, 24% had eggs attached by insects. As these previously buoyant plastics get heavier, they sink and transport these attachments to deeper mobilities within the ocean. 

Not only are the impacts of plastic pollution transferred to deeper and deeper ocean levels, but they also recycled back on to land. The very fish we eat is contaminated, and a recent study also estimated the microplastic content of sea salt at 550-681 particles per kilogram. This is the salt we use on our food. In this way, the risk of ingestion is transferred to our dinner tables. 

 The Rivers

The pervasiveness of plastic pollution in rivers has been significantly overlooked in recent years, leading to a deficiency of data on riverine environments, particularly in regard to microplastics  . However, rivers and terrestrial waterways provide the main pathway of plastics into the ocean. A number of separate studies have found microplastics in a range of freshwater environments, from urban rivers (where we would expect to see micro and macro plastic particles), but also found them in remote and isolated lakes.

Measurements from an urban river in Chicago, USA, found that microplastic concentrations met or exceeded those within marine environments. However, their quantity is not the main problem – it is the consequences of this. The table below shows increased microplastic concentrations downstream of the waste water treatment plant (WWTP), proving the inefficiency of sewage systems in filtering out these particles. Upon the microplastics were a ‘biofilm’ consisting of a bacterial assemblage unique to microplastics. These colonising bacteria were associated with wastewater organisms. Not only is this gross, but it also ‘indicates that microplastic may be a novel pathway for transporting disease-causing bacteria into waterways’ and marine environments.

Source: McCormick et al, 2014

Their presence in remote Lake Hovsgol, Mongolia, was discovered in a 2014 study by Free et al. As this mountainous lake is not connected to any sewage systems, possible sources of these particles stem from degradation of larger littered plastic particles, but also transport via prevailing winds. This correlated with increased microplastic concentrations of the southwestern shore, which bore the brunt of the wind.  The average microplastic density was 20,264 particles per km². The long residence time of this lake possibly suggests the higher quantities of plastic pollution, as neighbouring Lake Huron had lower microplastic densities and a relatively quick residence time of approximately 20 years, acting to displace pollutant particles.

Source: Free et al, 2014

But despite the high concentrations of microplastics in freshwater environments, the lack of attention on them is astounding. In fact, the discharge of microplastics into rivers is actually legally permitted in some places. A case study of the Austrian Danube revealed that industrial microplastic (IMP) consisting of pellets and flakes were classified as a filterable substance, and therefore up to 30 mg l⁻¹ would be upper limit for legal plastic discharge into the Danube. Austria is not alone – other nations continue to class plastics as harmless solid waste.

This lack of investigation into microplastics both within freshwater and marine environments isn’t good. There needs to be more so we can solidly appreciate the impacts they are having, and effectively engage with solutions to this problem. 

Urban tumbleweed - the blight of plastic bags

I was in Sainsbury's just now and, when confronted with the 5 pence charge, obviously chose to pack my items in my backpack. It’s so refreshing! I was observing people on the train and on the streets, especially at lunch time - there is barely a plastic bag in sight! There is the slight issue of my home running out of our stack of plastic bags under the kitchen sink, but for the sake of the planet I won’t complain too much about that aspect.

I think it’s really great. I was wondering what kind of discourse it follows – I mean it’s economic rationalisation as it is putting a charge on plastic items. But at the same time it’s democratic pragmatism, because as a rational actor, I’m making the decision to save money, but since 5p isn’t a lot really, I’m also deciding to be a citizen over being a consumer.

Plastic bags, a.k.a urban tumbleweed, a.k.a witches knickers (yeah, apparently…?), a.k.a the national flower of South Africa are truly a blight upon both urban and rural landscapes worldwide. But it isn't just that they look bad. There is evidence of their detrimental effect upon landscapes. Within nine weeks, plastic bags in coastal marsh regions cause a breakdown of the foodchain: they smother the surface, blocking light, disrupting oxygen and nutrient flow, and reducing microalgae underneath them. Other examples from across the globe are numerous; the cause of flooding in Bangladesh, the heightened increase of Malaria outbreaks in Kenya (as water collects and stagnates in the bags), the death of livestock from ingesting bags... the list goes on. And it shows that on-land effects are equally as damaging as the effects upon the marine habitat. ANOTHER whale dies from a plastic bag in it's digestive tract.

The increasing frequency of these impacts have kickstarted action against plastic bags, mainly in the last decade, with nations from Bangladesh, China, Rwanda, and Italy banning them outright, and nations such as Denmark, Ireland, Germany, across the U.K, and states within both America and Australia independently banning or taxing bags. 

These initatives to curb the use of plastic bags have been successful. Wales reported a 96% drop in bag use since the introduction of a charge, and Ireland has previously reported similar results. Likewise, the proceeds from the charge can be forwarded to good causes. 

Source; Wikipedia 

Considering we use so many plastic bags, what actually are they? Considering they are such a ubiquitous item, there isn't much immediately obvious information outlining their production. From what I can gather, it's low-cost crude oil (predominantly sourced from the Middle East) which is steam cracked (?) and turned into polyethylene, or PE pellets. They account for $10 billion of a $370 billion plastics industry (Guardian, 2015). 

However, with an estimated 5-13 million tonnes of plastic entering the ocean each year, plastic bags only account for 0.03% of marine litter (INCPEN). So why is there a disproportionate targeting of plastic carrier bags over other littered plastics? It is the most potent symbol of our throw-away, consumerist culture. This sentiment is echoed in many articles and by many stakeholders, but is using plastic bags as an icon in the fight against plastic litter effective? Yes: I for one am not using anywhere near as many plastic bags, but unfortunately myself and thousands (millions) of others like me are still using other environmentally damaging plastic products, simply because 1) we aren't aware or 2) there is nothing nudging us to not use them. 

The more research I do into plastic bags, the more information I'm finding that banning plastic bags is not enough! It's another one of those iconic actions governments are taking to tackle pollution but really, there is so much more to do. Some critics even argue that banning plastic bags could even be detrimental. The use of paper bags as substitutes has a larger carbon footprint; paper bags take more energy to manufacture, they are heavier and therefore require more space and energy to be transported. The special provisions and lenience for other substitutes such as biodegradable bags or extremely thin, light-weight bags has been debated within the European Parliament, but even this has been criticised, as the presence of these biodegradable elements in recycled goods can impair the quality of those products. A variety of stakeholders all have something to add, from NGO's to the Environmental Bureau, Plastics Europe, and Municipal Waste Europe - again evidence of the numerous linkages between the range discourses and interests at play. European Member States (MS) are part of a directive to curb the use of plastic bags, with the Directive 94/63/EC being amended to allow national reductions in plastic bag use, with recommended consumption decreases of 80% by 2019.

These European initiatives to combat plastic proliferation within the environment also extends to plastic packaging, especially those surrounding food products. Sainsbury's estimated a 14% reduction in packaging for milk after adopting new shapes for the bottle. This redesigning of packaging is a great idea, but it must be remembered that some food packaging is essential for preservation of food, especially in countries such as India where half of all produce spoils before it reaches the market due to lack of cold storage. In these instances, plastic is the only real alternative in order to keep food fresh and edible. 

For the case against plastic bags in the USA, check out these graphs and tables to get a brief idea of attitudes toward bags. 

Source: Reuse This Bag

Source: Earth Policy Institute

Again, the plastic industry has massive lobbying power, and has prevented the state-wide ban on plastic bags in California. This is a state which is dedicated to diverting over 80% of its waste to be recycled or composted, but still can not effectively tackle plastic because of the powerful discourses of a few. However, thankfully the lower graph shows increasing education and movements toward banning or charging for plastic bags. 

But in each of these examples, other plastic sources of pollution remain untouched. Microplastics are a MAJOR problem. I'll go into that in more detail in my next blog post, but it's safe to say there is barely any effective legislation or action being taken against their release into the environment, despite their more detrimental effects to marine life. While there are some instances of products containing microplastics being banned, again it is not to the extent needed to make progressive advances against the problem of plastic pollution. 

I do think it is important that we have made moves to reduce plastic bags. It is an iconic item, and drawing attention to them has increased awareness about plastic pollution, which is great. But more needs to be done. The focus on plastic bags is too easily unpicked and undermined, especially in this factsheet by INCPEN. It does seem a bit biased, but they are all relevant arguments. What I want to stress is that we cannot start and finish with plastic bags. We must start with them and continue further to combat other sources of litter pollution. 

I finish pretty much each post in the same way, but I can't stress enough that there are a multitude of solutions that can be used in conjunction with each other, some of which are laid out clearly by the Natural Resources Defense Council. On an individual basis, we need to be more environmentally conscious in our consumer habits. On an producer basis, there needs to be more accountability - fully recyclable packaging, efficient designs, using profits for more innovative uses of material and technology. And on a national basis, there definitely needs to be greater cooperation between governments and infrastructures, especially in the waste management sector. Likewise, greater legislative pushes to address pollution, and the formation of international guidelines to curb pollution globally. 

Come on world! We can do this!

COP21: Pope's call for 'ecological citizenship'

Interesting... another quote from the article is 'In his letter to around 5,000 Catholic bishops around the world, the cardinal makes it clear that relying on political leaders to achieve environmental justice is not enough.' - the Cardinal being Peter Turkson, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. His involvement in these issues itself is quite telling - how climate change is closely linked with justice and peace globally, especially as resources are increasingly under threat, and the environment upon which many people worldwide rely on (directly) is being degraded. 

But the fact that the Vatican, which can also be considered a powerful lobby, has criticised political leaders to this extent hopefully means that these leaders are feeling the increasing pressure to commit to positive change. 

'The Pope has expressed his worries that the negotiating process here in Paris may fail to deliver a global agreement. He said it would be "catastrophic" if global leaders let special interest groups derail the deal.'... My sentiments exactly. 

Part 2: Agree to disagree?

So with Part 1 being all about the various discourses at play in regard to climate change and climate change policy, I came to the conclusion that agreeing upon an international policy is so slow because rather than combining the three types of discourses equally, different representatives and nations are trying to make their dominant discourse (America, economic) win, at the expense of the others.

So Part 2 hopes to focus on possible solutions to this problem. To be entirely honest, I think international delegates first of all need to take a course in People Management Skills. This description alone seems perfect: “With some employees, it isn’t a matter of ability, it’s a matter of attitude. And while you can’t control someone’s horrible personality, you can decide how you’re going to respond”. And it’s true. All too often, policies are being driven with the end goal to protect your own interests. At our COP21 workshop, we were trying to save the world but really, we were trying to save ourselves some money. 

There’s a couple of buzzwords that encompass what the international community are striving towards: ‘Sustainable Development’, ‘Ecological Modernisation’. Of these two, EM seems to be rapidly gaining popularity. As a discourse, it represents progressive change, and growth within ecological constraints. Technological innovation is a key factor within these themes, as is the balancing of economic growth and environmental health. While EM however gives the impression of united efforts to tackle climate change, it is scaled from weak to strong. Australia (as mentioned in the previous post) pursued a weak form, the ‘No Regrets’ Policy (Bulkeley 2001). Ultimately, Australia was unwilling (like many other nations) to jeopardise its economic growth or trade competitiveness through GHG reductions. This self-interest keeps cropping up. Current American political discourse is very much about protecting its competitive edge against the likes of China, and securing this edge through numerous avenues such as investing in fracking to limit dependence on Middle-Eastern sourced oil reserves. So effectively, under the pretence of the EM, countries are still doing minimal amounts to genuinely make moves toward combatting climate change.

Stronger EM on the other hand involves creating new institutional structures where the relationship between nature and society can be reconfigured (Christoff 1996). These structures, according to Mol &Sonnenfeld (2000) require the redesign and integration of the following: 1) science and technology, 2) market and state, 3) flexible governance, and 4) reformed ideologies concerning the environment and our consumption. This societal change is touched upon by many experts in the field (Rathzel &Uzzel 2011), and in my perspective, politicians are also citizens: if they are not crediting the environment with enough value, then how can they be trusted to make these big decisions?

All this to-and-froing between appropriate amounts of EM brings me onto the main aspect of this post: how the international community can successfully come together in agreement and support of effective change – effective being the key word there. The different types of governance on this issue of course include democratic governance. Deliberative democracy – where consensus decision-making and majority rule has the ability to produce ecological efficacy (Dryzek &Stevenson 2011). However, this has been happening and we haven’t moved far enough, primarily because, “unlike the global financial system where hegemony of a single-discourse prevails”, the UNFCC negotiations have a load of inflexible discourses at play. Like we experienced in our own COP21 workshop, it’s like a game of cards. There is an element of trust involved, but participating parties hide their hand and maintain reserved positions until the final stages of negotiation. In this way, deliberative democracy is not decisive enough, and the world is really falling behind on the necessary actions to combat climate change. 

As a result, there have been increasingly calls for a more authoritarian system of rule. Lovelock himself blames the democracy and its tendency toward inertia is the primary concern for lack of action taken on climate change. He compares the threat of global warming as severe as war, and mentions that "even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being”. This sentiment has been echoed time and time again, particularly in Shearman & Smith (2007) who, while accepting that past and existing authoritarian societies have a record of environmental abuse, democracy is unable to reform in time to address the problems before they become irreversible. They draw on interesting examples such as fisheries management; proposed exclusion zones in the North Atlantic to prevent the crash of cod stocks were curtailed on the grounds of liberal democracy in the interest of ‘jobs now’. The other examples include the influence of religion; 200 Republican legislators (include my favourite James Inhofe) are Christian fundamentalists – it’s all in God’s plan!

Beeson (2010) is another critic of democracy (in regard to climate change action). Using the example of Southeast Asia, the bulk of his argument follows that in nations facing a range of issues such as rapid population growth, political tension, poor security, corruption, and environmental degradation, there is limited state capacity to deal with these consequences, and that realistically only authoritarian regimes are up to task.  Using the example of China, the ‘Beijing Consensus’ has been described by Ramo (2004) as a pragmatic approach to development that provides high economic growth under stable, albeit repressive politics. It is the repressiveness that is difficult to accept within the framework of Western democratic ideals of liberalism. And also within our framework is the notion that international relations are progressive. But ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) have actually legitimised authoritarian rule by their norms and diplomatic practices. Indeed, China’s status as the predominant industry and economic hub in the region sees it more and more 'willing to reinforce its economic clout with diplomatic leverage' (Shirk 2007).

Using the example of Fisheries Management again however, I believe it is possible to use different methods globally but to the same end goal. Jones (2014) provides four modes of governance for MPAs (Marine Protected Areas): 1) Government-led: usually for MEDC’s with a strong state capacity, well established legal and judicial systems, and a state-wide framework, 2) Decentralised: shared authority, particularly for LEDCs with a lesser state capacity but with the commitment to sustainability, 3) Community-led: on a smaller and more local scale, perhaps boosted by economic incentives from the state, and 4) Private: independent, effective, well managed, and with some government collaboration. Now even though these nodes are in relation to fisheries, I believe that they can be harnessed to address the environment too, especially through local initiatives.

Ultimately, we do need strong leadership at the international conferences to talk and come up with strategies about climate change. Personally, I’m suggesting penalties for countries who are ABLE to commit to certain levels of emissions reductions but who refuse to. I don’t know what kind of penalties, but they should be severe enough to kick-start nations into wanting to combat change. And once these international agreements have been settled upon, let those individual nations carry them out however they feel is most effective: as long as it works. In the West, it can be democratically. In the Southeast, it can be more authoritarian. The main issue is really the meetings like COP21 where agreements sufficient to make real change and reductions are not being met. I don't want to turn COP21 into a dictatorship, but currently countries are getting away with not agreeing to certain limits, or not ratifying policies. It's not good enough. 

Part 1: What comes first: the chicken or the egg?

This post follows on quite nicely to fit into the context of the COP21 workshop I attended this week. It was really eye opening, but in a frustrating way. Whose responsibility is it to reach environmental targets?! How can we reach an agreement?! Who will be shouldering the heavier ‘burden’?

COP21 is very much focused on governments coming together, and deciding upon national agreements and pledges to help each other commit to declining emissions and funding for renewable sources of energy. And there are lots of examples of this. The ‘21’ comes from the 21^st year that delegates come together discuss climate change. But after 21 years and numerous other international policies, the question is why are we still struggling to find and commit to an effective strategy to combat this global issue that endangers us all? I argue it is because of the uncertain science surrounding climate change, which different groups are using to different ends.

 This post will be predominantly discussing the idea of ‘discourse’, and how it impacts the decisions made toward Climate Change (is that capitalised?). Discourse is a shared way of thinking about the world, and it is fundamental to how policy is created. Dryzek (2005) condensed the three main discourses surrounding environmental governance, and it is these which are by and large driving policy:

Administrative Rationalism:

This is the belief that action should be dictated by experts – primarily scientists but also politicians. It is a rational process, based on scientific evidence that hopes to leave political wrangling behind. In an international sphere, this is summed up by what COP21 is: a macro-political scene where scientists and politicians from all around the world come together to look at the evidence and make decisions based on it.

This is great when it works – the EU is an example where multiple nations have come together and made commitments together, either within the EU or by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. However, there are multiple problems with this approach. Firstly, science isn’t objective and absolute. In planetary circumstances like this, impacts of anthropogenic warming are actually highly uncertain and therefore, depending on your perspective you would either employ the precautionary principle (EU), or align yourself with the sceptics and refuse to budge on policy (generally speaking, America).

The final problem with this discourse is that science has now largely become a public domain. Previously, decisions would be taken by politicians because they knew best and that was that. But now, an informed public can contest these decisions, leading to activism such as opposition to nuclear energy or GM crops. There is less trust in the experts to make big (and ethical) decisions. 

Economic Rationalism:

Of course, the markets! The taxing and regulation of carbon emissions, as well as commodifying carbon itself to be tradeable in global markets is an example of how the economy is a starting point in tackling climate change. The conceptual framework of the Stern Review (2006) is that investing in mitigation is ‘a cost incurred now and in the coming few decades to avoid the risks of very severe consequences in the future’, which justifies mitigation on an economic basis. This was also seen in Australia's No Regrets policy which recognised that economic growth and environmental sustainability can be reconciled to each other, even if it may not be a straightforward task. 

Probably the main bulk in this discourse is to do with businesses, particularly the fossil fuel energy industries. They are essentially the main cause of the problem, so surely they should lead the way to a sustainable future? They are being encouraged to invest in renewable energies, to use technologically innovation to decrease their carbon footprint, and also find cost-effective solutions.

Nonetheless, there are numerous examples of companies misrepresenting climate science with an aim to protect their own interests. They are powerful lobbying groups, and use their weight to prevent policy which could damage their interests. This self-serving aspect to economic rationalism follows on with regard to consumers as rational economic actors. Will we be consumers – choosing the cheapest product, or will we be citizens – paying that extra pound to buy the more environmentally friendly product?

Democratic Pragmatism:

The final discourse which explores how to get those individuals mentioned above on board. The bottom-up approach of individuals changing their ways, small acts making a big difference. Becoming citizens over consumers. However, this approach, like the others, is riddled with problems. For this discourse to be effective, there needs to be a baseline societal change. The norms and expectations of the ‘good life’ need to be changed. We need to stop aspiring to a materialistic life and bring it back to the basics – but how easy a solution is this…? People are self-serving, and the notion of ‘sacrifice’ doesn’t sit well with most of us. Realistically, will we start hand-washing our clothes to avoid using a washing machine…? Maybe... but maybe not.

As you can see, the array of different options available to us combined with the array of problems they present is adding to the lack of decisions made over the last two decades toward climate change.  The problem is that in an ideal world, these discourses complement each other. Let’s tackle climate change on a global scale, taking the precautionary principle as a rational basis for doing so. Economically, it works – we can just invest in renewable energies which will create a whole load of new jobs and save us a lot of money and harm in the future! And to give these governmental schemes an extra boost, let’s also encourage our citizens to be more environmentally friendly too! Hey – but we already are doing that? So what’s the problem? The problem is that not everyone is in it together. Rather than combining these discourses into one effective strategy, the actors behind these discourses are trying to prioritise their own discourse the prime driver.

I think this is especially evident in the economic discourse, particularly in America which is just a hub of climate scepticism. Grundmann (2007) gives an overview of the problem surrounding climate policy. While there is widespread consensus provided by the IPCC on the issue of global warming, different governments are lending weight to different discourses. In America, the fossil fuel lobby is highly active and pumps a lot of money into funding research by ‘independent’ contrarian scientists, especially since 1994 where Republicans have had the majority in Congress (McCright & Dunlap 2003), all designed to undermine IPCC credibility. The uncertainties of the science are highlighted to prevent any effective measures to combat change. ExxonMobil 

is a great example of an energy company who use their power to protect their own interests, spending an estimated $16m between 1998 and 2005 to fund groups spreading climate disinformation. They were also central to blocking the US from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. This sceptical attitude translates into politics too, with even James Inhofe, Chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, doing and saying the most ridiculous things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8

Source: Youtube - Direct quote: 'Look at me and how clever I am: disproving climate change by holding a snowball!!!'

 

The story couldn’t be more different in any EU country, but Germany especially. This is for a number of reasons. Belonging to the EU means our national governments are already used to making joint decisions. But when looking at the uncertainties of the science, rather than regarding it as insufficient evidence to take action, we have instead employed the precautionary principle and are committed to decreasing our emissions (Liberatore, 1994). Our dominant oil and natural gas industries are slowly but surely also aligning themselves with the administrative rationalist approach, with a recent statement from BP announcing their support for the 98% of shareholders who voted in favour of addressing climate risks.

What is apparent in both the cases of America and Germany is that the media slant in broadly in line with governmental policies, with American press loving sensational and sceptical headlines, while German media presents a more balanced and rational argument in favour of mitigation. The difference in these nations is how they use the uncertainties of the science. This relates to what Stephen Schneider(1988) coins the ‘Double Ethical Bind’ of Climate Change:

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.” pg. 113

Do scientists sensationalise the dangers of climate change in an effort to capture the public’s imagination, using scare tactics to catapult people and governments into action, and downplaying the range of uncertainties? Or do they be completely honest, and run the risk of countries like America refusing to take action. Chris Russill’s (2010) view on this ‘bind’ is almost exasperated. The two actors were almost swapping roles – the scientist wants to discuss policy, and the politicians want to discuss the uncertain science. And here we have it, the chicken or the egg? The decision has to be made as to what comes first to address climate change: working out an absolute science (almost impossible), or creating policy in accordance with the precautionary principle.

The fact that different parts of the world are prioritising different discourses is the main reason why, despite 20 years of wrangling, a united and effective global decision has not been decided upon to tackle climate change. Frustrating, I know. Part 2 is going to look at possible solutions (as if) to this problem, with discussion centred around past and present international agreements and how they have panned out. 

Not linked into the references:

- Liberatore, A. (1994) ‘Facing global warming: the interactions between science and policy-making in the European Union’, in M. Redclift & T. Benton (eds.), Social Theory and the Global Environment, pp. 190–204 (London: Routledge).

Global problems, local fixes

*Drumroll* As promised! But a couple of days late... My comparative study! *Applause*
I've picked California (US), and Dhaka, in Bangladesh. Of course, one is a state and one is a city, but I've tried to narrow it down a little. Most articles I've seen look at California vs say, Indonesia (a state and a country! Which is more 'unfair' and also shows the different scales of information and research available). 

Pollution levels - in the rivers and seas:
A new study in Science has attempted the impossible... to measure the amount of plastics actually flowing into our oceans. They found that large quantities of these plastics stem from a small number of rapidly developing countries. I think the 'rapidly developing' point is important here. Countries undergoing quick population and economic growth, particularly centred in urban areas, can struggle to maintain their infrastructures to the extent necessary to deal with the influx. The top 20 countries who score badly for mismanaged waste contribute to 83% of the plastic waste entering our oceans. This is a damning report for those countries, but highlights the need to tackle the issue of waste management in a sustainable way. 

Let's start with Dhaka. One of the fastest growing megacities in the world, and one of the most densely populated, it is also one of the most polluted (UNFPA). The estimated amount of waste generated in urban areas alone is 0.41kg/capita/day, working out as over 13,000 tonnes daily. Waste composition however is largely organic, with inorganic materials only comprising around 20% (see Fig 1.)

Source: I. Enayutullah et al (2005)

Nonetheless, average waste collection is at an average of 55%, and this figure is as low as 37% in Dhaka. The lack of bins, street cleaners, and effective wast management means that rubbish is piled high on the streets, in the drains, and in overflowing landfills. Even though the bulk of Dhaka (and Bangladesh's) waste is organic, the inorganic elements comprised of plastics, ceramics, and chemical still remains highly detrimental to the the health of citizens, but also to the surrounding environments and water systems to which they inevitably leak into. You can imagine this effect downstream and the damage caused when these polluted rivers enter the ocean. 

In California, the problem is much less visible. The are no, or not many, piles of stinking rubbish in the street. People have their waste collected from their homes, and they are encouraged to recycle. However, richer countries have (usually) higher consumption rates, and also consume different things (see figure below). What we can see already is much less organic materials, but almost doubled plastic waste (10.4%) compared to Bangladesh (at around 5%). 

Source: CalRecycle, 2015

What isn't mentioned in many of these state-measured statistics is the prevalence of micro-plastic pollution, which has been increasingly in the spotlight in the last couple of years. The use of washing machines and cosmetic products in developed countries has massively increased the rate of microplastic or microfibre release into waterways and oceans, especially because the are not effectively filtered out in water treatment plants. The presence of plastics in the digestive tracts of fish is a clear indicator of wastewater management practices in various regions of the world. A study confirmed that market place fish from Californian waters contained more synthetic and natural microfibres, whilst Indonesian-sourced fish had a larger amount of anthropogenic plastic debris. 
Other studies looking into plastic pollution in rivers found 2.3 billion pieces in 72 hours, weighing 30,500kg. Roughly 20 National Parks have banned the sale of disposable plastic water bottles, as they make up 1/3 of the trash dumped in the parks. San Francisco has banned the sale of plastic water bottles in 2014.  There are loads of examples of California and the U.S addressing the problems of plastic pollution, but is it enough? And are the waste management schemes working hard enough not only to combat pollution, but also environmentally damaging waste levels?


Waste Management - the failings?:
As mentioned, the rapidly growing population particularly within the slum settlements of Dhaka causes an absolute nightmare for waste collection. This is where developed and undeveloped countries largely differ. Whilst California's waste management may be subject to criticism, the bulk of waste is successfully being collected from homes. However, in densely populated cities with poor infrastructure, collection is an almost impossible task. In many Bangladeshi urban areas, there are only 0.55-1.2 street cleaners per 1000 people. The tools for collection often consist of open-topped trucks or even carts - these prove especially ineffective in narrow slums, 90% of which have no regular garbage collection service (Momin, 1992: 7). Waste bins are few and far between, with only 4000 for 7 million residents in Dhaka. These collection problems are compounded by animals and scavengers who scatter the piles of rubbish, but also by cultural attitudes that largely regard street cleaners as 'untouchables', or the lowest Hindu caste. In turn, people will not clean up their own litter, let alone other peoples litter as it is viewed as the job of an inferior. 
The growth of these unplanned cities has placed further stress on current landfills, and the pressure to find new landfills is being overcome by illegal dumping and burning of unsegregated wastes, much of it hazardous and toxic. Residential and industrial waste are so far not seperated, and end up in the same waste-streams. 
There is one up-side to the situation in Dhaka. There is a booming informal market of waste-pickers. While the job is unsanitary and dangerous, the money earned from selling paper, bottles, or plastic containers for recycling is not negligible. As well as that, it's been estimated to have reduced the city's waste by 15%. Waste Concern seeks a widespread change in attitudes to see waste as a resource, not a problem. Their 'Trash for Crash' initative will be discussed shortly. 
The key failings in Bangladesh, and Dhaka more narrowly, is the failings of the government and City Corporations. They are not (or cannot) provide and maintain the necessary tools for effective waste collection or management. Any legislation that does exist toward management remains unenforced. Infrastructures such as drains, roads, bins, planning permission, landuse-zoning are not kept or protected. One article mentioned how new high-rise flats are not fitted with any chutes or waste disposal facilities, meaning the rubbish is left to rot on the stairwells. It's a flawed system, compounded by a lack of understanding from the residents themselves about their responsibility toward their own health and environment. 

Californian waste management, in terms of keeping the streets clean, is massively efficient. They hold commercial and industrial units responsible for their waste practices, and have a thorough system of enforcing state regulations; imposing fines and compliance orders upon offenders (see here). For corporations who try to circumvent these rules, there are many examples of civil lawsuits successfully tackling mismanagement, with several multi-million dollar settlements being secured against large retailers since 2011. 
This process of accountability for large firms and also residents has allowed California to focus much more energy on waste reduction and recycling. The state has already set a goal of 75% recycling, composting, or source reduction of solid waste by 2020, with some key strategy pillars being 1) moving organic material out of landfill, 2) expanding recycling infrastructures, 3) promotion extended producer responsibility and 4) promoting state procurement of recycled products. This is really great news, and UC San Diego have a comprehensive plan to reach these targets on campus, including the provision of recycling bins, mulching organic material onsite and using it for landscape beautification, as well as promoting awareness to achieve the zero-waste goal they have set themselves. 
However, there is controversy surrounding the popular single-stream method of recycling. Recyclable waste in many examples is not segregated, in an effort to reduce costs. However, contamination of these recyclable materials, such as glass breakage, means that significant amounts are sent to the landfill, or downcycled because of marketability. Likewise, the 'Big Blue Bins' provided for this single-stream recycling often contain non-recyclable plastics. Items contained within the plastics bags have to be discarded as waste.


Future solutions:
There is hope. In Bangladesh especially where the problems are so numerous, it means there are numerous solutions. I'll leave aside the suggestions of 'better waste collection tools' and 'efficient garbage disposal', since these haven't worked so far, and are quite obvious solutions in a perfect world. Instead, I'll focus on the more innovative methods. The Trash for Cash initiative mentioned earlier aims to build on the already thriving informal recycling industry, but in a way that also educates and protects the waste-pickers from exploitation. Enayutullah et al (2005) propose to harness the massive amounts of organic material waste for profit. Not only will compostable waste reduce the pressure on landfill requirements (see figure below), but revenue could be earned from selling it on as organic fertilizer, and also trading the benefits of reduced GHG emissions with developed countries: an exciting prospect.

Source: I. Enayutullah et al (2005)

One thing many of the articles about Bangladesh's waste management advocate is the separation of different types of waste, and deal with them in the suitable manner. In California, this has a name; diversion, and it is already happening on a large scale.

However, is it enough? Vergara et al (2011) share the same ideal that GHG emission reductions can be procured from alternative treatments of California's solid waste. They agree with the critics in Bangladesh that waste should not be viewed as a nuisance to be disposed of, but as a resource to be reused. As Californian recycling is already a large industry, their focus is on the non-recyclable waste and how it could be utilised for an overall benefit to the economy and environment, estimating that a 40% reduction in waste could save 6Mt of C02 per year. How? Through a combination of anaerobic digestion, landfill gas capture, and life-cycle assessments of products which should encourage producers to have the end-of-life perspective in mind. 

Source: EPA, 2015 

Also suggested is consumer incentives, or indeed disincentives such as through Pay-As-You-Throw programmes, charging consumers relative to the amount they dispose. They say, and I agree, that material or monetary incentives are a much surer way to impact a change rather than educational programmes. It is the same globally. People's attitudes can change, but to the extent that they overhaul their behaviour? Realistically, no. People need to be nudged to make changes. Personally, I recycle and try to be frugal in what I consume. And researching into waste management and pollution over the last couple of weeks has made me much more aware, and I contribute even more so to my recycling bin as a result. However, if someone began to charge me proportionally to the amount I waste, I am certain I would make an extra effort to reduce. We (the governments?) need to make it easy for people to recycle and reuse, and hard for them to waste. 

Conclusion

Moral of the story for this post is that waste is a global problem. Each and every country wastes. But each context is different; different amounts, materials, attitudes, technologies, infrastructure, economies - all contribute to (the lack of) waste management. And in each context is a fix LOCAL to this global issue. I'm trying to be optimistic: there are a massive amount of problems, but that means there is a massive number of solutions. 

Since this blog post was posted way too late in the week, I'm hoping to get another out by Saturday. I'll be looking at the impossible task of asking 'who's responsibility is it?!' and drawing on what I can remember from last years Environment & Society lectures. I'm not promising any answers or solutions, but stay tuned.