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.

Waste Management - Stemming The Tide?

Stemming the tide is exactly what our current waste management technologies are not doing. Worldwide, both in countries with and without efficient waste managing infrastructures, litter is finding its way to the oceans. My last blog post mentioned the example of pollutants, particularly sanitary ones (20%) being found in the Thames in the vicinity of sewage treatment plant, suggesting inefficient filtering of water. This problem is compounded in a number of ways, especially with the increases in the commercial use of microplastics, such as in cosmetic products. Again, water treatment facilities are not equipped to completely filter out all of these particles.

Our waste management techniques are old. Marshall & Farahbakhsh (2013) provide a comprehensive review of the history and current attitudes concerning Solid Waste Management (SWM), and how it was principally driven by five factors: 1) public health in the sanitary revolution (London 1790-1850) - aiming to remove waste from urban areas. The other four drivers take into consideration the post-WW2 boom in consumption, and it's effect on 2) the environment. Then we have 3) resource scarcity and the value of waste - which particularly in developing countries now leads to quite extensive networks of an informal economy based on  the collecting and recycling of waste - then 4) climate change and the global pressure which accompanies it, and 5) public awareness and participation which has a focus on changing consumer behaviours and attitudes to waste.

However, the problem with current waste management is that we have not changed our infrastructures to accommodate the new materials we use - increasingly synthetic materials which cannot be burned, and which do not degrade when buried in landfill sites. While protecting the environment has increasingly become a factor that determines how we manage our waste, legislation and innovation toward that goal has not modernised fast enough. What is required is a paradigm shift, concerning two aspects of waste. The first is how we get rid of it, and how we should work towards finding efficient ways to deal with the massively increased levels of plastic waste. The second is harder - changing consumer and producer behaviours to reduce the amount of waste we produce in the first place (Jambeck et al, 2015). It is estimated that we will not reach 'Peak Waste' before 2100, meaning it becomes vital that we begin to tackle these issues as soon as possible. In the same article Jambeck et al mention that reducing inputs of waste by 50% in the 20 top-ranked countries for pollution - through both adequate disposal and less consumption - would see a 41% decrease in the amount of mismanaged waste by 2025.

What we are confronted with is a global problem that requires a number of different approaches to be solved. Already, the issue of Plastic Soup has been globally addressed through international forums such as the UNEP. But is this platform only successful in it's advocacy of these issues? The report itself admits there is "a lack of effective global, regional and national strategies to address municipal and other sources of waste. It also suggests deficiencies in the implementation and enforcement of existing regulations and standards,some of which may lack economic support." And here we have the crux of it. Responses, in my opinion, need to be localised. The issue of plastic pollution in our waterways or oceans effects each place differently. Yes, there is litter in the Thames, but it doesn't cause severe and deadly flooding like it does in Bangladesh. Yes, plastic bottles wash up on the Thames beaches, but it doesn't affect our tourism industry to the same extent as it has the potential to do so in Brazil, especially with the upcoming Olympic games in 2016. These multiple impacts of pollution, combined with varied economic and socio-cultural circumstances, require a down-scaled approach to combat plastic pollution.

Waste management is actually a highly economically-invested industry. While money may be pumped into high-tech facilities to manage waste in developing countries, the continued running and maintenance costs are unsustainable, and render these facilities inadequate. Likewise, while development may come hand in hand with economic growth and the implication that waste infrastructures could be improved, it also comes hand in hand with more consumption, the discarding of items rather than their repair, and increasingly rapid urbanisation and NIMBY-ism, which in turn makes it more difficult for new waste management sites to be located (Marshall & Farahbakhsh, 2013; APO, 2007.) 

This is such a complex problem that even though I am researching possible solutions, I just keep talking about other problems. What I'm trying to say is countries all across the world are being affected by plastic pollution, but in different ways. Therefore, each country (or municipality!) needs to focus their energies on preventing these individual and specific impacts of pollution. HOWEVER, what can be deployed worldwide is the acknowledgment that we h.a.v.e to s.t.o.p using copious amounts of 1) plastic, but 2) materials in general! And here is where we run into other problems: who can teach us to stop? Governments charging us 5p for using plastic bags? Producers using less packaging and materials? Or the consumer making active decisions not to buy products, not to litter, to recycle, to repair, to reuse. There are so many stakeholders that really, all aspects need to be harnessed to work together. 

I don't have the answer. Sorry. But you can look forward to my next post which will be a comparative study of two contrasting places in the world (I haven't decided where yet), and I'll be looking at the specific issues they face in terms of pollution, management, and solutions. I will try to put everything I just rambled about into example form! Keep posted.