By: Keshminder Singh Ajaib Singh, Dr. Mohd Istajib Mokhtar
The world churns out a staggering 430 million metric tonnes of plastic annually, with 2021 alone seeing 139 million metric tonnes of single-use plastic (SUP) waste – enough to build over 13,700 Eiffel Towers, according to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
In a world increasingly aware of the dangers posed by SUP, the quest for effective solutions has never been more urgent. According to the United Nations (UN), every day, the equivalent of 2,000 garbage trucks full of plastic are dumped into the world’s oceans, rivers and lakes, posing severe risks to wildlife and human health.
Single-use plastic is plastic material which is created from new resin material and used only once before contributing to plastic waste pollution. As most consumer plastics are designed for only single use such as grocery bags, food packaging, bottles and straws, it has led to increasing quantities of plastic waste, including microplastics that have been found in food, water, soil and even in human organs and placenta of new-born babies.
Addressing plastic pollution is related to multiple United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) such as Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12) to ensure that consumption and production patterns are sustainable, which is key to sustaining the livelihoods of current and future generations.
International bodies, such as the UN is seeking to address the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal, through an international legally binding instrument. By the end of 2024, UN Member States aim to finalise a global treaty to combat plastic pollution, which is being hailed as the most significant environmental agreement since the Paris Agreement. The treaty has the potential to revolutionise how plastics are produced, consumed, and managed, offering a critical step toward addressing the global plastic pollution crisis.
Meanwhile, various measures had been introduced by countries to address plastic waste. Malaysia too has introduced policies and measures such as National Marine Litter Policy and Action Plan 2021-2030, the Malaysia Plastics Sustainability Roadmap 2021-2030, the Roadmap Towards Zero Single-Use Plastics 2018-2030 and imposing charges on plastic bags. For instance, the Selangor state government collected RM38 million in plastic bag charges of 20 sen from 2020 to 2023 according to the chairman of the Selangor Public Health and Environment Committee, Jamaliah Jamaluddin. In addition, the Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability Ministry is considering a nationwide ban on single-use plastic bags by 2026.
The REDUCE Act
Typically, countries tend to impose a charge on the consumers or manufacturers in dealing with SUP. The United States proposed the “Rewarding Efforts to Decrease Unrecycled Contaminants in Ecosystems (REDUCE) Act”, which imposes excise tax on manufacturers that produce SUP goods as a deterrent in curbing plastic waste. However, this has led to unintended consequences such as an unfair burden on low-income taxpayers and high costs associated with updating corporate supply chain. This approach warrants a deeper examination on the issues related to excise taxes on plastics.
At first glance, taxing manufacturers for producing SUP goods seems like a logical deterrent. However, this approach has drawbacks based on the research by Ryann Wong titled “Reducing Single-Use Plastic Waste: A Better Alternative to the Reduce Act Tax Proposal”. The paper highlighted that the burden shifts to consumers because manufacturers often pass the tax burden onto consumers, disproportionately impacting low-income households.
In terms of economic and supply chain strains, switching to sustainable alternatives is costly, particularly for small businesses. Furthermore, there are limited alternatives since effective substitutes for SUP, especially for perishable goods, remain scarce, limiting the practicality of rapid transitions.
As evident from a research publication titled “A review on European Union’s strategy for plastics in a circular economy and its impact on food safety”, multi-layer plastic packaging, essential for food quality, safety, and shelf life, cannot currently be recycled, nor are there viable alternatives. Thus, removing it could compromise food safety and increase food waste.
Rwanda’s outright ban on single-use plastic bags is often cited as a success. Yet, the ripple effects, such as economic disruption for small businesses, reveal the complexity of imposing such sweeping measures. This highlights the need for a balanced approach that addresses both environmental and socio-economic concerns.
While the REDUCE Act’s intentions are noble, its implementation risks exacerbating inequality and economic strain. A pivot towards incentivising innovation by leveraging existing frameworks like the “Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act”, would offer a better alternative to the REDUCE Act proposal because it offers research and development (R&D) tax credits, that incentivizes businesses, including small companies to fund R&D projects.
By balancing environmental imperatives with economic realities, we can take a significant step forward in the battle against plastic waste. It’s time for policymakers, businesses, and individuals to rethink how we tackle the plastic crisis. Incentivising R&D, supporting small businesses, and holding corporations accountable could be the winning formula for a sustainable future.
The authors are from Department of Science and Technology Studies, Faculty of Science, Universiti Malaya.