PLASTIC POLICE, ANYONE? IS IT NEEDED NOW?
PLASTIC POLICE, ANYONE? IS IT NEEDED NOW?
Every few years, a catchy phrase captures public imagination. Lately, that phrase is “Plastic Police.” Some people imagine enforcers chasing vendors with plastic bags. Others see inspectors knocking on factory doors. Either way, the idea is gaining traction—and not without reason.
For decades, we relied on voluntary corporate pledges to reduce plastic waste. The results are now painfully clear. Global plastic production continues to rise—estimated at more than 400–500 million metric tons annually—and “Plastic Overshoot Day,” the point when plastic waste exceeds the world’s ability to manage it, arrives earlier every year. In short, promises alone have failed.
This is why negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty have become so contentious. As of the August 2025 Geneva talks, countries remain divided. Some want hard caps on plastic production and enforceable bans. Others prefer softer rules focused on recycling and waste management. The disagreement is not philosophical—it is economic.
What changed the tone of the debate in 2025 is health. Microplastics are no longer just floating in oceans; they are now being found in human blood, lungs, and even placentas. At that point, plastic pollution stops being an environmental nuisance and becomes a public health threat. That alone explains why people are asking: do we now need “Plastic Police”?
Most scientists say yes—but not at the level of the ordinary consumer. Policing people for using a straw or a plastic spoon is easy but ineffective. The real action must be at the source: manufacturers producing hundreds of millions of tons of plastic packaging every year.
So what will convince manufacturers to reduce production? Incentives? Penalties? In my view, it has to be both. Carrots alone are ignored. Sticks alone create backlash and black markets. A calibrated mix may work.
Before unleashing a hard-line enforcement regime, however, we should try what I would call friendly democracy. In the Philippines, this could be led by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Instead of immediately threatening sanctions, why not actively guide manufacturers toward viable alternatives?
Take a simple example: egg trays. Many countries have already shifted to paper pulp packaging. It works. It is biodegradable. It is affordable at scale. If paper-based materials are already good enough, why do some manufacturers still insist on plastic? Is it a habit? Cost? Convenience? Or simply lack of pressure?
This brings us back to the idea of policing. Enforcement is still necessary, especially where laws already exist but are ignored. Plastic bag bans mean little if nobody checks compliance. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws mean nothing if corporations are not audited. And without enforcement, illegal dumping—often disguised as “recycling exports”—will continue.
That said, policing alone is not a silver bullet. Strict enforcement without affordable alternatives creates black markets, as seen in parts of Asia and Africa. Heavy-handed bans can also raise prices of food and medicine, both of which still depend heavily on plastic for safety and sterility.
So do we need Plastic Police? My answer is: yes—but not the kind we usually imagine. We do not need officers harassing consumers in wet markets. We need regulators with teeth, economists with foresight, and policymakers brave enough to tell manufacturers that business-as-usual is no longer acceptable.
Plastic pollution is not a discipline problem of ordinary citizens. It is a system failure. And systems are not fixed by whistles and fines alone—but they do need rules that are actually enforced.
RAMON IKE V. SENERES
Comments
Post a Comment