Project's Research

What is the connection between history and contemporary environmental problems? How does our societal progression towards modernity and the process of globalization aid plastic pollution? In what ways does the issue of plastic contribute to climate change and environmental injustice? And in what form have indigenous communities in the Southeast Asia region faced this injustice?

Effects of Modernity’s Framework

By examining history, it is clear that the trigger of our modernistic evolution was actually formed when humans of different tribes, communities, and even genetic pools first interacted. These interactions caused humans to develop relationships amongst each other that allowed for our collective species to effectively and efficiently use natural resources (4). And while this "friction" aids the formation of some alliances between communities and communal growth, it is also through friction that the system of colonization was set in motion (5). The principle of "friction," in this context, was introduced by Anna Lowenhaupy Tsing, who equated the word to that of "clash" or "interaction." For it is through these clashes or interactions that allow physical materials, culture, and philosophical views to spread, making up our contemporary world (4). Metaphorically, friction can be assimilated to rubbing two sticks together in order to produce heat and light where the sticks are individual, and the heat and light are the newfound, exchanged ideas/culture (4).

Scholars once treated such cultures (the interacting cultures) as examples of the self-generating nature of culture itself. However, it has become increasingly clear that all human cultures are shaped and transformed in long histories of regions-to-global networks of power, trade, and meaning. With new evidence of these histories entering the academy from every direction, it has become possible for schools to accept the idea that powerless minorities have accommodated themselves to global forces. But to turn that statement around to argue that global forces are themselves congeries of local/global interaction has been rather challenging. (Tsing 3, Friction 2011)

During the ‘New Imperialism’, approximately from 1870 to 1914, when European countries had political, economic, and social power over their newly gained territories, it was the raw materials (gold, oil, diamonds, textiles) from the colonies that fueled production during the industrial revolution (6). It is this desire for raw materials that further pushed the Western powers to seek out raw materials in places where they were abundant and could be taken by force, accentuating violence and oppression towards native communities around the world (6). In addition to the increased production capacity and capital, the huge influx of raw materials and cash crops (cotton, peanuts, tobacco) enabled the West to have ever-increasing advantages in technology over the rest of the world and, thus, widen the wealth gap (6). This included sophisticated weapons that gave the Imperial powers better means to conquer less developed countries at an astounding rate (6). And since new material goods flooded markets in the West, a global commotion of mass consumption started, which, in turn, fueled mass production that consumes more and more natural resources without the consideration of mass environmental degradation (6).

The map of Southeast Asia from the start of Asian imperialism (mid-1850) to the year 1910, showcasing the different colonies of Western Countries that occupied the region (23). The combination of increased European political power, commerce, and Asian culture during "The Age of Imperialism" is what sets up the contemporary free-market economy and initiates globalization (24). However, it is important to note that during the rapid expansion of land and resources for the West, many indigenous people were faced with scrutiny, racism, exoticism, and systematic oppression (24).

To make matters worse, through the aiding of skyrocketing development in technology that serves to improve the lives of those who can afford such materials, society, as a whole, develops a strong belief that technology is the solution to create good living conditions for all (7). This perspective that desires technology is attractive to many governments because it "offers an easy way out of problems that leave the structure of economy and society unchanged" (8) Nevertheless, technological advances are only simple substitutes for production inputs that are at times, ironically, furthering the damage towards natural resources and underprivileged workers (8). This can be seen through the creation of plastic--for, oddly, the invention of synthetic plastic by John Wesley Hyatt in 1869 was to reduce the impacts of deforestation and provide a substitute for ivory. The first man-made plastic was created by Alexander Parkes in 1862, but his material called Parkesine was made from organic material from cellulose (9). Using cellulose, derived from cotton fiber, with camphor, Hyatt discovered the perfect material that was durable, cheap, and pliable, reducing the need to slaughter wild elephants for ivory billiard balls and reducing the number of trees needed to be harvested to create paper bags (9). It was also this discovery that initially helped free people from the social and economic constraints imposed by the scarcity of natural resources and created jobs for many as the inexpensive celluloid can be made into saleable material (10). But, as with all the problems caused by mass production, plastic, though created with great intentions, later hurt those that the inventor sought out to save. This is because the pollution caused by the production and disposal of plastic scavenged many wild animals and created more incentives for manufacturers to clear forest land to make space for their factories (11).

Thus, this particular example serves as an example that technological innovation performance can only be used as a tool to further fill individuals' corrupted appetites for capital again and broaden the social and ethical digressions if we do not fix the system that enables them to do so.

Why Southeast Asia?

Southeast Asia is a region that, while considered an emerging market, must also face a dual challenge of adapting to climate change and alter development strengths that, currently, are contributing to climate change (12). Since Southeast Asia is mostly islands and coastal lands, it is also one of the regions that are most impacted by weather-related disasters such as hurricanes, typhoons, flooding, and drought (12). From the Annual Disaster Statistical Review, Asia experiences 40% of total global natural disasters per year, which affected more than 200 million (90% of the total population and caused about 41.6 billion USD in annual damage (13). But it is not just the geography and economy that puts Southeast Asia in a high-stakes position when dealing with climate change; it is this region that faced years of oppression under Western colonialism rule, making it even harder for the countries to fix existing problems and create suitable development plans (14).

Since this project particularly highlights plastic pollution, I want to note that plastic is one of the main problems Southeast Asians are constantly dealing with. Part of the reason that Southeast Asia has become a hotspot for plastic pollution is due to its rapid urbanization and rising middle class, who are increasingly using plastic due to the material’s convenience, durability, and versatility (15). And with only 18 - 28% of recyclable plastic recovered and recycled in this region, most plastic waste is left to pollute on beaches and roadsides (15). However, from a 2015 report by the Ocean Conservancy, 55 - 60% of plastic waste that enters the oceans comes from just five countries--China, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia (16). And while there is a rise in plastic usage over the years, it is merely impossible for countries in this area to be solely responsible for such amounts of plastic (17). As stated above, 75% of global waste ends up in Asia, especially Southeast Asia, as to whether countries did not want to deal with such waste from their consumption and stricter environmental regulations (1). According to a Guardian 2019 report, the equivalent of 68,000 shipping containers of American plastic recycling or 1 million tons of plastic waste were exported from the US to developing countries due to the region’s cheap labor cost (18). And since China and other countries (Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines) have banned the import of plastic, many of which would then be exported to other developing countries, mainly Laos, Bangladesh, and Ethiopia (18). From Andre Spicer, professor at the USC, “people don’t know what’s happening to their trash. They think they’re saving the world. But the international recycling business sees it as a way of making money. There have been no global regulations--just long, dirty markets that allow some companies to take advantage of a world without rules” (18).

This flow map highlights the distribution of plastic trash export to countries in Southeast Asia. This is through this diagram that it is clear that "Southeast Asia's trash" is contributed from both domestic and international waste (17). It is also interesting to see that all the 10 plastic waste exporters are countries that are relatively wealthy and are categorized as "developed". This transition of waste responsible thus highlights the injustice that perpetrates poor countries who need capital to sustain themselves (17). Additionally, the flow, in itself, encapsulated the negligence wealthier countries have towards the issue of plastic pollution as they have chosen to discard their own waste and how other countries who are already struggling to deal with their own waste deal with it (17). In a way, it is the legacy of colonialism that gives wealthier countries the means to neglect the consequences of their mass production and consumption (17).

The figure above emphasizes the fact that plastic exportation is not just something that just been implemented in recent years due to the surge of plastic disposal, but it is what many wealthy countries have done in the past to reduce the amount of responsibility that has to give to plastic pollution and waste (25).

While it is the government officials from these poorer countries that allow richer countries to dump their trash, the people within the poorer countries are the ones who suffer the most consequence. The exact health effects of plastic line workers have not been well studied but, the toxic fumes from burning plastics of plastic processing can cause respiratory illnesses to the workers who have little choice as they have little economic means (18). In addition to toxic fumes, regular exposure to toxic substances like HCl, SO2, and heavy metals used to break down plastic have a high risk of developing into disorders, endocrine disruption, and cancer (18). But the impact of imported plastic has a wider consequence as these countries are having problems properly dealing with at least 27% of their own waste; much plastic waste then ends up in rivers and streams that cause further health problems to those that regularly source their water from contaminated ones (1). But even though governments have faced scrutiny and are slowly banning the acceptance of foreign plastic waste as well as closing down unregulated plastic facilities, there have been many illegal importers that still take in trash from the US in return for money (18). Since these facilities are not government-controlled and are operating secretly, their “processing” actually meant illegally burning plastic or throwing away contaminated water in remote streams that are then inhaled or consumed by poverty-stricken residents living nearby (18).

With the plastic industry that transitioned from the West to the East, it is evident that plastic pollution and many climate injustices are not just immediate consequences to human-related climate change but also years of colonialism (19). This is because settlers/colonizers destroy the colonized land by extracting their resources and then leaving them to deal with the problem alone after the signing of independence (19). As Mary Annalise Hegler, a climate change essayist and former writer at the Earth Institute wrote in one of her commentaries that “[climate injustice] started with conquest, genocide, slavery, and colonialism. That is the moment when White men’s relationship with living things became extractive and disharmonious. Everything was for the taking; everything was for sale. The possible fuel industry was literally built on the backs and over the graves of indigenous people around the globe, as they were forced off their land and either slaughtered or subjected--from the Arab world to Africa, from Asia to the Americas. Again, it was no accident” (19). And, thus, it is these built-up segregations between the privileged and the underprivileged that intensify climate injustice (19). From the removal act, like the Indian Removal Act in 1830, that forces indigenous tribes to move to lower-income and higher polluted areas to the lack of management and care in indigenous areas, poverty-stricken people have little opportunity to better their livelihood and help mitigate climate change and plastic pollution (20).

The Connection between Plastic Pollution and Climate Change

As most of the project has focused on plastic pollution and its effects on the Earth's health, I think it is also equally vital to talk about its implications on climate change. This is because, while plastic mainly causes tons of material waste to scour the planet, many are unaware of its attributions that accelerate climate change. By definition, climate change "is a long-term change in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth's local, regional, and global climates," according to NASA. Thus, meaning that plastic causes consequences that are more than immediate with pollution, they are also affecting our Earth's long-term well-being, striking off the ecosystem's equilibrium or as often referred to as the 'tipping point.' From the CIEL, Center for International Environmental Law, plastic jeopardizes the current goal of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees celsius. Suppose plastic production, as predicted, continues to expand exponentially by 2030 (21). In that case, greenhouse gas emissions from plastic could contribute at least 1.34 billion tons per year, which is equivalent to the emission produced by 300 new 500MW coal-fired power plants (21). This is due to the fact that "more than 99 percent of plastics are made from fossil fuels, both natural gas and crude oil--and because plastic results in greenhouse gas emissions at every stage of its lifecycle" (19). Currently, based on data from the World Economic Forum, about 4-8% of annual global oil consumption is associated with plastic, which is expected to rise to 20% of oil consumption by 2050.

The table above highlights some of the most plastic-wasting sectors (25). Because it is clear that the majority of plastic waste comes from packaging, textiles, and consumer products industries, this also means that the amount of plastic waste is highly dependent on consumer habits (25). Thus, it is within everyone's control to chose to limit plastic pollution to better the health of other living beings and the Earth at large (25).

To expand on the copious amount of greenhouse gases released from plastic, we must first look at its extraction and transportation process. Since oil, goals, and coal are the type of fossil fuels used to manufacture plastic, extracting these natural resources is done through fracking (22). Fracking is when "companies drill wells into the ground until they hit a rock layer, then they turn 90 degrees and frill horizontally—injecting sand, chemicals, or water break up the rock to release gas and oil, which are transported to other facilities via pipelines, trains, and trucks" (22). From the CIEL and Yale Climate Connections, it is reported that an estimate of 12.5 to 13.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide are emitted per year from the extraction and transportation of natural gas in the US alone. The extraction of plastic, to make matters worse, also requires about 19.2 million acres of land to be deforested to build the pipelines. And since a third of the cleared land is forested, 1.686 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere (21). In addition to the pollution from plastic extraction, plastic manufacturing facilities are also greenhouse-gas intensive. In 2015, 184.3 to 213 million tons of carbon dioxide was released due to ethylene manufacturing (22).

Intensification from Covid-19

Even though the region was already facing difficulties with plastic pre-pandemic, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia "has seen a surge in plastic waste as environmental awareness takes a backseat to health concerns due to heavy reliance on food-delivery services and online shopping amid the pandemic, while recycling has dropped off" (26). According to some environmental activists in the region, there has been an estimation that individual plastic usage has increased up to 80% as people were confined indoors for more than 90 days. And although some countries have banned the use of plastic bags pre-lockdown, there have been looser regulations regarding the ban as people turned to single-use plastic for its cleanliness and easy disposal (26). From Thailand's Environmental Institute, Pichmol Rugrod said that Bangkok's daily average of 2,115 tons of single-use plastic water per day in January 2020 rose to more than 3,400 tons a day in April 2020 (26). In addition to consumer plastic waste, medical waste has also skyrocketed, constantly exceeding 2,500 metric tonnes per month. These medical wastes include personal protective equipment, gloves, Covid-19 swab test tools, and similar, which all have plastic incorporated (26).

The issue of rising plastic waste does more than worry the people of its immediate causes. There have been pressing concerns and questions on how the government is going to deal with the heightened amount of plastic (26). Global environmental scientists expected an absurd 40% increase in plastic pollution over the next decade as larger attitudes towards plastic waste would be trumped by health concerns (26).

Gary Stokes from the OceanAsia conservation group collect littered surgical masks along Soko Island (HK) (27). Thus, alluding to the lower care and higher neglect of the environment as public health safety is at the forefront of everyone's thoughts, signifying the general notion that the environment is separate from human societies (27).