The Plastic Economy and the Environment
Introduction
Although the malleability and affordability of plastic revolutionized the industrial and economic setting centuries ago, it has currently become a cause for concern within environmental realms. By definition, plastics are organic compounds made of complex polymers that are non-biodegradable. Being relatively inexpensive as compared to other materials like metals, ceramics & hardwoods and are of low density, they have become more popular today for consumption. From a capitalistic perspective, plastic is an affordable material that makes economic sense in the business environment. Even so, its prolonged use has resulted in negative consequences in the environment, some of which might be unmanageable in the future. The notion to rid of an economy of plastic is quite a contentious issue because of the opposing views involved concerning its economic purposes. The most feasible solution is reducing plastic consumption, even though the same also faces considerable opposition from capitalistic minds. Other alternatives such as recycling and reuse, although popular, have not received the much-needed appreciation, especially in developing countries. An analysis of the efforts to reduce the use of plastics in Kenya and Rwanda reveals that the economy and the environment contradict one another. Plastics serve the economy well, but destroys the environment. The severity of the issue is evident in the innumerable initiatives by policy institutes to address the menace that plastics present. Although plastics are good for the economy, they have detrimental effects on the environment if individuals fail to dispose of them appropriately. Statistics has it that their production is expected to double to figures in the estimate of 600 million tons in the next twenty years, and quadruple by 2050 (MacArthur). Plastics not only have carcinogenic effects on people’s health, they are also responsible for unproductiveness of agricultural land and pose danger to aquatic life. It is thus important to seek for better alternatives to plastics items that do not pose any danger to the environment, and at the same time provide the ultimate human satisfaction. This calls for getting rid of plastics in the economy since there are quite a number of advantages towards this kind of initiative.
There is an urgent need for a solution that satisfies the interests of both capitalists and environmentalists. The focus of this paper is the benefits of getting rid of all plastics in the environment as well as the possible side effects this would have on the people’s lives and their economies. It is necessary to get rid of the economy of plastics because the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. Although plastics have some advantages to humans and the economy, getting rid of plastics is the most viable option because it helps safeguard the environment and can still result in economic benefits.
Relevance of the Issue/Background
The issue of plastics is quite relevant in the contemporary society because it addresses environmental economics and people’s wellbeing. Millions of people use plastics at any given minute and most of them have no clue about proper disposal strategies or procedures. They have inevitably become an important part of the life of humans because people use them in virtually all settings such as at home, supermarkets, work, and while travelling. Pointedly, the use of plastics is not the main issue; the main concern is their disposal. Instead of using designated garbage bins, most people dispose plastic bottles and bags carelessly, which eventually find their way to land and ocean bodies.
Considering that plastic is non-biodegradable, it becomes a point of concern because it eventually affects animal and plant life both on land and water bodies. The term non-biodegradable is most appropriate in this case because of the lengthy period that plastic waste takes to biodegrade (see Fig. 1). An ELC clinical report by Meaghan Partridge and Nick Acker reveals the severity of marine plastic pollution in the contemporary society. Approximately 20 million tons of plastic waste and debris in the form of bottles, straws, wrappers, bags, pellets, and containers enter the ocean on a yearly basis (Partridge and Acker 1). The authors add that every kilometer square of the ocean holds approximately 18,000-300,000 pieces of plasticized materials. In consequence, there is considerable biodiversity loss of marine life because fish that ingest such plastic are unable to digest the materials and die. The situation is quite severe to the extent that in just thirty years, there is a possibility of having more plastic in oceanic bodies than aquatic animals. The loss of marine life such as turtles, whales, dolphins, and seabirds through strangling, ingestion, and entrapment is a testament to the severe effect of plastics on biodiversity.
The same is the case for plant life that finds it difficult to create a favorable environment for growth. For example, the plastic remains affect normal nitrogen and phosphorous cycles, which is detrimental to agricultural practices and biodiversity that exists in the wild. In consequence, it not only threatens the environment, but also has an effect on human health because of chemical pollution of the environment (Rockstrom 463). Unfortunately, the effect is always cyclic because such environmental effects often harm man eventually, even if it is decades later. For instance, the broken down plastic rudiments might find their way into human systems either through ingestion of fish or water.
Apart from the effect on biodiversity, plastic has a noticeable effect on coastlines. Partridge and Acker (1) posit that plastic litter is a major pollutant of coastal habitats because such waste occupies on average 1 piece per meter square of shoreline globally. Such waste often involves a complex biodegrading process that releases endocrine inhibitors, toxins, and carcinogens that ultimately affect wildlife, domesticated animals, and humans. Arguably, the issue affects people’s wellbeing and requires an immediate address. Even so, some people fail to see the urgent need to address the issue because most of the effects take time (years or even decades) to become prevalent and direct affect the society.
Based on this argument, the problem with the contemporary society is that they perceive such environmental impacts as something that might happen in the future and not necessarily affects them at present. In consequence, plastic manufacturing industries, distributors, and concerned authorities continue to wantonly use plastics for immediate economic gain and have the perception that the environment will take care of itself. As such, there are contrasting alternative arguments pitting people who consider immediate economic interests as important against those who are in favor of environmental concerns.
Contemporary Perspectives
The overriding viewpoints on the issue of plastics pit environmentalists who believe in the ban of plastics in favor of the environment, against capitalists who consider immediate economic interests as more important. From the perspective of the economy, plastics are a major source of revenue based on their sales. They generate income for the economy and allow business people to conduct trade, which means that it is a source of employment. There is the argument that instead of banning plastics, it is advisable to impose taxes on their use so that they can become expensive and undesirable in comparison to other alternatives such as synthetic paper bags. Arguments from such people contend that plastic bags are essential and indispensable for business transactions and packaging, and in consequence, the only logical solution is to impose heavy taxes rather than banning their use entirely. Such a proposition presents different results. Taxes are good for the economy because the government uses such money in projects that directly affect their citizenry. Even so, a challenge arises because such taxation seems to encourage the use of plastic materials and ignore impending environmental concerns. Although this perspective suggests that plastics are good for the economy, there is a counterargument that they are detrimental and negatively influence aspects of the global economy.
Another argument concerning the plastic economy is its unsustainability effects because of a large amount of resources involved in its production and its ineffectualness after the first use. The report by Partridge and Acker (1) suggest that more than 94% of plastic value is useless to the economy after the first use. Among the main reasons is that people have not adopted the culture of recycling in its entirety. For example, immediately after purchasing food and starting consumption, most people throw away the plastic bag, habitually because of insufficient disposal mechanisms such as recycling bags. The culture of reuse is also not popular in several countries. In consequence, the cost of production is often high and injurious for the economy, yet the product is often not reusable. The production of plastics has increased over the recent years, which severely dents approximately 10% of global oil and gases (Partridge and Acker 1). Plastic-related industries continue to spring up and produce something that is often unusable after the first use. While the product might yield economic returns, it still expends considerable energy in production and results in colossal waste of resources. Eventually, after expending so much energy and wasting resources, the plastic finds its way into draining systems and the ocean, which results in environmental concerns that present contentious debates by critics and pundits alike.
Arguably, the main argument concerning plastic waste is environmental concerns. Environmental proponents actively resist the production, consumption, and disposal of plastic materials. Although plastics play significant roles in the lives of human beings, they present countless disadvantages to the environment. Millions of tons of plastic materials find their way into the water bodies including rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans. Ineffectiveness in recycling measures and other waste management processes have inadvertently driven plastic waste to the environment, especially water bodies. Proponents argue that it is crucial that countries all over the world find ways of recycling their plastic materials or adopt the best option of getting rid of all the plastics from their environment. The option involves stopping any production of plastic materials while getting rid of those that are already in the environment.
Aspects of the Issue
The main question is “Are immediate economic interests more important than future environmental concerns?” The answer is partly available in Chapter 2 of the class reading, Business As Usual: The Road to Planetary Destruction, which announces the concept of ‘business as usual’. Environmentalists contend that business as usual might introduce a myriad of detrimental effects to the environment. In fact, it affirms that it is the path to global disaster (Chapter 2). In this context, ‘business as usual’ characterizes the continued use of plastic in the business context despite their detrimental effects to the environment. Capitalists continue to use plastic bottles and bags despite the myriad warnings and initiatives that highlight their detrimental effects. Despite its expansiveness, the environment has a limited ability to absorb waste. As well, there is the concept of environmental justice in which the effect of the actions of one nation affects the other. For instance, if a country is a heavy consumer of plastic materials and dumps their remains in the ocean, one way or another, aquatic life in the water bodies ingest the plastic, or the materials clog waterways, and inadvertently affect other countries. Several counties have identified the detrimental effects of plastic materials and have taken measures to address the issue.
Rwanda Case study
As early as 2008, Rwanda had eliminated plastic bags from their system. The country is a model example for other countries that intend to do the same because of the benefits that it has accrued from banning and imposing fines on plastic bags. Unlike other countries with clogged drainage systems from plastics, which eventually result in floods and disruption of biodiversity life, Rwanda is clean and has no plastic bags hanging from trees. Instead of imposing taxes as deterrents, as other countries did when environmental concerns emerged at the turn of the twenty-first-century, Rwanda chose to eliminate their use.
The decision to ban plastic bags from the economy hinged on the need to save lives and address economic concerns as well as environmental issues. On the facet, the cost of recycling was quite expensive, and the alternative option, which is burning plastic waste, has adverse environmental effects such as the emission of toxins in the air. In a similar vein, plastic bags clog drainage systems and might result in floods and fuel fires that endanger the lives of its citizenry.
Apart from averting environmental damage, the ban has also been beneficial to the economy because of increased tourism to the country. The clean environment significantly attracts tourists as seen in the increased entry of visitors in the country. Such an advantage to the economy reverberates to other sectors such as wildlife and traders who capitalize on tourism activities. Another piece of evidence that shows that the ban was a smart move economically is the amount of saved funds that the country could have wasted in waste disposal and environmental conservation, which it now uses in other developmental agenda.
Kenya Case Study
For a long time, Rwanda’s capital, Kigali, has been arguably one of the cleanest cities in Africa. This is attributable to the fact the manufacturing and consumption of plastic bags received a ban, which is something that other countries including Kenya have emulated.
In Kenya, in Gazette Notice No. 2334 of March 14, 2017, the government banned all plastic bags regardless of their color or thickness (National Environment Management Authority). This Notice was to inform the public that the ban would take effect from August 28, 2017, a date that policymakers later revised. Such a bold move was to gear towards having a plastic-free clean country and mitigating on the health hazards as discussed. The agency tasked with protecting the environment in Kenya is the National Environment Management Authority (N.E.M.A.). The application of Environmental Management and Coordination regulations has since paid dividends, as there is a cleaner Nairobi, Kenya’s capital. Subsequent bulletins have since indicated a decline in the mismanaged garbage, fewer blockages of sewer systems and the productive utilization of the initially infertile lands.
Mainly, the adoption of safer alternatives such as the use of woven bags made of natural plants made this possible. A number of people who have now learned to appreciate that decision based on the fruits that they now reap, of course, did not welcome this, at first. Consider taking a comparative analysis of Fig.2 and Fig.3.
Benefits of Getting Rid of Plastics
It is quite evident how plastic bottles and polythene bags clog drainage systems. How many people have spent lots of money hiring plumbers just to get their sewer system up and running again? The drainage channels along the roads are proofs of just how disturbing such pathetic sites could be. What about the surrounding water bodies like rivers, lakes, dams, ponds, and oceans? They have equally fallen victims as dumping sites. This has created a bad odor in those ecological niches and affected the living patterns of those people in those kinds of environments. Nobody is willing to settle in those areas (see Fig. 2). Consequently, the affected lands become wasted and result in the displacement of populations. Water bodies also endure pollution in this way, causing various water-borne diseases like cholera, typhoid, and bilharzia amongst many more. The government then ends up looking for ways of getting supplementary budgets either from parliamentary bills or borrowing abroad. Eventually, the taxpayers end up catering for these expenses by enduring a higher PAYE (Pay as You Earn) every month or other means of tax collection. In consequence, it costs the governments and other responsible institutions or agencies less to do away with these plastic bags than employing additional measures in controlling their pollution. Doing away with these killer materials can invaluably help keep the drainage systems free and retain the aesthetic value of our environment.
In addition to this, most agricultural lands will regain their full fertility. This is possible through land reclamation and rehabilitation procedures. Quite often than not, most farmers are unable to get the right harvest to match the kind of investments in terms of human labor employed, cost of fertilizers and machinery they put in during cultivation. This is due to the non-biodegradable nature of these materials that do not add value to the soil. Instead, they deprive the soil of the natural minerals it initially had that are responsible for the good growth of crops by adding harmful chemicals that produce an unhealthy mixture of minerals for plants’ utilization. Could the plastics be one of the reasons why farmers have immensely adopted irrigation in the recent years? It is about time agricultural lands provide the right kind harvest.
Another significant factor supporting the ban is that, eradication of plastics can significantly boost the chances of not falling victims of cancer. The chemical composition of plastic bags leaches into foods and drinks and in turn attacks our immune system. Additionally, the treatment processes of these bags undergo during manufacture could also play a significant role towards getting touch with the carcinogenic contents (Cancer Research UK). However small this chemical content may be, it accumulates with time to be catastrophic. Cancer is the new emerging killer disease affecting the society today, majorly because it has no cure at an advanced stage that makes it quite expensive to manage. The chemical found to be present danger in bottles is bisphenol A (BPA).
However, with all the negative impacts of the ban on plastics, the countries that embraced the initiatives stand to gain a lot in the end. In using the same case of Rwanda, the ban on plastics has enabled the country to save lives of its people (Rockström 472). The negative effects of plastic trash in Africa are huge and countries such as Ghana have witnessed the impacts of clogged drains that led to floods killing over 150 people as well as causing fuel fire. The damage cost the country hundreds of millions to the government. By banning plastic bags, Rwanda and Kenya have lowered the serious potential environmental damages the plastic wastes could have on their people.
The ban on plastic bags also has economic benefits that accrue to these countries. Rwanda has banned plastic bags since 2008 and already enjoys the benefits of sustainability that comes from such initiatives. The ban does not only save lives in Rwanda but also boosts its economy, as mentioned in the case study. Because of its ban on plastics, Rwanda has witnessed increased growth in its tourism sector surpassing most of the neighboring countries. The country also has a much cleaner environment that has increased its eco-tourism levels as well as achieved cleaner, greener environment. The increased tourism has created over 177,000 jobs in Rwanda. In 2012, the country got $305 million from its tourism sector (Speth 46). In addition, the efforts and initiatives put in place by Rwanda towards elimination of plastic bags and other plastic wastes has saved the country funds that it would need to pay its employees to collect, clean and dispose of the plastic wastes, which points out that the ban was a smart economic move for the country.
In countries such as Kenya and Rwanda that focus on becoming middle-income economies in their near future, sustainability is everything. Rwanda focuses on being the first country in the world to eliminate all the wastes from plastic materials and it seems this goal is achievable considering the political will be behind the move (Njeru 1046). Rwanda only needs to put up measures to curb smuggling of plastic papers from the neighboring countries and kill the black market for the plastic bag that emerged because of the ban on plastic bags.
Elimination of plastics from the environment would enable countries to achieve sustainability as they focus on becoming middle-income economies. Sustainability ensures that countries such as Kenya and Rwanda as well as other countries all over the world have the chance to achieve the sustainable development as stipulated in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Implementation of the plastic bans by the two countries demonstrates their efforts to realize the Climate Change Act 2016 posits that people should live in a healthy environment (Njeru 1047). These efforts are also in line with the realization of the SDG12 that focuses on the responsible consumption and production as well as the promotion of the principles that reduce, reuse and recycle harmful products. It is also part of every country’s responsibility towards the Paris Climate Change Agreement.
These countries also benefit from the plastic ban because they record reduced pollution of both their water bodies and on land. The lightweight of the plastic bags enables them to move over long distances by water and wind. The plastic ban ensures that the plastics do not litter the landscape, hang on trees and fences, as well as float in waterways. With time, the efforts ensure that no plastics find their way into the water bodies. The ban on the plastic bags reduces the rate of climate change in the world. Majority of the plastic products are made from polypropylene. The polypropylene material is a product of natural gas and petroleum (Njeru 1048). Natural gas and petroleum are non-renewable and their production and extraction lead to the creation of greenhouse gases. These gasses lead to global climate change, which has negative effects on both plants and animals including human beings. By eliminating the production of plastics, a country saves on energy because the production of plastics is energy intensive and that is very costly especially to developing countries such as Kenya and Rwanda.
The reason why a country such as Rwanda witnessed an increase in its tourism sector is that the ban on plastics reduces the harm such materials pose to the wildlife and the marine life. The animals including marine life such as sea turtles and fish usually mistake the plastic pieces in the environment for food (Magdoff and John n.p.). The consumed plastics congest the digestive tracts of animals leading to health problems such as infections and sometimes causing death through suffocation.
The plastics could also easily tangle animals leading to serious injuries and death. Human beings also face potential health problems that could arise from the use of plastics. The small plastic fragments absorb pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyl and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon that disrupts human hormones when they enter into the system of human beings. These chemicals find their way into human system when people consume marine organisms that ate the plastic particles after mistaking them for food.
It is also true that the plastic bags are costly to pay for and to clean up. In this case, elimination of the economy of plastics saves the government huge amount of money. Many people might believe that plastic bags are free because they do not pay for them when they go shopping (Speth 46). The cost of the plastic is already factored in the price whatever a person buys. The cost of cleaning up the plastic is also included the product that a person buys from the supermarket. In the end, both the individuals and governments bear the burden and cost of cleaning up the plastics from the environment.
Recycling the plastic bags is also expensive and a developing country such as Kenya or Rwanda would have a difficult time to recycle all its plastic wastes. Investing in recycling facilities would be costly to most countries and this would have a negative impact on their economic growth as well as the service delivery to the people by their governments (Speth 46). It is only through a complete ban on plastics that any country would be able to reduce or eliminate the external costs of plastics such as the wildlife loss, littering leading to economic loss, reduced quality of life, depletion and extraction. Unfortunately, some countries forget to include these external costs while analyzing the costs of plastics.
Another advantage of banning plastics is that it gives the countries opportunities to seek out other healthier alternatives. The efforts to find other alternatives also lead to the creation of jobs to the citizens. The manufacturers of plastic bags already have established systems and could provide jobs to people by venturing into production of reusable bags. Reusable bags are easier to recycle and they hardly litter the environment because they remain useful to a household for a longer period than the plastic bags (Njeru 1047). Manufacturing of the reusable bags creates jobs as well as sustainable products to the country’s population.
In the developing countries, plastic wastes increase with the increased industrialization. More people are able to access supermarkets where they buy things in bulk and have them packed in plastic bags. As the country develops, the plastic bags also increase in the environment leading to increased danger to the human beings and the plants as well as other animals (Magdoff and John n.p). The accumulation of the plastic wastes in the environments increases the concentration of dangerous chemicals that affect the natural phosphorous and Nitrogen cycles. The plastics also find their ways to the oceans where they cause harm to the marine life and reduce the number of marine organisms.
Advantages of Plastics
It is true that the ban on plastics would have corresponding economic impacts. A study conducted by the National Centre for Policy Analysis showed ban on plastic bags especially those that used by retailers and grocers would lead to negative sales in the areas covered by the ban and increase sales in the areas that are not affected by the plastic ban (Speth 46). The study established that within a one-year period, the stores in the affected areas record overall decline in their sales average, while those from areas not affected by the ban record increased sales growth. The consumers also tend to increase their purchases in areas that the ban on plastic bags does not affect.
There is also the impact of the loss of jobs to many citizens. In countries such as Kenya and Rwanda, many people lost their jobs as the companies they worked for had to close down because of the ban on plastic papers (Njeru 1046). As the ban took effect, any company that produced plastic bags would face legal actions if they continued their operations on plastic bags. The employees were rendered jobless and those in the supply chain had to find other types of businesses because even the selling and buying of the plastics was illegal. In this manner, the ban had a negative impact on the countries that already had high unemployment rate among their populations only to have more people lose their jobs and companies closed.
The closing of companies places more burden on the governments because they lose tax revenues and end up with high unemployment rates (Speth 46). A country such as Rwanda had a significant number of its population living in abject poverty and suffered a genocide that claimed the lives of hundreds of people. The country could have decided to impose taxes on plastic materials in the same manner in countries such as the U.S. did, but it decided to ban the plastic papers.
As well, plastic bags play a crucial role in saving energy and power, especially in the aerospace industry where weight is a major concern. About twenty-two percent (22%) of an Airbus A380 double-decker aircraft is built with lightweight carbon fiber reinforced plastics, saving fuel and reducing the operating costs by 15% (British Plastics Federation). How many job opportunities are in the aviation industry, let alone other industries? The entire chain of manufacturing, processing, distribution, and sales have employees whose primary source of income is because of these plastic bags.
Even so, due to the non-conducting nature of plastics to electricity, they are applicable for use in insulation. They help insulate wiring that consequently limits the chances of exposure to electrical shock. This property is also integrated into the manufacture of thermosets used for handles of appliances, switches, and light fittings. Expanded Polystyrene insulation is also useful in the air conditioning of buildings and its use in Europe has accounted for almost half of total energy saving (British Plastics Federation). Such uses of plastics make it nearly impossible to get rid of plastic as a material. The only viable option is to eliminate elements such as plastic bags that people often encounter challenges in disposing.
Policy Initiatives
Most policy initiatives focus on waste management and altering consumer behavior. An analysis of the Ghanaian context proves that plastic waste disposal represents a wasteful society. Inefficient and impractical measures continue to prolong the problem of plastic disposal (Quartey, Tosefa, Danquah and Obrsalova 9908). There is a need for greater commitment to the management of plastic waste to solve the problem. There is no international level agreement (treaty) that has been imposed to various countries to handle plastic bag ban. Rather, various national and subnational levels around the world have adopted this ban (Clapp 316). Statistics has it that the first anti-plastic bag norm was first adopted in the global South. This was because the waste collection structure and recycling criteria by the responsible municipal authorities were quite underdeveloped hence the need to have the policy to help deal with that problem then (Clapp 318). Other developing and underdeveloped nations then followed suit despite the initial effects this policy had. This included the loss of many job opportunities in the plastic manufacturing and distribution industry.
Discussion
The benefits of banning plastics far outweigh the disadvantages. The initial cost such as loss of jobs and closure of companies as well as loss of taxes could only have short time impacts on the people and the country as a whole. Even capitalist markets have realized the benefits of eradicating plastic bags from the face of the earth because it poses a threat to the resources in the future. All over the world, more and more countries continue to embrace the idea of banning plastics and all the plastic wastes. These efforts are in line with the realization that the world faces tough times ahead if people do not eradicate plastics from the environment. The world governments have also understood the economic benefits of eliminating plastics from their environments.
The planet is in peril and unless the world leaders join together to deal with the problem at hand, the future of the world is uncertain. Personalities such as Barry Commoner have characterized the situation as the world's path to destruction. The ban on plastic and war on the plastics waste is the best way through which countries would fight the negative impact on the environment. People must be ready to reduce their ecological footprints on earth. Having plastic wastes all over the environment has negative impacts on everything in the environment. Human beings and other animals would all feel the impact of living in such environment. Political will is of great importance in the fight against plastic bags and countries that have succeeded in banning plastic bags effectively have had strong political will directed towards the course.
Arguably, it is it is quite a complex task to dismiss plastics completely. People entrusted with managing the environment cannot just wake up one morning and impose a ban on plastic bags. This is because they are not as bad as a whole. Sometimes, it could be arguable on whether the merits of having the plastic containers outweigh the demerits or hazards they bring along with them to the environment. This even gets more complicated when alternatives bags and other materials are not readily available. Even so, these alternatives must be thoroughly researched on and be able to fill the void that will so exist. They must perfectly fit in those shoes; otherwise, a potential danger can occur. This research takes resources, time, effort and money to accomplish. A compromise on some of the implications associated with these plastics is essential. Taking an example of a developing country such as Kenya, such as having light machinery parts like aircraft components be preferred to cleaner drainage systems. Making more preference towards improving the health of the people who consequently become productive in nation building would work best. However much there is need to have light machinery, what is the point of preferring that if there is quite an even limited number of factories around. More developed countries like USA, Germany, and Canada would consider having a ban on plastics should their preference merit doing so. To promote such initiatives, many licensing agencies and boards are essential to accelerate the process.
Conclusion
Based on the discussion, there is a need to get rid of plastic materials. Contrasting arguments in the discussion affirm that the problem inherently lies on waste management and consumer behavior. Even so, the root problem is the production of plastics, which inadvertently result in other problems such as plastic waste management. Since authorities find it difficult to alter consumer behavior and devise appropriate waste management strategies, then the most feasible option is to ban plastics in their entirety. The argument presented reveals that although the plastic products benefit the economy, their production unnecessarily exhausts natural resources, and depletes oil and gas reserves. Although there are sustainability measures, they are largely ineffective because of the behavior of consumers, most of whom are oblivious to the harm that plastics pose to the environment and human health. Unless there are efficient mechanisms to reuse or recycle waste, then the best alternative is to get rid of plastics. As seen in the case of Rwanda, it is easy to do away with plastics and still generate income and boost the economy in a myriad of other ways. Kenya followed suit and the country is already realizing impressive results, which proves that the world can do without plastics.