Dear Editor,
Mr Hector Latchmansingh should be commended for his recommendations for dealing with the littering and consequent flooding problems in the country (‘Guyana should abandon the styrofoam culture,’ SN December 15). Recognizing the problem’s cultural roots, Mr Latchmansingh advocated a solution geared at the next generation through the moulding of young minds in the school system. He also felt that the imposition of a tax on plastic and styrofoam containers would be helpful in reducing the littering problem.
Unfortunately, his main solution to retrain the young will take time to manifest itself, and time is one element that’s not available. As we learn of deadly floods in Brazil and Colombia, it becomes evident that it is just a matter of time before Guyanese living on low mud flats will be seriously threatened. Generally, it is not politically expedient to take needed drastic action in the absence of a calamity, and so our politicians do nothing while hoping for the best. Playing Russian roulette with the lives of Guyanese should not be tolerated.
What do we know and not know about the problem? We know that there is substantial littering taking place and the main culprits are plastic bags, styrofoam containers and PET (plastic) bottles. We know that these are non-biodegradable and end up in the country’s drainage. We know that any object that impedes the free flow of water reduces the rate of the flow of water off the land and causes storm water to back up. We don’t know how significant this is to potential flooding given that there are other natural impediments such as weed growth and silting, and inadequate storage for heavy rainfall. Nevertheless, since littering does retard flow and thus contribute to flooding, we need to address it as well as all the other deficiencies.
The solution is to phase out the use of plastic bags and styrofoam containers over some period of time, say no later than one year, and require a $5 deposit on each PET bottle distributed. Because it is a deposit, the consumer recovers the deposit when s/he returns the empty PET container, thereby incurring no additional cost. This would require the PET distributors to be responsible for their return and disposition, as is done in other countries such as the USA. After returning, the containers can then be chipped-up for either recycling or transferral to properly approved dumpsites. In the US, machines are placed at retailer’s for this purpose, as well as for the refunding of deposits. The theory is that if the purchaser of the PET container doesn’t value returning the empty bottle for the amount of the deposit and tosses it in the street, someone else whose economic status is lower would recover it and return it for the proceeds. The end result is that the streets and drains are kept clear of PET bottles.
The banning of plastic bags and styrofoam containers should inconvenience no one as there are suitable degradable substitutes and reusable bags available. The cost of banning plastic bags and styrofoam containers is virtually zero. And although there may be additional handling costs for PET containers to manufacturers/distributors, experience in other countries has shown that these costs are more than offset by uncollected deposits for containers which are not returned but properly disposed of by persons with no interest in retrieving the deposit. Therefore, the implementation costs to stakeholders are minimal while benefits from removing unsightly litter from the environment and reducing the potential for flooding can be enormous. Regrettably, the country can only expect action to address the problem après le déluge.
Yours faithfully,
Louis Holder
