By Manila Bulletin
Published Aug 31, 2025 12:05 am
The world had a chance last week to take a major step toward solving the plastic pollution crisis—but failed. At the United Nations-led negotiations in Geneva for a global plastics treaty, nearly 200 countries could not agree on one of the most essential measures: a cap on plastic production.
This failure sends a grim message. As the world produces over 400 million tons of plastic annually, with projections of a 70 percent increase by 2040, global inaction shifts the burden onto individual countries—especially those already overwhelmed by plastic waste. For the Philippines, which has long suffered from the dual threat of plastic pollution and flooding, this should be a wake-up call.
Now more than ever, local solutions must step up where international agreements have stumbled. One of those solutions could be the proposed Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Act, filed in 2023, which the Department of Energy (DOE) is pushing anew amid recent devastating floods across Metro Manila. Energy Secretary Sharon Garin said the bill—which has already passed the House and is awaiting Senate approval—could be a turning point, providing a regulatory framework for converting solid waste into energy.
The Philippines is at a critical crossroads. The “sachet economy,” driven by poverty and convenience, has made single-use plastic packaging—especially for food, toiletries, and household products—a dominant part of everyday life. Unfortunately, these plastics, especially flexible packaging, are virtually non-recyclable. They clog waterways, cause massive urban flooding, and increase public health risks, including the recent spike in leptospirosis cases reported by the Department of Health.
Without international pressure to reduce plastic production at the source, countries like the Philippines are left to manage a growing mountain of waste with inadequate infrastructure and inconsistent local policies. This is where the WTE law could help—not as a cure-all, but as a part of a broader strategy to deal with non-recyclable waste and reduce the volume of garbage choking our drainage systems.
Critics of waste-to-energy systems point to potential air pollution and toxic emissions. These are valid concerns and must be addressed with stringent environmental regulations and transparency. Done right, WTE offers a dual purpose: reducing the waste that contributes to flooding and generating renewable energy in the process.
But this approach must not replace or excuse more sustainable strategies. Recycling, though limited in effectiveness—only six percent of plastic globally gets recycled, according to the OECD—still plays a role. Reuse systems and alternative packaging materials must also be pursued aggressively. But as the global plastics treaty negotiations revealed, relying on recycling and reuse alone won’t solve a crisis fueled by ever-increasing plastic production.
At Geneva, even a watered-down draft treaty failed to win consensus. It omitted essential provisions like chemical disclosure, reuse mandates, and production caps. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said: "I deeply regret that, despite earnest efforts, negotiations to reach an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, concluded without achieving a consensus."
Guterres' statement comes following high-level talks that failed to reach an agreement on a global treaty to combat plastic pollution due to disagreements over prioritizing a phase-out of plastics or enhancing waste management systems.
In the absence of global action, national governments must lead with a long-term vision which includes the reduction of plastic production, investing in truly sustainable alternatives, supporting waste workers, and building resilient cities.
With the rainy season worsening, plastic waste surging, and many flood control infrastructure found as substandard, or ghost projects, the country should chart a clearer path toward environmental survival.
No comments:
Post a Comment