Daily Times

On 23rd July 2019, the Minister for Climate Change Zartaj Gul Wazir banned the manufacturing, selling, and usage of polythene bags in Islamabad because of its everlasting inability to recycle that is harmful in affecting the climate and human, animal and marine life. The Government Officials took this step to make Islamabad plastic-free with strict implementation from 14th August 2019. Following the foot-steps, Environment Climate Change & Coastal Development Department of Sindh Government also issued a notification on 27th September 2019, banning the manufacturing of non-biodegradable bags from 1st October 2019. Non-biodegradable means that the bacteria and other living organisms cannot decompose the substance, leaving the environment polluted and hazardous for living beings. It is the basic reason which provoked the federal and Sindh Government to take action against it as it is becoming a menace for the country – Climatically and demographically.

Unfortunately, no pragmatic and welcoming response is observed from the people of Pakistan. Some people have adequate knowledge of the subject and are accepting of the change no matter the cost. For example, some residents of Islamabad have termed this ban as a good start, and people are bringing fabric bags to the market. However, where it is good, it tends to attract the bad. The business community and shopkeepers got enraged about it and initiated protests.

Thirty years ago, in Pakistan, when plastic was popularly settling into our society, the estimated consummation of it was ten million per year, much less than contemporary numbers – fifty million. Hence, there is a dire need to aware of the public of the consequences of plastic use. The ban is not a challenge but an opportunity waiting to be ceased, promptly, for a better shaped and improved society. If one can adopt this ‘challenge’ as a prerequisite for a phenomenal future, he’d be saving his generations from the utmost complications.

The plastic bags come very handily for daily use, but what to do with the feasibility when you are constantly wrapped with pollution having no health surety? The chemical ingredients used in plastics can leach into our food or water, leaving our metabolism, heart rate, and digestive system affected. Not to mention its diverse effects on the fertility of women, it is also threatening to marine life and animals, which certainly renders the ecosystem disturbed.

Simultaneously, there are some pros to concur with: First one would be the growth of economy and employment as the ban would flourish the industry of reusable bags. Secondly, health issues will improve that would reduce the consumption of costly medicines. Last but not least, the marine life would be safe as they won’t be digesting the plastic people tend to throw in rivers, canals, or seas. The slogan of ‘no pollution’ needs to be taken seriously in these times of climate emergency.

Sadly, despite the efforts, the Government is not keen, wholly, towards eradicating this pollution. The real challenge for the Government was how it is going to be implemented? It seems like it was another empty rhetoric decision by the Government. In 2014, the same scenario aroused and dumped, and this time is no different.

If we dwell upon in history, this dates back to 1583 when Queen Elizabeth I turned down William Lee’s innovation – a machine called stocking frame that was to save people from relentless hand-knitting – in the textile industry. Her excuse was that the device would be politically destabilizing and would plunder her employees of their jobs.

It was indeed an innovation that promised productivity, and subsequently, the growth in textiles, but it also assured creative destruction. Now you must be wondering, what is creative destruction? How could the destruction ever be creative?

The concept refers to replacing the already established processes with new improved and productive methodologies. For example, the internet encompassed almost every field leaving behind the already established ways, from mapmakers to google maps and movie shops to Netflix, we will encounter creative destruction.

When shopping malls were being made, the street retailers protested as the mall would attract their customers, which will reduce their business growth. But if we look at the bright side, it would help the people of that domain. It was the fear of creative destruction that worried the queen Elizabeth I, the livelihoods of those who work with old ways were at stake and thus the political insatiability. The elites and aristocracy have always been a barrier to it. For their purposes and power, they thwarted their way to the institutions. A similar scenario is in front of us today, in the shape of traders and manufacturers protesting and petitioning against it.

The Government must not be pressurized by the fear of creative destruction. Yes, the ban would deprive employees of their jobs, but there are surrogates on which the other countries are working and using. If the ban is destroying one industry, it is opening ways to the new industries i.e., paper, cloth, and jute bags. The manufacturers could adopt those new ways that would not harm others and join the game for a better world. Nonetheless, there is always a loophole, the caretakers must guard that loophole and shouldn’t let the fear inside its roots.

Stringent actions must be taken. For instance, the Government could impose hefty fines on the use of polythene bags. One law can save thousands of lives and destroy thousands simultaneously. The Government might setback on this matter because of the political instability it would create if the traders go on a rampage against it. Everything comes at a price, and it is time to pay the country back.

The creative destruction is a prerequisite to growth, whether it’s in the economy, society, or the surrounding environment. It either breaks or creates the nation. The wind of creative destruction blows in both directions. Now it’s our wardens who get to decide which direction.