Articles by Ashmy

Technology

Kerala needs to rethink plastics policy

Kerala has positioned itself as a key player in environmental policy, with strict bans on single-use plastics (SUPs) extending even to rural markets. Plastic bags, straws, and packaging are some of the most obvious pollutants due to their lightweight nature, ease of littering, and centuries-long persistence in the environment. In response, governments have responded with bans on SUPs. While well-intentioned, these bans have created unintentional trade-offs. The alternatives, such as paper, cotton, and metal, require more water, energy and timber, thereby contributing to deforestation and higher greenhouse gas emissions over their life cycle. For instance, a paper bag can emit up to 5.5 kg of carbon dioxide, whereas a properly recycled reusable plastic bag emits about 1.6 kg of carbon dioxide. Additionally, a cotton bag should be used 50-150 times before it outperforms SUPs. According to life cycle research, alternatives such as paper or cotton bags often have a greater carbon and resource footprint if they are not used extensively whereas plastic will only emit 10-90 per cent fewer greenhouse gases compared to its alternatives over their life cycles. Unfortunately, in the State, the comprehensive ban on plastic in 2020 has made the trade-offs very evident. Even after the ban, nearly 46 per cent of plastic litter in 2023 originated from already-banned items, indicating gaps in enforcement and a lack of behavioural change despite a robust legal framework. Economically, bans may result in higher prices for small businesses that are forced to choose more expensive substitutes. Since many individuals are employed in the informal recycling and plastic manufacturing industries, job losses are also a problem. Instead of recycling locally, the State currently sends a large portion of its plastic waste to cement factories in other States, resulting in the disposal of about 804 tonnes of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) every day. As a result, Kerala loses out on opportunities for circular economy models and becomes more reliant on external industries. Ways forward Global experiences indicate that although prohibitions may reduce trash in public areas, they rarely address the underlying causes of waste. Rather, they frequently transfer the environmental load to other products or direct waste into streams that are less obvious, such as co-incineration in cement mills. Past policy lessons emphasise the value of integrated systems: prohibitions must be accompanied by robust infrastructure for recycling and waste collection, as well as reasonably priced alternatives. Otherwise, there’s a chance they will turn into symbolic acts instead of permanent solutions. In contrast to nations that solely used bans, those that combined bans with deposit-refund schemes, extended producer responsibility (EPR), and government-sponsored recycling initiatives have had greater results. Kerala should prioritise treating plastics as resources rather than waste. Instead of transporting 804 tonnes of plastic garbage every day to cement factories outside of Kerala, it is crucial to strengthen the State’s domestic recycling system so that the waste may be collected, separated, and processed locally. This gap can be filled by funding decentralised collection sites, modernized material recovery facilities (MRFs), and collaborations with the informal recycling industry. Furthermore, it is essential to strengthen EPR to hold companies directly accountable for the collection and recycling of plastic packaging they release into the market. Financial incentives for companies that utilise recycled materials and penalties for non-compliance can help address this issue. Households can be encouraged to recycle plastic products by implementing community-level programmes, such as deposit-refund schemes for plastic bottles. Kerala can cut pollution, create green jobs, and preserve natural resources by focusing on developing a circular economy. Thus, recycling becomes a more viable and sustainable option than simply replacing them with more expensive and less environmentally favourable materials. The message is clear: society’s handling of the plastics life cycle is the real issue, not the materials themselves. Kerala can make significant progress in reducing pollution without incurring additional social and financial costs by shifting its focus from prohibition to controlled usage, efficient recycling, and adopting circular economy principles. The benefits of such policy shifts include reduced deforestation and carbon emissions, as well as resilience against climate change, which is highly critical for a State like Kerala, which is highly vulnerable to floods and extreme weather. By re-framing plastics as part of a regulated circular system, Kerala can pioneer a more balanced and practical path to sustainability. Ashmy is an Assistant Professor and Anagha, an MA student, at the Department of Economics, Christ University, Bengaluru Published on November 7, 2025