Humankind has been concerned about the future of the earth from the time we inhabited it. But the danger that the earth could come to an end or become so changed that it would not support human life was always a very distant thought. Even the apocalypse predicted in religious teaching was never given a timeline, the hope being that it would never come in one’s lifetime. In recent times, however, that view has changed. Simple concern has given way to worry and anxiety because the future looks uncertain and because we might actually bring the apocalypse much sooner. We have been messing with our environment ever since we started making things. We have desired to control nature and bend it to our will. We have been digging up things without replacing them. We have been burning all manner of fuels and releasing all sorts of pollutants into the air. We have distorted the eco-systems with scant regard to why they exist in the first place and the benefits they have for our continued existence. The latest danger to come to light concerns plastics. Their use has become widespread. They are convenient to use partly because they are durable, easy to handle and easily disposable. But therein lies the problem. They litter the land and pose a threat to plant life and productivity. Many more find their way to the oceans and threaten marine life. Rwanda was wise to part of the plastic menace and banned the use of plastic bags ten years ago. Since then the standards agency has limited the use of plastic bottles by companies that make alcoholic beverages. It was therefore fitting that President Paul Kagame should make the case for more committed and concerted global action on climate change and environmental protection at the just concluded G7 Summit in Canada. The journey to save the environment has taken a long time and may not be ending any time soon. But there is greater urgency now because of ever growing existential threats. The earliest groups to espouse environmental causes were some academics and activists. But they were not taken seriously. Instead they were dismissed as people on the lunatic fringes, especially on the left. Calling people you don’t like names is not a new thing. It is part of human nature to paint them in ugly colours in order to put them down or make them appear disagreeable and worthless. Some might remember the battles Greenpeace fought against nuclear testing in different parts of the world, especially in the Pacific Ocean, or their campaigns to protect whales and other kinds of marine life from harmful fishing practices. Their flagships named Rainbow Warrior were a familiar sight facing off with the warships of powerful countries on the seas. Others can remember the beginnings of the Green Parties in Europe. They had an environmental protection agenda as their main focus. Although both were dismissed as organisations of a bunch of loonies and one-cause outfits, or ineffectual peaceniks, they still posed a significant threat to the existing power structures and raised awareness of environmental issues to levels never seen before. Then things began to change rather drastically, enough to make the rest of humanity take notice. The earth began to heat more. The ice cap began to melt. Ocean levels rose. Seasons became unpredictable. The ozone layer began to get depleted. We were alarmed. If there is anything that scares human beings most, it is unpredictability, uncertainty and the threat of extinction. Notice how we scramble to save animal and plant species in danger of disappearing from the earth, or how we are quick to establish rules and systems so that things are regular and predictable. And so the fear of disappearance made environmental concerns mainstream. They moved from the preserve of a few convinced and spirited activists and became incorporated into government plans and international conventions. Still, some continued to resist this inevitable movement, not ordinary people but those with power and vested interests in the continued unlimited exploitation of the earth’s resources. Big corporations and their political fronts and media spokespersons continue to voice scepticism and thwart global action to save our planet. The two opposing trends - environment as a global concern and the pushback against that – have produced the Paris Accord and the subsequent withdrawal from it by the Trump Administration in the United States. Now there is a new frontline: plastics and the oceans. All the attention is turned to this new threat. But one can already foresee the oil industry interests fighting back. Plastics are made from petroleum products. The world might do well to heed President Kagame’s advice to involve business interests in finding solutions to the plastic menace. They might have to think of alternative uses to petroleum products from which plastics are made. Or they will have to redirect their plants to other uses. For a start, they can do what everyone is talking about: make multiple use plastics. People will do anything to save their souls. Why can’t do the same to save our planet?
