As a concrete reality, the synthetic material called plastic poses a serious threat to the entire ecosystem; it is seen in the food we eat, in our underwear, in the deepest pits of the ocean, in the placentas of babies, in short, in every corner of life. Toxic chemicals from this material, which mix into soil, water and food, and from there into humans, animals and plants, disrupt the healthy functioning of the entire ecosystem. Moreover, we currently have about 6.5 billion tonnes of plastic waste dumped into the environment. With this being the case, the addition of new ones every day aggravates the situation and makes it an ever-growing danger for the future of all living beings, including humans.
So, why do we still continue to produce and use plastic? Is plastic recycling an effective method for struggling in this context? What is it, plastic and why should we create a life/culture without it?… We talked about all these issues with Prof. Sedat Gündoğdu from Çukurova University, Faculty of Fisheries, Department of Basic Sciences, who is a Marine Biologist and has many studies on plastic pollution.
He first briefly explains what plastic material is and its story blended with culture from past to present with these words:
“Plastic is a material that is 99% derived from fossil resources and has hundreds of different types and 16000 different chemicals are added into it. We have no idea about nearly 40% of these 16000 chemicals. Almost all of the others we know are chemicals that cause diseases such as endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, etc.
Synthetic plastic was first found in 1907, and its name was Bakelite. However, its mass production coincides with the 1940s and 50s. The plastic, mostly used in the 2nd World War, is made a part of everyday life by the plastic industry after the war ends and builds the modern life called ‘thrownaway living’, which is the root of all problems today.”
Pointing out that due to this lifestyle, the perception that a plastic-free living is no longer possible has also solidified; “In fact, it is not a plastic-free living that is impossible. What is impossible is that the synthetic culture based on disposable, throw-away, fast food, fast fashion or pure consumption cannot be without plastic” he says, emphasising that the main issue is actually a systemic issue that needs to be addressed more holistically:
There can only be two main reasons for saying or claiming that human beings cannot continue their social life without plastics; either you misunderstand the subject and are not aware of production-consumption relations, or you are earning money from this business.
“Plastic does not disappear in nature. Engineering cannot solve this issue”
Prof. Dr. Sedat Gündoğdu remembers that nature has a limited capacity for synthetic materials such as plastic – which are unfamiliar to it – and shares the following information about the current extent of plastic pollution:
“40% of the plastic, whose annual production reaches 450 million tonnes, is almost disposable, that is, it immediately turns into waste. We throw most of it into the environment. The total amount of plastic produced since 1950 has reached 13 billion tonnes. 50% of this is found as garbage in nature, in regular/irregular landfills or around. 11% of it has been incinerated, 30% is still in use, and 9% is included in the system called recycling. However, this so-called recycling is mostly downstream. In other words, not from bottle to bottle or from textile to textile. It is mostly recycled into other materials. In other words, we have about 6.5 billion tonnes of garbage in the environment, and a significant portion of it pollutes the oceans and soil.”
He also underlined that the news about the discovery of bacteria, fungi, caterpillars, etc. that make plastic disappear in nature is not realistic: “Engineers cannot solve this issue. Plastic does not disappear in nature. At most, it breaks down into micro and nanoplastics or chemical compounds, which are unfamiliar to nature. Moreover, its components are highly toxic,” he says.
“In general framework, yarn production from PET bottles is not sustainable”
When we ask whether plastic recycling, which is highlighted as a sustainable solution, is an effective method in this sense, Gündoğdu describes it as “a dream developed and sold by American plastic and chemical manufacturers in the 1960s”. He argues that there is still no proper mechanical recycling technology even after 70 years and that all the technologies marketed as chemical recycling today actually belong to the 1960s, and that recycling is a deception when it comes to plastics. He also adds that he does not agree with considering applications such as yarn production from PET bottles within the scope of circularity or environmental friendliness:
“In general framework, yarn production from PET bottles is not sustainable. All in all, PET bottles will continue to be produced and the yarn from PET bottles will be sent to landfill or incineration at the next stage. This engineering approach called industrial symbiosis, which has no relation to the actual meaning of symbiosis at all, is actually a serious threat to nature and human health. Because the textile industry, for example, is interested in the packaging industry instead of being interested in the consequences of its own production.”
“Fabrics made from recycled plastic release more microfibre than those made from virgin plastic”
He reveals the seriousness of the extent of textile-induced microplastic pollution in nature by saying: ‘Microfibre pollution resulting from the plastic used by itself is the biggest microplastic threat today. One out of every two microplastics we examine is microfibre, that is, either polyester, acrylic or nylon.”
“The textile industry needs to worry about this. The recycling of other materials also causes the chemicals used in those materials to pass into textile products. In addition, fabrics made from recycled plastic release more microfibre than those made from virgin plastic.”
“It is possible to reduce plastic production by half”
Prof. Dr. Sedat Gündoğdu evaluates the current practices in the fight against plastic pollution; “Unfortunately, there is no tangible solution to this issue. All waste management practices are not designed to solve plastic pollution. They all have other handicaps. These are approaches designed with an engineer’s perspective and their consequences or effects are ignored. Unfortunately, there is a serious tendency to see people collecting garbage or local governments collecting and burning garbage as a solution, and these are always shaped around interest relations,” he explains. Mentioning that the 3R (Reduce Reuse Recycle) rule is constantly abused, he describes the steps to be taken regarding plastic waste as follows:
“Reduce here is used as a reduction for plastic use, not for plastic production. However, in a city where you cannot drink water from the tap, you have to consume plastic packaged water. In big cities, if people are not provided with potable water from the tap, there are two options; either treatment – which has a lot of other problems – or plastic packaging. Therefore, many policies must be carried out together. Therefore, the first solution is production restriction. Only then will practices on pollution be effective. So, first we need to turn off the tap!
It is possible to reduce the production of plastics by half, and this would significantly reduce the amount of garbage going into the environment. Especially the production of single-use plastics should be stopped, starting with the most unnecessary ones. This is followed by waste management practices. In addition, local governments should also make efforts for plastic-free cities. Instead of spending millions of dollars on garbage incineration plants or similar harmful investments, they need to generalise plastic-free alternatives. For example, instead of selling packaged water, municipalities should be able to supply drinkable water from the fountain and make citizens drink it.
In addition, packaging should not be disposable and producers and retailers should be forced to take responsibility for this work with more dissuasive tax practices. Otherwise, this problem cannot be solved with voluntary work. We are now in the age of obligation.”
“Türkiye imports 600-900 thousand tonnes of plastic waste annually”
When it comes to the plastic waste trade where Türkiye is an importer, Gündoğdu shares the following striking information: “Türkiye is the biggest waste importer of the EU and the UK. It imports 600-900 thousand tonnes of plastic waste annually. This amount is more than the plastic waste it can collect itself. This situation also prevents Türkiye from collecting its own garbage. Because importers manipulate the market and do not want to process domestic garbage. The reason for this is that the plastic they produce is of poor quality, that is, the material whose quality they know. Because there is no proper standard for plastic production in Turkiye. Also, the fact that it is less profitable has a role in this; on the one hand, earning euro and on the other hand TL.”
Prof. Dr. Sedat Gündoğdu shares the data, claims and explanations in detail in his article on garbage imports in Türkiye.
“We have the most polluted coasts of the Mediterranean”
Lastly, answering our question on which way Türkiye should follow in the fight against plastic pollution, he says that Türkiye should restrict plastic production: “Because we have the most polluted coasts of the Mediterranean, so if Türkiye does not reduce plastic production, the burden it cannot handle will become even heavier. Plastic waste imports should be banned. In short, Türkiye should focus on preventing the further growth of the plastics industry instead of approaches that suggest throwing plastic into the right bin. Because plastic and chemicals mean unhealthy generations.”
