Dear Editor,
The Environmental Protection (Pollution from Plastics) 2020 legislation has been signed into effect on January 15, and many people are happy.
But some are sad, especially the food vendors who supply the lower-income consumers. Biodegradable articles will raise their expenses by at least 20% minimum, much higher on some items. Consumers on fixed income will really feel the pinch, especially those who commute and have to eat from the food vendors.
My take would have been a stiffer penalty on littering, which is the reason for so much plastic pollution.
In a conversation with an engineer in Merida, he made me understand that the use of bio-degradable packaging will be worse for the environment because they are still plastic. I think I heard Mr. Ben Lo, who manufactures these products locally, state that his product has about 30% plastic.
After the “bio-degradation,” a small quantity of plastic will still be left, and will be easier for wildlife to consume. The whole plastic article is easier to gather and dispose of, recycle or whatever needs to be done.
Paper is an alternative, but more damaging to the planet because too many trees are cut (the real reason for global warming) to manufacture this product.
Outlawing the product is just plain ridiculous. All you have to do is raise the import duty on plastics and keep it really low on bio-degradable packaging, e.g., 70% on plastics (like the duty on flour) and 5% on bio-degradable.
The difference is easily recognizable, like a fake Nike.
Regulations and applications for permits are too burdensome on the importers and DOE.
Plus, the time frame given for us to get rid of our inventories is much too small; we need much more than six or nine months to sell all our goods. We have articles that are in our warehouse for many years.
Just my two cents; maybe DOE or somebody has a better explanation or idea.
Regards,
Romel Cuello