While other international summits,such as the United Nations’ AI for Good Global Summit, have seen increased attendance in recent years, the overall presence of Southeast Asian nations remains disproportionately underrepresented, especially when considering the countries’ wide usage of AI platforms and softwares. 

As Brookings’ scholars Shaun Ee and Jam Kraprayoon point out, “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” Underrepresentation on the international stage means that Southeast Asia, and other regions alike, will be increasingly vulnerable to the risks posed by frontier AI systems such as OpenAI’s o1 reasoning models; according to the company, these new models utilize additional compute to spend more time “thinking”, enabling a greater capacity to tackle more complex tasks and problems. Reportedly, it performs near a PhD student level on challenging physics, chemistry, and biology tasks. According to Yosua Bengio, a computer science professor at the University of Montreal, this improved ability to reason can easily be misused to deceive users at a higher rate than GPT-4o. Hence, including Southeast Asia in the global dialogue for AI governance is crucial not only to the region, but also for the broader Global North, given that robust safeguard systems require diverse testing settings. Additionally, the capacity of AI system development can be expanded through transatlantic talent exchange. But what exactly does it mean to be on the menu, and what will it take to get them a proper seat at the table?

While the February Paris AI Summit discussed AI safety, threats to Southeast Asia were barely discussed, despite an alarming 82 percent increase in cybercrime throughout Southeast Asia and Singapore alone experiencing a 174 percent increase in phishing attempts between 2021 to 2022. Though broader safety concerns are often raised in these global summits, they are typically isolated from local contexts. For instance, in Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos, ‘scam centers’ are operating and affecting victims all across the region, but properly addressing them requires a specific understanding of the threat actors involved.. More importantly, when mitigating these threats, it is integral to note that several regions in Southeast Asia have more limited cybersecurity resources compared to North America and Europe. While Malaysia and Singapore have significantly strengthened their cybersecurity strategies over time, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines are still considered developing in terms of cyber capabilities, with many countries such as Indonesia facing limited cybersecurity funding. Although serious cyberattacks are common, the region’s cyber resilience remains relatively low. 

AI infrastructure in Southeast Asia is rapidly emerging, with drastic investments from major tech corporations such as Microsoft and Nvidia into data centers and cloud services. Yet, many local startups are missing out on their own AI boom. While approximately $20 billion is being invested into the Asia-Pacific region, only $1.7 billion has been invested into Southeast Asia’s young AI firms. This disparity has raised concerns regarding the region’s ability to develop its private sector and compete with AI leaders such as China and the United States. Yet how can the region be expected to address such rapid investment flows without being provided the space to participate in cutting-edge R&D and technical standards-setting? A seat in forums such as the International Network of AI Safety Institutes may incentivize domestic AI development, and such inclusion will certainly be as beneficial to global investors as it will be to the region; providing Southeast Asia with the needed technical insight and collaborative frameworks will better strengthen the local AI sector, which in turn can mitigate geopolitical risk and offer a more robust, innovation-friendly market to the global AI ecosystem. 

In order to push for a seat at the table, however, it is important to take a step back and assess why Southeast Asia is being left out to begin with. 

For starters, Global AI summits typically reflect the agendas of major powers. Intensified technological rivalry between the U.S. and China has fostered a polarized environment in global AI governance, which has trickled down into the structure and makeup of international summits.  For instance, the United Kingdom’s AI Safety Summit and Geneva’s AI for Good Global Summit typically consist of US-aligned countries such as the EU and South Korea, while Shanghai’s World Artificial Intelligence Conference and the BRICS Summits typically reflect China’s digital diplomacy interests such as sovereignty and state-centric regulation. 

Consequently, Southeast Asia’s non-alignment stance means choosing not to fully engage in these summits to avoid signaling alignment with one bloc over another. By design, many global partnership initiatives are also inaccessible to the region. For instance, The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI) strives for broad international participation, but its only Southeast Asian member is Singapore. GPAI and summits such as the Bletchley Park and AI Seoul Summits uphold a restrictive membership process and are invitation-only, typically limited to countries with advanced AI R&D capacity. However, most Southeast Asian countries currently allocate less than 1% of their GDP into R&D, leading to talent shortages as capable professionals often end up moving abroad for better opportunities. These compounding factors contribute to the region’s lack of influence in AI ethics and policy circles, which serves as a core prerequisite for an invitation. 

Given these challenges, what will it take for Southeast Asia to get a seat at the table and enter the space of these ‘global’ summits? 

ASEAN as a whole must work towards a unified AI development and cooperation framework. The status quo of fragmented approaches to AI governance make it difficult for coordinated advancements and regulations. For starters, the most tangible regional action lies in the publication of the ASEAN Guide to AI Governance and Ethics 2024, which offers recommendations for government and non-government usage of AI in the region. However, this document is non-binding and thus unable to impose sanctions if different paths were to be adopted by member states. This visibly translates in the diversity of AI-readiness in the region, measured through pillars such as Government, Technology Sector, and Data & Infrastructure. As of 2022, while Singapore and Malaysia respectively scored 84.1 and 67.4, other countries like Laos and Cambodia scored 31.7 and 31.2. Meanwhile, ASEAN’s commitment to avoid being a rule-taker means continued exclusion in major policy dialogue spaces; the region must find ways to maintain its non-alignment approach without sacrificing representation in the most pivotal AI governance spaces. 

It is equally important that global powers recognize the urgency of the region’s inclusion. Collaboration with Southeast Asia is pivotal to strengthening global AI governance structure. The region’s linguistic, cultural, and socio-economic diversity provides unique datasets that can improve AI models’ adaptability and performance. For instance, projects like SEA-LION are building natural language processing tools for Southeast Asian languages, which may enhance AI applications in multilingual contexts. Further, the region’s rapidly growing digital economy and tech-savvy population presents great potential for AI-driven economic growth—one that remains largely underutilized; in fact, Southeast Asia’s internet economy is expected to reach $330 billion by 2025. Through increased collaboration, global powers may better engage with emerging markets and foster innovation—presenting significant opportunities for global AI companies to scale and localize their services in a rapidly-growing environment increasingly pivotal to global supply chains and data flows. 

Simultaneously, it is just as crucial for local governments to increase investment in their AI R&D budgets. In Indonesia, the National Research and Innovation Agency has collaborated with international NGOs and startups to leverage AI for predicting volcanic eruptions and flash floods in disaster-prone areas, which has reduced disaster response times by over 30%. In Vietnam, tech companies VinAI & VinBrain are investing millions in foundational AI research for products in healthcare, mobility and natural language processing. The company has developed DrAid, an AI-powered diagnostic platform to detect respiratory diseases, reducing diagnostic time by over 50% during the pandemic. If current investment trends continue, AI could add $79.3 billion annually to the country’s GDP by 2030. 

It is apparent that when more investments are poured into R&D, the results speak for themselves. It is also apparent that strides in the right direction are being made. And yet, the region still has much work to do in investing into R&D and developing robust regulatory frameworks to truly utilize its potential in the AI frontier, given that many of these countries are still left behind within the Government AI Readiness Index, with Indonesia being ranked 42nd, Vietnam being ranked 59th and others such as Laos and Cambodia ranked even lower. 

The table is set, the stakes are high, and yet, the chairs remain unevenly distributed. Whether it’s the G20 Hiroshima Process, Bletchley Park, Paris, or Seoul, the world’s most influential summits continue championing global cooperation while their guest lists suggest otherwise. While much work is to be done internally, we cannot undermine the role of geopolitical interests and inaccessible systems towards Southeast Asia’s absence in these crucial rooms. More so, the region cannot be expected to play catch up when it continues to be systematically excluded. At the end of the day, if Southeast Asia continues to be left out of the conversation, the world will miss out on the opportunity to empower local solutions, diversify the AI ecosystem and create unique opportunities for market growth and collaborative innovation; if it continues to be left out, global AI governance will miss a perspective the world cannot afford to lose, one that makes global governance a reality rather than a mere slogan. 

The post Missing SEA(t): Southeast Asia’s Exclusion from the AI Policy Conversation appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The threat of Indonesia losing its capital to climate change is legitimate and alarming. Thus, it has forced the Indonesian authorities to take action and begin planning the relocation of their capital city. Indonesian President Joko Widodo has decided the capital will be relocated from Jakarta to the province of East Kalimantan, on Borneo. However, Indonesia is by no means the only country that will have to face the consequences of climate change. Making Indonesians’ voice heard is important when it comes to plans of action, such as the pathways of what relocating one’s capital looks like, what steps of action are needed to ensure the safety of all citizens, and what other measures can be taken. 

Currently, Indonesia has the fastest-sinking city in the world, and according to specialists at the Bandung Institute of Technology, “over 95 percent of North Jakarta will be drowned by 2050.” Indonesia is sinking at an alarming rate with sea levels rising 11 inches a year, leaving about 40% of the capital below sea level. The sea levels have increased not only due to overall climate change and melting glaciers, but is exacerbated by the fact that the city is in a valley so the mountain water is relentless in its arrival.  

Amidst these factors, Indonesia has taken actions to mitigate the flooding, particularly after a significant flood in 2013. The Indonesian government made renovations by cleaning reservoirs and flood canals. Another significant effort is the National Capital Integrated Coastal Development (NCICD), a project to be completed in 2027. This project includes the construction of a seawall and 17 new artificial islands around Jakarta Bay. While there already exists a coastal wall around part of the northern coast, an expansion is needed. However, because the coast is sinking beneath the wall, some argue this is not a lasting solution. 

Indonesia is the third-largest tropical forest in the world, meaning there are many factors at risk with this relocation. For example, the province of East Kalimantan, where Indonesia’s new capital will be, is home to significant biodiversity. At present, East Kalimantan comprises 18 million acres of tropical forest. Thus upon relocation of infrastructure as significant and massive as the new capital, there will be severe environmental losses — such as potentially harming the remaining 5% of the planet’s wild orangutans. To counter the negative environmental effects of relocation, Kalimantan is conducting efforts to preserve its ecosystem, including decreasing deforestation and reducing emissions.

However, Kalimantan’s environmental efforts will be quickly undermined if the capital relocation fails to conduct substantial measures to enhance the sustainability and preservation of their new capital island. According to Dwi Sawung, an official with the Indonesian Forum for Living Environment, an Indonesian environmental non-governmental organization, this is only one of the complications that will be faced by Kalimanta. Sawung states, “There are threats to water systems and risks of climate change, threats to flora and fauna, and threats of pollution and environmental damage.” Going forward, Indonesian authorities must proceed with caution upon their imminent relocation.  

The global example of how to handle circumstances caused by climate change will be dictated by Indonesia. Indonesia’s drastic actions relating to environmental preservation and the relocation of infrastructure will set a precedent for coastal states in the next decade. The international community must acknowledge that Indonesia is an integral part of this conversation, whether it is in the broader international agenda or internally. In the international community, within the Convention on Climate Change (COP27)  Indonesia urged “developed countries that have not updated their NDC 2030 target, to immediately raise their mitigation, adaptation, and implementation facility ambition at COP-27.” Within the Indo-Pacific region, Indonesia can relate to the island nations that face climate displacement of not only their major capitals, but also of their equally important small villages throughout the nation. 
The circumstances force people in the field of international relations to confront the challenging but essential matters of diplomacy, logistics and survival, as Indonesians become “climate migrants seeking lives in places that are drier and higher above sea level.” This is an unfortunate fate that many nations and citizens will have to face due to the rapid climate change consequences. Thus, the actions taken by Indonesia cannot go ignored and must be closely analyzed for the fact that many will share.

The post Jakarta is Sinking appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

HONG KONG — While many countries have been devastated by the pandemic, Hong Kong has done fairly well in containing the spread of the virus. In total, the country has only accumulated approximately 12,000 cases within a population of 7.5 million. 

However, the vaccination program that began in late February has been underwhelming, despite an abundance of supply, with merely 10.7% of the population receiving the first jab as of April 23. Efficacy issues associated with the Sinovac vaccine and general distrust toward the local and Chinese government has led to the poor vaccination rate.

Hong Kong is not known as an anti-vaccine city. Citizens are generally aware of public health issues and willing to participate in mass vaccination programs, especially after the SARS outbreak in 2003 took almost 300 Hongkongers’ lives and dampened the city’s economy. Between late 2019 and mid 2020, an estimated number of 1.2 million Hong Kong residents received flu vaccinations under government programs. 

Since February, Hong Kongers have been able to choose between two COVID-19 vaccines: Sinovac, developed by Chinese biopharmaceutical company Sinovac Biotech and endorsed by the Hong Kong government, and BioNTech, jointly developed by American company Pfizer and German company BioNTech. However, efficacy issues with Sinovac has made the vaccine-accepting public more resistant toward taking the Chinese vaccine.

Sinovac, a COVID-19 vaccine candidate developed by Chinese biopharmaceutical company Sinovac Biotech, began its Phase III clinical trial in July 2020. However, the company has not made its development process transparent. Normally, vaccine companies publish data from their Phase III clinical trial in peer-reviewed journals before obtaining approval from authorities. Sinovac has not published details on its vaccine in a journal. In contrast, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna released their Phase III trial data in the New England Journal of Medicine in December 2020.

In January, before the vaccine was rolled out in Hong Kong and other countries, Sinovac was reported to have an efficacy rate of about 50%, according to Butantan Institute, a Brazilian medical research center. Chile’s recent vaccination program with Sinovac boosted the estimated rate to 56.5%, raising it slightly above WHO’s efficacy requirement of 50%. In comparison, BioNTech is reported to have about 90% efficacy rate, while AstraZeneca’s vaccine is estimated at approximately 75%.

Another concern with Sinovac is its efficacy within elderly populations. During its Phase III trial in Brazil, Sinovac did not gather enough data for its effect on individuals over the age of 60. Only 413 participants over 60 completed two doses in the clinical trial, not enough to have statistical implication.

The company has even released a disclaimer about the lack of data on elderly individuals. According to Pak-leung Ho, leading microbiologist at the University of Hong Kong, the Chinese government does not recommend the Sinovac vaccine for individuals over 60. He suggests that Hong Kong can learn from Macau’s vaccination policy, where individuals over 60 will need to consult medical professionals before taking the vaccine.

Currently, Sinovac is being distributed in countries across all continents, including Brazil, Turkey and Indonesia. Many government officials from these countries have reassured their public about the Sinovac’s effectiveness, including Khairy Jamaluddin, Malaysia’s science minister who posted on Twitter after taking the first shot of the vaccine. Singapore, however, has let its Sinovac supply sit in storage after receiving them in February, citing the lack of data as the reason the government has not approved the vaccine yet.

Despite all this, regulators approved the vaccine for use in Hong Kong in February of this year. Local media outlets cast doubt over the rushed approval process, though the government defended its decision and dismissed doubts as a “misunderstanding of the mechanism for authorising vaccines for emergency use.” 

Many citizens in Hong Kong remained wary of Sinovac. In a survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong in January, fewer than 30% of respondents considered Sinovac an acceptable vaccine, compared to a 56.5% acceptance rate for the BioNTech vaccine, the other vaccine option in Hong Kong.  

Another major reason behind Hong Kong’s low vaccination rate is the public’s deep distrust of government. Since the city’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam instigated mass protests over an extradition bill two years ago, her approval ratings have plummeted to historical lows. Her government is also widely regarded as pro-Beijing, especially amid recent electoral reforms where only “patriots” are permitted to run for office.

Residents are particularly skeptical about Lam’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Chinese manufactured Sinovac. When an alliance of hospital employees warned older residents about Sinovac’s lack of sufficient trial data, Lam slammed the group for spreading misinformation. In another case, a private clinic was dropped from the government inoculation programme after it promoted BioNTech over Sinovac and cited their efficacy rates as evidence. 

So far, 15 people have died after receiving vaccines in Hong Kong, 12 of whom received Sinovac jabs. Health officials have repeatedly stressed that the deaths are not linked to the vaccines, though the public remains highly skeptical.

“According to the government, none of the deaths are related to the vaccine,” Hong Kong resident Belinda Lin told the Associated Press. “Most of the patients had cardiovascular conditions, so there must be some association, but the government seems to be trying to dissociate it.”

In March, the government suspended BioNTech shots for two weeks after a batch was discovered to have defective packaging. Authorities threw away the batch, a decision that several medical professionals questioned and likened to destroying evidence.

“I am quite surprised that the Hong Kong authorities said that they had already discarded all the problematic bottles,” said Alvin Chan, a co-chairman of the advisory committee on communicable diseases and a council member of the Medical Association. “To investigate the problem, at least these faulty bottles need to be examined meticulously by the company.”

These incidents have all raised concerns about a political agenda not just behind the vaccination drive, but the government’s endorsement of the Sinovac vaccine. 

As Ramon Yuen, a district councilor from the city’s pro-democracy opposition, told Bloomberg Quint, “many people are saying the government has its own agenda, and this will impact the effectiveness of public health policy.” 

By the end of March, the number of people who scheduled, but skipped, their Sinovac appointments stood at around 20%, compared with a 5% no-show rate for BioNTech appointments.

Recently, the vaccination drive has seen a big boost as the government said it would ease social-distancing restrictions for inoculated people. Bookings on the day of the announcement jumped up to nearly double the number on the previous day. Around 13,500 people made online reservations for the BioNTech vaccine on the first day of the announcement, compared with 3,300 who signed up for Sinovac.

Nonetheless, no matter the incentives offered, as long a lack of public confidence in not just the vaccines, but the government, remains high, the vaccination drive in Hong Kong will stay sluggish.

The post Vaccination Campaigns in Hong Kong Struggle to Gain Public Trust appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

But as human waste piles up in landfills and covers coastal waters, the crisis of single-use plastics has been illuminated vividly. For a population of 7.8 billion, there has been a monthly estimated use of 65 billion gloves and 129 billion face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Incorrect disposal of used personal protective equipment (PPE) can be found all over the world littering public spaces. Assuming PPE equipment is used at this rate for 18 months, that would result in two trillion three hundred twenty-two billion masks of plastic waste. Since 91% of plastics are never recycled, this litter will persist in the environment for hundreds of years, igniting a crisis of plastic consumption and waste products. The single-use plastic problem is the global environmental crisis we continue to ignore, and if not careful, short-term solutions to protect humans from the coronavirus pandemic may bring large environmental and public health crises in the future. 

Plastic Initiatives Prior to the Pandemic

Prior to the pandemic, many countries took action to prevent single-use plastic employment. In 2018, Indian Prime Minister Modi announced the country’s intent to eliminate all single-use plastic in the country by 2022. In July 2018, Chile’s congress approved a ban on retail use of plastic bags, with steps to phase out plastic bag usage over the following two years. In October 2018, the United States amended the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Debris Act, funding the program through 2022. In January 2019, Peru banned visitors from bringing single-use plastics into it’s 76 natural and cultural protected areas. In early 2019, the European Parliament voted to ban single-use plastic items, such as straws and food containers, by 2021. Even major global companies have come together to help mitigate the plastic crisis. The New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, including companies such as Coca-Cola, L’oreal, and H&M, has worked to reuse and repurpose plastic to promote a more sustainable economy for plastics. 

These efforts supported larger global initiatives such as the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN SDGs are a set of 17 goals with 169 targets attempting to create a global agenda for sustainable development through economic, social, and environmental action. Goal 12 targets primarily focus on implementing sustainable management of natural resources, reducing waste generation, adopting sustainability practices, and creating tools to monitor waste production. Government’s actions on mitigating plastic waste by banning single-use plastic helped support this goal and have created actionable plans to ensure sustainable consumption and production. 

However, increased consumption of single-use plastics, including personal protective equipment, has increased poor environmental practices and works contrary to global efforts for environmental sustainability. 

Some positives for global sustainability have emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has indirectly contributed to SDG goal 13 through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering outdoor air pollution. SDG goals 13 aims to “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.” However, this progress is not the solution to stopping climate change, and this progress is a short term gain. Global efforts to mitigate climate change will still need to occur to meet goal 13’s target. 

The Growing Crisis of Single-Use Plastic

Since December 2019, the world has felt the ever-growing effects of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. In an attempt to ‘flatten the curve,’ governments worldwide implemented precautionary measures to protect citizens through guidelines such as social distancing. What started as a health crisis has also morphed into a global economic and environmental threat, particularly regarding the consumption of plastics. 

Cities with high COVID-19 infection rates have struggled to manage large increases in medical waste. In Barcelona, medical waste, which includes gloves and face masks, increased by 350%, generating approximately 1,200 tons of medical waste compared to the usual average of 275 tons. The drastic increases in medical waste are leaving countries with inadequate waste management systems, resulting in masks, gloves, sanitizer bottles, and other protective equipment piling up on coastal shores. 

“With a lifespan of 450 years, these [disposable surgical]masks are an ecological timebomb given their lasting environmental consequences for our planet,” wrote Éric Pauget, a French politician, in a letter to French President Emmanual Macron. 

In an effort to dispose of medical waste, some municipalities in India have relied on the incineration of medical waste. However, this only further contributes to the releasing of greenhouse gases and other potentially harmful toxins. This style of waste management can cause future health problems by impacting air quality and increasing risks related to climate change mitigation. 

During the pandemic, increased demand for single-use plastics has caused some countries, such as the United States, to delay single-use plastic bans amid COVID-19 concerns. In October 2020, following over 6 months in delay, New York implemented a plastic bag ban. Plastic bag bans in Maine and Oregon were postponed. In California, a single use plastic bag ban that had been in place since 2016, was suspended. Postponements, suspensions, and failed implementation of plastic bag bans have only hurt global consumption of single-use plastic bags. 

Growing consumption of single-use plastic and poor disposal of the amassing waste is a concerning global problem not only for humans, but for wildlife and the environment as well. 

The Effects of Single-Use Plastic on the Environment 

According to the UN Environment Program (UNEP), more than 8.3 billion tons of plastic have been produced since the early 1950s, with about 60% of that plastic landing in landfills or the natural environment. 

More than 99% of plastics are produced from non-renewable sources, such as oil and coal. Moreover, only 9% of all plastic waste produced is recycled, with 12% being incinerated and the remaining 79% accumulating across the globe in cities, oceans, and landfills. The current increase of single-use plastics from large-scale global production of single-use protective equipment and a 6-10% increase in online shopping, according to the UN Conference on Trade and Development. This will lead to millions of tons of plastic being thrown out, with unclear solutions to mitigate the growing crisis. 

According to the UNEP, eight million tons of plastic end up in the world’s oceans each year, with the Chang Jiang River in China carrying over 1 million tons of plastic alone. Rivers can serve as easy pathways for plastic to travel into oceans and impact wildlife. Properties that make plastic useful, such as its resilience to degradation, make it nearly impossible for nature to break down. As plastic is broken into smaller pieces by natural weathering, the resulting microplastics can be consumed by marine life and enter the human food chain through fish consumption. Over 170 marine species have been recorded as having ingested human-made plastics. A study from the International Journal of Molecular Sciences found that in fish, microplastics have been found to cause major adverse effects including oxidative stress and intestinal damage. Beyond ingestion, marine wildlife can get entangled in plastics. Moreover, the accumulation of debris can disrupt marine ecosystems such as damaging coral reefs and affecting the feeding habits of marine life. 

There has been minimal research on the effects of human marine wildlife consumption of plastics. It is still unknown what potential risks microplastic consumption may have for humans and wildlife in the long-term. However, adverse effects in marine ecosystems illuminate concerns for the health effects of plastic consumption in humans. 

The Economic Impact

From an economic standpoint, plastic waste landing on shorelines can have serious economic consequences for communities reliant on tourism and fishing. In 2014, the United Nations estimated that plastic waste causes $13 billion in annual damage to marine ecosystems. 

Besides consequences on marine life and communities which rely on marine sustainability, single-use plastics are harmful for the economy. Plastics are workhorse materials in today’s economy. Able to be created at low and efficient rates which have versatile function, plastic is integral to everyday life. However, plastic usually has a very linear lifespan of make, use, dispose. This is problematic because most of the material ends up as waste. Large organizations, such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which launched the New Plastic Economy initiative in 2016, have suggested that the best way to economically benefit from plastic is to shift to a circular economy for plastics. The circular economy is an economic system in which from the outset, materials are designed to ensure they are not used up. 

Essentially, the maximum value of every product is used systematically to support reusable solutions while benefiting the environment and the economy. If done correctly, a circular economy should bolster productivity in society, such as incorporating new jobs, help the environment by producing less waste, and help the economy through less spending on waste management and clean up while preventing economic losses. 

After a first-use cycle, 95% of plastic packaging material value – equivalent to about $80 to $120 billion annually — is lost. These economic losses are further compounded by the 32% of plastic packaging which escapes collection systems, resulting in economic cleanup costs. Furthermore, approximately $40 billion is spent on clean-up externalities for plastic packaging materials, which “exceeds the plastic packaging industry’s profit pool.” 

In the future, countries around the world will need to pay for these costs. By improving the plastic lifecycle and creating a circular economy system, governments and nations around the world can achieve better economic and environmental outcomes. A transition like this would require a coordinated effort among governments, policy makers, and financial investors. Some critical steps are being taken to begin this process, but many countries still need to address mitigating current plastic waste and usage. 

Efforts to Combat Single-Use Plastic Usage

According to the UNEP, 99 countries have introduced measures to mitigate plastic bag usage. For example, In 2020, China announced plans to ban single-use plastics across the country by 2022. This legislation could immensely reduce single-use plastic waste globally because, as of 2020, China is the world’s largest producer and one of the largest users of plastics. 

However, the continued strategy of many countries to export plastic waste abroad is concerning for plastic waste reduction. As of 2020, the United States is the world’s largest plastic waste producer, with the United Kingdom as a close second. Data from 2016 shows that half of the plastic collected for recycling in the U.S. was sent abroad. In 2019, data from the European Environment Agency showed that the European Union exported 150,000 tons of plastic waste per month, with approximately double the rate in 2015 and 2016. Majority of this waste was shipped to China and Hong Kong. 

In 2018, China banned the import of plastic waste, with some other countries such as Indonesia and Thailand placing restrictions as well. A Guardian investigation from 2019 found that U.S. plastic was being sent to countries in which environmental regulations are limited and labor is cheap. Many of the countries the United States is shipping its plastic waste to are poorly ranked on how they handle their country’s internal plastic waste. One study found that Malaysia, the biggest recipient of U.S. plastic recycling since the China ban, mismanaged over half of its plastic waste. 

The practice of larger and economically stronger nations exporting plastic waste to other countries with laxer regulations does nothing to mitigate the effects of plastic waste. Rather, plastic waste still ends up impacting the environment and biodiversity, just in different parts of the globe. 

Global awareness and cooperation have begun to emerge as the plastic consumption and waste crisis continues to grow. Efforts, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals were created to help increase global sustainability. Goals 12, 13 and 14 tie directly into the plastic conversation. Goal 12 aims to implement sustainability practices and monitor waste production, goal 13 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 14 aims to reduce marine pollution of all kinds and address ocean resilience to marine debris and pollution. Reduction of plastic usage can have major impacts on wildlife, and can help reduce environmental degradation. Working in tandem these goals can have a major impact on the mitigation of single-use plastics waste. With 193 countries formally adopting the UN SDGs, economic and environmental legislation focused on these targets are likely to grow further as 2030 approaches.

Another global strategy to help mitigate plastic waste is being explored by the World Trade Organization (WTO). In November 2020, as part of the WTO’s Trade and Environment Week, multiple countries initiated the ‘Open-ended Informal Dialogue on Plastic Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade.’ This week of WTO member-led events and workshops was prompted by efforts to build a greener and more sustainable global trade system as global trade recovers form COVID-19. The dialogue aims to “explore how improved trade cooperation, within the rules and mechanisms of the WTO, could contribute to domestic, regional, and global efforts to reduce plastic pollution and transition to a more circular and environmentally sustainable global plastics economy.” 

Efforts to create a more circular economy for plastic consumption have the potential to make major environmental impacts. Although efforts are still in the early stages, a structured conversation and statement on trade and environmental sustainability was backed by 49 WTO members. Informal discussions are expected to begin in 2021, indicating a fast timeline to begin reassessing global plastic consumption and its environmental impacts. The WTO’s ‘Open-ended Informal Dialogue’ hosted by China and Fiji received strong early support from Australia, Barbados, Canada, and Morocco, suggesting multiple countries’ interest in creating sustainable trade around plastic. 

The Global Plastic Action Partnership — organized by the World Economic Forum — has advocated for a transformation of the global plastic industry. The aim is to move towards a circular model of plastic consumption, in which waste moves from disposal back to repurposing, which will require lots of transparency and global efforts to monitor the plastic industry.  It is unclear how feasible this effort to change the global plastic will be. 

The Global Plastic Action Partnership is in early stages of building and growing public-private partnerships to create tangible plastic pollution strategies. The partnership has developed a list of 10 calls to action, which it aims to tackle through it’s growing partnerships. Some of these actions include agreeing on plastics to be eliminated and preparing markets to phase those plastics out, making the recycled plastics market competitive economically, and stimulating consumer adoption of plastic reuse. World collaborative interest in creating global policy solutions for plastic action is crucial for global sustainability efforts. 

Beyond this, there is potential to implement extended producer responsibility measures, which would reduce the burden of municipalities to financially and physically reckon with the build up of plastic waste management. Additionally, it would provide incentives for manufacturers to design more low impact and reusable products, rather than single-use plastic materials. 

Actions to create a circular economy and minimize the effects of single-use plastic are essential to sustain our environment and global biodiversity. Only time will tell if global collaboration on minimizing plastic consumption will be able to overcome the years of plastic neglect and affect future environmental sustainability. Global alliances on this issue are providing hope that the single-use plastic problem can be solved. 

The post It’s Time to Reassess Single-Use Plastic Around the World appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The coup occurred in reaction to the most recent parliamentary election. On November 8, 2020, one of the leading parties, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won over 80% of the available parliamentary seats. The vote was seen as a popular endorsement of the NLD, which Aung San Suu Kyi has led since 2015. Ms. Suu Kyi has been hailed as a beacon of democracy and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.  However, her international reputation has suffered following her refusal to condemn crackdowns on the Muslim Rohingya minority in Myanmar, and the subsequent human rights crisis, genocide and migration that has followed.

The election was expected to be ratified in a parliamentary session this week. The Tatmadaw, led by General Min Aung Hlaing, did not endorse the results.

In Myanmar, the Tatmadaw’s influence is felt in all aspects of society, a relic of its multi-decade long rule. It has its own schools, hospitals and food production systems. Its elite are married into the business world and high-ranking members of the NLD. The party also controls the two largest conglomerates with interests in resources, banking, infrastructure, insurance, media and more.

The democratic constitution did little to disentangle the military’s power and in some instances, reinforced it within the new political institutions.

Prior to the coup, the Tatmadaw was constitutionally guaranteed control of the ministries of defense, home affairs and border affairs. It reserves 25% of seats in national and regional assemblies. Also, it has veto authorities over certain amendments to the constitution. 

The Tatmadaw invoked some of these provisions to declare a state of emergency as a justification for the coup, claiming allegations of voter fraud. Under the constitution however, only the civilian leader can claim a state of emergency which lasts for one year. Independent rights groups have criticized the election for excluding ethnic minorities, however, the nation’s election committee accepted the results and found no evidence of voter fraud.

Because of the constitution’s structure guaranteeing certain roles to the military, the Tatmadaw’s power fundamentally does not change with the coup, rather the appearance of power does. Experts have claimed that the military’s actions are still characteristic of the country’s democratic backsliding because the institutions allowing for a people’s voice have been ignored.

While the motives for the coup have not been made public, some suspect the coup provides a means for the military’s leader, Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing, to stay in power. He was scheduled to retire this year upon reaching the Defense Service Act’s mandatory retirement age of 65. The elected civilian president would have chosen a successor, meaning that the NLD likely would have chosen a more reform minded leader.

The citizens of Myanmar have not reacted kindly to the coup. This past week, tens of thousands of people have protested the Tatmadaw’s actions in Yangon, Myanmar’s largest city. Chants of “We don’t want military dictatorship, we want democracy” could be heard throughout the city, and many protesters held posters of Aung San Suu Kyi and other detained officials. The Tatmadaw claims it will hold free and fair elections after reconstituting the election commission, although did not specify when elections would take place.

The Tatmadaw has attempted to prevent the protest through a series of measures, including internet blackouts and false news reports of detained officials’ release.

But protests have spilled over into neighboring Bangladesh, where Myanmar national Rohingya Muslims have taken refuge following previous violent crackdowns on ethnic-minorities by the Tatmadaw.

Few reports of violence have come as a result of the protests, with one instance of gunshots and one report of police authorities using rubber bullets to break up a rally. The Saffron Revolution of 2007, a prior protest movement of similar scale, resulted in at least 13 dead and hundreds injured and arrested. The protests began in response to a state-sponsored jump in fuel prices, but turned against the military rule. The Saffron revolution was considered an important stepping stone in Myanmar’s shift to democracy in 2011. The Tatmadaw has remained largely silent over the public’s opposition to the coup.

Throughout the West, governments quickly condemned the actions of the Tatmadaw, although defining the takeover has been a bit more nuanced. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and President of the European Council Charles Michel denounced the coup and called for the detained officials’ immediate release. U.S. President Joe Biden, however, has criticized the military’s “assault on the country’s transition to democracy” and threatened sanctions, but stopped short of calling the actions a coup.

Nearby countries in Southeast Asia have had more mixed reactions to the recent events. Cambodian leader Hun Sen refused to comment on the “internal affairs of another country;” whereas Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia expressed concern over the Tatmadaw’s actions.

China, the region’s most powerful country, blocked a United Nations Security Council statement condemning the Tatmadaw. China claims that sanctions or international pressure may make the situation worse in Myanmar.

As the events in Myanmar unfold, key things to look out for include the development of protests, the international community’s actions, and the military’s response to each respective interest.

The post What You Need to Know About Myanmar’s Coup appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

With relatively painless set up and easy-to-use interfaces, peer-to-peer payment networks become increasingly popular. After all, services like Zelle, Venmo and its parent company PayPal all enable the instant transfer of funds from one account to another. Money that once took days to move from one account to another now disburses in a matter of minutes. 

However, like many bi-products of the digital age, government regulation has not kept up with the high speed expansion of online payment networks. As a result, digital payment platforms create massive vulnerabilities in global financial systems. In some instances, P2P payment networks enable terrorism financing. In the United States in particular, consumers sacrifice financial security in favor of instantaneous economic transactions. In order to fully understand the destabilizing power of peer-to-peer payment networks, it’s important to first understand its relationship to classic money laundering techniques. 

The idea behind money laundering is relatively simple. Criminals and kleptocrats alike must find ways to disguise ill-begotten funds in order to use them openly on the market without arousing suspicion about their origin. Traditional money laundering schemes like the Black Market Peso Exchange allowed drug cartels in Columbia to launder over $5 billion worth of profits from drug sales in the United States every year. In order to convert drug profits from U.S. dollars to pesos the cartel concocted an intricate scheme involving drug money couriers, money launderers, electronics exporters and importers as well as money brokers. All of these actors worked together to enable drug cartel members to openly spend drug profits without any ramifications.

The scheme starts with on-the-ground cartel agents in cities like Miami that have millions of dollars’ worth of profits from illegal drug sales lying around. The agents then purchase millions of dollars’ worth of consumer electronics like laptops and computers under the guides that the products would be exported for sale abroad. The agent would pay for the products in U.S. dollars and then transport the exports to Columbia. The cartel converts their illicit U.S. dollars into pesos via offloading electronic products. The Columbian electronics importers pay the cartel for the products in pesos and in doing so avoid excessive currency conversion fees. The cartel manages to cleanse its profits of a criminal past and can now freely spend pesos on the free market. Electronic importers are just one example of industries used to launder U.S. dollars into Columbian pesos. The cartel also dealt with cigarettes, liquor, and dishwasher importers. 

The Black Market Peso Exchange represents just one of many run-of-the-mill money laundering schemes. Money laundering remains necessary for the continuation of criminal activity everywhere and so methods constantly evolve to stay ahead of law enforcement. Unlike money laundering of the old world order, today’s digital economy allows criminals to move money legally via thousands of small cash transfers rather than huge lump sums. Peer-to-peer payment providers enable widespread money laundering due to their relatively lax account creation requirements and lightning fast payment transfers. 

Although companies like PayPal explicitly forbid the use of its services for illegal financial transactions, in reality, the company has few means of enforcing such rules. This enforcement failure allows terrorist groups to move money in and out of countries in order to finance attacks. Consider the case of Mohamed Elshinawy, an American citizen who in 2015 was convicted of assisting ISIS coordinate a terrorist attack in the United States. Although the FBI arrested Elshinawy before the attack came to fruition, his ability to procure funding from ISIS via eBay and its payment partner PayPal speaks to the vulnerabilities of online payment methods. 

According to the FBI report, Elshinawy pretended to sell computer printers on eBay and, in return, received funds from ISIS for “operational purposes” via PayPal. Law enforcement intercepted Elshinawy before he could execute an attack, however, his experience points to glaring flaws in the digital financial system primarily the ways in which it promotes anonymity and reduces accountability. Elshinawy’s experience using PayPal is not a unique and similar terrorism financing schemes have been uncovered in places like Indonesia in 2017. 

Despite acknowledging the growing threat posed by digital asset exchange platforms in the documents like the“National Strategy for Combating Terrorist and Other-Illicit Financing” the government has done little to stop the expansion of digital payment platforms. Social norms broaden P2P range and visibility as consumers increasingly turn to apps like Venmo and PayPal for every day transactions. It then becomes more difficult for law enforcement and financial regulators to identify and uncover illegal activities. 

In short, if terrorism financing is the needle in a haystack, P2P platforms quadruple the size of the haystack. Even more alarming is the fact that there are no signs of digital payment trends slowing down. In 2020 alone the use of Venmo has increased by 52% compared to the same time last year. The coronavirus pandemic will only increase consumer dependency on digital payments as individuals and businesses seek contactless payment methods. 

The post Unorthodox Economics: Using PayPal to Finance Terrorism Worldwide appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Despite negative environmental implications, many Southeast Asian countries have built their entire economies on the textile industry, catering mostly to fast fashion. Valued at $2.4 trillion and employing over 75 million people, Southeast Asia’s textile industry must adapt in order to weather the pandemic and reduce its impact on climate change. Implementing innovative and sustainable methods of production is critical to the future of Southeast Asian economies and the planet.  

To evade the costs of fair wages and high taxes, companies relocate production to countries such as Bangladesh and Vietnam, where environmental and labor regulations are more relaxed. Companies that constantly seek cheap labor and lax regulations have disastrous consequences for the environment, but have also laid the economic foundations for developing countries in Southeast Asia. Textiles make up 80% of Bangladesh’s total exports. Textile production hubs in Taiwan have also developed into higher value sectors, as these countries open up to foreign trade and adopt new technologies. The industry in Indonesia employs as many as 4 million workers. 

While fast fashion has industrialized many Southeast Asian countries, it has also promoted exploitation of a vulnerable workforce and the degradation of the environment. The 2013 collapse of the Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh and the pollution of freshwater sources are only two out of a myriad reasons for why the industry must change. The Rana Plaza factory was constructed using substandard materials and disregard for building codes, which eventually killed over 1,000 garment workers. The bleaching and dyeing processes in textile production contaminate water with toxic chemicals, endangering aquatic life and poisoning sources of drinking water. 

Fast fashion’s model of production revolves around the notion of “stack-them-high, sell-them-cheap,” pumping out more garments as trends quickly die out. Clothing companies like Zara take only two weeks to transform sketches into garments. The disposable nature of fashion allows approximately 350,000 tons of clothing to crowd landfills in the UK alone, costing the economy over $1 billion. Research by environmental scientists has revealed that one garbage truck worth of clothing is incinerated or sent to landfills every second. The growing global middle class and GDP per capita has doubled fast fashion consumption within the last 15 years. Yet, garments are only worn for half as long. 

In addition to consumer waste, the textile industry’s manufacturing bases are remarkably destructive. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change estimates that the industry is responsible for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, which they expect to increase to 25% in 2050. The production of one cotton shirt requires 2,700 litres of water, exceeding an individual’s water consumption over a two year span. The pesticides used to treat cotton fields pose a serious health threat to farmers, degrade soil quality and contaminate water. 150 million trees were demolished in 2018 to farm cellulose- and protein-based fibers used in textile production. Viscose fiber, in particular, is the major source of Indonesia’s deforestation. Fast fashion giants like H&M rely on this cheap and durable fiber, with its sourcing contributing to severe untreated water waste and excess levels of toxic carbon disulfide. The combination of polluted air and water and deforestation is lethal as the climate rapidly warms. 

Storefront closures and dwindling consumer confidence have plummeted fast fashion sales. In the wake of COVID-19, H&M reported a 46% sales decline in March. Bangladesh’s textile industry estimates a $10 billion loss in 2020 as Western retailers continue to cancel mass orders. Overall, ongoing textile manufacturing and a steep drop in consumer demand has led to extraordinary levels of textile waste. Experts worry that, as the economy gradually emerges from the pandemic, excess consumption will ensue, with consumers likely prioritizing affordability over sustainability. Attracting investments back into the Southeast Asian manufacturing bases will likely suspend crucial labor and environmental regulations. 

Pursuing sustainability requires raising consumer awareness and reshaping models of production. Although many name-and-shame campaigns have exposed brands like Nike for exploitative child labor, most consumers tend to neglect this issue due to lack of proximity. Heightened consumer awareness can pressure fast fashion brands to adopt sustainable practices. The slow fashion movement, coined by Kate Fletcher of the Centre for Sustainable Fashion, sets an excellent standard for modern consumerism by focusing on the craftsmanship of clothes, opting for more sustainably made garments. 

Shifting the mindsets of consumers is a challenge, but brands marketing new and sustainable practices can attract more demand. Perhaps the latest ‘trend’ can be sustainably made clothing. Normalizing second-hand clothing is necessary to reduce garment waste, as well as dispelling the misconception that purchasing second-hand is unhygienic or tacky. Brands like Rent the Runway have capitalized on the concept of leasing clothing instead of buying and trashing. 

The recent rampage of natural disasters in 2020 has hopefully enlightened consumers to the dangers of large coroporation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, costliness hinders measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions. To combat this, governments can offer brands certain tax incentives that push brands to provide fairer wages and adopt sustainable methods. Governments can also penalize companies who exceed carbon emission limits. The Asia Pacific Rayon (APR) factory in Indonesia is a great example of sustainably sourcing viscose fibers. Recognizing that viscous sourcing contributes to deforestation, APR has committed to sourcing this wood fiber from sustainably-run plantations. 

Moreover, technological innovation in the textile industry can reduce the quantity of garments produced. Computer processes can now calculate the demand of items, significantly shrinking overproduction. Companies must also adopt the circular economy’s four pillared business model: phasing out toxic chemicals and microfibre release, increasing clothing usage, revamping recycling, and effectively using resources and renewable input. Once companies implement these practices, they should market their sustainability commitments, drawing consumers to more ethical labels.  

Millions of lives depend on the fashion fashion industry’s economic base, yet billions of lives depend on the earth’s survival. Legislation coupled with consumer responsibility will transform the textile industry for the better. If the textile industry wishes to stay in business, the next big trend ought to be sustainably-made clothing. 

The post Sustainable Production Proves Vital in the Future of Asia’s Textile Industry appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.