DANGERS OF PLASTIC BAGS ON OUR ECO SYSTEM

As a typical African bachelor not cooking on this faithful day wasn’t much an issue other than the fact that I had to walk a few blocks down my street in search of food to buy.  Beans with plantain, a West African delicacy familiar to citizens of Ghana and Nigeria was my best hope to a perfect meal at that moment. Upon buying the food the vendor wrapped my beans in first, a white nylon popularly known as rubber bag in Ghana  and (incorrectly called) ‘leather’ in NIGERIA, then to  kill the visual attention,  she further wrapped it in another black rubber bag. In addition I requested to buy sachet water and this was also wrapped in a bigger plastic bag,  this time to carry both the beans and the two sachet water.

On getting home I realised that I have more than enough plastic bags for the day's business which got me asking a few environmental questions.

What are the effects of the use of plastic bags on our eco system?

•well I don't intend to scare you my esteemed reader(s) but for the record I will like to let you know that Plastic bags don't biodegrade, they photodegrade - breaking down into smaller and smaller toxic bits,  contaminating the soil and waterways and entering the food web when animals accidentally ingest them.
•A plastic bag can take between 400 to 1,000 years to break down in the environment.
•Plastic bags cause over 100,000 sea turtle and other marine animal deaths every year when animals mistake them for food.

Plastic bags are among the 12 items of debris most often found in coastal cleanups, according to the nonprofit Center for Marine Conservation.

•Nearly 90% of the debris in our oceans is plastic.

Residents in Accra-Ghana (La) can attest to that. 

　Plastics are a subspecies of a class of Materials known as polymers. These are composed of large molecules, formed by joining many, often thousands, of smaller molecules (monomers) together. Plastics are made from low-molecular-weight monomer precursors, organic materials, which are mostly derived from petroleum, that are joined together by a process called “polymerization.” Plastics owe their name to their most important property, the ability to be shaped to almost any form to produce articles of practical value. Plastics can be stiff and hard or flexible and soft. Because of their light weight, low cost, and desirable properties, their use has rapidly increased and they have replaced other materials, e.g. metals and glass. Plastics are used in millions of items; including cars, bulletproof vests, toys, hospital equipment, and food containers. More than a 40 billion kg of plastic were produced in 2000. Their increased use has resulted in concern with the toxicity associated with their manufacture and use, and the environmental impact arising from discarded plastics.

The increased production of plastic bags has over the years been quite alarming, figures put it at over 1 trillion over the years with the united states using over 100 billion bags annually and Nigeria at about the same figure, as a petroleum product this could be estimated as throwing away 12 million barrels of crude oil a year, I know this sounds surprising, but before you exclaim OMG let me feed you with more reasons of hating the use of plastic bags. Research shows that about 6% to 10% of our total oil supply goes to making plastic. Now from the beans story I narrated above it can be seen that just in the purchase of a few items, over half a dozen plastic bags where given to me. This places me just as an average Nigerian citizen in el rufai bus or an Accra resident in tro-tro with no option other than throwing away  about 10 bags a week, 520 bags a year which is a fuel equivalent of 60 miles of driving. Now call to mind the Nigerian population of about 173.1 million and Ghana at about 26 million people. (now you can shout) this is exactly how little things make huge negative impacts without consciously thinking about it. Research has further proven to support the assertion that South Africa uses 85 billion plastic bags annually while Ghana is at about 71 billion. 

If forcing down the bitter economic truths about using plastic bags doesn't scare you at this point you might as well want to look at it from a purely scientific basis.  scientists have calculated the petroleum equivalent of a bag: it takes about 48 mega joule to produce a bag. This is exactly the same energy required to heat water to a boiling point. That 48 mega joule comes from the petroleum that the plastic itself is made from as well as the petroleum burned as energy in the manufacturing process to make the bag. An average car consumes 6.7 mega joule in driving one mile or the equivalent of 14 bags per mile driven.

In spite of these steeping evils of the use of this product, plastic bags have a record of causing untold harm to both the environment and human beings with plants being no exception to its evils .

As stated above plastic bags do not decay (in the strict scientific terminology biodegrade) as quickly as would human waste or paper when it is disposed off. In the event of it ever degrading that will take a whopping 1,000 years to eventually degrade and even at this, it is more so through the help of the sun in a manner known as photodegradation i.e. the sun breaks the nylon into smaller toxic particles. This process releases harmful waste into the eco system, polluting land, air and even water bodies. A good number of these plastic bags are swallowed by cows, goats and even dogs with aquatic animals like sharks falling victims. Especially, turtles mistaken it for jelly fish which is among its food chain.

Surprisingly the ugly picture I have tried to paint about plastic bags only points to the direct causal link it has on its users. However more remote effects of its use can be identified. It affects even the tourism sector for instance. In the last five years I have spent considerable amount of time in most west African countries and throughout I have noticed that plastic bags are a serious eyesore to the environment making tourist rethink their choice of ever lodging and spending time in most west African countries like Ghana, NIGERIA, Togo, Benin  Republic and Ivory Coast. For instance the streets of Accra which boasts of massive hotels with multiple stars suffer decline in the customer index due to the state of the environment. Plastic bags are seen hanging right through hotel fences becoming an eye sore, polluting  the air especially during heavy down pour,  choking drainage systems and even killing animals that mistake them for food. Labadi beach one of the best sites for tourist attraction in the capital of Ghana has been heavily plagued with this predicament with close to over 90% of debris coming from the Atlantic Ocean being plastic bags. Despite my closeness to the beach I am discouraged from ever thinking of spending time at the beach due to its eyesore nature. These plastic bags have also been the leading engineer of the flood cases in Accra as they choke the drainage system forcing water resulting from heavy downpours to seek for other passages thereby resulting in the loss of properties and even lives. The good news is that some African nations like Uganda and South Africa have taken the bold initiative to ban and curtail the use of this product.

Humans who in turn consume sea foods that have this product in them risk having cancer. In fact research suggests that mental retardation in humans to some extent is owed to this including other birth defects like down syndrome. Sometimes we try to incinerate these plastics but this also has proven to be unsafe because when the product comes in contact with fire it produces DIXONS and FURANS which have all proven to be harmful to humans. A better suggestion for a safe environment is for the government to issue a statutory rule aimed at curtailing the use of plastic bags in our society. But before that is done we as individuals owe ourselves some basic moral duty to stay safe and few of those ways are to buy food in ceramic or paper containers. 

Further practices we can adopt is to stop  the following,  microwaving of edibles whilst still in plastic bags, buying fatty foods in plastic bags, storing acidic foods like tomatoes or citrus in plastic bags as those tend to draw out the plastic poisons, and finally to also stop the use of plastic utensil like spoons, knives and cutting boards. Stay safe and remember. 

 

HEALTH IS WEALTH.

Most of the statistics quoted in this article is owed to the non-profit organisation for Marine Conservation & UNEP.  

CEDAW a discrimination against Men!

CONVENTION TO ELIMINATE ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN(CEDAW):

Hey guys, my last article was on the topic 'society, religion and culture the tripartite relationship against feminism'. Although I wrote this article sometime ago, I believe it is a great piece that would add some spice to the one sided research expounded earlier on my blog. in this piece i intend discussing the very few instances the law is discriminatory against men. For a start .........

HOW IS 'CEDAW' DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST MEN? 

On 18 December 1979, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It entered into force as an international treaty on 3 September 1981. Among the international human rights treaties, the Convention takes an important place in bringing the female half of humanity into the focus of human rights concerns. The spirit of the Convention is rooted in the goals of the United Nations: to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity, and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women. The present document spells out the meaning of equality and how it can be achieved. In so doing, the Convention establishes not only an international bill of rights for women, but also an agenda for action by countries to guarantee the enjoyment of those rights. 

As defined in article 1, discrimination is understood as "any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on .1 the basis of sex...in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field". The Convention gives positive affirmation to the principle of equality by requiring States parties to take "all appropriate measures, including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men"(article 3). In its approach, the Convention covers three dimensions of the situation of women. Civil rights and the legal status of women are dealt with in great detail. In addition, and unlike other human rights treaties, the Convention is also concerned with the dimension of human reproduction as well as with the impact of cultural factors on gender relations. The preamble of the Convention stresses "that a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality of men and women".
Article I 
For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "discrimination against women" shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. 
Article 4 
1. Adoption by States Parties of temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women shall not be considered discrimination as defined in the present Convention, but shall in no way entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate standards; these measures shall be discontinued when the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved. 
2. Adoption by States Parties of special measures, including those measures contained in the present Convention, aimed at protecting maternity shall not be considered discriminatory. 
Article 17 
1. For the purpose of considering the progress made in the implementation of the present Convention, there shall be established a Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (hereinafter referred to as the Committee). 

The struggle to see women rise up to the same level as men has been a long and tedious one over the years and even though some progress has been made the question begs to be asked if men are now also the victims of sexism. In paying attention to the plight of women we fail to recognize also the plight of our men. Is it ok to say that since women have suffered and still continue to suffer as compared to men then it is ok to ignore or at least for now not concentrate on the men? 
In my view the attention should be on how both men and women should be treated so as to enjoy all the fundamental rights that come with being a human being as opposed to making one side of the coin that is women enjoy the same rights as men. Why should the thresh hold or standard be that women should have the same rights as men instead of women should have rights as any human being would enjoy either male or female. If we are to agree that women should enjoy equal rights as men then whatever is being meted out to men that smells much like discrimination should also be enjoyed by women since we are after all drinking from the same cup. 
For example men have been at the bitter end of some of the laws and policies that in one way or form scream discrimination against men. Although women are discriminated against and sexism against women is widely acknowledged, few people take seriously the possibility that men are also discriminated against – which Benatar sees as fact. David Benatar, in his 2012 monograph The Second Sexism discusses a whole range of other ways in which men as men are disadvantaged. As evidence for sexism against men, he advances a number of different examples. One of his strongest ones is the issue of military conscription: it is virtually unheard of for women to be forcibly conscripted into a country’s armed forces, whereas this is common for men. 
Benatar thinks there are other spheres in which men get sacrificed and women get protected – such as in the old adage of ‘Women and children first’, when it comes to shipwreck etiquette, which he finds “inappropriate”. When it comes to capital punishment, he says there is “clear evidence of bias” towards putting men to death but not women. He cites the state of Virginia, where no women has been put to death in 100 years, despite the state having the second highest capital punishment rates in the US. 
Then there’s the issue of sexual assault. While he acknowledges that women are the primary victims of sexual violence, Benatar says men are nonetheless subject to discrimination in this area as well. He gives as an example the fact that some countries do not acknowledge the possibility of male rape under law. In other countries, penalties for sexual assault of males are less serious than female assault, and he cites studies which show there is less sympathy available for male sexual assault victims. (It’s hard not to think of South Africa’s infamous Pappa wag vir jou drunk-driving ad in this regard.) 
Men, for example, receive custody of children in only about 10 percent of divorce cases in the United States. As Jennifer Ludden reports, after divorce men can face burdensome alimony payments even in situations where their ex-wives are capable of working and earning a substantial income. Even in cases where temporary alimony makes sense—as when a spouse has quit a job to raise the children—it's hard to understand the need for lifetime alimony payments, given women's current levels of workforce participation. As one alimony-paying ex-husband says, "The theory behind this was fine back in the '50s, when everybody was a housewife and stayed home." But today, it looks like an antiquated perpetuation of retrograde gender roles—a perpetuation which, disproportionately, harms men 
Along the same lines, physical violence against men is often minimized or seen as normal. Benatar refers to the history of corporal punishment, which has much more often been inflicted on boys than girls. Society's scandalous tolerance of rape in prison seems like it is also related to a general indifference to, or even amusement at, sexual violence committed against men. 
Perhaps most hideously, men through history have been subject to genocidal, or gendercidal, violence targeted at them specifically because they are men. Writers like Susan Brownmiller have over the last decades helped to show how mass rape and sexual violence against women are often a deliberate part of genocide; similarly, there has been increasing awareness in recent years of the gendercidal results of sex-selective abortion and infanticide in places like India and China. But the way gendercide can be directed against men is much less discussed. One of the worst recent examples of this was in the Balkans war, where, according to genocide researcher Adam Jones, "All of the largest atrocities... target[ed] males almost exclusively, and for the most part "battle-age" males. " Similarly, in Rwanda according to Judy El-Bushra (as quoted by Jones) it was principally the men of the targeted populations who lost their lives or fled to other countries in fear. ... This targeting of men for slaughter was not confined to adults: boys were similarly decimated, raising the possibility that the demographic imbalance will continue for generations. Large numbers of women also lost their lives; however, mutilation and rape were the principal strategies used against women, and these did not necessarily result in death. 
in Federal University of Technology Minna, although cited without authority, female indigenes were offered scholarship wereas Men were expected to pay. this i dont see in anyway as Positive descrimination because descrimination is descrimination. 
The above arguments do not suggest that the CEDAW is not to be applauded for the good work done to protect women but the argument is that men should also be paid attention to because they also suffer some form of discrimination however subtle it is. The focus should be on sex discrimination which is when you are treated unfairly either because you are a man or because you are a woman rather than on ‘discrimination against women’. As much as it made sense some years back to fight for the liberation of women so they could enjoy as much rights as men enjoyed, I think the time has come for us to focus on how each sex can enjoy all the rights that are inherently yours whether as a man or a woman because we are first and foremost HUMAN BEINGS.

ECOWAS the non-venomous viper

To understand the power wielded by ECOWAS, its foundation should be considered.
ECOWAS was founded on May 28, 1975, with the signing of the Treaty of Lagos, and its mission was primarily to promote economic integration across the region of West Africa and build up support across several member countries.

ECOWAS is considered one of the pillars of the African economic community, and it has helped to achieve relative “collective self-sufficiency” for its member states by creating a single large trading bloc through an economic and trading union. However apart from its economic function, ECOWAS has also take on another function which is inevitably
tied to its economic function, that of being a
peacekeeping force in the region.

As part of its peacekeeping job, the ECOWAS court was created. Known as the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, it was created by a protocol signed in 1991
and was later included in Article 6 of the Revised Treaty of the Community in 1993.
The court officially began operations in 1991 and its protocol came into effect on 5 November 1996. It provides the ECOWAS Council with advisory opinions on legal issues (Article 10). Apart from that, like its companion courts the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and East African Court of Justice, it has jurisdiction to rule on fundamental human rights breaches.

Despite the huge transnational duty the Leviathan (ECOWAS) has to play,  one constant character of infidelity and chronic disregard of directives can be repeatedly seen by member states either while this directive is handed by the council of presidents or by the ECOWAS court of Justice. 

These ranges from the blatant disregard of the Nigerian President in the Nnamdi Kanu case to the current successfully averted crisis in the Gambia. 

I asked Mr Jerry Ukaigwe a notable jurist in ECOWAS law what he feels about the disregard of ECOWAS directives and here is his views. 

ECOWAS may be modelled on EU  but they are not on the same wavelength. UN, EU and ECOWAS ply on the same or similar route in terms of the character of their legal framework- Treaties. UN may have security council that can authorise territorial encroachment, may be on human right/ humanitarian grounds. Some  of the laws relied upon may be customary  international law, which most countries consider-somehow-to be part of their laws-This class excludes treaties, in respect of which a non-party state can not be bound. Again, UN can also use non-legal strategies to enforce its decisions, e.g. sanctions and political ostracism(pariah- state). Because of the effect these may have on a country, the affected state would like to comply with UN. EU is somewhat unique because of the doctrine of supranationality, in that EU has power to ferry its laws down to the territories of members. So EU laws are laws of the members, therefore compliance is inevitable. ECOWAS lack these factors. It has no supranational powers over its members, it cant effectively use economic sanctions because the members trade often with foreign countries so they have nothing to lose in case  sanction is imposed by ECOWAS.

Side effects of social media.

As a young man in my mid-twenties I have discovered that not many people want to look at the disadvantages of social media because they know they can’t live without it. But maybe it’s time to face the dangers we are unwilling to look at, because that’s the only way we can make our experience online a healthy one. 

Today, almost everyone has an internet presence. Connecting with people is one thing we all love to do, sharing perfect moments, discussing personal and professional issues together,  even when ordinarily distance would have been a great obstacle. Social media has been one of the ground breaking inventions of our time. 

However, to this great invention and liberty, comes implied restrictions on our behavior and conduct and imposes on us a responsibility to be careful and circumspect. There have been remarkable amount of successful people whose posts on social Media platforms like Facebook and twitter have seriously affected their professional life and sometimes even reduced their worth in the eyes of reasonable and respectable members of the society. More probable than not, who you are affects how people treat the content of your post online. For example a bouncer in a local club down-town may not get the same backlash on social media for taking a ‘selfie with a lady on his laps as would a clergy man if he does exactly the same thing, (maybe the exception being if the lady is his spouse). 

The real questions we must all then reflect on now is, whether there is something on our social media account that can affect  our future job prospect or dwindle our respect in the estimation of reasonable men in the society?

Prior to recent years there was no internet presence like now, so obviously President Mohamadu Buhari in his mid-twenties could not have posted anything that will in recent times could have hampered his chances of getting into the then Nigerian war college or in 2015 blocked his chances of becoming the president of the most populous country in Africa. Quite a number of admissions offices of professional schools, including Human Resource Managers of companies and industries are all using tools that integrate social media into the way that they filter through applications for jobs and schools. This is accelerating especially in big companies who are concerned about the images of their staff e.g. insurance companies, brand companies and media stations. A recent example that is so fresh in our minds is the suspension of one of the most respected producer and presenter of one of the leading stations in Ghana, TV3. She was suspended because the managers of TV3 accused her of cyber theft when she cropped her friend out of his picture at a London stadium and put herself in his place, which falsely represented to people that she was at the London stadium. After receiving so much backlash she tried to explain that it was all a prank but because TV3’s image was so important to them they did not take it lightly. It is becoming more and more common for one’s social media presence to be looked at to judge an applicant’s suitability. Social media has given companies a window beyond your CV into your life. Employers use it to see if you would be a good image for their company.

Ashley Payne, a teacher in Barrow County, Georgia, was asked to resign from her job at Apalachee High School in August 2009 because of photographs and status updates she posted to Facebook. You may want to ask what on earth did she post online? Well; There were pictures that showed her drinking alcohol and in one update she used an expletive. Payne was on vacation in Europe and some of her photographs included her visits to the Guinness Brewery and a local pub in Dublin. Payne's Facebook page was private, however she had friended some other teachers in her school. When the principal found out about the photos, she was told to render her resignation or face suspension. Although ordinarily you might think drinking on social media is nothing, the position one finds him or herself, sometimes dictate what u can and cannot do.

It is easy for the non-weary in heart to say ‘I don’t intend wearing suit each morning to work in wall street or delve into the terrain of politics’ which requires a high standard of behavior or as some will put it, a play to the gallery. But whichever discipline one finds him or herself some minimum standard of good behavior is required.

Trevor Noah a South African born US based comedian who succeeded JON STEWART on The Daily Show has received one of the hottest backlash in recent times over posts he made several years ago when arguably he was held to be ‘nobody’ in the society. Noah’s post was dug up to as far as 2nd June 2010 to have had the following content ‘’ South Africans know how to recycle like Israel knows how to be peaceful’. Among some of his fans, this was held to be anti-Semitic in nature. Further tweets were dug up to have also contained the following, ‘‘so I must make my woman fear my penis? RT @UberFacts: The more you fear something, the bigger it appears’’. This amongst others was criticized for offending the very nature of womanhood. I am sure at the time Trevor wrote that, it never occurred to his mind that it would become such a huge issue during one of the most important stages of his life.

Lots and lots of people in high places have lost opportunities, been demoted, had issues in their relationship, suffered even undue peer pressure as a result of a so called better-of-contents in pictures uploaded by folks. All these suggests that social media is one platform youths and even the aged should thread carefully especially those guilty of cyber street fights and cybersex. Let us all review our internet presence and put up the best attitude virtually to avoid a comeback bite in the ass. 

Remember to be fore warned is to be fore armed.

PAULINUS. C. IKEORAH thatpaulinus@gmail.com