Lifetime cost of plastic 10 times higher for low-income countries than rich ones, revealing crippling inequities in plastics value chain

WWF
Posted on 07 November 2023

New report estimates low-income countries, despite consuming less plastic, incur a total lifetime plastic cost that is 10 times higher than wealthier countries.

The structural inequities built into the current plastics value chain not only distribute the burdens of plastic pollution unequally among countries, the burdens are also disproportionately borne by those least equipped to remedy them, thereby worsening the crisis.

WWF calls on all governments to agree on a treaty with harmonized, binding global rules that can remove inequities reinforced and exacerbated through our current take, make, and waste plastics system.

NAIROBI, Kenya (7 November) – A WWF-commissioned report developed by Dalberg1 warns that the true cost of plastic on the environment, health and economies can be as much as 10 times higher for low-income countries, even though they consume almost three times less plastic per-capita, than high-income ones.

The report estimates that the total lifetime costs of a kilogram of plastic is around US$150 in low- and middle-income countries, which is eight times the US$19/kilogram incurred by high-income countries2. When comparing just low-income countries and their wealthier counterparts, the cost differential rises to 10 times with low-income countries hit with costs of US$200 a kilogram.

These unequal costs have substantial implications for low- and middle-income countries like Kenya, where negotiators will converge from 13-19 November for the third negotiations of the global treaty to end plastic pollution. Six years ago, Kenya took a bold step against plastic pollution by banning single-use plastic bags. Today, the country continues to struggle with illegal imports of single-use plastic bags, highlighting the problem’s transboundary nature and the crippling inequities inherent in the current plastics value chain that put countries like Kenya at a disadvantage no matter what bold action they take.

“Our take, make, waste plastics system is designed in a way that unfairly impacts our planet’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged countries. Instead of resolving the world’s plastic pollution crisis in the most efficient way, the system shifts the bulk of the costs to those least equipped to manage them, with no accountability placed on those who produce and use the products in the first place,” said Alice Ruhweza, WWF International’s Senior Director of Policy, Influence and Engagement.

“The report signals the urgency of an immediate overhaul of the current plastic system. Business-as-usual could be a death sentence, not only for a growing number of animals but also for many of our world’s vulnerable and marginalized communities as a result of increased health risks including ingestion of harmful, toxic chemicals and increased risk of flooding and disease. The global plastic pollution treaty is our chance to change this by including binding and equitable global rules on production and consumption.”

The report finds that low- and middle-income countries bear a disproportionately large burden of the costs associated with plastic pollution as a direct result of three structural inequities that reinforce the current plastics system.

The first inequity is that the system places low- and middle-income countries at a disadvantage in that they have minimal influence on which plastic products are produced and how they are designed and yet are often expected to manage these products once they reach their end-of-life. Product and system design considerations are typically made further upstream in countries with extensive plastic production and by multinational companies headquartered in high-income countries. As of 2019, only 9% of plastic waste is being recycled. Currently, around 60% of global plastic production is for single-use products, which are designed to be (and so cheaply valued that they can be) thrown away after just one use.

The second inequity is that the rate of plastic production, particularly for single-use plastic, is far outpacing the availability of technical and financial resources for waste management when it reaches its end-of-life in low- and middle-income countries. Without reducing plastic production and consumption, low- and middle-income countries will continue to bear the highest burden of plastic pollution’s direct environmental and socio-economic impacts.

The third inequity is that the system lacks a fair way for holding countries and companies to account for their action, or inaction, on plastic pollution and its impact on our health, environment and economy (for example, through mandatory extended producer responsibility schemes in each of the countries they operate in). With no common obligations across all jurisdictions and companies for supporting a circular, just and non-toxic plastics economy, low- and middle-income countries end up paying the steeper price.

Establishing and implementing a UN global plastic pollution treaty based on harmonized and binding global rules can help us create a fairer system that empowers low- and middle-income countries and prioritizes the most effective and efficient solutions. An example of such a rule would be regulating the most high-risk plastic products, polymers and chemicals - those that can cause the most harm or are most likely to cause pollution - so that we can lessen the strain on countries, especially those with fewer resources, in managing plastic waste. Similarly, the opportunity to create global product design rules can help to ensure that products are designed to be reused and/or recycled regardless of which country they are produced or used in.

In November, countries will join the third of five negotiating sessions on a global treaty to end plastic pollution3. WWF calls on all governments to agree on a treaty that includes:Banning, phasing out or phasing down high-risk and avoidable plastic products, polymers and chemicals of concern.

Global requirements for product design and systems that can secure a safe and non-toxic circular economy, which prioritizes reuse and improvements in recycling.
Robust measures for supporting considered and effective implementation that includes sufficient financial support and alignment of public and private financial flows, particularly for low- and middle-income countries.“Many of the options included in the treaty’s first draft have substantially weaker language and less specific obligations, making it tempting for governments to revert to old bad habits of relying on national or voluntary action rather than creating common regulations. But our report has shown that relying on individual government decisions results in an unfair system where burdens are not only unequally distributed, they are borne by those least equipped to remedy them,” said Eirik Lindebjerg, WWF International’s Plastics Policy Lead.

“Compromising on a treaty mainly based on national action will just take us back to where we were – divided and unable to stem the onslaught of plastic pollution. We can no longer act as if plastic is a cheap throwaway commodity. It has huge costs for some of the most vulnerable communities who have no power to change the system. Inaction will result in a higher cost for all of us. Countries must dial up ambition and finalize a treaty with harmonized and binding global rules if we are to achieve an equitable plastic value chain and want a future free from plastic pollution.”

ENDS

DOWNLOAD WWF REPORT PDF

https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/english---wwf_enabling_global_equity_webv.pdf

For further information, please contact news@wwfint.org

Notes to editorsThe report: 'Who Pays for Plastic Pollution? Enabling Global Equity in the Plastic Value Chain' is published here.How is the “true cost” of plastic calculated: The ‘true cost’ of plastic is based on a model devised by experts at WWF and Dalberg that considers the minimum lifetime cost of both upstream production and downstream waste management, and compares these costs between high, middle and low-income countries as of data from 2019. While many of the costs cannot be quantified, reflecting the gaps in available data and understanding of the full impact of plastic pollution, it does include quantifiable costs such as the cost of producing virgin plastic, greenhouse gas emission costs, costs on ecosystem services of marine ecosystems and direct waste management costs.

Though presented as ‘monetary costs’ of one kilo of plastic, it’s important to note that countries do not actually pay these costs, the costs are used as an indication of the disproportionate burdens plastic poses on countries with different national incomes.
The multiplier of eight and 10 are predominantly linked to the mismanagement of plastic waste and costs to the marine environments. Wealthier countries for example often displace and reduce their waste management costs by exporting their plastic waste to lower-income countries to process. The total lifetime cost for one kilogram block of plastic waste in a high-income country for example, is US$19, compared to eight times that for middle and lower-income countries at an average of US$150, and 10 times that for lower-income countries, at US$200. When we compare costs across lifetime marine ecosystem services, and how plastic leakage impacts these, it yields a cost of US$149 for low and middle-income countries compared to US$17 for high-income countries. Even still, the true impact borne by low and middle-income countries from plastic pollution is likely to be far greater.

The third session of the UN’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop a globally binding treaty on plastic pollution (INC-3) will run from 13-19 November in Nairobi, Kenya. 

For a briefing note on what to expect from INC-3, and what WWF would like to see the negotiations accomplish, click here.

For an explainer on the Zero Draft, the first version of the treaty text that will form the basis of the upcoming negotiations, click here.

For WWF’s Global Plastic Navigator, a platform for tracking countries’ positions on the inclusion of global bans and phase-out requirements for certain plastic categories of concern in the global treaty to end plastic pollution, click here.From the report - selected case studies by region:

Latin America

Brazil:

 Marine and terrestrial impacts of plastic pollution More than 10 million tonnes of plastic enter the Brazilian domestic market each year.
In addition, Brazil imports 12,000 tonnes of plastic waste each year, a rate that grows by 7% annually. As waste imports increase, so does the amount of waste that is being mismanaged. If current trends continue, Brazil could become the 4th largest generator of mismanaged plastic waste.
The growing rate of plastic pollution in Brazil results from system gaps, in particular limited infrastructure and capacity for waste collection and recycling. Only 22% of cities in Brazil collect waste for recycling

Brazil’s precious coastal ecosystems, wildlife and communities bear the greatest brunt. And pollution is now threatening the Amazon Basin.

Africa

Kenya: 

Efforts to reduce pollution hampered by absence of global regulationKenya banned single-use plastic bags in 2017 in a bold step to reduce plastic pollution, but a lack of similar rules in neighbouring countries has resulted in plastic bags piling up in Kenya.

Plastic bags continue to pollute Kenya through porous borders which give way to the smuggling of the bags in shipments of plastic materials exempt from the ban, like packaging products.

Six years after the ban, plastic bags are piling up in Kenya’s Dadach Boshe dump. Locals have reported the deaths of goats from swollen stomachs and fatal health issues caused by the ingestion of plastic bags.

Asia Pacific

Fiji: 

Structural barriers in waste management Tourists, who arrive in the small island state of Fiji, generate seven times more plastic waste per person per day than Fiji’s residents.

Despite developing environmental legislation and strategies for waste management, Fiji’s capacity constraints (small economic scale and workforce) has meant that only one of its eight disposal sites satisfy current environmental standards, resulting in a plastic leakage rate of 25%, or nearly 4,000 tonnes of plastic pollution each year, equivalent to filling 80 swimming pools with 500ml plastic bottles.

In addition, Fiji’s remote location, limited scale and a lack of investment mean that Fiji has struggled to establish viable recycling markets and is seeing an increased reliance on burning its waste or filling up its landfills.About WWF

WWF is an independent conservation organization, with over 30 million supporters and a global network active in over 100 countries. WWF's mission is to stop the degradation of the Earth's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving the world's biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. Visit www.panda.org/news for the latest news and media resources and follow us on Twitter @WWF_media.

Plastic certificates: Greenwashing or a step to climate neutrality?

A new brand of offsetting allows companies to call themselves "plastic-neutral" while continuing to use plastic themselves. What's it all about?

Plastic waste has become a feature of seas and beaches around the world

Plastic waste and microplastics are everywhere. On Mount Everest, in Arctic ice and the deepest ocean trenches, in the stomachs of animals, in our food, drinking water and even our blood. Such ubiquity is a reflection of how much plastic we make, which is now 200 times more than back in 1950. And so far, we have only managed to recycle around 9% of it.

Experts have long been warning that we can't recycle our way out of the global plastic crisis, but some companies and NGOs are now offering companies the chance to become "plastic neutral" by offsetting. It's a growing industry.

How plastic offsetting works 

Companies looking to offset their plastic pay a fee to NGOs and companies in the plastic offset sector. This money is used to collect a corresponding amount of plastic either from the service providers themselves or from third-party providers in developing countries. In some cases the plastic is also recycled. 

Marine life is also endangered by plastic waste

These service providers offer their customers so-called plastic neutral certificates or plastic "collection credits." 

One of the pioneers in the market is the New York-based company rePurpose Global. When companies invest in its collection and recycling programs, they receive a "plastic neutral” certificate which means they can then market their own products as such. Conversely, however, they can continue to use plastic at the same time.

In a statement to DW, rePurpose Global said it does not certify companies that don't share "a genuine commitment to reducing plastic use," and that it provides brands and companies with "ethically recycled plastic" from its "impact projects, to support their move towards 100% circular supply chains." 

Alix Grabowksi, Director of Plastic and Material Science at conservation group WWF, says it would be logical to expect that products claiming to be plastic neutral have no impact in terms of waste. "But that's not really the case."

"I think it's quite misleading for a company to make a claim like plastic neutral when you could still find their products in nature," she says. 

Companies certified as "plastic neutral" support better waste concepts,

 but they can continue to use plastic packaging

Is plastic-offsetting just greenwashing? 

Market analysis by the US NGO "The Circulate Initiative" sees a clear risk of greenwashing, above all due to a lack of transparency. Of 32 offsetting projects studied, just three make the connection between climate change and plastic consumption. 

Tom Zoete from the environmental organization Recycling Netwerk Benelux is also skeptical.

"The entire life cycle of plastic is associated with resource consumption, petroleum and energy to produce plastic, transport and so on," Zoete told DW, adding that only those who do not consume plastic can be "plastic neutral."

What is not always clear with such offsetting schemes, is what happens to the plastic itself, and so far there have been no studies detailing the impacts. 

rePurpose Global claims to collect seven million kilograms of plastic per year that would otherwise have ended up in the environment. Of that, it says 100% of the recyclable plastic is made into clothing, trash cans or materials for road and housing construction. 

What can't be recycled is burned to create a source of energy for the cement industry, replacing coal in the process. Critics say this merely amounts to one dirty fuel being replaced by another, and that it adds to air pollution. 

For Grabowski of WWF, the marketing tools are more of a problem than the actual projects, many of which she says are working to improve waste management and wages in the places most affected by plastic pollution.

This March, 200 countries reached the first ever consensus on mandatory rules for plastic production, consumption and disposal by 2024. WWF called the agreement historic.

Recycling 'myth'

Products and packaging made of plastic: The petrochemical industry earns as well

99% of plastic is made using fossil fuels, and the industries involved in its manufacture have a vested interest in continued manufacture. Not least since the International Energy Agency predicts that petrochemicals will soon be the biggest driver of petroleum demand. 

This spring, Rob Bonta, the Attorney General of the State of California, launched a far-reaching investigation against ExxonMobil.

He has accused the oil giant of having known for decades about the dangers posed by plastics and of engaging in an "aggressive campaign" to perpetuate the "myth that recycling can solve the plastics crisis."

ExxonMobil denies the allegations.

This article was originally published in German.

Newly hatched Florida sea turtles are consuming dangerous quantities of floating plastic

by David Duffy and Catherine Eastman, The Conversation

Deceased post-hatchling loggerhead sea turtle next to plastic pieces found in its stomach and intestines. Credit: Gumbo Limbo Nature Center, CC BY-ND

Plastic pollution has been found in practically every environment on the planet, with especially severe effects on ocean life. Plastic waste harms marine life in many ways—most notably, when animals become entangled in it or consume it.

We work as scientists and rehabilitators at The Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience and Sea Turtle Hospital at the University of Florida. Our main focus is on sea turtle diseases that pose conservation threats, such as fibropapillomatosis tumor disease.

However, it's becoming increasingly hard to ignore evidence that plastic pollution poses a growing, hidden threat to the health of endangered sea turtles, particularly our youngest patients. In a newly published study, we describe how we examined 42 post-hatchling loggerhead sea turtles that stranded on beaches in Northeast Florida. We found that almost all of them had ingested plastic in large quantities.

An ocean of plastic

Ocean plastic pollution originates mostly from land-based sources, such as landfills and manufacturing plants. One recent study estimates that winds carry 200,000 tons of tiny plastic particles from degraded tires alone into the oceans every year.

Plastics are extremely durable, even in salt water. Materials that were made in the 1950s, when plastic mass production began, are still persisting and accumulating in the oceans. Eventually these objects disintegrate into smaller fragments, but they may not break down into their chemical components for centuries.

Overall, some 11 million tons of plastic enter the ocean each year. This amount is projected to grow to 29 million tons by 2040.

Post-hatchling sea turtle being treated at Gumbo Limbo Nature Center. Credit: Gumbo Limbo Nature Center, CC BY-ND

A microplastic diet

Many forms of plastic threaten marine life. Sea turtles commonly mistake floating bags and balloons for their jellyfish prey. Social media channels are replete with videos and images of sea turtles with plastic straws stuck in their nostrils, killed in plastic-induced mass mortality events, or dying after ingesting hundreds of plastic fragments.

So far, however, scientists don't know a lot about the prevalence and health effects of plastic ingestion in vulnerable young sea turtles. In our study, we sought to measure how much plastic was ingested by post-hatchling washback sea turtles admitted to our rehabilitation hospital.

Post-hatchling washbacks are recently hatched baby turtles that successfully travel from their nesting beaches out to the open ocean and start to feed, but are then washed back to shore due to strong winds or ill health. This is a crucial life stage: Turtles need to feed to recover from their frenzied swim to feeding grounds hundreds of miles offshore. Feeding well also helps them grow large enough to avoid most predators.

We examined 42 dead washbacks, and found that 39 of them, or 93%, had ingested plastic—often in startling quantities. A majority of it was hard fragments, most commonly colored white.

One turtle that weighed 48 grams or 1.6 ounces – roughly equivalent to 16 pennies – had ingested 287 plastic pieces. Another hatchling that weighed just 27 grams, or less than one ounce, had ingested 119 separate pieces of plastic that totaled 1.23% of its body weight. The smallest turtle in our study, with a shell just 4.6 centimeters (1.8 inches) long, had ingested a piece of plastic one-fourth the length of its shell.

[You're smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation's authors and editors. You can get our highlights each weekend.]

The Sargasso Sea is an important feeding ground for immature Atlantic sea turtles, but the same currents that concentrate seaweed there also carry drifting plastic trash. Credit: University of Florida, CC BY-ND

Consuming such large quantities of plastic increases the likelihood that broken-down plastic nanoparticles or chemicals that leach from them will enter turtles' bloodstreams, with unknown health effects. Ingested plastic can also block turtles' stomachs or intestines. At a minimum, it limits the amount of space that's physically available for consuming and digesting genuine prey that they need to survive and grow.

Turtles at this life stage live at the ocean's surface, sheltering in floating mats of seaweed, where they feed on invertebrate prey such as zooplankton. These floating seaweed mats gather in the Atlantic, in an area known as the Sargasso Sea,which is bounded by four major ocean currents and covers much of the central Atlantic Ocean. The area is heavily polluted with plastic, as both seaweed and plastic travel on and are concentrated by the same ocean currents. Our study suggests that these baby turtles are mistakenly feeding on plastic floating in and around the seaweed.

Post-hatchling sea turtles are young and need to feed and grow rapidly. This means they are particularly at risk from the harmful consequences of ingesting plastic. We find it especially troubling that almost all of the animals we assessed had ingested plastic in such large quantities. Plastic pollution is only one of many human-related threats that these charismatic and endangered creatures face at sea.

Stemming the plastic tsunami

Since plastic persists for hundreds of years in the environment, clearing it from the oceans will require ingenious cleanup technologies, as well as lower-tech beach and shore cleanups. But in our view, the top priority should be curbing the rampant flow of plastic that is swamping oceans and coasts.

Earth's ecosystems, especially the oceans, are interconnected, so reducing plastic waste will require global solutions. They include improving methods for recycling plastics; developing bio-based plastics; banning single-use plastic items in favor of more sustainable or reusable alternatives; and reducing shipment of plastic waste abroad to countries with lax regulatory regimes, from where it is more likely to enter the environment.

Our observations in post-hatchling turtles are part of a growing body of research showing how plastic pollution is harming wildlife. We believe it is time for humanity to face up to its addiction to plastic, before we find ourselves wading through swathes of plastic debris and wondering what went wrong.

160 turtles caught in plastic waste rescued from Bangladesh beach

---

Provided by The Conversation 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why haven’t plastic-eating bacteria fixed the ocean plastic pollution problem?

Scientists have discovered enzymes from several plastic-eating bacteria. So, why are our oceans still full of plastic pollution?

Credit: Naja Bertolt Jensen / Unsplash

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Many enzymes only work for one specific kind of plastic, but much of our trash combines several kinds of plastic.

 
Enzymes work (and bacteria live) only under certain environmental conditions, such as those found in a controlled laboratory. We won't be able to sprinkle plastic-eating bacteria into the ocean.

 
Even if we could, the enzymes or bacteria could produce toxic byproducts.

Scientists from the University of Texas announced they’ve created a plastic-eating enzyme that could keep billions of pounds of plastic out of landfills.

Now, if that sentence gives you déjà vu, you’re not alone.

Followers of science news may have seen similar exciting headlines over the years, from 2008’s Science Fair Project Isolates Plastic-Eating Microbes–about a 17-year-old science fair winner who got bacteria to degrade plastic bags by 43%–to last month’s New Enzyme Discovery is a New Step Towards Beating Plastic Waste, wherein British scientists developed an enzyme that could break down PTA, an ingredient in plastic bottles.

You’ve seen lots of similar titles in between: “New super-enzyme eats plastic bottles six times faster,” “Plastic-eating bacteria could help aid global recycling efforts,” etc., which give the impression of a silver bullet (itself undoubtedly recyclable) that will slay our monstrous plastic problem.

Why are these plastic-eating bacteria just twiddling their thumbs? We’ve got a crisis to deal with!

So what is taking so long? Why are these bacteria just twiddling their thumbs while we have a crisis to deal with?

It turns out there are a few reasons things aren’t so simple:

Plastic isn’t all the same. Many enzymes or bacteria only work for one specific kind of plastic, and much of our trash combines several kinds of plastic.

Most plastic-recycling efforts focus on PET, the plastic used in plastic bottles. PET represents about 20% of global plastic waste. It’s chemically easier to break down than polyethylene or polypropylene, types used in plastic film and food packaging.

That’s an important caveat: most of these solutions would only put a dent in our plastic problem, rather than solve it entirely.

Many solutions only work under special conditions. Often, the reactions or bacteria only work at certain temperatures, in special environments, or after extended periods of time. The harder it is to create the conditions, the less practical it is to do it at scale. This also means that it’s unlikely bacteria will solve the issue of plastic pollution already in nature — more on that soon.


They cost too much. These processes can be expensive. Further, most solutions simply break down plastic to its original monomers, which are really only useful for creating more plastic.

This has two problems: one, it doesn’t reduce the amount of plastic in the world, and two, making new plastic is already really cheap. Creating a costly factory, shipping tons of waste to it, and having bacteria slowly churn out ingredients that are worth virtually nothing — and still aren’t biodegradable — isn’t a great business model or arguably even an efficient use of taxpayer funds.

It’s not necessarily safe or effective to release in nature. Often there’s an assumption that this bacteria could be released to chew through the mountains of plastic we currently have buried in landfills, swirling in the oceans, or scattered as litter.

But even if bacteria or enzymes could work under totally unregulated conditions, it could have toxic byproducts, destroy plastic that is still in use (like, say, the device you’re using to read this right now, cutting you off from finishing this valuable article), or require releasing tremendous quantities into an area to make a difference.

So, for now, these technologies could really only be used within our existing recycling systems, rather than being a fundamentally new alternative. We will still have to sort, collect, and process all the plastic we want the bacteria to eat.

Fortunately, there’s also some good news: scientists from Japan to Saudi Arabia to the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory are working on these problems, and things are improving.

For example, the recent discovery at UT-Austin identified an enzyme that cuts the time to break down plastic to a matter of hours, and it can work at the relatively attainable temperature of 50° C (122° F). And it was found using an AI algorithm that could continue to iterate and improve its performance.

Fortunately, there’s also some good news: scientists from the US to Saudi Arabia to Japan are working on these problems, and things are improving.

And the first demonstration plant dedicated to enzyme-based plastic recycling recently opened. French firm Carbios, which runs it, announced they have successfully produced new plastic bottles from PET with a process that makes them infinitely recyclable.

That is a breakthrough worth celebrating. Today, even if plastic is recycled (over 80% is not, including over 90% in the US), it can generally only be turned into lower-quality plastic, for niche uses like carpeting.

Traditional mechanical recycling processes are expensive and inefficient, requiring waste to be sorted, shredded, cleaned, melted and pelletized — and discarding any batches contaminated with food or incompatible materials. Chemical recycling processes can often create their own toxic byproducts.

Carbios is planning to create a commercial-scale facility by 2024, and while it doesn’t expect their plastic to be as cheap as freshly made varieties, they hope environmentally-minded companies and consumers will pay a little extra for it. Plus, its approach will allow plastic to be recycled from mixed garbage more efficiently and with less waste.

We don’t have to rely on miracle bacteria to do our dirty work.

Time will tell if new processes will help chip away at our plastic problem. In the meantime, other scientists and companies are creating biodegradable materials that can replace plastics altogether, from MIT’s cellulose-based solution to companies using bacteria to grow sustainable materials. Governments in Europe are taking another approach and banning harder-to-recycle plastics.

And of course you don’t have to wait for any of them — individuals around the world are finding creative ways to reduce their own plastic use. Exciting as they may be, we don’t have to rely on miracle bacteria to do our dirty work.

This article was originally published by our sister site, Freethink.

 

New research confirms plastic production is directly linked to plastic pollution

Study finds that more than half of global branded plastic pollution can be tracked to just 56 companies

BREAK FREE FROM PLASTIC

 

IMAGE: 

VOLUNTEERS WITH GREENPEACE INDONESIA RECORD DATA ON BRANDED PLASTIC WASTE DURING A BRAND AUDIT IN JAKARTA, INDONESIA ON JANUARY 20, 2024.

view more 

CREDIT: EZRA ACAYAN, BREAK FREE FROM PLASTIC, 2024

APRIL 24, 2024 – A research paper published today in Science Advances reveals a direct correlation between plastic production and plastic pollution, such that every 1% increase in plastic production is associated with a 1% increase in plastic pollution in the environment. The study finds that fast-moving consumer goods companies disproportionately contribute to the problem more than household and retail companies. The study marks the first robust quantification of the global relationship between plastic production and pollution.

The research, led by scientists from a dozen different universities in the United States of America, Australia, the Philippines, New Zealand, Estonia, Chile, Sweden, Canada, and the United Kingdom, found that 56 global companies are responsible for more than half of all branded plastic pollution. The Coca-Cola Company was responsible for 11% of branded waste, followed by PepsiCo (5%), Nestlé (3%), Danone (3%), and Altria/Philip Morris International (2%). The top companies identified produce food, beverage, or tobacco products. 

The five-year analysis used #BreakFreeFromPlastic brand audit data from 1,576 audit events across 84 countries. Brand audits are citizen science initiatives in which volunteers conduct waste clean-ups and document the brands found on the pollution collected. Over five years, more than 200,000 volunteers submitted data through Break Free From Plastic or 5 Gyres’ TrashBlitz app.

The strong relationship between plastic production and pollution, across geographies and widely varying waste management systems, suggests that reducing plastic production in the fast-moving consumer goods sector is a viable solution to curb global plastic pollution. As world leaders negotiate a Global Plastics Treaty at INC-4 this month in Ottawa, Canada, this research serves as a tool to support a high-ambition legally binding treaty that includes provisions on corporate accountability, prioritizing plastic production reduction measures, and promoting reuse and refill systems. 

Read the paper here.

Co-Author Quotes:

“When I first saw the relationship between production and pollution, I was shocked. I wanted to throw up, it was the reality of my worst nightmare. It means that producers big and small are toeing the line, despite all the things big brands say they are doing, we see no positive impact from their efforts. But on the other hand, it gives me hope that fast-moving consumer goods companies reducing their plastic production and shifting towards more durable and reusable products would have a strong positive impact on the environment.”

- Win Cowger, Research Director, The Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research 

“Our study underscores the critical role of corporate accountability in tackling plastic pollution. We, as individuals, are not responsible for the plastics crisis; the onus lies on these 56 global companies to take decisive action. I urge world leaders at INC-4 to listen to the science, and to consider the clear link between plastic production and pollution during negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty.”

- Dr. Lisa Erdle, Director of Science & Innovation, The 5 Gyres Institute

“This scientific study affirms what activists and communities impacted by plastic pollution have been saying for years: the more plastic is produced, the more plastic is found in the environment. It’s that simple. Yet again, plastic polluters like The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, and Nestlé continue to fail on their voluntary commitment to reduce their plastic footprint. We need a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty that mandates significant cuts in plastic production and stops corporations from flooding the planet with single-use plastic.”

- Sybil Bullock, Associate Campaign Manager, Break Free From Plastic

“The research identifies the top 56 multinational companies contributing to global branded plastic litter. Past studies have ranked countries like the Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nigeria, etc. among the top sources of plastic waste into the ocean. This has led to a narrative in social media that blames poor countries for global plastic pollution, ignoring the fact that around the 1960s global companies flooded developing countries with cheap, single-use plastics displacing traditional biodegradable materials and sustainable reuse-refill systems which, in the case of the Philippines, dated back to the 16th century. The current study focuses instead on the role of corporations and global plastic production.” 

- Dr. Jorge Emmanuel, Adjunct Professor and Research Faculty Fellow, Institute of Environmental & Marine Sciences, and College of Engineering & Design, Silliman University

“This research provides the first quantification of global producer contribution to branded plastic pollution. The findings suggest that single-use packaging significantly contributes to branded plastic pollution. This data can help inform ways to address plastic production and reduce plastic waste ending up in the environment.” 

- Dr. Kathy Willis, Postdoctoral Fellow from CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency

###

About Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) 

#BreakFreeFromPlastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 2,000 organizations and 11,000 individual supporters from across the world have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share the values of environmental protection and social justice and work together through a holistic approach to bring about systemic change. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain—from extraction to disposal—focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions. www.breakfreefromplastic.org.

About The 5 Gyres Institute

The 5 Gyres Institute (5 Gyres) is a leader in the global movement against plastic pollution with more than 10 years of expertise in scientific research, engagement, and education. With the original goal of answering a few key scientific questions about ocean plastics, co- founders Marcus Eriksen and Anna Cummins led 19 research expeditions in all five subtropical gyres, as well as many of the world’s lakes and rivers. 5 Gyres continues to lead with scientific research to drive upstream solutions through education, advocacy, and community building. Learn more at 5gyres.org and @5gyres.

Special Note to Reporters

More information, including a copy of the paper, can be found online at the Science Advances press package at https://www.eurekalert.org/press/vancepak/. Several scientists who contributed to this paper will be present at INC-4 and available for interviews upon request. 

 

---

JOURNAL

Science Advances

DOI

10.1126/sciadv.adj8275 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Data/statistical analysis

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

Global Producer Responsibility for Plastic Pollution

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

24-Apr-2024

COI STATEMENT

Lead coauthor Win Cowger received funding from Break Free From Plastic to conduct the research resulting in this manuscript.

 OPINION

World Environment Day – Solutions for Plastic Pollution

By Lara Van Lith and Akilah Davitti

Every year, an estimated 19-23 million tons of plastic make its way into lakes, rivers, and seas. 

Credit: Athar Parvaiz/IPS

TEMPE, Arizona, US, Jun 5 2023 (IPS) - It’s time to get together and celebrate the environment! June 5th is the 50th World Environment Day, where each year, the significance of transformative action from across the world is crucial to help people and the planet. This year’s World Environment Day is being hosted by Côte d’Ivoire in partnership with the Netherlands with a theme of ‘Finding Solutions for Plastic Pollution.

We as youth activists and part of the Arizona State University Sustain Earth project see plastic pollution everywhere, but just how big is this problem?

To put it in perspective, more than 400 million tons of plastic are manufactured annually, with over half of it designed for single-use purposes. Shockingly, less than 10% of this plastic is recycled, which creates a colossal issue for our environment and human health.

Every year, an estimated 19-23 million tons of plastic make its way into lakes, rivers, and seas. Along with visible plastic waste, microplastics are becoming a bigger issue despite being invisible to the naked eye. Microplastics infiltrate food systems, waterways, and are even found in the air we breathe. According to the UN, each person consumes over 50,000 plastic particles annually. For more information on the life cycle of plastic, check out this Sustainable Explainable.

However, amid these troubling statistics, a glimmer of hope emerges- a shift towards a circular economy holds the key to reducing the volume of plastics entering our natural environment by more than 80% by 2040. The benefits of embracing this circular approach extend beyond preserving our precious ecosystems. By reducing virgin plastic production by 55%, governments stand to save $70 billion by 2040, while simultaneously slashing greenhouse gas emissions by 25%. Additionally, this transition can create 700,000 new jobs, predominately in the global south, fostering economic growth while tackling the plastic crisis head-on.

 

Microplastics infiltrate food systems, waterways, and are even found in the air we breathe. 

According to the UN, each person consumes over 50,000 plastic particles annually. 

Credit: Credit: Shutterstock.

 

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution

The second session of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-2) on plastic pollution convened earlier this month. This fully in-person event, taking place in Paris, France, covers a variety of discussions including marine environments, trade measures, circular economy, microplastics, and human rights. These sessions come as a response to last year’s United Nations Environmental Assembly resolution to create a global treaty to end plastic pollution with negotiations estimated to finalize at the end of 2024.

More than 400 million tons of plastic are manufactured annually, with over half of it designed for single-use purposes. Shockingly, less than 10% of this plastic is recycled, which creates a colossal issue for our environment and human health

The first session (INC-1) took place in Uruguay at the end of 2022 and built the foundation of knowledge for constituents in preparation for the second session and allowed for the start of negotiations, though no policy-based decisions were made then. To ensure that a wide variety of voices were hers, members invited and present included youth groups, Indigenous coalitions, and frontline communities.

 

PlasticsFuture 2023

Stakeholders are utilizing the move towards a legally negotiated convention to bring their ideas of solutions to the table. In a couple of weeks “Revolution Plastics” (June 20 – June 22) is hosting a conference with the mission to discuss global research in hopes of finding new, innovative solutions to the plastic problem. The conference is taking place at the University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom, and will be split into five sessions covering microplastics, fashion and textiles, the history of plastics, art-based research methods, and the global treaty to end plastic pollution (from discussions at INC-2). Hands-on workshops will also be present, ranging from creating fashion items from plastic waste to verbatim theater. We all need to be part of this solutions driven approach.

 

So what can we do?

The easiest option is to avoid single-use plastics. If we think about the number of times that single-use plastics are offered to us throughout the day, we may be surprised. On a regular day, an individual may get two plastic bags to carry their groceries home in, a plastic cup from their favorite coffee shop, a plastic fork, knife, and spoon with their take out… multiply this every day and every person who uses single-use plastic daily, and the amount of plastic waste humans are generating is tremendous. Effectively avoiding single-use plastic may take some forethought and planning. Here are some ideas on how we can be part of the solution and can cut out single-use plastic items out of our lives today:

• Swap out all the single-use plastic. Keep a reusable bottle, reusable cutlery, and reusable grocery bag in your car or bag to make it easier to make the switch. Soon enough, you’ll be shocked by how much plastic you used to use once and throw away!
• Be a sustainable host. When hosting events, consider using your own plates and silverware rather than plastic versions.
• Going out to eat? Consider bringing a container if you suspect you’ll have leftovers. It’s a win-win-win situation because you’ll cut down on food waste, avoid using plastic take-out containers from the restaurant, and have some tasty leftovers for tomorrow!

We understand how difficult it is to avoid plastic, so we took a plastic-free for-a-week challenge! See how that went here. We hope this gives you some ideas.

It’s also important to remember each individual action underpins the systemic change required to transition to a less plastic-dependent economy. Here’s what you can do to influence change on a larger scale.

• Use your voice. If you see a company using unnecessary plastic or lacks a recycling system for customers, call them out! Using social media or contacting the company directly lets them know that consumers care about their plastic footprint and are serious about making changes for the environment.
• Vote with your wallet. Similarly, to what we highlighted above, it’s important to trade out the usual plastic-covered purchases for more sustainable alternatives. If more people are buying sustainable products that avoid plastic waste, we can use our wallets to vote for a more circular and sustainable market.
• Share solutions. If you come across a business or product that does a great job of cutting down plastic waste, let your community know! Oftentimes, people want to help in the battle against plastic pollution but don’t know where to start. Help your community of conscious consumers to make a bigger difference.
• Turn the pressure up! Consumer action will force companies, investors, lawmakers, and government to take real action. Consumers have a huge impact on the economy, so our voices will affect the important decisions they make behind the scenes.

Want to learn more about the plastic problem and how you, your business, your organization, and local community can make a difference? The UN Environment Programme and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire partnered to create the Beat Plastic Pollution Practical Guide to help scale the problem and give solutions. Do your part this World Environment Day to make a more Sustainable Earth!

Lara Van Lith is a a member of Arizona State University Sustain Earth project. She is also recent Conservation Biology graduate and currently pursuing a Master of Public Administration from Arizona State University. She is passionate about environmental education for people of all ages and sustainability communication.

Akilah Davitt, is Arizona State University Sustain Earth and is a recent Masters of Sustainability Solutions graduate at Arizona State University with interests in corporate sustainability and biodiversity conservation. Her experience includes working with Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research to understand peoples’ perceptions towards wildlife and climate-related issues.