Only 9% of plastics is recycled once and less than 1% is recycled twice
An ambitious, effective global plastics treaty offers a “once-in-a-planet” opportunity to not only protect human health and the environment, but also to restore public trust in plastics and foster industrial innovation.
“That opportunity lies before us; we hope it is not wasted,” Richard Thompson, a professor of marine biology at the University of Plymouth and a coordinator of The Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, told a media briefing this week.
He was speaking at the resumed fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution (INC-5.2) in Geneva, Switzerland. Sixty of the coalition’s independent scientists are attending the two-week summit, which ends on Friday.
“I’ve been working on plastic pollution for nearly 30 years now,” said Thompson, who is at the forefront of pioneering research into the causes and effects of marine litter. “We’re all here at these negotiations because the science is clear and compelling. Plastic pollution is a challenge that we all here in the negotiations seek to solve.”
The scientific evidence is clear that urgent action is justified and necessary. “The current plastics economy has lost public trust because the evidence clearly demonstrates harm to human health and the environment throughout the entire life cycle of plastics”, he said.
From material extraction and production, which pollutes air and water and affects nearby communities, to the use phase — where plastics release harmful chemicals and particles — science confirms the health and environmental impacts including negative effects on biodiversity and climate change, Thompson said.
At the end of life, the amount of waste generated is “totally unmanageable”, with only 9% of plastics currently being recycled once and less than 1% recycled twice, Thompson said, noting that this generates substantive reputational and economic risks for the entire plastic sector.
The science demonstrates that even a major expansion of recycling could not keep pace with projected increases in plastic production. “Reducing plastic production will be essential to ending plastic pollution,” he said.
“This requires evaluating the plastic products that are essential to society and those that we can avoid. For those that are essential, support will be needed for the development of more safer sustainable materials, products and markets including innovation and viable alternatives as substitutes for plastic.
“To move forward, we need globally harmonised criteria that establishes a level playing field for businesses; criteria that fosters innovation and supports trade and safer, more sustainable products.”
Megan Deeny, a research fellow at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, told reporters that despite proof of the pervasiveness of plastic pollution and damage to ecosystems and to human health, plastic production is still projected to triple by 2060. With it, plastic waste generation will also triple.
“Already the levels of plastic production are completely without safe and sustainable waste management or circularity. This future is completely untenable,” Deeny said.
Plastic pollution has been found in every corner of the world, including those without any human activity.
“It travels in the air, in the soils, in the water and in our foods. And what is interesting here is that as this process has gone on, we’re realising it’s not just out there; it’s inside of us as well,” she said.
“And it’s being found in our bodies and even in the next generation and that’s before they’ve even had a chance to play with a plastic toy, to drink from a plastic bottle or to lie on a plastic mattress. We all encounter plastic every day and that’s whether we choose to or not.”
With the plastic, comes chemicals. Deeny pointed out that there are more than 16 000 chemicals that are either used to make plastic or that have been measured in plastics.
A quarter of those are known to be hazardous. Less than 6% are regulated globally and for more than 2 000, “we have no publicly available hazard data”.
“Chemicals are released across the entire plastic life cycle and that begins with raw material extraction and here fenceline, frontline and indigenous communities and workers are hit first and often hardest. But we are all exposed.”
For example, research has revealed a 30% higher risk of leukaemia for those living near petrochemical industries from studies conducted in Europe, the United States, United Kingdom and Taiwan.
“[There is] three times the risk of oral cancer in refinery workers in South Korea; 350 000 premature deaths from cardiovascular disease, costing between $510 billion and $3.7 trillion and that’s linked to just one of the chemicals in plastics,” said Deeny.
Plastic pollution does not respect national borders. “Individual choices cannot entirely protect us from exposure. Scientists should not have to fight for data from industry that should be made mandatory to report publicly available, accessible data that is transparent and consistent.”
The plastics treaty can deliver global harmonised regulation and measures to reduce plastic production, to reduce the number of chemicals and to make chemicals safer and to remove those of most concern across materials, she said.
It can ensure transparency across plastic life cycles and support transitions to circular, more sustainable economies that promote human health and well being. “There is absolute consensus among global health experts that human health should be a priority for this treaty and that this treaty can deliver for human health.”
In a statement, the Scientists Coalition said that with less than 48 hours left in the scheduled plastics treaty negotiations, “we as independent scientists recognise the extraordinary dedication, long hours, and tireless commitment member state delegations have brought to these negotiations”.
“In these final days, their expertise, passion, and courage can deliver what the world urgently needs — an ambitious, effective global plastics treaty,” the coalition said.
The scientific evidence is clear.
“To end plastic pollution, we must address plastics across their full life cycle. Plastic pollution harms human and environmental health, as confirmed by decades of international research,” it said.
“Independent science shows the treaty needs ambition, and we as independent scientists are ready to support member states achieve a treaty that protects human and environmental health, drives innovation, strengthens economies, and creates a future free from plastic pollution.”
Multilateralism and international environmental law exist so nations can unite to solve the great transboundary issues, said Tara Olsen of the University of Copenhagen.
“Yet too often in these negotiations, positions reflect only narrow economic agendas. Plastic pollution knows no borders. It affects us all. Now is the moment to rise above short-term national interests and work together on a treaty that serves the long-term health, prosperity, and security of the entire planet,” she said.