As a supplement to our report, Existing U.S. Federal Authorities to Address Plastic Pollution: A Synopsis for Decision Makers, this report offers a concise review of the instruments through which the United States can negotiate and conclude international agreements. The report then describes how existing U.S.
The report, Existing U.S. Federal Authorities to Address Plastic Pollution: A Synopsis for Decision Makers, provides policymakers with a comprehensive analysis of how existing federal law may be utilized to address the plastic pollution crisis.
This brief summarizes Existing U.S. Federal Authorities to Address Plastic Pollution: A Synopsis for Decision Makers, a report which identifies federal authorities—spanning executive orders, legislation, regulations, and associated programs—that can be used to address plastic pollution through interventions identified across the plastic life cycle.
The report provides a comprehensive overview of the existing legal authorities the U.S. federal government can leverage to achieve the national goal of eliminating plastic release into the environment by 2040 while safeguarding human health and the environment. Building on the legal framework established by a Congressionally-mandated report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, the report categorizes federal authorities—spanning executive orders, legislation, regulations, and associated programs—into specific "intervention areas" across the plastic life cycle.
Last June, UN Secretary-General António Guterres stood beforemore than 6,000 delegates from 150 nations in Lisbon to open the second UN Oceans Conference. “Sadly,” he lamented, “we have taken the ocean for granted and today we face what I would call an ocean emergency.” There have been some positive developments: more nations declaring coastal marine protected areas, and a few successes in promoting sustainable fishing regimes. But overall the trends are alarming.
More than a third of all wild ocean fish stocks are overharvested—a proportion that has increased over past decades—and much of the remainder is close to the limits of biological sustainability. Perverse financial incentives and regulatory failures are depleting world fisheries further. Plastic pollution is a global crisis. The president of Palau, representing Pacific small island states, warned that by 2050 the weight of plastic in the seas will exceed the biomass of all the fish in the ocean.
Climate change is increasing acidification of the oceans, deoxygenation of marine waters, and the impoverishment of marine biodiversity. It is accelerating the world-wide death of coral reefs, as well as the disruption of other critical marine ecosystems such as the coastal spawning grounds of numerous species. The interrelated dynamics of these changes include the warming of ocean waters, the increased absorption of CO2 (forming carbonic acid when dissolved in water), and rising sea levels inundating mangroves and other biologically critical areas. Many nations have fallen short in implementing national commitments under the UN 2015 Paris climate agreement to reduce carbon emissions and to provide financial support for climate mitigation.
The Oceans Conference illuminated not just the interconnectedness of global environmental crises, but also the links of the ocean emergency to perverse incentives embedded in the world political economy. The financial subsidization of the construction and operation of fleets by the world’s major fishing nations has been for decades the single most important driver of overfishing. Too many subsidized trawlers are chasing too few fish.
Subsidies to increase, modernize, and operate fishing fleets account for over $22 billion of the estimated $35 billion of these subventions, and some 80 percent goes to large fishing concerns, enabling activities that otherwise would not be profitable. According to a 2018 paper published by researchers at the University of British Columbia and the University of California at Santa Barbara, without “large government subsidies. . . 54 percent of the present high-seas fishing grounds would be unprofitable.” A form of de facto subsidization involves extremely low wages paid to fish workers in the fleets of some countries, and even the use of forced labor on trawlers.
Days before the Lisbon Oceans Conference, 166 nations in the World Trade Organization finally agreed to reduce some subsidies supporting illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and financial support for harvesting depleted fish populations. But the much larger government aid for capital and operating costs (including fossil fuel subsidies) remains. A French environmental organization summarized the WTO slight of hand: “They closed subsidies for overfished stocks but not for overfishing.”
Many sessions at the Lisbon Conference urged greater support for sustainable management of community-based, small-scale fisheries. SSFs account for over half of the wild fish sold directly for human consumption. Of the 120 million people working in fisheries world-wide, 90 percent are in SSFs. In July, a UN report on the “Sustainable Use of Wild Species,” in preparation for four years by 85 experts from 33 countries, released its summary conclusion. It emphasized two recommendations for fisheries: ending subsidies and providing more support to build up sustainable management of SSFs.
In 2014, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization issued guidelines for sustainable management of SSFs. Subsequently the Ocean Program of the Environmental Law Institute completed a “Law and Governance Toolkit” to help implement the FAO guidelines at the local level. ELI is already working to promote the use of the toolkit by governments in the Pacific through the regional Pacific Community organization of nations, and through partnerships with fishing communities in Mozambique and South Africa.
Helping SSFs addresses both the environmental and social equity objectives of the UN Sustainable Development Goal 14, “to conserve and sustainably use the ocean seas and marine environment for sustainable development.” UN Secretary-General Guterres cited SDG 14 as a raison d’être of the Lisbon Conference, and he deplored that it is the most underfunded of all the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Sea Emergency: Climate Change, Trade Subsidies, Small Fisheries.
The 20th century invention of plastics has produced a 21st century deluge of plastic pollution. This global problem spans from increased production of the materials to their problematic disposal. From 2020 to 2021, I chaired a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine expert committee, charged by Congress—pursuant to the bipartisan Save Our Seas 2.0 Act and funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—to determine the U.S. role in global ocean plastic pollution.
Our committee concluded that the United States must substantially decrease our contribution to global plastic waste, including by producing less plastic. To do so, the nation needs a comprehensive federal policy and research strategy, with interventions at every stage of the plastic lifecycle.
This recommendation is supported by the report’s findings, which showed the United States is a major contributor to global plastic pollution. In addition to being the largest generator of solid waste, in 2016, we were the top generator of plastic waste, responsible for about 42 million metric tons. While the United States has a strong waste management system relative to many countries, a 2020 study in Science Advances by Law, et. al, estimated that plastic solid waste still “leaks” from municipal solid waste at a rate of 1.13-2.24 MMT per year as of 2016. This places our nation as the third to twelfth largest contributor of plastic pollution in the coastal environment. These are likely conservative estimates, as the country lacks data to quantify plastic pollution from transportation, stormwater, and industrial discharges.
The United States also contributes to plastic pollution as a producer and exporter. In 2019, North America produced almost 20 percent of total global plastic, second to Asia, with U.S. production capacity projected to increase. Since the 1990s, U.S. exports of plastic products have been increasing, and we continue to export plastic waste.
This waste is also found across the country in lakes, rivers, in the air, and on land, harming both wildlife and people. The vast majority of plastics lost to the natural environment are persistent contaminants, because they do not readily biodegrade. Additionally, plastic debris can kill or injure wildlife that ingest or become entangled in it. We are learning more about the impacts of microplastics—small plastic particles that travel through air, water, and the food web—on ecosystems and human health. If the amount of plastic pollution continues to increase, these negative consequences will worsen.
There is no single solution, and current federal action is insufficient. We cannot continue to rely on an overwhelmed waste management system or highly inefficient efforts to clean up plastic waste in the marine environment. Nor can we recycle our way out of this growing problem. Today the United States recycles less than 9 percent of its plastic waste. There is limited demand for recycled materials, and current processes and infrastructure are grossly inadequate for the overwhelming volume and complexity of plastics discarded, typically after a brief use.
The path forward is a national systemic strategy designed to address all six stages of the plastic lifecycle:
1) reduce plastic production; 2) innovate in materials and product design; 3) produce less plastic waste; 4) upgrade waste, recycling, and composting programs and infrastructure; 5) increase capture of plastic waste before and after it enters the environment; and 6) decrease direct dumping of plastic waste into the ocean.
A national plastic waste reduction strategy will require high-level federal leadership and coordination. Existing laws and programs, including many at EPA and NOAA, can form the backbone, but the strategy must prioritize actions around all six intervention areas, set national goals, and fill knowledge and policy gaps. Federal leadership is critical to mobilize cross-sectoral collaboration and gather ideas from state and local policy laboratories, which have enacted innovative measures to reduce plastic waste.
Reducing plastic pollution provides co-benefits beyond decreasing waste. It supports innovation and economic opportunity and addresses unequal economic burdens. It also helps achieve U.S. and global climate goals—according to the UN Environment Programme, emissions from plastic production and waste generation are projected to account for at least 15 percent of the global carbon budget by 2050 if current practices continue. Cutting pollution also helps mitigate the disproportionate impacts of plastic production on BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) communities, and advances justice.
The time to act is now, and momentum is building. Congress has demonstrated bipartisan support, government and multisector plans are under development, and global treaty discussions on plastic pollution are underway, with the United States finally at the table. We need a national strategy to support negotiations with G7 nations that already have plans of action. The European Union recently banned 10 single-use plastic products under its plastic strategy, and both the EU and Canada have embraced a circular economy approach to address climate change and plastic pollution.
If the United States takes leadership on ocean plastic waste now, Americans can benefit economically from innovation, help shape global design and production trends, and achieve an enormous environmental benefit for generations to come.
Margaret Spring is chief conservation and science officer at Monterey Bay Aquarium. She chaired the Committee on U.S. Contributions to Global Ocean Plastic Waste convened by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine.
