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.
During a February hearing of a Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee, Oregon State University assistant professor Susanne Brander testified that plastic pollution has emerged as “one of the greatest environmental challenges of the Anthropocene,” and one of the world’s most expensive problems. The economic costs to fishing, tourism, and shipping are estimated at $13 billion a year, she said, and human health costs at $249 billion. Plastics are also killing seabirds, turtles, seals, and other marine mammals, including endangered wildlife, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.
The hearing was the first in a series that subcommittee chair Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) is holding on how plastics are adversely impacting human and ecosystem health. In October, Merkley reintroduced his Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, with 30 cosponsors and support from more than 200 organizations. Among its provisions, the bill would temporarily suspend permitting for new and expanded plastic production facilities pending new EPA regulations; require manufacturers to design, manage, and finance waste and recycling programs for their plastics products, in line with an emerging solution called “extended producer responsibility”; and ban specific single-use non-recyclable plastic products.
Whatever the prospects for Merkley’s bill, concerns are increasing about plastics pollution and its effects not only on biodiversity but also on human health. At the February hearing, Brander testified that harm to aquatic and terrestrial organisms from microplastics in water, generally less than 5 millimeters in size, have been “widely documented.” Early research on human impacts has found microplastics in the human heart, placenta, lung tissues, and blood, she added. In March, Greenwire reported that researchers had published the first-ever study to link micro- and nanoplastics with heart disease, stroke, and death in humans, adding to calls for action.
At a March full EPW committee hearing, World Wildlife Fund’s top official for plastics waste, Erin Simon, also cited the “staggering” amount of plastics pollution as among the biggest global environmental problems. Now found “everywhere,” plastic pollution is harming highly fragile ecosystems, with more than 2,000 species encountering plastic in their habitats. While microplastics’ “full impact” on human health is yet unknown, she said, research increasingly reveals a “real cause for concern,” a consensus Americans now “overwhelmingly” share. An upcoming WWF study finds that 85 percent of the public strongly or somewhat agree that “immediate political action” is needed to reduce plastic pollution.
H. Fisk Johnson, the CEO of consumer goods company SC Johnson, also testified that its own survey found 79 percent of Americans believe government should be “leading the way” in addressing the plastic waste problem. Currently, states are beginning to adopt inconsistent, conflicting regulations that will drive a “massive increase in complexity and costs” for producers, Johnson said. His company strongly supports federal “extended producer responsibility” regulations to create nationally consistent standards. Johnson lamented the “looming issue” of micro- and nanoplastics that society must “come to terms with,” either through EPR or other ways.
EPA is among the agencies trying to come to terms with the problem, through its National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution, which drew almost a thousand public comments that the agency is now reviewing. In a letter to EPA, more than 60 members of Congress urged the agency to “promptly initiate rulemaking” under the Clean Water Act that reflects evidence of risks to human and marine life posed by plastic trash and microplastics entering waterways. The Department of the Interior, in its comments, called on EPA to consider expanding its strategy to include sea-based sources—specifically from the commercial fishing industry—that contribute significantly to plastic pollution impacting seabirds, fish, and marine mammals.
Another agency working on an aspect of the problem is the General Services Administration, which is weighing a regulatory proposal that would curb the federal government’s purchase of unnecessary “single-use plastic products and packaging,” a salient part of the broader plastic waste problem also targeted by Merkley’s bill and EPA’s strategy. To see ELI’s work on existing legal authorities to reduce plastic pollution throughout its life cycle, see page 62.
Obviously, the vast increase in plastics waste is offset by the many benefits the materials have brought to humans. Equally clear, however, as many comments on the issue concur, the entire “plastic ecosystem” must be involved in a multi-faceted, coordinated plan, including federal and state government, manufacturers, and consumers. But can a deeply divided American body politic carry off the required collaboration?
Biodiversity, Health Concerns: Fostering Action on Plastic Waste.
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.
Plastic has become ubiquitous in modern life. It’s increasingly apparent, however, that the convenience it provides comes at a higher price than most of us realize.
First developed in the early 1900s, plastic production has grown exponentially. A century later, the petroleum feedstock and varied chemical composition of derived plastics are proving to have detrimental impacts on the climate, the overall environment, and human health. Along with production increases, plastic pollution and its negative impacts have also grown exponentially. Plastics are readily seen on our streets and in our waterways, but they’ve also permeated the deepest parts of our oceans, the air above our tallest mountains, the food we eat, and our own blood and cells.
Taking stock of the environmental and human health crises that have resulted from our use and failure to adequately recycle and dispose of plastic, world governments have decided to act. Two years ago, at the resumed fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly, 175 nations agreed to develop an international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution—negotiations on which are underway.
Both in relation to these talks and on the domestic front, governments at all levels in the United States have been increasing efforts to address the impacts of plastic. ELI has identified significant existing federal authorities to regulate plastic production and pollution. Having some of the most robust environmental laws in the world, and a wealth of resources, the United States is well-poised to tackle this problem.
For example, there are opportunities to regulate plastic particulate matter under the Clean Air Act, list microplastics and contaminants associated with plastics and plastic production for regulation under the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, issue government procurement requirements, exercise pollution prevention and cleanup provisions under several statutes, and so much more.
That’s not to say that more directed and comprehensive legislation, executive orders, regulations, etc., won’t be necessary—they absolutely will be. But we have the tools to make a start of it. Now we need the momentum to use and build upon the tools at our disposal so future generations won’t be plagued by plastic pollution and its consequences.
As we look toward a global solution, it’s apparent that plastic use and pollution is closely linked with the greatest environmental challenges facing our world. In Reimagining Environmental and Natural Resources Law, ELI looks at climate change, water pollution, materials use and conservation, ecosystem degradation, and environmental justice—and offers solutions to these challenges. Tactics suggested to address these problems, such as building a circular economy, instituting a price on carbon emissions, and incorporating environmental rights into law, could go a long way in addressing plastic pollution and bettering our world overall.
New Approaches to Combatting Plastic Pollution.
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.
Plastics show up in almost every part of our economy, from medicine to transportation to water infrastructure. But the material’s benefits have come at a great environmental cost. Each year, close to 10 million tons of plastic is released into the oceans. The United States, which produced more plastic waste than any other country in 2016, only recycles about 9 percent of its plastic. Meanwhile, plastic production is projected to double by 2040.
Recent efforts have called greater attention to this issue. In November, EPA released its first-ever National Recycling Strategy to address key hurdles in the domestic recycling system for plastics and other materials. The following month, a congressionally mandated report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called for a national strategy to reduce ocean plastic waste.
Reducing plastic pollution will require lowering resource consumption and creating a closed loop system for recycling. It will also require plastics that aren’t harmful to human and ecological health. Can we get there?
We ask experts from a range of backgrounds: Can we have the benefits offered by plastic without the harms to the environment and human health? What practices or policies should we prioritize to reduce plastic pollution? And how can abating plastic waste help address climate, sustainability, and environmental justice concerns?
The many benefits of plastic have come at a great environmental cost. In November, EPA released its first-ever National Recycling Strategy to address key hurdles in the domestic system for plastics, and the National Academies have called for a national strategy to reduce ocean plastic waste. Reducing plastic pollution will require lowering resource consumption and creating a closed loop system for recycling. It will also require plastics that aren’t harmful to human and ecological health.
