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.
In the bustling streets of Lagos, where markets and stalls buzz with energy, an unspoken threat lurks in the shadows. Plastic waste has become an inseparable part of the landscape, imprinted on crowded neighborhoods and riverbanks. As an environmental justice lawyer, this is not just an issue of concern; it is a daily reality that permeates my work and personal life.
Our modern society is built with plastics. They are ubiquitous, and can be found in every corner of the human economy. Alas, also seen everywhere is plastic waste. And the problem is not just visible trash, as with discarded plastic bags, highways strewn with broken automobile parts, and the huge oceanic trash gyres.
Indeed, worse results come from weathering, abrasion, microbial action, and sunlight breaking down discarded plastics, creating an array of potentially dangerous micro- and nanoparticles that infiltrate the ecosystem and the marine and terrestrial foodchains.
The existing evidence of the impact of microparticles on human health is concerning, as they have the greatest potential to harm our brains and fetuses growing in utero.
To address the pressing need to better manage plastic waste, EPA last year published its Draft National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution. The agency proposes a circular economy to recycle and reuse plastics, thereby diverting them from landfills and the natural environment.
At first glance, a circular economy for plastics seems an eminently sensible approach to sustainability. At its core is an analogy between plastics in a human economy, and wood in a natural forest. Both are pervasive structural elements. And both have a limited life and (in theory) can be recycled and reborn.
When a tree dies, a diverse community of scavengers, including fungi, bacteria, insects, and plants, capture energy embedded in the wood, and reuse scarce naturally produced chemicals in the dead tree. These organisms enrich the soil, too, helping seeds from the expired parent sprout a yearling tree and start the cycle over again.
We might hope to design an economic system, the concept of circularity states, that affords similar recycling of plastics.
However, when wood breaks down in a natural ecosystem, the waste of one scavenger becomes the input for yet another scavenger. So the circularity analogy only goes so far, because degradation of plastic often makes the problem worse, as when a large piece of trash breaks down into dangerous micro- and nanoparticles.
As one measure of the practical challenges facing chemical engineers and toxicologists doing research that might lead to a circular economy, see the environmental engineer H. Wiesinger and colleagues' recent review paper “Deep Dive Into Plastics, Monomers, Additives, and Processing Aids.” They estimate there are over 10,000 different chemical compounds related to plastics, of which 2,400 are potentially hazardous to humans.
The pervasiveness of plastics in our consumer life is deeply connected to the dependence of the U.S. economy on fossil fuels. Indeed, the industrial processes to manufacture plastic start with oil and natural gas feedstock.
But whereas in our fossil fuel economy energy is abundant, in natural ecosystems energy, and the constituent chemicals to build living organisms, are typically quite scarce. Because of the profligate abundance in our human economy of fossil energy and everything we derive from it, economic actors have little incentive to develop innovative ways to recycle and reuse.
Because of that energy scarcity in the natural world, over literally billions of years there has been evolutionary pressure for living organisms to develop intricate ways to scavenge waste energy and waste chemicals. By contrast, the human economy has a scant century of experience innovating with the technology of oil and plastics. And we obviously have much left to learn.
Where EPA proposes in its Draft National Strategy a top-down approach to a circular economy, complete with multiple bulleted points, the recycling and reuse in natural ecosystems was all created bottom-up, through evolution by natural selection acting on individual species, to create multitudinous chemical pathways to break down waste. It is preposterous that a top-down regulatory approach could ever create the diverse chemical and economic pathways needed to effectively address the diverse chemicals and particle sizes in plastic waste.
For better or worse, the number of plastic chemicals in commerce will continue to burgeon. To better compete economically, corporations have the incentive to create ever more kinds of plastics. Moreover, because intellectual property law protects many existing plastics, other chemicals, and related processes, economic actors are forced in novel directions, thereby exacerbating the problem of too many chemical compounds and their harm to human health and the environment.
Plastics Pervade the Economy and Their Harms Are Hard to Regulate.
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.
In late June, ELI co-hosted “Moving Beyond Plastics: The Environmental Justice Impacts of Plastic Production,” along with the Monterey Bay Aquarium and WilmerHale LLP. Planned by the Institute’s Women in Environmental Law & Leadership initiative, the event explored the environmental justice implications of continued production and disposal of plastics, featuring experts from the aquarium, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and Howard University School of Law.
The panel got me thinking just how intimately plastic is woven into our lives. Everything from the smallest grocery item to the largest household good is shrouded in layers of it. Our reliance on plastics places a significant burden on the Earth, both because of disposal challenges and because plastics are derived from fossil fuels. And we are only beginning to understand the extent of their adverse impacts on our health. All of which motivates exploring ways to a better future.
But what does it mean to move beyond plastics? Considering the extremely low rates of reuse in the United States—an estimated 5-6 percent—recycling is far from a panacea. And even if we do solve the recycling conundrum, a low-carbon economy still might not feature plastics in abundance. Yet the convenience plastic has brought to our lives makes not having it a tough sell. So, moving beyond requires us to do more than make adjustments to recycling and production—we need to rethink the very systems that have led us to this plastic-filled moment.
To envision a new paradigm, I find myself drawing inspiration from Octavia Butler’s novel series “Lilith’s Brood.” In Butler’s speculative fiction, an alien species arrives with humanity on the brink. Using new technologies, the extraterrestrials save humanity and give us a fighting chance to survive. The arc of the trilogy shows humans first confused by and hesitant about the new technology, which is different from anything we’ve known before. This is because our extraterrestrial visitors learned to use nature as a blueprint, adopting techniques like biomimicry, symbiosis with living organisms, and natural plant functions to create tools that work in harmony with their surroundings. It takes time, but eventually we adjust.
As we think about a truly sustainable future, Butler makes me wonder what systemic shifts are possible. Which nature-based solutions might we come up with if we let our imaginations run wild, even if they require a seismic shift in daily life. What about a global trade system that prioritizes flora because they are the building block of daily conveniences. Or systems of governance that intrinsically protect ecosystems like forests or wetlands by assigning values to their biodiversity and carbon sequestration.
I don’t have the answers, and speculative fiction is, of course, fiction. But the plastic-reliant systems in which we are embedded were human-made—and as with anything human, we hold the power to rethink, reimagine, and remake. That at least is not fiction, nor are any extraterrestrials needed.
Nick Collins on Fiction and the Future of Plastic.
Plastics provide undeniable benefits to society through their versatility, durability, light weight, and low cost. However, these same properties have also caused widespread and irreversible impacts to health and ecosystems that are not reflected in the price of the materials. An aim of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by all United Nations member states is to “protect the planet from degradation . . . so that it can support the needs of the present and future generations.” To meet this goal, we must internalize the negative impacts of plastics into their costs so that they may provide essential services to well-being in a sustainable manner.
During plastic’s inception, environmental considerations were paramount. The first synthetic polymer was invented to replace ivory in 1869, largely eliminating the need to slaughter wild elephants to make products such as billiard balls. Yet in 2021, weathering plastics were identified as a planetary boundary threat due to their contamination of the globe, permanent nature, and disruptive impacts on Earth system processes, as described by Arp et al. in Environmental Science & Technology.
Plastic’s transformation from miracle to menace can be explained in part by a colonialist strategy—out-of-sight, out-of-mind. For decades, the “take-make-waste” approach to single-use plastics carried on with minimal public concern from middle- and upper-class consumers, who were largely unaware of the pollution generated by plastic. Disturbing images of both plastic’s accumulation in watersheds (and even in human placenta in the form of microplastics), as well as pollution burdens on low-income residents and communities of color from manufacturing plants (e.g., “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana), raised alarm bells. Then in 2017, China banned the import of low-quality, mixed plastics, and waste started piling up across Europe and North America. While many countries (including the United States) decided to simply send their waste to lower-income nations in the Global South, China’s policy revealed to the world that the existence of single-use plastic under the current business model is dependent on the availability of land to assimilate pollution.
If the environmental impacts of single-use plastics were included in their cost, the feedstock extraction and manufacturing required for plastics would not be economically viable. Technical and economic barriers are responsible for plastic’s abominable 9 percent global recycling rate, despite industry deferring blame to consumers. Because most plastic products are designed for functionality instead of recyclability, they are often too complex to be separated and recycled (such as multilayer packaging), can only be down-cycled into less valuable products like polyester, or contain hazardous chemicals that would contaminate new products (e.g., phthalates in children’s toys). The industry promises to reduce some technical barriers through a process called “chemical recycling”; however, implementation may be minimal without economic incentives to use recycled plastic over cheaper virgin feedstocks.
A thriving and regenerative economy is possible without the impacts that fossil fuel-derived plastics and other chemicals incur. The European Union’s Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability aims to ensure “chemicals are produced and used in a way that maximizes their contribution to society . . . while avoiding harm to the planet and to current and future generations.” This “safer by design” strategy requires green chemistry innovation by the industry and rapid, effective policies.
Sustainable chemical strategies require reliable metrics for measuring all impacts of a chemical to avoid shifting the burden of harm from one planetary-scale issue, sector, or population to another. A clear understanding of the complex interconnectedness of environmental issues will be necessary. For example, replacing fossil fuel-based plastics with bio-based materials may increase agriculture’s competition for space with natural ecosystems and result in biodiversity loss, or deplete nutrients and cause food insecurity.
Plastics, whether fossil fuel- or bio-based, generate hazardous microplastics, so limiting production will be necessary to preserve ecosystem functioning and human health. Before conducting lengthy impact evaluations, the first question to ask of any chemical is, “Is this necessary?” In other words, is it possible to achieve the function provided in another way, including by redesigning the entire system? For example, the University of California determined that single-use plastics are nonessential for dining. Instead, the schools will provide reusable food service items in all 10 campuses starting in 2022.
Plastic pollution is a rapidly increasing planetary threat, and incremental, piecemeal changes such as improvements in efficiency will be insufficient to stem the tide. A global, measurable, and binding treaty with actionable targets and equitable resource allocation is necessary to address the multiple interrelated planetary health crises, and sustainably transition our consumption patterns, chemical feedstocks, and materials economy. There is still time to decide if society will make these changes voluntarily or out of necessity due to environmental collapse and public health crises. To achieve a sustainable circular economy, we need a range of policy tools—and we need to start accounting for all the costs of plastic.
The world is waking up to the growing problem of plastic waste contaminating our ocean and terrestrial environments. Local governments—lauded as laboratories of innovation—have begun enacting bans and fees on single-use plastics, reducing the amount entering the waste stream in the first place. Businesses are stepping up; national and multinational governance bodies are adopting laws cutting down on the manufacture and distribution of single-use plastics.
What does a decade of survey data tell us about household recycling trends? Nationally, recycling rates increased by seven percentage points from 2005 to 2014 for households that recycle plastic, paper, cans, and glass.
Researchers Kip Viscusi, Joel Huber, and Jason Bell, who mined data collected from over 170,000 households in an effort to understand the factors that influence recycling behavior, were surprised by the upward trend. They reasoned that states did not enact major changes to their laws that could account for the increased recycling rates during the decade studied. Furthermore, economic factors such as the 2008 recession reduced Chinese demand for recycled materials, and reductions in the cost of producing new plastic (due to increased fracking) all limited states’ financial capacity to support recycling.
Despite these impediments, the analysis shows that recycling behavior did increase overall, although rates varied based on the type of material and geographic region. For example, can recycling rates were the highest (74 percent in 2014), but plastics recycling rates increased the most (11 percent). The researchers explain that the relative rates are affected by numerous factors, such as how often a household uses the material, the effort required to recycle, and whether local policies support recycling of specific materials. They also identified market factors that affected variations, such as the increased popularity of plastic water bottles.
The Northeast achieved the highest recycling rates — followed, in order, by the West, Midwest, and South. But despite leading the pack, rates in the northeastern and western states were fairly stable, whereas rates in the Midwest and South grew substantially. Several factors influenced these regional variations including, but not limited to, the type of state legal regime and political party control.
For example, even though most states have some type of recycling law — almost all of which were enacted before 2005 — the stringency of the statutory requirements affected rates. The seven states with mandatory recycling laws, Connecticut, District of Columbia, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, had the highest recycling rates — 67 percent on average. In contrast, the 21 states that either have no recycling laws — or laws that specify a goal but neither impose a mandate nor require plans or recycling amenities — had much lower rates. These states, which are located in all regions of the country and include Wyoming, Indiana, Delaware, and Montana, had an average recycling rate of 41 percent. The researchers report that the greatest rate increases were in states with the least stringent laws, even though the overall rates were highest in states with the most stringent laws.
In addition, states in which both the governorship and the legislature were controlled by Democrats recycled 30 percent more than in states controlled by Republicans. According to the researchers, political party control is associated with several factors that in turn affect recycling rates, such as the “prevalence of pro-environmental attitudes, population density, and state government spending levels.” The researchers conclude that their finding “is consistent with the emphasis by Democrats on government actions to further policy goals, contrasting with Republicans who value reliance on individual responsibility.” And, although Democratic states had the highest recycling rates, Republican states had the greatest increase in rates.
In what ways can these historical trends inform recycling efforts moving forward? According to Viscusi, the data indicate that amendments to state laws are unnecessary, as the statutes are broad enough to allow for program and policy changes that can make household recycling easier, such as curbside pickup and convenient drop-off locations. He further suggests that efforts should focus on states that do not have high enough levels of recycling, such as those in the South, which he concludes “have not hit a plateau” and have the “greatest opportunities for gains.” But, is increasing recycling rates in the South easier said than done?
Viscusi offers an approach: “Totally ignore the environmental benefits and focus on the economics.” The Viscusi team’s prior research found that “sometimes recycling programs pass the cost-benefit test and sometimes they don’t,” but in many cases recycling can be a “money maker.” He also queries whether corporations may appreciate robust recycling programs that may reduce the growing pressure to reduce or ban the use of plastics altogether.
Policymakers and stakeholders will undoubtedly rely on this study in shaping future recycling initiatives. The research’s value highlights the need for more empirical and longitudinal studies to inform a range of state and local environmental policies.
Recycling increases in red states, but blue states still recycle more.
Every year, some 8 million metric tons of plastic enters the ocean, entangling or choking wildlife and ending up in the guts of zooplankton and fish. This plastic never fully biodegrades but rather breaks into smaller and smaller pieces, making it nearly impossible to retrieve. If trends continue, the ocean could contain one pound of plastic for every three pounds of finfish by 2025. Early studies have shown that the chemicals leached from plastic can impact reproduction and life cycles in shellfish and cause brain damage in fish, many of which we then eat.
This is unacceptable. For 30 years, Ocean Conservancy has mobilized the International Coastal Cleanup to mitigate marine debris. More than 12 million volunteers have collected nearly 230 million pounds of trash from beaches and waterways since the 1980s. They have seen firsthand the real impact of items like plastic shopping bags, straws, water bottles, and other often-disposable items. We are proud of this mammoth initiative and are on track for 2018 to be our biggest cleanup yet.
But trying to solve the problem through cleanups alone is like mopping up an overflowing sink without turning off the tap. We need to stop plastics from getting into the ocean in the first place. A circular economy, including effective waste management, provides a long-term solution.
More than 2 billion people worldwide lack access to proper waste collection and management. An estimated 80 percent of ocean plastic comes from land, with nearly half from just five countries in Southeast Asia where consumption and waste generation have outpaced governments’ abilities to collect trash.
A circular economy can help mitigate the ocean plastic problem as well as many others. But even the best, most recyclable products and materials are still trash if they reach the ocean. Effective waste collection and recycling is critical to ensuring the loop is complete. A circular economy that improves collection, recycling, and end use of materials will let us keep valuable resources in the system and out of the ocean.
No one sector can tackle this alone. That’s why Ocean Conservancy launched the Trash Free Seas Alliance in 2012, to unite industry, scientists, and conservationists to combat marine debris. And that is why we work with governments around the world, to ensure appropriate, supportive policies are implemented.
Waste management is often led by local governments. But there are national-level policies that can help to direct and support these efforts. In 2016 ministers from the 21 economies of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum endorsed a series of policy and practice recommendations that provide guidance for establishing the political, economic, legal, and regulatory conditions to prioritize and incentivize investments in waste management by countries, multilateral development banks, and the private sector.
These recommendations encourage countries to set ambitious, attainable targets with supporting action plans. APEC countries will measure and reward progress through performance indicators, and encourage and acknowledge frontrunner cities for their achievement. End-of-life incentive policies will be used to stimulate recycling market demand and increase product recyclability. Finally, the recommendations prioritize solutions with strong environmental standards, transparent monitoring, and community engagement. Indonesia is already putting these ideas into practice: in 2016, its government set a goal to reduce marine debris in its waters by 70 percent, and its National Marine Debris Action Plan addresses several of these recommendations.
The private sector and civil society must engage as well. Companies can use their marketing power for awareness and education, to guide consumer preferences in the right direction. They can allocate funds toward collection of their products — much like the dairy industry did in the days of the milk man. They can develop ingenious ways of recycling materials. They can also use their business expertise to support new projects and entrepreneurs that will build next-generation waste management systems.
In October, Ocean Conservancy, the Trash Free Seas Alliance and Closed Loop Partners, with PepsiCo, 3M, Procter & Gamble, American Chemistry Council, and the World Plastics Council, joined to announce the creation of a $150 million funding mechanism for waste management projects in southeast Asia.
Implementing a circular economy, and solving the marine debris problem, takes action from every sector. Governments have a role to play in implementing sound, smart, science-based and locally relevant solutions that allow the private sector and civil society to act. Together, we can benefit not just the ocean, but people and communities around the world.
Susan Ruffo has over a decade of experience working on environmental issues in and out of government. She is currently managing director for international initiatives at Ocean Conservancy.
