By Steven Cohen, Ph.D., Director of the M.S. in Sustainability Management program, School of Professional Studies
Plastics are central to the modern economy. They are used in products and packaging, and the amount of plastic in use and polluting the planet is rapidly growing. Plastics are typically made from petrochemicals, and they are designed for long life and, for the most part, do not degrade but persist wherever they end up in our ecosphere. Our oceans are increasingly polluted by plastics. Marine debris floats on the waves and litters our shorelines. Writing on the latest failure to negotiate a global treaty to limit plastic pollution, Hiroko Tabuchi of the New York Times reported that:
“The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates that, without global action to curb plastic pollution, plastic production will grow by 70 percent between 2020 and 2040, totaling 736 million tons a year by the end of that period. Overall as of 2020, less than 10 percent of global plastic waste was estimated to have been recycled, with the rest disposed of in landfills, incinerated or released into the environment.”
The economic interests of oil-producing nations and companies recently prevented an effort to limit the production of plastics. As fossil fuels are replaced by renewable energy, the oil-producing nations and companies will likely become even less flexible on plastic regulation than the inflexible positions they now hold. This suggests that the global regulation of plastics will become increasingly infeasible. As Tabuchi noted last week:
“Negotiations over a global plastic pollution treaty collapsed on Friday as countries failed to bridge wide gaps on whether the world should limit plastic manufacturing and restrict the use of harmful plastic chemicals. Environmental groups accused a small number of petroleum-producing nations, which make the building blocks of plastic, of derailing an ambitious effort to tackle plastic waste.”
Predictably, for me, the best solution would be government-sponsored research to perfect non-toxic biodegradable plastics and government-funded incentives to utilize these new technologies. One of the properties of plastics that makes them most valuable is their durability. That is also the characteristic that causes them to persist in our ecosystems. Most biodegradable plastics are based on organic material feedstocks, but it is also possible to create biodegradable plastics from petrochemicals. The challenge is to incentivize the oil companies to create higher-quality, petroleum-based plastics.
Petrochemical-based biodegradable plastics are currently used commercially. They can help with waste-management issues, but release greenhouse gases when manufactured. Their potential for further development depends on their ability to compete with bio-based alternatives and on the interest of oil companies in developing and marketing them. PBAT, or polybutylene adipate co-terephthalate, is a petroleum-based biodegradable polymer that can be broken down in the environment. I am certain that over time, the petrochemical industry could create plastics with strength, durability, and the ability to biodegrade.
While regulating the global production of plastics seems beyond our reach, the destructive impact of plastics on our planet is beyond question. According to the Center for International Environmental Law:
“Plastics do not break down in the environment, forcing them to accumulate in air, waterways, agricultural soils, rivers, and oceans. While there has been a growing awareness and concern for plastics in the oceans, that concern has more recently expanded to the impact of plastics on other ecosystems, food and water supplies, and human health. Research now shows that microplastics (pieces of plastic less than five millimeters long) and nanoplastics (pieces smaller than 1mm all the way to the nanorange) have penetrated every system. All sources of water, types of food, placentas of pregnant people, and human stool ever tested were found to contain micro or nanoplastics… When plastic reaches the environment, it fragments into micro or nanoplastics, which contaminate and accumulate in food chains through agricultural soils, terrestrial and aquatic food chains, and the water supply. This environmental plastic can leach toxic additives or concentrate toxins and pathogens already in the environment, making them bioavailable again for direct or indirect human exposure. The health impacts are similar to those experienced during the ingestion and inhalation of plastics at other stages of the life cycle. Once in the human body, microplastics can lead to chronic inflammation, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, and even stroke.”
Climate change, biodiversity loss, and the persistence of plastics are all global-scale problems that are difficult to address in an international political system characterized by national sovereignty. The forces of nationalism are in ascendence, and there is little prospect of the type of consolidation we saw with the establishment of the European Union. While political jurisdictions are largely limited by geography, the forces of corporate political power are global. Influencing and controlling corporate power is even more challenging when it is coupled with the power of sovereign nations states, as we saw in the plastics negotiations when oil states and fossil fuel companies joined forces to veto any agreement.
If a direct policy path to controlling plastic pollution does not align with the reality of political power, we then need to look for alternative means to reduce that source of pollution. There are a variety of indirect methods that can be used to move the needle. The first method is to focus on environmental education: Inform the public about the problem and build awareness of its causes and impacts. This can lead to value and cultural change, which can influence the views of the broad public and their leaders. Change is facilitated if the culture becomes deeply concerned about the threats posed by plastic pollution. If the consensus is large enough, change can come from within corporations due to a shift in cultural norms. The second method is to fund research and development to reduce the harm caused by plastics. This can take place in government, universities, and corporations. It can be incentivized by tax breaks and public-private partnerships. In the 1960s, federal air pollution law in the United States focused on researching the causes and impacts of air pollution. We had to understand the problem before we could address it. National ambient air pollution standards were not authorized until the landmark 1970 Clean Air Act was enacted. Today, research on the scope and impact of plastic pollution is well underway, but research on alternatives to non-biodegradable plastic is urgently needed.
I am often amazed by the persistence of futile efforts to negotiate global environmental treaties. The climate Conference of the Parties (COP) this fall will be the 30th of its kind. If the first 29 meetings didn’t halt greenhouse gas pollution, why would anyone think the 30th would work? In the case of plastic pollution, the recent negotiations ended in failure. Writing in The Guardian, Karen McVeigh and Emma Bryce observed that: “Global talks to reach agreement on a treaty aimed at ending the growing scourge of plastic pollution have collapsed, with no deal agreed and no clear path forward.” The World Economic Forum’s website on the treaty negotiations noted that: “The meeting drew more than 2,600 participants, with more than 1,400 member delegates from 183 countries.” This is tiny when compared to the over 55,000 people who attended COP 29.
These meetings attract media attention and have value as methods of public education, but they are not arenas for substantive policymaking. I often think of them as industry trade shows. Places where networking takes place and ideas are exchanged. But these negotiations can also cause damage because they raise hopes that the conference can result in meaningful policymaking. As a result, more realistic approaches are set aside in an effort at comprehensive problem “resolution.” The World Economic Forum website has a very nice flowchart listing the ten meetings held so far to address global plastics pollution. Apparently, someone is willing to fund these meetings, and people devote substantial time and effort to developing these proposals. Meanwhile, the problem of plastic pollution continues to worsen.
The fact is that most meaningful, operational environmental policy happens at the national, state/provincial, or local level. Policy requires the force of law to be effective, and we do not have a world government. We’ve seen progress in reducing air, water, solid, and toxic waste pollution through non-global policy. There are very few examples of successful global environmental policy, and where we see it (such as the “ozone hole” Montreal Protocol of 1987), it takes place because there is a broad consensus on the problem and an easy and available technological fix to address it. Following the path-breaking political scientist Charles Lindblom, I often note that public policy doesn’t solve problems, it makes them less bad. It is incremental, serial, and remedial. In the case of plastics, we need to focus on a narrow set of goals designed to make the problem less bad. In my view, plastic production will not be reduced, and so increasing the quality and quantity of biodegradable plastic is the best way to make the problem less bad. Plastics may not be reduced, but they can be made less harmful to people and the planet.
Views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Columbia School of Professional Studies or Columbia University.
About the Program
The Columbia University M.S. in Sustainability Management program offered by the School of Professional Studies in partnership with the Climate School provides students cutting-edge policy and management tools they can use to help public and private organizations and governments address environmental impacts and risks, pollution control, and remediation to achieve sustainability. The program is customized for working professionals and is offered as both a full- and part-time course of study.
