Plastic waste is piling up at a daunting pace around the world. The World Bank estimates that every person on the planet generates an average of 0.74 kilograms of plastic waste daily.
To curb this flow, 175 nations are negotiating a binding international treaty on plastic pollution, with a completion target of late 2024. In July 2024, the Biden administration released the first U.S. plan for addressing this problem.
The new U.S. strategy covers five areas: plastic production, product design, waste generation, waste management and plastic capture and removal. It also list actions that federal agencies and departments are currently pursuing.
I study environmental law, including efforts to reduce plastic pollution. As the world’s largest economy, the U.S. is a critical player in this effort. Based on my research, here are three proposals in the U.S. plan that I believe are important and one omission that I view as a major gap.
A federal standard for measuring microplastics
Studies have detected tiny plastic fragments, known as microplastics, in settings that include the atmosphere, drinking water sources, wild animals and human food chains.
While scientists have found that wildlife, such as seabirds, can be harmed by consuming plastic, the effects on human health are less clear. Unlike other pollutants, microplastics have different effects depending on their size, their shape and where they are found, such as in food, air or water. And humans can be exposed to them via many different pathways, including inhalation, ingestion and touch.
There is no federal standard for measuring microplastics in various media, such as water and soil, so studies lack standardized definitions, methods and reporting techniques. In 2023, California launched a microplastic monitoring program, which includes developing a standardized method for measuring microplastics in drinking water.
The Biden administration’s plan calls for developing standardized methods for collecting, quantifying and characterizing microplastics and nanoplastics, which are even smaller. This will help scientists generate consistent data that regulators can use to set limits on microplastics in food, water and air.
Extended producer responsibility
All plastics contain chemicals that add properties such as strength, softness, color and fire resistance. A subset of these chemicals, including bisphenols and phthalates, have been linked to adverse health effects that include fetal abnormalities, reproductive health problems and cancer.
Some scientists argue that certain types of plastic waste with particularly harmful ingredients or properties, including PVC, polystyrene, polyurethane and polycarbonate, should be classified as hazardous waste. Currently, the U.S., Europe, Australia and Japan consider items made from these plastics as solid waste and treat them in the same way as kitchen food scraps or used office paper.
The fact that only about 5% of U.S. plastic waste is currently recycled, while 9% is incinerated and 86% is buried in landfills, has sparked calls for assigning some responsibility to plastic producers.
Extended producer responsibility laws, which exist for other products such as paint and electronics, make producers responsible for collecting and disposing of their products or paying part of the costs to manage these wastes. Such requirements give producers incentives to create more environmentally friendly products and support recycling.
As of mid-2024, California, Colorado, Maine and Oregon have adopted extended producer responsibility laws for plastic waste, and about a dozen other states are considering similar measures. Studies show that when such policies are adopted, recycling rates increase.
The Biden administration plan calls for launching a national extended producer responsibility initiative that would allow state, local and tribal governments to develop their own approaches while offering a vision for a harmonized national system and goals for plastic waste management. Support at the federal level could help more jurisdictions enact rules that require producers to help manage these wastes.
Banning single-use plastics
Bans on plastic items are a tool to reduce waste generation. Most of these measures apply to items that are used once and discarded, such as shopping bags, food wrappers and plastic bottles. Items like these are the most common plastics in the environment.
The U.S. plan calls for developing strategies to “replace, reduce, and phase out unnecessary use and purchase of plastic products by the Federal Government,” including an end to the purchase of single-use plastic items by 2035. Although this action applies only to use by federal agencies, the U.S. government is the largest single purchaser of goods and services in the world, so this step can send a powerful signal in favor of alternative products.
What’s missing: A cap on plastic production
Current projections suggest that global plastic production will double by 2040, with an accompanying surge in plastic waste. In response, 66 countries have formed the High Ambition Coalition, co-chaired by Norway and Rwanda, to support stringent provisions in the global plastics treaty. One of their central goals is limiting global plastic production.
Early in 2024, several nations participating in the treaty negotiations proposed to cut world plastic production 40% below 2025 levels by 2040. This concept is still under discussion.
Plastic manufacturers and companies reliant on plastic argue that a production cap would drive up the costs of all plastics. Instead, groups like the World Plastics Council are calling for steps that would reduce plastic waste generation, such as using resins with more recycled content and increasing recycling rates.
Given the size and economic influence of the U.S. plastics industry, I believe it is unlikely that the U.S. will join the High Ambition Coalition countries during the final session of treaty negotiations. However, Congress could still consider domestic proposals, such as the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, which includes a temporary pause on permits for new plastic production facilities, as a means of capping production.
Sarah J Morath is a Professor of Law and Associate Dean for International Affairs at Wake Forest University School of Law.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
© The Conversation
3 Comments
Login to comment
Gene Hennigh
Cue the "stop killing whales" crowd. Plastic is all over and in the pacific. It is long passed the time for this initiative. It is killing a lot of ocean dwellers and that's just the plastic. How about hiring a few big ship owners to collect trash from the waters? Nah. I guess not. Too much money.
GBR48
You could say the same about dust. It's everywhere. It's got all sorts in it. Most of the plastic waste out there may be up to decades old, from before recycling. G7 countries are pretty good at recycling, with perhaps the exception of the US. The global south has rivers of the stuff. So what is the point of cracking down on the people who recycle whilst ignoring the people who do not.
Shopping bags are not single use - certainly not carrier bags. We use them until they are completely knackered, and then put electrical waste out for collection in them, as we are required to do by the local council. Almost everyone in Japan recycles their konbini bags as bin bags. Without them, they would just have to buy bin bags instead.
I re-use a fair few plastic bottles but recycle the rest. We have wheelie bins for them. Also for cardboard. Soft plastics (food wrappers) go to the recycling bins in local supermarkets. Paper, glass, aerosols and foil are all catered for using kerbside collection. Why can't America do this?
A cap on plastic production without viable alternatives will just drive up prices and punish the poor.
Plastic isn't the problem. Lazy people are. America, get off your lazy butts and recycle more.
1glenn
Sometimes I wonder if we will not regret the day plastic was invented.