Dr Douglas McCauley, Professor at UC Santa Barbara, and Adjunct Professor at UC Berkeley, and Neil Nathan, Project Scientist, at Benioff Ocean Science Laboratory, at UC Santa Barbara, discuss the urgent need for international action against plastic pollution, highlighting proposals for policy interventions.
Plastic pollution threatens our ecosystems, wildlife, and human health worldwide.
Urgent action is crucial to curb this escalating threat, necessitating efforts across sectors to mitigate plastic waste and transition towards a more sustainable and circular economy.
Scientists from UC Santa Barbara and UC Berkeley are advocating for high-impact policies that cap virgin plastic production and introduce a minimum recycled content for plastic production.
Their insights are based on an AI-generated data tool that they developed, which includes the impacts of specific plastic policies on the climate crisis.
To find out more about policies for curbing plastic pollution and the researchers’ tool, we spoke to Dr Douglas McCauley, Professor at UC Santa Barbara, and Adjunct Professor at UC Berkeley, and Neil Nathan, Project Scientist, at Benioff Ocean Science Laboratory, at UC Santa Barbara.
What are the effects of the plastic pollution crisis on the global north compared to the south?
Our research team, a collaboration between scientists at UC Santa Barbara and UC Berkeley, employs quantitative tools to model the potential effects of policies on waste management.
Without robust treaties, the divide between the global north and south will only continue to worsen.
Our research estimates that without intervention in treaties, mismanaged waste and plastic pollution would grow to about five times greater in the global south by 2050 than all NAFTA countries, the 30 countries in the European Union, and China combined.
This highlights the imbalance and burden faced by the global south.
This issue extends beyond environmental concerns; it encompasses global equity and human rights, reflecting the breadth of its impact beyond the environmental sphere.
How do we go about getting funding for those who need it the most?
The UN Plastics Treaty provides an opportunity to specifically answer that question.
From our vantage point as scientists, including details in the treaty is vital. For example, specific measures could be included in the treaty to allocate finances to tackle the disproportionate burden of plastic pollution.
Two key policy frameworks hold promise in generating the necessary funding to alleviate this burden.
The first is a proposal to include language currently in the zero draft and a revised edition of the working draft, which would provide a premium on plastic as it is produced.
Putting a fee on plastic production could create an international fund that invests in solutions such as waste management and recycling in the global south.
The fund could also be used to help important human infrastructure, such as waste picker communities and collectives, which are doing vital work but lack the financing to scale up.
The second would be strong national EPR policies. There is an opportunity in the treaty to codify the role that extended producer responsibility programmes can play.
EPR policies embody the principle of accountability: those who create waste are tasked with its cleanup.
If these policies are implemented at the national level and the treaty creates guidelines for how to create them so that they function effectively, that would create another important and necessary line for financing.
In our research, our focus hasn’t solely been on the structure of financing mechanisms, but rather on their impact.
We’ve explored the consequences of investment and the potential outcomes of financing. Among the various policies under consideration in the treaty discussions, we’ve identified a significant role for financing.
Regarding equity, our model assesses the impact of directing financing towards tangible initiatives such as waste management and recycling.
By default, our model suggests that the majority of international financing, if directed towards these efforts, should prioritise the global south.
This prioritisation is based on the mathematical perspective that investing in countries lacking adequate infrastructure yields the highest return in terms of reducing the global burden of mismanaged plastic waste.
What sectors are of the highest concern for their plastic usage?
One aspect that is not captured in our model, is the effects of plastic on human health.
Colleagues in environmental justice and medical research highlight products and their additives that harm human health.
While we lack specific expertise in this area, this class of products needs to be considered in the treaty.
A handful of products and actions have an important role in reducing plastic pollution overall.
Implementing a reuse policy, for instance, shows substantial positive effects in our model, especially in industries like beverages.
Our model also highlights the impact of single-use or problematic plastic bans. These have less impact on reducing the overabundance of plastic pollution on the planet than other measures such as reuse, financing, and a minimum recycling content policy, which would force more circularity into the system.
Despite their low weight, these items significantly contribute to beach pollution and harm to marine life, emphasising the good that including single-use plastic initiatives represent.
What specific policies must be prioritised to reduce plastic waste?
The types of policies that stand out in significantly reducing mismanaged waste and promoting equity are as follows.
Firstly, banning single-use packaging plays a crucial role, despite its relatively modest impact. Its importance from an environmental standpoint cannot be overstated.
Additionally, a cap to virgin plastic production. Although this is a challenging policy, it has a significant impact on reducing plastic waste.
Another impactful policy is implementing a minimum recycled content requirement, which sets a standard and plays a huge role in waste reduction.
Essentially, this measure establishes a threshold, effectively contributing to waste management efforts.
In our model, we have the ability to test the impact of these initiatives. However, we cannot test human health implications and the general equity implications of plastic pollution.
What do you hope to see for the future of waste management?
In science, we can get a preview of what a world without plastic pollution could look like and a pathway to this goal.
Engaging with various communities, such as elders in Pacific Island communities, provides insights into a past untouched by plastic pollution. The prospect of recreating this past and moving towards a future without plastic waste is truly exciting.
Our ambition is zero plastic waste by 2040, a goal initiated by UNEP. To achieve that goal, you need policies high impact policies.
Although we appreciate the US Delegation’s willingness to listen to scientific insights, these policies have not yet been supported.
I believe a robust treaty could significantly benefit the United States by fostering a substantial expansion in recycling, waste management, and infrastructure sectors. This growth would mirror the promising trajectory seen in renewable energy, catalysing job creation and economic prosperity.
Strong policies targeting climate and plastic pollution would further bolster these sectors, aligning with circularity principles.
Additionally, a treaty would level the playing field in standardisation for both domestic and international businesses operating in the US. This consistency would enable smarter and more efficient business practices, eliminating the need to navigate disparate policies across different regions and countries.
Ultimately, it fosters a fair competition landscape where collective efforts aim to curb plastic pollution.
By providing strong, reliable, and foreseeable signals for this journey, businesses can operate in a more stable environment. This sentiment is echoed by figures like the CEO of Unilever and supported by companies such as Coca-Cola.
Nonetheless, we express gratitude to the US for adopting an open-door policy, welcoming inputs from both the domestic and international scientific communities.
While we are being listened to, there’s still room for increased ambition, specifically in endorsing policies capable of effecting substantial change.
