# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Plastic Problem - A PBS NewsHour Documentary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic Wars (full documentary) | FRONTLINE

# data[].attributes.body
Trailer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Plastic Wave - A documentary film on plastic pollution

# data[].attributes.body
EPA.gov

# data[].attributes.body
Our World in Data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is our main data entry on plastics, with a particular focus on its pollution of the environment.

We have also produced an FAQs on Plastics page which attempts to answer additional common questions on the topic.

A slide-deck summary of global plastics is available here.

The first synthetic plastic - Bakelite - was produced in 1907, marking the beginning of the global plastics industry. However, rapid growth in global plastic production was not realized until the 1950s. Over the next 65 years, annual production of plastics increased nearly 200-fold to 381 million tonnes in 2015. For context, this is roughly equivalent to the mass of two-thirds of the world population.¹

All our charts on Plastic Pollution

To understand the magnitude of input of plastics to the natural environment and the world's oceans, we must understand various elements of the plastic production, distribution and waste management chain. This is crucial, not only in understanding the scale of the problem but in implementing the most effective interventions for reduction.

The data and visualizations which follow in this entry provide this overview step-by-step. This overview is summarized in the figure.²

Here we see that in 2010:

global primary production of plastic was 270 million tonnes;

global plastic waste was 275 million tonnes - it did exceed annual primary production through wastage of plastic from previous years;

plastic waste generated in coastal regions is most at risk of entering the oceans; in 2010 coastal plastic waste - generated within 50 kilometres of the coastline - amounted to 99.5 million tonnes;

only plastic waste which is improperly managed (mismanaged) is at significant risk of leakage to the environment; in 2010 this amounted to 31.9 million tonnes;

of this, 8 million tonnes - 3% of global annual plastics waste - entered the ocean (through multiple outlets, including rivers);

Plastics in the oceans' surface waters is several orders of magnitude lower than annual ocean plastic inputs. This discrepancy is known as the 'missing plastic problem' and is discussed h e re.

The amount of plastic in surface waters is not very well known: estimates range from 10,000s to 100,000s tonnes.

The chart shows the increase of global plastic production, measured in tonnes per year, from 1950 through to 2015.

In 1950 the world produced only 2 million tonnes per year. Since then, annual production has increased nearly 200-fold, reaching 381 million tonnes in 2015. For context, this is roughly equivalent to the mass of two-thirds of the world population.³

The short downturn in annual production in 2009 and 2010 was predominantly the result of the 2008 global financial crisis - a similar dent is seen across several metrics of resource production and consumption, including energy.

How much plastic has the world produced cumulatively? The chart shows that by 2015, the world had produced 7.8 billion tonnes of plastic - more than one tonne of plastic for every person alive today.

How has global plastic waste disposal method changed over time? In the chart we see the share of global plastic waste that is discarded, recycled or incinerated from 1980 through to 2015.

Prior to 1980, recycling and incineration of plastic was negligible; 100 percent was therefore discarded. From 1980 for incineration, and 1990 for recycling, rates increased on average by about 0.7 percent per year.⁴

In 2015, an estimated 55 percent of global plastic waste was discarded, 25 percent was incinerated, and 20 percent recycled.

If we extrapolate historical trends through to 2050 - as can be seen in the chart here - by 2050, incineration rates would increase to 50 percent; recycling to 44 percent; and discarded waste would fall to 6 percent. However, note that this is based on the simplistic extrapolation of historic trends and does not represent concrete projections.

In the figure we summarize global plastic production to final fate over the period 1950 to 2015.⁵

This is given in cumulative million tonnes.

As shown:

cumulative production of polymers, synthetic fibers and additives was 8300 million tonnes;

2500 million tonnes (30 percent) of primary plastics was still in use in 2015;

4600 million tonnes (55 percent) went straight to landfill or was discarded;

700 million tonnes (8 percent) was incinerated;

500 million tonnes (6 percent) was recycled (100 million tonnes of recycled plastic was still in use; 100 million tonnes was later incinerated; and 300 million tonnes was later discarded or sent to landfill).

Of the 5800 million tonnes of primary plastic no longer in use, only 9 percent has been recycled since 1950.

To which industries and product uses is primary plastic production allocated? In the chart we see plastic production allocation by sector for 2015.

Packaging was the dominant use of primary plastics, with 42 percent of plastics entering the use phase.⁶

Building and construction was the second largest sector utilizing 19 percent of the total. Primary plastic production does not directly reflect plastic waste generation (as shown in the next section), since this is also influenced by the polymer type and lifetime of the end product.

Primary plastic production by polymer type can be found here.

This chart shows the use of primary plastics by sector; in the chart we show these same sectors in terms of plastic waste generation. Plastic waste generation is strongly influenced by primary plastic use, but also the product lifetime.

Packaging, for example, has a very short 'in-use' lifetime (typically around 6 months or less). This is in contrast to building and construction, where plastic use has a mean lifetime of 35 years.⁷

Packaging is therefore the dominant generator of plastic waste, responsible for almost half of the global total.

In 2015, primary plastics production was 407 million tonnes; around three-quarters (302 million tonnes) ended up as waste.

Plastic waste breakdown by polymer type can be found here.

Which countries produce the most plastic waste?

In the chart we see the per capita rate of plastic waste generation, measured in kilograms per person per day. Here we see differences of around an order of magnitude: daily per capita plastic waste across the highest countries - Kuwait, Guyana, Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, the United States - is more than ten times higher than across many countries such as India, Tanzania, Mozambique and Bangladesh.

Note that these figures represent total plastic waste generation and do not account for differences in waste management, recycling or incineration. They therefore do not represent quantities of plastic at risk of loss to the ocean or other waterways.

In the chart we see the total plastic waste generation by country, measured in tonnes per year. This therefore takes account of per capita waste generation and population size. This estimate is available only for the year 2010, but as we see later in this entry, the relative global picture is similar in projections to 2025.

With the largest population, China produced the largest quantity of plastic, at nearly 60 million tonnes. This was followed by the United States at 38 million, Germany at 14.5 million and Brazil at 12 million tonnes.

Like the per capita figures above, note that these figures represent total plastic waste generation and do not account for differences in waste management, recycling or incineration. They therefore do not represent quantities of plastic at risk of loss to the ocean or other waterways.

Beyond domestic plastic waste generation, there is also a large global commodity market for recycled plastic waste.

Global trade of plastic is discussed here.

Mismanaged waste is material which is at high risk of entering the ocean via wind or tidal transport, or carried to coastlines from inland waterways. Mismanaged waste is the sum of material which is either littered or inadequately disposed. Inadequately disposed and littered waste are different, and are defined in the sections below.

Inadequately disposed waste is that which has the intention of being managed through waste collection or storage sites, but is ultimately not formally or sufficiently managed. This includes disposal in dumps or open, uncontrolled landfills; this means the material is not fully contained and can be lost to the surrounding environment. This makes it at risk of leakage and transport to the natural environment and oceans via waterways, winds and tides.

In the world map we see estimates on the share of plastic waste that is defined as inadequately managed and therefore at risk of entering the oceans and other environments. We see very large differences in the effectiveness of waste management across the world:

High-income countries, including most of Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea have very effective waste management infrastructure and systems; this means discarded plastic waste (even that which is not recycled or incinerated) is stored in secure, closed landfills. Across such countries almost no plastic waste is considered inadequately managed. Note this does not mean there is no plastic at risk of entering the natural environment - see the section on littering below.

Across many low-to-middle-income income countries, inadequately disposed waste can be high; across many countries in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, between 80-90 percent of plastic waste is inadequately disposed of, and therefore at risk of polluting rivers and oceans. This is strongly reflected in the global distribution of mismanaged waste and inputs from river systems.

Littered waste is distinct from 'inadequately disposed' waste in that it represents plastics that are dumped or disposed of without consent in an inappropriate location.

Whilst high-income countries tend to have effective waste management infrastructure and therefore very small quantities of inadequately disposed waste, they can contribute to plastics pollution by littering. Jambeck et al. (2015) assume a rate of littering of 2 percent of total plastic waste generation across all countries.⁸

A global map of littered plastic from coastal populations (within 50 kilometres of a coastline) is shown here.

Whilst the global picture of total plastic waste tells an important story, it does not necessarily help us to understand the ocean plastic problem. To understand the sources of ocean plastic pollution we must take into account multiple factors: proximity of given population centres to the coast, and national waste management strategies. Not all of the plastic waste we generate is at high risk of entering the oceans; in fact, for many countries the quantity which does end up as ocean pollution is very small.

Jambeck et al. (2015) attempted to quantify the amount of plastic that could eventually enter the ocean across the world.⁹

To calculate this, the authors corrected total plastic waste generation rates in two fundamental ways:

(1) they quantified plastic waste generated by coastal populations (those within 50 kilometres of a coastline) - this represents plastic waste with the potential to be transported to the coast. Plastic waste generated further inland is unlikely to travel this distance.

(2) they corrected this figure for the quantity of plastic waste that is mismanaged. Mismanaged waste is the sum of inadequately managed waste (that which is not formally managed such as disposal in dumps or open, uncontrolled landfills which could leak to the surrounding environment) and littered waste. Mismanaged waste within coastal populations has strong potential to eventually enter the ocean either through transport by wind or tides, or through waterways such as rivers or wastewater.

After correcting for these factors, the share of global mismanaged plastic waste by country is shown in the chart. This data is available to explore on a per capita basis and on an absolute basis (in tonnes per country). Note that whilst this data is available only for the year 2010, projections of global trends for the year 2025 (discussed in the section below) show a very similar distribution.

Here we see a very strong geographical clustering of mismanaged plastic waste, a high share of the world's ocean plastics pollution has its origin in Asia. China contributes the highest share of mismanaged plastic waste with around 28 percent of the global total, followed by 10 percent in Indonesia, 6 percent for both the Philippines and Vietnam. Other leading countries include Thailand (3.2 percent); Egypt (3 percent); Nigeria (2.7 percent) and South Africa (2 percent). We discuss why such countries have high mismanaged plastic waste rates later in this entry.

Whilst many countries across Europe and North America had high rates of per capita plastic generation, once corrected for waste management, their contribution to mismanaged waste at risk of ocean pollution is significantly lower.

In the chart we see the global distribution of mismanaged plastic waste aggregated by world region. The East Asia and Pacific region dominates global mismanaged plastic waste, accounting for 60 percent of the world total.

There is a wide gap between East Asia and the other regions - South Asia ranks second but contributes around 5 times less with 11 percent of the total. This is followed by Sub-Saharan Africa (9 percent); Middle East & North Africa (8.3 percent); Latin America (7.2 percent); Europe and Central Asia (3.6 percent) and North America (1 percent).

If we aim to address the ocean plastic problem, an understanding of this global picture is important. It highlights the fundamental role of waste management in preventing ocean pollution; whilst countries across North America and Europe generate significant quantities of plastic waste (particularly on a per capita basis), well-managed waste streams mean that very little of this is at risk of ocean pollution. In fact, if North America & Europe were to completely eliminate plastic use, global mismanaged plastic would decline by less than 5 percent.¹⁰

The data presented in the analysis above is for the year 2010; how is this global picture likely to change over time? Jambeck et al. (2015) also project mismanaged plastic waste production for the year 2025.¹¹

These results are presented in the map as the share of global mismanaged waste by country, and aggregated by region. Absolute figures (in tonnes per year) by country is available to explore here.

Overall we see that the global distribution is projected to change only slightly; whilst China's contribution falls by a couple of percentage points, East Asia & Pacific maintain around 60 percent of the total. South Asia's contribution - largely driven by India - increases slightly, as does Sub-Saharan Africa. Latin America, the Middle East & North Africa, Europe and North America all fall in relative terms.¹²

Plastic in our oceans can arise from both land-based or marine sources. Plastics pollution from marine sources refers to the pollution caused by fishing fleets that leave behind fishing nets, lines, ropes, and sometimes abandoned vessels.
There is often intense debate about the relative importance of marine and land sources for ocean pollution. What is the relative contribution of each?

At the global level, best estimates suggest that approximately 80 percent of ocean plastics come from land-based sources, and the remaining 20 percent from marine sources.¹³

Of the 20 percent from marine sources, it's estimated that around half (10 percentage points) arises from fishing fleets (such as nets, lines and abandoned vessels). This is supported by figures from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) which suggests abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear contributes approximately 10 percent to total ocean plastics.¹⁴

Other estimates allocate a slightly higher contribution of marine sources, at 28 percent of total ocean plastics.¹⁵

Although uncertain, it's likely that marine sources contribute between 20-30 percent of ocean plastics, but the dominant source remains land-based input at 70-80 percent.

Whilst this is the relative contribution as an aggregate of global ocean plastics, the relative contribution of different sources will vary depending on geographical location and context. For example, its estimated that plastic lines, ropes and fishing nets comprise 52 percent of the plastic mass in the 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch' (GPGP) (and comprises 46 percent of the megaplastics component of the GPGP).¹⁶

The relative contribution of marine sources here is likely to be the result of intensified fishing activity in the Pacific Ocean.

There are multiple routes by which plastic can enter the ocean environment. One key input is through river systems. This can transport plastic waste from further inland to coastal areas where it can enter the ocean. As we see in the following charts, there is high concentration of plastic within river systems geographically.

In the chart we list the estimated input of plastic to the oceans from the most polluting rivers across the world. This was estimated by Lebreton et al. (2017) for the year 2015.¹⁷ They are listed in order with the name of the river, and the countries through which it passes.

The top 20 polluting rivers accounted for two-thirds - 67 percent - of the global annual river input. Geographically we see that the majority of the most polluting rivers are located in Asia. River Yangtze, the top polluting river, had an input of approximately 333,000 tonnes in 2015 - over 4 percent of annual ocean plastic pollution.

In the chart we see river plastic inputs to the ocean aggregated by region - this is given as a share of the global total.

Most river plastic originates from Asia, which represents 86 percent of the global total. This is followed by Africa at 7.8 percent, and South America at 4.8 percent.

Collectively, Central & North America, Europe and the Australia-Pacific region account for just over one percent of the world total.

Plastic enters the oceans from coastlines, rivers, tides, and marine sources. But once it is there, where does it go?

The distribution and accumulation of ocean plastics is strongly influenced by oceanic surface currents and wind patterns. Plastics are typically buoyant - meaning they float on the ocean surface -, allowing them to be transported by the prevalent wind and surface current routes. As a result, plastics tend to accumulate in oceanic gyres, with high concentrations of plastics at the centre of ocean basins, and much less around the perimeters. After entry to oceans from coastal regions, plastics tend to migrate towards the centre of ocean basins.

In the chart we see estimates of the mass of plastics in surface ocean waters by ocean basin. Eriksen et al. (2014) estimated that there was approximately 269,000 tonnes of plastic in surface waters across the world.¹⁸

Note that this at least an order of magnitude lower than estimated inputs of plastics to the ocean; the discrepancy here relates to a surprising, but long-standing question in the research literature on plastics: " where is the missing plastic going? ".

As we see, basins in the Northern Hemisphere had the highest quantity of plastics. This would be expected since the majority of the world's population - and in particular, coastal populations - live within the Northern Hemisphere. However, authors were still surprised by the quantity of plastic accumulation in Southern oceans - while it was lower than in the Northern Hemisphere, it was still of the same order of magnitude. Considering the lack of coastal populations and plastic inputs in the Southern Hemisphere, this was an unexpected result. The authors suggest this means plastic pollution can be moved between oceanic gyres and basins much more readily than previously assumed.

It's estimated that there are more than 5 trillion plastic particles in the world's surface waters.¹⁹

We can see this breakdown of plastic particles by ocean basin here. The accumulation of a large number of particles tends to result from the breakdown of larger plastics - this results in an accumulation of plastic particles for a given mass.

The figure summarizes plastics in the ocean surface waters by basin. This is shown by particle size in terms of mass (left) and particle count (right). As shown, the majority of plastics by mass are large particles (macroplastics), whereas the majority in terms of particle count are microplastics (small particles).

The most well-known example of large plastic accumulations in surface waters is the so-called 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch' (GPGP). As shown in the chart here, the largest accumulation of plastics within ocean basins is the North Pacific. This results from the combined impact of large coastal plastic inputs in the region, alongside intensive fishing activity in the Pacific ocean.

In a Nature study, Lebreton et al. (2018) attempted to quantify the characteristics of the GPGP.²⁰

The vast majority of GPGP material is plastics - trawling samples indicate an estimated 99.9 percent of all floating debris. The authors estimate the GPGP spanned 1.6 million km ². This is just over three times the area of Spain, and slightly larger in area to Alaska (the USA's largest state).²¹

The GPGP comprised 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic, with a mass of 79,000 tonnes (approximately 29 percent of the 269,000 tonnes in the world's surface oceans). Over recent decades, the authors report there has been an exponential increase in concentration of surface plastics in the GPGP.

In the chart we see the estimated composition of the GPGP plastic. Around 52 percent of plastics originated from fishing activity and included fishing lines, nets and ropes; a further 47 percent was sourced from hard plastics, sheets and films; and the remaining components were small in comparison (just under one percent). The dominance of fishing lines, nets, hard plastics and films means that most of the mass in the GPGP had a large particle size (meso- and macroplastics).

The world now produces more than 380 million tonnes of plastic every year, which could end up as pollutants, entering our natural environment and oceans.

Of course, not all of our plastic waste ends up in the ocean, most ends up in landfills: it's estimated that the share of global plastic waste that enters the ocean is around 3%.²² In 2010 - the year for which we have the latest estimates - that was around 8 million tonnes.²³

Most of the plastic materials we produce are less dense than water and should therefore float at the ocean surface. But our best estimates of the amount of plastic afloat at sea are orders of magnitude lower than the amount of plastic that enters our oceans in a single year: as we show in the visualization, it's far lower than 8 million tonnes and instead in the order of 10s to 100s of thousands of tonnes. One of the most widely-quoted estimates is 250,000 tonnes.²⁴

If we currently pollute our oceans with millions of tonnes of plastic each year, we must have released tens of millions of tonnes in recent decades. Why then do we find at least 100 times less plastics in our surface waters?

This discrepancy is often referred to as the 'missing plastic problem'.²⁵ It's a conundrum we need to address if we want to understand where plastic waste could end up, and what its impacts might be for wildlife, ecosystems and health.

There are several hypotheses to explain the 'missing plastic problem'.

One possibility is that it is due to imprecise measurement: we might either grossly overestimate the amount of plastic waste we release into the ocean, or underestimate the amount floating in the surface ocean. Whilst we know that tracking ocean plastic inputs and their distribution is notoriously difficult²⁶ the levels of uncertainty in these measurements are much less than the several orders of magnitude that would be needed to explain the missing plastic problem.²⁷

Another popular hypothesis is that ultraviolet light (UV) and mechanical wave forces break large pieces of plastic into smaller ones.These smaller particles, referred to as microplastics, are much more easily incorporated into sediments or ingested by organisms. And this is where the missing plastic might end up.

One proposed 'sink' for ocean plastics was deep-sea sediments; a study which sampled deep-sea sediments across several basins found that microplastic was up to four orders of magnitude more abundant (per unit volume) in deep-sea sediments from the Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean than in plastic-polluted surface waters.²⁸

But, new research may suggest a third explanation: that plastics in the ocean break down slower than previously thought, and that much of the missing plastic is washed up or buried in our shorelines.²⁹

To try to understand the conundrum of what happens to plastic waste when it enters the ocean, Lebreton, Egger and Slat (2019) created a global model of ocean plastics from 1950 to 2015. This model uses data on global plastic production, emissions into the ocean by plastic type and age, and transport and degradation rates to map not only the amount of plastic in different environments in the ocean, but also its age.

The authors aimed to quantify where plastic accumulates in the ocean across three environments: the shoreline (defined as dry land bordering the ocean), coastal areas (defined as waters with a depth less than 200 meters) and offshore (waters with a depth greater than 200 meters). They wanted to understand where plastic accumulates, and how old it is: a few years old, ten years or decades?

In the visualization I summarized their results. This is shown for two categories of plastics: shown in blue are 'macroplastics' (larger plastic materials greater than 0.5 centimeters in diameter) and shown in red microplastics (smaller particles less than 0.5 centimeters).

There are some key points we can take away from the visualization:

The vast majority - 82 million tonnes of macroplastics and 40 million tonnes of microplastics - is washed up, buried or resurfaced along the world's shorelines.

Much of the macroplastics in our shorelines is from the past 15 years, but still a significant amount is older suggesting it can persist for several decades without breaking down.

In coastal regions most macroplastics (79%) are recent - less than 5 years old.

In offshore environments, older microplastics have had longer to accumulate than in coastal regions. There macroplastics from several decades ago - even as far back as the 1950s and 1960s - persist.

Most microplastics (three-quarters) in offshore environments are from the 1990s and earlier, suggesting it can take several decades for plastics to break down.

What does this mean for our understanding of the 'missing plastic' problem? Firstly, is that the majority of ocean plastics are washed, buried and resurface along our shorelines. Whilst we try to tally ocean inputs with the amount floating in gyres at the centre of our oceans, most of it may be accumulating around the edges of the oceans. This would explain why we find much less in surface waters than we'd expect.

Secondly, accumulated plastics are much older than previously thought. Macroplastics appear to persist in the surface of the ocean for decades without breaking down. Offshore we find large plastic objects dating as far back as the 1950s and 1960s. This goes against previous hypotheses of the 'missing plastic' problem which suggested that UV light and wave action degrade and remove them from the surface in only a few years.

The study by Lebreton, Egger and Slat challenges the previous hypotheses that plastics in the surface ocean have a very short lifetime, quickly degrade into microplastics and sink to greater depths. Their results suggest that macroplastics can persist for decades; can be buried and resurfaced along shorelines; and end up in offshore regions years later.

If true, this matters a lot for how much plastic we would expect in our surface oceans in the decades which follow. The same study also modelled how the mass of plastics - both macro and micro - in the world's surface waters might evolve under three scenarios:

1. we stop emitting any plastics to our oceans by 2020;

2. 'emissions' of plastic to the ocean continue to increase until 2020 then level off;

3. 'emissions' continue to grow to 2050 in line with historic growth rates.³⁰

Their results are shown in the charts.

The scenarios of continued emissions growth are what we'd expect: if we continue to release more plastics to the ocean, we'll have more in our surface waters.

What's more striking is that even if we stopped ocean plastic waste by 2020, macroplastics would persist in our surface waters for many more decades. This is because we have a large legacy of plastics buried and awash on our shorelines which would continue to resurface and be transported to offshore regions; and existing plastics can persist in the ocean environment for many decades.

The amount of microplastics in our surface ocean will increase under every scenario because the large plastics that we already have on our shorelines and surface waters will continue to breakdown. And, any additional plastics we add will contribute further.

This also matters for how we solve the problem of ocean pollution.

If we want to rapidly reduce the amount of both macro- and microplastics in our oceans, these results suggest two priorities:

Number one - we must stop plastic waste entering our waterways as soon as possible. Most of the plastic that ends up in our oceans does so because of poor waste management practices - particularly in l ow-to-middle income countries; this means that good waste management across the world is essential to achieving this.

But this ambitious target alone will not be enough. We have many decades of legacy waste to contend with. This makes a second priority necessary- we have to focus our efforts on recapturing and removing plastics already in our offshore waters and shorelines. This is the goal of Slat, Lebreton and Egger - the authors of this paper - with their Ocean Cleanup project.

How does plastic impact wildlife and human health?

There have been many documented incidences of the impact of plastic on ecosystems and wildlife. Peer-reviewed publications of plastic impacts date back to the 1980s.

An analysis by Rochman et al. (2016)³¹ reviews the findings of peer-reviewed documentation of the impacts of marine plastic debris on animal life; the results of this study are presented in this table.³²

Nonetheless, despite many documented cases, it's widely acknowledged that the full extent of impacts on ecosystems is not yet known.

There are three key pathways by which plastic debris can affect wildlife³³:

Entanglement - the entrapping, encircling or constricting of marine animals by plastic debris.

Entanglement cases have been reported for at least 344 species to date, including all marine turtle species, more than two-thirds of seal species, one-third of whale species, and one-quarter of seabirds.³⁴ Entanglement by 89 species of fish and 92 species of invertebrates has also been recorded.

Entanglements most commonly involve plastic rope and netting³⁵ and abandoned fishing gear.³⁶ However, entanglement by other plastics such as packaging have also been recorded.

Ingestion:

Ingestion of plastic can occur unintentionally, intentionally, or indirectly through the ingestion of prey species containing plastic.

It has been documented for at least 233 marine species, including all marine turtle species, more than one-third of seal species, 59% of whale species, and 59% of seabirds.³⁷ Ingestion by 92 species of fish and 6 species of invertebrates has also been recorded.

The size of the ingested material is ultimately limited by the size of the organism. Very small particles such as plastic fibres can be taken up by small organisms such as filter-feeding oysters or mussels; larger materials such as plastic films, cigarette packets, and food packaging have been found in large fish species; and in extreme cases, documented cases of sperm whales have shown ingestion of very large materials including 9m of rope, 4.5m of hose, two flowerpots, and large amounts of plastic sheeting.³⁸

Ingestion of plastics can have multiple impacts on organism health. Large volumes of plastic can greatly reduce stomach capacity, leading to poor appetite and false sense of satiation.³⁹ Plastic can also obstruct or perforate the gut, cause ulcerative lesions, or gastric rupture. This can ultimately lead to death.

In laboratory settings, biochemical responses to plastic ingestion have also been observed. These responses include oxidative stress, metabolic disruption, reduced enzyme activity, and cellular necrosis.⁴⁰,⁴¹,⁴²,⁴³

Interaction - interaction includes collisions, obstructions, abrasions or use as substrate.

There are multiple scenarios where this can have an impact on organisms.

Fishing gear, for example, has been shown to cause abrasion and damage to coral reef ecosystems upon collision. Ecosystem structures can also be impacted by plastics following interference of substrate with plastics (impacting on light penetration, organic matter availability and oxygen exchange).

As discussed in the section on 'Impacts on Wildlife' above, there are several ways in which plastics can interact or influence wildlife. In the case of microplastics (particles smaller than 4.75 millimeter in diameter), the key concern is ingestion.

Ingestion of microplastics have been shown to occur for many organisms. This can occur through several mechanisms, ranging from uptake by filter-feeders, swallowing from surrounding water, or consumption of organisms that have previously ingested microplastics.⁴⁴

There a number of potential effects of microplastics at different biological levels, which range from sub-cellular to ecosystems, but most research has focused on impacts in individual adult organisms.

Microplastic ingestion rarely causes mortality in any organisms. As such, 'lethal concentration' (LC) values which are often measured and reported for contaminants do not exist. There are a few exceptions: common goby exposure to polyethylene and pyrene; Asian green mussels exposed to polyvinylchloride (PVC); and Daphnia magna neonates exposed to polyethylene⁴⁵,⁴⁶,⁴⁷

In such studies, however, concentrations and exposure to microplastics far exceeded levels which would be encountered in the natural environment (even a highly contaminated one).

There is increasing evidence that microplastic ingestion can affect the consumption of prey, leading to energy depletion, inhibited growth and fertility impacts. When organisms ingest microplastics, it can take up space in the gut and digestive system, leading to reductions in feeding signals. This feeling of fullness can reduce dietary intake. Evidence of impacts of reduced food consumption include:

slower metabolic rate and survival in Asian green mussels⁴⁸

reduced reproducibility and survival in copepods⁴⁹

reduced growth and development of Daphnia ⁵⁰

reduced growth and development of langoustine⁵¹

reduced energy stores in shore crabs and lugworms⁵²,⁵³

Many organisms do not exhibit changes in feeding after microplastic ingestion. A number of organisms, including suspension-feeders (for example, oyster larvae, urchin larvae, European flat oysters, Pacific oysters) and detritivorous (for example, isopods, amphipods) invertebrates show no impact of microplastics.⁵⁴ Overall, however, it's likely that for some organisms, the presence of microplastic particles in the gut (where food should be) can have negative biological impacts.

There is, currently, very little evidence of the impact that microplastics can have on humans.

For human health, it is the smallest particles - micro- and nano-particles which are small enough to be ingested - that are of greatest concern. There are several ways by which plastic particles can be ingested: orally through water, consumption of marine products which contain microplastics, through the skin via cosmetics (identified as highly unlikely but possible), or inhalation of particles in the air.⁵⁵

It is possible for microplastics to be passed up to higher levels in the food chain. This can occur when a species consumes organisms of a lower level in the food chain which has microplastics in the gut or tissue.⁵⁶ The presence of microplastics at higher levels of the food chain (in fish) has been documented.⁵⁷ ⁵⁸

One factor which possibly limits the dietary uptake for humans is that microplastics in fish tend to be present in the gut and digestive tract - parts of the fish not typically eaten.⁵⁹ The presence of microplastics in fish beyond the gastrointestinal tract (e.g. in tissue) remains to be studied in detail.⁶⁰ Micro- and nanoplastics in bivalves (mussels and oysters) cultured for human consumption have also been identified. However, neither human exposure nor potential risk have been identified or quantified.⁶¹

Plastic fibres have also been detected in other food items; for example, honey, beer and table salt.⁶²,⁶³,⁶⁴ But the authors suggested negligible health risks as a result of this exposure.

Levels of microplastic ingestion are currently unknown. Even less is known about how such particles interact in the body. It may be the case that microplastics simply pass straight through the gastrointestinal tract without impact or interaction.⁶⁵ A study of North Sea fish, for example, revealed that 80 percent of fish with detected microplastics contained only one particle - this suggests that following ingestion, plastic does not persist for long periods of time.⁶⁶ Concentrations in mussels, in contrast, can be significantly higher.

What could cause concern about the impact of microplastics?

Three possible toxic effects of plastic particle have been suggested: the plastic particles themselves, the release of persistent organic pollutant adsorbed to the plastics, and leaching of plastic additives.⁶⁷

There has been no evidence of harmful effects to date - however, the precautionary principle would indicate that this is not evidence against taking exposure seriously.

Since microplastics are hydrophobic (insoluble), and are have a high surface area-to-volume ratio, they can sorb environmental contaminants.⁶⁸ If there was significant accumulation of environmental contaminants, there is the possibility that these concentrations could 'biomagnify' up the food chain to higher levels.⁶⁹ Biomagnification of PCBs varies by organism and environmental conditions; multiple studies have shown no evidence of uptake by the organisms of PCBs despite ingestion⁷⁰ whilst some mussels, for example, have shown capability to transfer some compounds into their digestive glands.⁷¹

To date, there has been no clear evidence of the accumulation of persistent organic pollutants or leached plastic additives in humans. Continued research in this area is important to better understand the role of plastic within broader ecosystems and risk to human health.

Whilst we looked previously in this entry at the plastic waste generation in countries across the world, it's also important to understand how plastic waste is traded across the world. Recycled plastic waste is now a product within the global commodity market - it is sold and traded across the world.

This has important implications for managing global plastic waste: if countries with effective waste management systems - predominantly high-income countries - export plastic waste to middle to low-income countries with poor waste management systems, they could be adding to the ocean plastic problem in this way.

Plastics can be challenging to recycle, particularly if they contain additives and different plastic blends.

The implications of this complexity are two-fold: in many cases it is convenient for countries to export their recycled plastic waste (meaning they don't have to handle it domestically); and for importing countries, this plastic is often discarded if it doesn't meet the sufficient requirements for recycled or is contaminated by non-recyclable plastic. As such, traded plastic waste could eventually enter the ocean through poor waste management systems.

Collectively, China and Hong Kong have imported 72.4 percent of global traded plastic waste (with most imports to Hong Kong eventually reaching China).⁷²

This came to an end in 2017. At the end of that year China introduced a complete ban on the imports of non-industrial plastic waste.⁷³

In the chart we see the quantity of plastic waste China had to manage over the period from 2010 to 2016. This is differentiated by domestic plastic waste generation, shown in grey, and imported plastic waste shown in red. The total plastic waste to manage is equal to the sum of domestic and imported plastic waste.

Over this period, China imported between 7 and 9 million tonnes of plastic waste per year. In 2016, this figure was 7.35 million tonnes. To put this in context, China's domestic plastic waste generation was around 61 million tonnes. Therefore, 10-11 percent of China's total plastic waste was imported from around the world.

Which countries export the most plastic waste to China? In the chart we see the quantity of plastic exported to China from the top 10 exporting countries. Collectively, these countries are responsible for around 76 percent of its imports.

As we see, Hong Kong typically acts as an entry point for Chinese imports; it is therefore the largest 'exporting' country to China. Many high-income countries are included in this top 10: Japan, USA, Germany, Belgium, Australia and Canada are all major plastic exporters.

China has been increasing restrictions on its plastic waste imports since 2007. In 2010, it implemented its "Green Fence" program - a temporary restriction for plastic imports with significantly less contamination.

In 2017 it implemented a much stricter, permanent ban on non-industrial plastic imports.⁷⁴ In the chart we see the estimated impact on the cumulative displacement of global plastic waste to 2030 as a result of the Chinese import ban.⁷⁵ This is shown for three scenarios: assuming the maintained 100 percent import ban, in addition to the impact if this was reduced to 75 or 50 percent.

By 2030, it's estimated that around 110 million tonnes of plastic will be displaced as a result of the ban. This plastic waste will have to be handled domestically or exported to another country. Brooks et al. (2018) suggest this ban has several implications:

exporting countries can use this as an opportunity to improve domestic recycled infrastructure and generate internal markets;

if recycling infrastructure is lacking, this provides further incentive for countries to reduce primary plastic production (and create more circular material models) to reduce the quantity of waste which needs to be handled;

it fundamentally changes the nature of global plastic trade, representing an opportunity to share and promote best practices of waste management, and harmonize technical standards on waste protocols;

some other countries may attempt to become a key plastic importer in place of China; one challenge is that many countries do not yet have sufficient waste management infrastructure to handle recycled waste imports;

countries considering importing significant quantities of plastic waste could consider an import tax specifically aimed at funding the development of sufficient infrastructure to handle such waste.

In the chart we show the plastic waste generate rate per person versus gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. In general - although there is significant variation across countries at all levels of development - plastic waste generation tends to increase as we get richer. Per capita plastic waste at low incomes tends to be notably smaller.

Whilst per capita plastic waste generation tends to increase with income (see above), this general relationship does not hold when we consider mismanaged plastic waste.

In the chart we show the mismanaged per capita plastic waste generation rate versus GDP per capita.

Here we see an inverse-U curve pattern. Mismanaged waste generation tends to be low at very low incomes (since per capita waste is small); it then rises towards middle incomes; and then falls again at higher incomes.

Countries around the middle of the global income spectrum therefore tend to have the highest per capita mismanaged plastic rates.

This has typically occurred in countries that have rapidly industrialized, but failed to make progress in waste management at the same speed.

The development of effective waste management infrastructure, particularly in middle-income countries, is therefore crucial to make progress against plastic pollution.

It is also the case that countries with high levels of mismanaged waste also have large coastal populations (as shown in the chart). This exacerbates the challenge of ocean plastic pollution because poorly-managed waste is at high risk of entering the ocean.

In addition to this main data entry we have collated some of the most common questions on plastics on our FAQ on Plastics page. You may find the answer to additional questions on this topic there.

Data Quality & Definitions

The definitions of key terms used in this entry are as follows:

Discarded: waste that is not recycled or incinerated; this includes waste that goes to landfill (closed or open), is littered, or lost to the natural environment.

Incineration: a method waste treatment which involves the burning of material at very high temperatures. In some cases, energy recovery from the incineration process is possible. The burning of plastics can release toxins to the air and surrounding environment and should therefore be carried out under controlled and regulated conditions.

Inadequately managed waste: waste is not formally managed and includes disposal in dumps or open, uncontrolled landfills, where it is not fully contained. Inadequately managed waste has high risk of polluting rivers and oceans. This does not include 'littered' plastic waste, which is approximately 2% of total waste (including high-income countries).⁷⁶

Mismanaged waste: material that is either littered or inadequately disposed (the sum of littered and inadequately disposed waste). Inadequately disposed waste is not formally managed and includes disposal in dumps or open, uncontrolled landfills, where it is not fully contained. Mismanaged waste could eventually enter the ocean via inland waterways, wastewater outflows, and transport by wind or tides.⁷⁷

Plastic particles are typically grouped into categories depending on their size (as measured by their diameter). The table summarizes some standard ranges for a given particle category.⁷⁸

Particle category Diameter range
(mm = millimetres)

Nanoplastics

< 0.0001 mm (0.1μm)

Small microplastics

0.00001 - 1 mm

Large microplastics

1 - 4.75 mm

Mesoplastics

4.76 - 200 mm

Macroplastics

>200 mm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The use of plastics has many benefits - it is affordable, versatile, resistant, and can help reduce other forms of waste - especially food waste. However, when poorly managed it can pollute the environment and our oceans. Where does the plastic in our oceans come from and what can we do to reduce plastic pollution?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is the citation of the original data obtained from the source, prior to any processing or adaptation by Our World in Data. To cite data downloaded from this page, please use the suggested citation given in Reuse This Work below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cumulative global production of plastics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cumulative annual production of polymer resin and fibers.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Brief History of How Plastic Has Changed Our World | National Geographic

# data[].attributes.subject
A Brief History of How Plastic Has Changed Our World | National Geographic

# data[].attributes.body
National Geographic | 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Brief History of How Plastic Has Changed Our World | National Geographic

# data[].attributes.body
Ted-Ed | 2020

# data[].attributes.body
Science History Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What Are Plastics and Where Do They Come From?
Plastic is a word that originally meant "pliable and easily shaped." It only recently became a name for a category of materials called polymers. The word polymer means "of many parts," and polymers are made of long chains of molecules. Polymers abound in nature. Cellulose, the material that makes up the cell walls of plants, is a very common natural polymer.

Over the last century and a half humans have learned how to make synthetic polymers, sometimes using natural substances like cellulose, but more often using the plentiful carbon atoms provided by petroleum and other fossil fuels. Synthetic polymers are made up of long chains of atoms, arranged in repeating units, often much longer than those found in nature. It is the length of these chains, and the patterns in which they are arrayed, that make polymers strong, lightweight, and flexible. In other words, it's what makes them so plastic.

These properties make synthetic polymers exceptionally useful, and since we learned how to create and manipulate them, polymers have become an essential part of our lives. Especially over the last 50 years plastics have saturated our world and changed the way that we live.
The First Synthetic Plastic
The first synthetic polymer was invented in 1869 by John Wesley Hyatt, who was inspired by a New York firm's offer of $10,000 for anyone who could provide a substitute for ivory. The growing popularity of billiards had put a strain on the supply of natural ivory, obtained through the slaughter of wild elephants. By treating cellulose, derived from cotton fiber, with camphor, Hyatt discovered a plastic that could be crafted into a variety of shapes and made to imitate natural substances like tortoiseshell, horn, linen, and ivory.

This discovery was revolutionary. For the first time human manufacturing was not constrained by the limits of nature. Nature only supplied so much wood, metal, stone, bone, tusk, and horn. But now humans could create new materials. This development helped not only people but also the environment. Advertisements praised celluloid as the savior of the elephant and the tortoise. Plastics could protect the natural world from the destructive forces of human need.

The creation of new materials also helped free people from the social and economic constraints imposed by the scarcity of natural resources. Inexpensive celluloid made material wealth more widespread and obtainable. And the plastics revolution was only getting started.
The Development of New Plastics
In 1907 Leo Baekeland invented Bakelite, the first fully synthetic plastic, meaning it contained no molecules found in nature. Baekeland had been searching for a synthetic substitute for shellac, a natural electrical insulator, to meet the needs of the rapidly electrifying United States. Bakelite was not only a good insulator; it was also durable, heat resistant, and, unlike celluloid, ideally suited for mechanical mass production. Marketed as "the material of a thousand uses," Bakelite could be shaped or molded into almost anything, providing endless possibilities.

Hyatt's and Baekeland's successes led major chemical companies to invest in the research and development of new polymers, and new plastics soon joined celluloid and Bakelite. While Hyatt and Baekeland had been searching for materials with specific properties, the new research programs sought new plastics for their own sake and worried about finding uses for them later.
Plastics Come of Age
World War II necessitated a great expansion of the plastics industry in the United States, as industrial might proved as important to victory as military success. The need to preserve scarce natural resources made the production of synthetic alternatives a priority. Plastics provided those substitutes. Nylon, invented by Wallace Carothers in 1935 as a synthetic silk, was used during the war for parachutes, ropes, body armor, helmet liners, and more. Plexiglas provided an alternative to glass for aircraft windows. A Time magazine article noted that because of the war, "plastics have been turned to new uses and the adaptability of plastics demonstrated all over again."[1] During World War II plastic production in the United States increased by 300%.

The surge in plastic production continued after the war ended. After experiencing the Great Depression and then World War II, Americans were ready to spend again, and much of what they bought was made of plastic. According to author Susan Freinkel, "In product after product, market after market, plastics challenged traditional materials and won, taking the place of steel in cars, paper and glass in packaging, and wood in furniture."[2] The possibilities of plastics gave some observers an almost utopian vision of a future with abundant material wealth thanks to an inexpensive, safe, sanitary substance that could be shaped by humans to their every whim.
Growing Concerns about Plastics
The unblemished optimism about plastics didn't last. In the postwar years there was a shift in American perceptions as plastics were no longer seen as unambiguously positive. Plastic debris in the oceans was first observed in the 1960s, a decade in which Americans became increasingly aware of environmental problems. Rachel Carson's 1962 book, Silent Spring, exposed the dangers of chemical pesticides. In 1969 a major oil spill occurred off the California coast and the polluted Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught fire, raising concerns about pollution. As awareness about environmental issues spread, the persistence of plastic waste began to trouble observers.

Plastic also gradually became a word used to describe that which was cheap, flimsy, or fake. In The Graduate, one of the top movies of 1968, Dustin Hoffman's character was urged by an older acquaintance to make a career in plastics. Audiences cringed along with Hoffman at what they saw as misplaced enthusiasm for an industry that, rather than being full of possibilities, was a symbol of cheap conformity and superficiality.
Plastic Problems: Waste and Health
Plastic's reputation fell further in the 1970s and 1980s as anxiety about waste increased. Plastic became a special target because, while so many plastic products are disposable, plastic lasts forever in the environment. It was the plastics industry that offered recycling as a solution. In the 1980s the plastics industry led an influential drive encouraging municipalities to collect and process recyclable materials as part of their waste-management systems. However, recycling is far from perfect, and most plastics still end up in landfills or in the environment. Grocery-store plastic bags have become a target for activists looking to ban one-use, disposable plastics, and several American cities have already passed bag bans. The ultimate symbol of the problem of plastic waste is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which has often been described as a swirl of plastic garbage the size of Texas floating in the Pacific Ocean.

The reputation of plastics has suffered further thanks to a growing concern about the potential threat they pose to human health. These concerns focus on the additives (such as the much-discussed bisphenol A [BPA] and a class of chemicals called phthalates) that go into plastics during the manufacturing process, making them more flexible, durable, and transparent. Some scientists and members of the public are concerned about evidence that these chemicals leach out of plastics and into our food, water, and bodies. In very high doses these chemicals can disrupt the endocrine (or hormonal) system. Researchers worry particularly about the effects of these chemicals on children and what continued accumulation means for future generations.
The Future of Plastics
Despite growing mistrust, plastics are critical to modern life. Plastics made possible the development of computers, cell phones, and most of the lifesaving advances of modern medicine. Lightweight and good for insulation, plastics help save fossil fuels used in heating and in transportation. Perhaps most important, inexpensive plastics raised the standard of living and made material abundance more readily available. Without plastics many possessions that we take for granted might be out of reach for all but the richest Americans. Replacing natural materials with plastic has made many of our possessions cheaper, lighter, safer, and stronger.

Since it's clear that plastics have a valuable place in our lives, some scientists are attempting to make plastics safer and more sustainable. Some innovators are developing bioplastics, which are made from plant crops instead of fossil fuels, to create substances that are more environmentally friendly than conventional plastics. Others are working to make plastics that are truly biodegradable. Some innovators are searching for ways to make recycling more efficient, and they even hope to perfect a process that converts plastics back into the fossil fuels from which they were derived. All of these innovators recognize that plastics are not perfect but that they are an important and necessary part of our future.

[1] Joseph L. Nicholson and George R. Leighton, "Plastics Come of Age," Harper's Magazine, August 1942, p. 306.

[2] Susan Freinkel, Plastics: A Toxic Love Story (New York: Henry Holt, 2011), p. 4.
View as PDF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
History and Future of Plastics What Are Plastics and Where Do They Come From? Plastic is a word that originally meant "pliable and easily shaped." It only recently became a name for a category of materials called polymers. The word polymer means "of many parts," and polymers are made of long chains of molecules.

# data[].attributes.body
Player.fm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thirty-Seven Best Plastic Pollution Podcasts For 2021. Latest was Hiroshima Oysters Ocean Plastic Pollution Problem. Listen online, no signup necessary.

# data[].attributes.body
Exploring Plastic Waster in Our Environment | NPR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NPR explores one of the most important issues of our time: plastic waste in our environment.

# data[].attributes.body
NPR

# data[].attributes.headline
Plastisphere: A podcast on plastic pollution in the environmen‪t‬

# data[].attributes.subject
Plastisphere: A podcast on plastic pollution in the environmen‪t‬

# data[].attributes.body
Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A podcast on plastic, people, and the planet. By @anjakrieger

A podcast on plastic, people, and the planet. By @anjakrieger

Fantastic

Very high quality podcast with very useful information about plastic that we all should know.

Polymers are everywhere

As a polymer engineer, I found the podcast very helpful to get ideas all around the scientists and policy-makers. As a special area of mine, the episode about bioplastics was important to listen especially it shed the light on the public view from different backgrounds which was a weak part of mine.
Love from Turkey.

A Gift to Humanity's Future

Hello from New York City! May this finds you all in good health and spirits. I'm an electronic musician with ab interest in marine invertebrates zoology. Your show is fantastic and I believe vitally important for all the worlds parents to be attentive of, right now. I don't have nor am I planning on having children. But my friend's and nephew and my family's children matter to me. Keep up the great work, this is as fascinating to me as it is terrifying, but so important to understand better...(!) Much Thanks!! 🙏🏼👌🏼

I became increasingly concerned about plastics nearly 2 years ago when I saw the headlines on carbon emissions exceeding those EVER recorded in human history. I was working in retail and saw the Newsweek headline on an iPad. A dreadful reminder of things I knew from childhood, and PBS that we would be facing (I'm 54 this year). The article contained a link to the relationship of plastics and CO2 emissions. I reeled from the data. (shockingly sobering!) I had not even considered where most plastics came from... and though I knew it was a physical crisis, for animals (the gyres, etc.) I had not even suspected the CO2 emissions - which are staggering. I plunged into feverish research on plastics in Marine environments. that is where I found your podcast, and I am definitely going to donate to help you keep this running.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
plastisphere: a podcast on plastic pollution in the environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‎Plastisphere: A podcast on plastic pollution in the environment on Apple Podcasts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A podcast on plastic, people, and the planet. By @anjakrieger A podcast on plastic, people, and the planet. By @anjakrieger Very high quality podcast with very useful information about plastic that we all should know. As a polymer engineer, I found the podcast very helpful to get ideas all around the scientists and policy-makers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Plastisphere: A podcast on plastic pollution in the environmen‪t

# data[].attributes.subject
Plastisphere: A podcast on plastic pollution in the environmen‪t

# data[].attributes.body
Anja Krieger

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A podcast on plastic, people, and the planet. By @anjakrieger

A podcast on plastic, people, and the planet. By @anjakrieger

Fantastic

Very high quality podcast with very useful information about plastic that we all should know.

Polymers are everywhere

As a polymer engineer, I found the podcast very helpful to get ideas all around the scientists and policy-makers. As a special area of mine, the episode about bioplastics was important to listen especially it shed the light on the public view from different backgrounds which was a weak part of mine.
Love from Turkey.

A Gift to Humanity's Future

Hello from New York City! May this finds you all in good health and spirits. I'm an electronic musician with ab interest in marine invertebrates zoology. Your show is fantastic and I believe vitally important for all the worlds parents to be attentive of, right now. I don't have nor am I planning on having children. But my friend's and nephew and my family's children matter to me. Keep up the great work, this is as fascinating to me as it is terrifying, but so important to understand better...(!) Much Thanks!! 🙏🏼👌🏼

I became increasingly concerned about plastics nearly 2 years ago when I saw the headlines on carbon emissions exceeding those EVER recorded in human history. I was working in retail and saw the Newsweek headline on an iPad. A dreadful reminder of things I knew from childhood, and PBS that we would be facing (I'm 54 this year). The article contained a link to the relationship of plastics and CO2 emissions. I reeled from the data. (shockingly sobering!) I had not even considered where most plastics came from... and though I knew it was a physical crisis, for animals (the gyres, etc.) I had not even suspected the CO2 emissions - which are staggering. I plunged into feverish research on plastics in Marine environments. that is where I found your podcast, and I am definitely going to donate to help you keep this running.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
plastisphere: a podcast on plastic pollution in the environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‎Plastisphere: A podcast on plastic pollution in the environment on Apple Podcasts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A podcast on plastic, people, and the planet. By @anjakrieger A podcast on plastic, people, and the planet. By @anjakrieger Very high quality podcast with very useful information about plastic that we all should know. As a polymer engineer, I found the podcast very helpful to get ideas all around the scientists and policy-makers.

# data[].attributes.body
Rachel Salt | 2019
Grades 4-8 | Non-Fiction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Human beings are an amazingly inventive species in creating technologies that have taken us far beyond planetary boundaries that constrain all other animals. Whether it's very powerful innovations like pesticides, antibiotics or combustion engines, we fail to consider the long-term ramifications of our enterprises in a world where everything is interconnected. Plastics are a classic example, created by chemists from complex molecules of life in fossil fuels, applied in so many useful ways but ignoring what happens when the products are discarded as waste on such a scale that we have a gargantuan problem. The story of plastic is a cautionary tale about every aspect of the way we are living in the Anthropocene."
-- David Suzuki

The shocking truth of plastic's impact on our planet -- and what we can do about it.

The data is in and it's bad. We create and throw away too much plastic, and it is killing our planet. However, too many people have very little idea about just how far this problem reaches, and those who do know feel helpless with the enormity of the task at hand.

To fill this void and provide some hope is Rachel Salt's simple and transformative book, The Plastic Problem.

As a producer for the award-winning and wildly popular YouTube channel AsapSCIENCE, Salt is accustomed to taking big, complicated concepts and translating them into entertaining and easy-to-understand segments. She applies the same methodology to The Plastic Problem. The result is a critically important book that will change the lives of those who read it. Never before has the problem been presented in such an impactful way. Readers of any age will emerge from this book with a thorough understanding of the problem, its individual and global impacts, and -- most importantly -- hope for the future.

In 18 bite-sized chapters, Salt walks readers through the invention and globalized creation of plastic, its impacts and uses in our day-today lives, and its importance to the larger global economy. She then examines the how and why of what makes plastic so harmful to our planet and, just in case there was any doubt, Salt reinforces this danger by providing chapters on the planet-choking results of our plastic habit -- including the fact that there is almost certainly, plastic floating inside each and every person in the world.

Salt finishes this vital book with a message of hope. All is not lost. We can make changes -- both at home and on a global scale.

Big changes are already happening. If you want to be an actor and help change the future, The Plastic Problem is the best place to start.

" Plastic kills. Breaking our plastic addiction is a matter of survival for humans and it impacts every creature on Earth to the deepest part of the ocean. With clear, concise prose and illustrations, The Plastic Problem navigates a way through this plastic mess we've found ourselves in."
-- Erich Hoyt, author of Encyclopedia of Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises, Orca: The Whale Called Killer and Creatures of the Deep; Research Fellow, Whale and Dolphin Conservation; Co-chair, IUCN Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
juvenile nonfiction / science & nature / environmental conservation & protection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
juvenile nonfiction/recycling & green living

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
juvenile nonfiction/science & nature - environmental conservation & protection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
science & nature - environmental conservation & protection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
juvenile nonfiction / science & nature / environmental conservation & protection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
juvenile nonfiction/recycling & green living

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
juvenile nonfiction/science & nature - environmental conservation & protection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Plastic Problem [Salt, Rachel] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Plastic Problem

# data[].attributes.headline
How Adidas is turning plastic ocean waste into sneakers and sportswear

# data[].attributes.subject
How Adidas is turning plastic ocean waste into sneakers and sportswear

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Narrator: Adidas makes over 400 million pairs of shoes every year. Manufacturing that many shoes requires a lot of resources. But constantly creating new materials isn't great for the environment. So Adidas is turning to a different source.

Experts predict that in 30 years, there will be more plastic in our oceans than fish. And one study estimates that 90% of seabirds have consumed some form of plastic waste. All that pollution on beaches and in the ocean is harmful to both marine life and humans. So Adidas is trying to stop some of that plastic before it reaches the ocean. In 2015, Adidas partnered with the environmental organization Parley for the Oceans. Their goal? To turn marine pollution into sportswear. And they've made huge progress.

In 2019, Adidas expects to make 11 million pairs of shoes with recycled ocean plastic. That's more than double what it made in 2018. Adidas says the partnership has prevented 2,810 tons of plastic from reaching the oceans. But how are these shoes made?

It all starts at the beach. Parley and its partners collect trash from coastal areas like the Maldives. The waste is then sorted, and the recovered plastic is sent to an Adidas processing plant. Adidas uses plastic bottles that contain polyethylene terephthalate, or PET. And if it's something Adidas can't use, like caps and rings? Those get sent to normal recycling facilities.

The processing plant crushes, washes, and dehydrates the waste, leaving nothing but small plastic flakes. The flakes are heated, dried, and cooled, then cut into small resin pellets. Normally, polyester is made from petroleum. But Adidas melts these pellets to create a filament, which is spun into what they call Ocean Plastic, a form of polyester yarn. Adidas uses Ocean Plastic to form the upper parts of shoes and clothing like jerseys. Each item in the Parley collection is made from at least 75% intercepted marine trash. And they still meet the same performance and comfort standards of Adidas' other shoes. Recycled polyester uses less water and fewer chemicals and helps prevent plastic pollution.

Adidas' goal is to replace all virgin polyester with recycled polyester by 2024. Currently, more than 40% of Adidas' apparel uses recycled polyester. You may have seen Adidas' recycled sportswear without even noticing it. Clothing made with Ocean Plastic has been used in college football, baseball, the NHL, the Australian Open, and more. But this doesn't eliminate plastic pollution entirely. Washing polyester clothing can create microfibers, which may end up in the ocean. Adidas suggests that customers wash their clothes less often, use cold water, and fully fill the machine each time.

But this is just the first step. Adidas is also developing a 100% recyclable shoe called the Futurecraft Loop. This shoe is made to be remade. Because it can be returned and broken down to create a brand-new pair. Futurecraft Loop is expected to be available in 2021.

With the help of Parley for the Oceans, Adidas is using readily available material to manufacture new products. Which is a big step towards a sustainable future.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This video was originally published in September 2019.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Adidas is turning plastic ocean waste into sneakers and sportswear

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Narrator: Adidas makes over 400 million pairs of shoes every year. Manufacturing that many shoes requires a lot of resources. But constantly creating new materials isn't great for the environment. So Adidas is turning to a different source. Experts predict that in 30 years, there will be more plastic in our oceans than fish.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Take actIon to reduce plastic pollution and for an equitable and healthy zero waste, climate smart future for children everywhere.

# data[].attributes.headline
Microplastics revealed in the placentas of unborn babies

# data[].attributes.subject
Microplastics revealed in the placentas of unborn babies

# data[].attributes.body
Damian Carrington | The Guardian | 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Microplastic particles have been revealed in the placentas of unborn babies for the first time, which the researchers said is "a matter of great concern".

The health impact of microplastics in the body is as yet unknown. But the scientists said they could carry chemicals that could cause long-term damage or upset the foetus's developing immune system. The particles are likely to have been consumed or breathed in by the mothers.

The particles were found in the placentas from four healthy women who had normal pregnancies and births. Microplastics were detected on both the foetal and maternal sides of the placenta and in the membrane within which the foetus develops.

A dozen plastic particles were found. Only about 4% of each placenta was analysed, however, suggesting the total number of microplastics was much higher. All the particles analysed were plastics that had been dyed blue, red, orange or pink and may have originally come from packaging, paints or cosmetics and personal care products.

The microplastics were mostly 10 microns in size (0.01mm), meaning they are small enough to be carried in the bloodstream. The particles may have entered the babies' bodies, but the researchers were unable to assess this.

"It is like having a cyborg baby: no longer composed only of human cells, but a mixture of biological and inorganic entities," said Antonio Ragusa, director of obstetrics and gynaecology at the San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli hospital in Rome, and who led the study. "The mothers were shocked."

In the study, published in the journal Environment International, the researchers concluded: "Due to the crucial role of placenta in supporting the foetus's development and in acting as an interface with the external environment, the presence of potentially harmful plastic particles is a matter of great concern. Further studies need to be performed to assess if the presence of microplastics may trigger immune responses or may lead to the release of toxic contaminants, resulting in harm."

The potential effects of microplastics on foetuses include reduced foetal growth, they said. The particles were not found in placentas from two other women in the study, which may be the result of different physiology, diet or lifestyle, the scientists said.

Microplastics pollution has reached every part of the planet, from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. People are already known to consume the tiny particles via food and water, and to breathe them in.

Their effect in the body is unknown but scientists say there is an urgent need to assess the issue, particularly for infants. In October, scientists revealed that babies fed formula milk in plastic bottles are swallowing millions of particles a day. In 2019, researchers reported the discovery of air pollution particles on the foetal side of placentas, indicating that unborn babies are also exposed to the dirty air produced by motor traffic and fossil fuel burning.

The Italian researchers used a plastic-free protocol to deliver the babies in order to prevent any contamination of the placentas. Obstetricians and midwives used cotton gloves to assist the women in labour and only cotton towels were used in the delivery room.

Andrew Shennan, professor of obstetrics at King's College London, told the Daily Mail it was reassuring that the babies in the study had normal births but "it is obviously preferable not to have foreign bodies while the baby is developing".

Elizabeth Salter Green, at the chemicals charity Chem Trust, said: "Babies are being born pre-polluted. The study was very small but nevertheless flags a very worrying concern."

A separate recent study showed that nanoparticles of plastic inhaled by pregnant laboratory rats were detected in the liver, lungs, heart, kidney, and brain of their foetuses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Microplastics revealed in the placentas of unborn babies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Microplastic particles have been revealed in the placentas of unborn babies for the first time, which the researchers said is "a matter of great concern". The health impact of microplastics in the body is as yet unknown. But the scientists said they could carry chemicals that could cause long-term damage or upset the foetus's developing immune system.

# data[].attributes.headline
What are watersheds and why do they matter for plastic pollution? Trash Academy Lesson # 3

# data[].attributes.subject
What are watersheds and why do they matter for plastic pollution? Trash Academy Lesson # 3

# data[].attributes.body
The 5 Gyres Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are watersheds and why do they matter for plastic pollution? Trash Academy Lesson # 3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The History of Plastic: Lesson 1 of Trash Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
empowering action against the global health crisis of plastic pollution through science, education, and advocacy

We're working toward a future free of plastic pollution.

We conduct scientific research to understand the issue and find viable solutions.

We advocate for better regulation of plastic usage and disposal on local, state, and federal levels.

We make complex topics easy to understand so that everyone can make informed decisions.

Discovered 5.25 trillion particles of plastic smog equaling 270,000 metric tons (which is less than 1% of the new plastic made in a single year)

Diverted 16 billion microbeads from the ocean with the #beadfree pledge resulting in the Microbeads Free Waters Act of 2015

Explored 50,000+ nautical miles on 19 research expeditions over 10 years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
5 Gyres empowers action against the global health crisis of plastic pollution through science, art, education, and adventure.

# data[].attributes.body
Jess French  | 2019
Grades 1-4 | Non-Fiction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this informative book on recycling for children, you will find everything you need to know about our environment. The good, the bad and the incredibly innovative. From pollution and litter to renewable energy and plastic recycling.
This educational book will teach young budding ecologists about how our actions affect planet Earth and the big impact we can make by the little things we do.

Did you know that every single plastic toothbrush ever made still exists? Or that there is a floating mass of trash larger than the USA drifting around the Pacific Ocean?

It is not all bad news though. While this is a knowledge book that explains where we are going wrong, What a Waste also shows what we are getting right! Discover plans to save our seas. How countries are implementing green projects worldwide, and how to turn waste into something useful. The tiniest everyday changes can make all the difference to ensure our beautiful planet stays lush and teeming with life.

It is a lively kid's educational book with fabulous illustrations and fun facts about the world broken into easy to digest bite-sized bits. Each page can be looked at in short bursts or longer reads for more detail, making it a great children's book for a range of age groups.
Get Involved - Make A Difference!
Almost everything we do creates waste, from litter and leftovers to factory gases and old gadgets. Find out where it goes, how it affects our planet and what we can do to reduce the problem.

From how to make your home more energy and water efficient, to which items can be recycled and tips for grocery shopping, this book is packed full of ideas on how you can get involved to make our planet a better place to live.

This environment book for children has a wealth of ideas for becoming a planet-defending hero:
- Discover shocking facts about the waste we produce and where it goes
- Learn where about our Earth's limited resources and how to take some pressure off
- Your trash is another man's treasure
- Small changes to take your home from wasteful to super resource efficient
- Dive into saving our oceans and super recycling
- And much, much more

What a Waste is one of several nature books for kids written by Jess French, a passionate conservationist and veterinarian committed to protecting the beautiful world we live in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
7 year old boy gifts;gifts for 8 year old girls;gifts for 8 year old boys;gifts for 7 year old girls;eco friendly gift;books for kids;recycle;earth science;science for kids;climate change;global warming;amazing facts for kids;kids fact books;non fiction books for kids age 7-9;ocean books for kids;planet earth;recycling books for kids;recycling books for children;pollution;air pollution;environment books for kids;green living books;ecology;food waste;renewable energy;zero waste;recycling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
children’s / teenage general interest: practical interests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
children’s / teenage social issues: environment and green issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
juvenile nonfiction / recycling & green living

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
juvenile nonfiction / science & nature / environmental conservation & protection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
juvenile nonfiction/recycling & green living

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
juvenile nonfiction/science & nature - environmental conservation & protection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
science & nature - environmental conservation & protection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
teenage general interest: practical interests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
teenage social issues: environment and green issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
green living books; ecology; food waste; renewable energy; zero waste; environmental protection; recycling; amazing facts for kids; kids fact books; non fiction books for kids age 5-8; non fiction books for kids age 7-9; nonfiction books for kids 6-8; ocean books for kids; planet earth; recycling books for kids; recycling books for children; pollution; air pollution; environment books for kids; environment; environmental science; recycle; earth science; science for kids; climate change; global warming; books for kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
juvenile nonfiction / recycling & green living

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
juvenile nonfiction / science & nature / environmental conservation & protection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
juvenile nonfiction/recycling & green living

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
juvenile nonfiction/science & nature - environmental conservation & protection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
children’s / teenage general interest: practical interests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
children’s / teenage social issues: environment and green issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What a Waste: Trash, Recycling, and Protecting our Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What a Waste: Trash, Recycling, and Protecting our Planet [French, Jess] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. What a Waste: Trash, Recycling, and Protecting our Planet

# data[].attributes.body
Ted-ed | 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What really happens to the plastic you throw away - Emma Bryce

# data[].attributes.body
Ted-ed | 2020

# data[].attributes.headline
How Big Oil Is Using the Pandemic to Push More Plastic

# data[].attributes.subject
How Big Oil Is Using the Pandemic to Push More Plastic

# data[].attributes.body
Drilled | Amy Westervelt | 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Big Oil Is Using the Pandemic to Push More Plastic by Drilled

# data[].attributes.headline
Plastic Pollution: How Humans are Turning the World into Plastic

# data[].attributes.subject
Plastic Pollution: How Humans are Turning the World into Plastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic Pollution: How Humans are Turning the World into Plastic

# data[].attributes.headline
Plastic Free: The Inspiring Story of a Global Environmental Movement and Why It Matters

# data[].attributes.subject
Plastic Free: The Inspiring Story of a Global Environmental Movement and Why It Matters

# data[].attributes.body
Rebecca Prince-Ruiz + Joanna Atherfold Finn | 2020
Amazon

# data[].attributes.headline
Big Oil’s hopes are pinned on plastics. It won’t end well.

# data[].attributes.subject
Big Oil’s hopes are pinned on plastics. It won’t end well.

# data[].attributes.body
David Roberts | Vox | 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The fossil fuel industry has not been doing well lately. Even before the Covid-19 pandemic hit, growth in global demand had slowed to 1 percent annually. Now, lockdowns and distancing to stop the spread of the coronavirus have decimated the industry. The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently released projections of rapid short-term decline in global demand, to the tune of 9 percent for oil, 8 percent for coal, and 5 percent for gas.

Depending on how long and severe the economic crisis proves to be, it will take years for demand to recover. Indeed, with electric vehicles cutting into oil demand by the end of the decade, it may never fully recover. Industry analysts like Carbon Tracker's Kingsmill Bond are speculating that 2019 may turn out to be the peak of fossil fuel demand, and historically, in other industries, a peak in demand "tends to mark the beginning of a period of low prices and poor returns," says Bond.

But the industry has a response to this dire forecast, and it can be summarized in one word: plastics.

Overall, plastics represent a fairly small sliver of oil demand. Annually, the world consumes around 4,500 million tonnes (mt) of oil but only around 1,000mt of petrochemicals (oil and natural gas used to make chemical products), and of that 1,000mt, only about 350mt are plastics. (A tonne is a metric ton, about 1.1 US tons.)

Nonetheless, plastics are commonly projected to be the biggest source of new demand for oil over coming decades - in some projections, the only real source. It is these projections that the industry is using to justify billions in new projects, as oil companies across the world shift investment toward petrochemicals.

And Big Oil is working its hardest to make the projections come true: The New York Times recently ran an investigative piece revealing the industry's plans to push more plastic, and plastic waste, into Kenya. Plastics are the thin reed upon which the industry is placing all its hopes.

But a new report released in September by Carbon Tracker throws a big bucket of cold water on these hopes. It argues that, far from a reliable source of growth, plastics are uniquely vulnerable to disruption. They are coming under increasing scrutiny and regulation across the world. Huge consumer product companies like Unilever are phasing them out. And the public is turning against them.

If existing solutions are fully implemented, growth in plastics could fall to zero. And if that happens, then there is no remaining source of net oil demand growth and 2019 will almost certainly prove to be the year of peak fossil fuels.

Let's look at a few highlights from the report.

Plastics are supposed to drive most oil demand growth

The report breaks down the projections of two widely respected sources of energy data and analysis, BP and the IEA.

From 2020 to 2040, BP expects plastics to represent 95 percent of the net growth in demand for oil.

In the IEA projections, plastics are the biggest single source of demand growth, representing 45 percent of the total. Both BP and IEA have the plastics industry growing at about 2 percent annually in the coming year.

Oil majors are more bullish. They claim the plastics industry will maintain the rate of growth it has shown since 2010, i.e., 4 percent. (For instance, Exxon touted 4 percent at its May 2020 investor day.) That kind of growth would mean a doubling of demand in 18 to 24 years, "and this appears to be what the industry is tooling up for," says the report. "The petrochemical industry already faces huge overcapacity, but is planning to spend a further $400 billion on 80mt of new capacity."

Global and national oil companies are shifting investment into petrochemicals, from Saudi Arabia to China. But the industry's rosy growth projections may not come to pass.

"In order to reach global demand growth of 4 percent, you've got to have 2 percent growth across the OECD, 4 percent growth in China, and 6 percent growth in the rest of the world," says Bond, a lead author of the report. "I would suggest that all three of those are a bit of a stretch."

Four reasons plastics may not grow as forecasted

Industry projections of growth in plastics take place in a bit of a dreamworld, ignoring several recent trends and changes. The report identifies four.
1. Rising carbon emissions are not cool in the age of the Paris agreement
Calculating the carbon footprint of plastics is a complicated business - it produces CO2 at every stage of its lifecycle, including disposal - but the best research suggests that it averages out to about 5 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of plastic (more if it's burned, less if it's landfilled). That's roughly twice the CO2 produced by a tonne of oil.

If plastic demand were to grow as projected, annual emissions associated with plastic would double by mid-century, to around 3.5 gigatons. And if it did that, SYSTEMIQ (a company that researches and pushes for changes in materials use, which provided input to the report) calculates that it would use 19 percent of the entire remaining global carbon budget.

"To have one sector planning on doubling its carbon footprint while the rest of the world plans to phase out emissions," says the report, "clearly makes no sense." Policymakers aren't going to let it happen.
2. Plastic produces external costs that are almost equal to its total market value
The plastics industry imposes all kinds of costs on society that it doesn't have to pay ("externalities"): It emits carbon dioxide, it generates air pollution, it must be collected and sorted, and a great deal of it ends up in the ocean.

Adding up all those costs, drawing on the latest research, the report comes up with with a total externalities cost of between $800 and $1,400 per tonne, with "at least $1,000" used as a reasonable rule of thumb.

And this doesn't include some of the costs the report couldn't quantify, including microplastics (in seas, waters, and food) and "terrestrial leakage," or plastic that ends up as rubbish on land.

With these costs in mind, the report looks at the subsidies and taxes facing the industry, to find out if any of these costs are incorporated. Long story short: they are not. The industry receives roughly $33 per tonne in subsidies ($12 billion cumulatively), which isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, but it turns out to be more than the industry pays in taxes ($2 billion cumulatively, with optimistic assumptions).

All told, then, a tonne of plastic imposes about $1,000 in unpaid external costs, which is about $1 per kilogram, or $350 billion a year. "The average cost of a tonne of plastic is $1,000 - $1,500," the report says, "so the subsidy from the rest of society to the plastics industry is only a little less than the total sales value of the industry."

Those "unpaid" external costs are being paid today, of course - they don't vanish. It's just that they are overwhelmingly being paid by poor people and people living in poor countries, the ones living next to toxic incinerators, gathering plastic waste, and living with the most concentrated air and water pollution.

Imposing costs on poor people so that wealthy plastics companies can profit is a human rights abuse.
3. The plastics industry is extraordinarily wasteful
The report summarizes four aspects of the industry's wasteful ways.

First, the best research indicates that about 36 percent of all plastic produced is for single-use applications. Second, 40 percent of plastic waste is mismanaged - "5% ends up in ocean leakage, 22% in open burning, and 14% in terrestrial leakage," the report says. Third, recycling rates in the industry are abysmally low; 20 percent of plastics are sent for recycling, but only about 5 percent actually end up substituting for virgin plastic. (Compare that to 60-80 percent recycling rates in steel, aluminum, and paper.)

And fourth, there have been virtually no guidelines or regulations on the design of plastic products, so just about anything goes. The result has been a tide of disposable, nonrecyclable plastic junk.

The industry has mostly responded to these kinds of criticisms with misdirection and propaganda rather than improving its products (which, to be fair, has traditionally worked pretty well for it).

"This is not an industry which has focused at all on efficiency or maximising utility," the report says. "It is a bloated behemoth, ripe for disruption."

And the public is ready to disrupt it.
4. The public is waking up to the enormous costs of plastic
Broadly speaking, the public and lawmakers are becoming more concerned and active on climate change, and "it is simply delusional for investors in the plastics sector to believe that the sector will be immune from attempts to resolve this issue," the report says.

The public is also upset about plastic waste, especially in oceans. An IPSOS polls in 2019 found that between 70 and 80 percent of the public wants to reduce plastics and force industry to go along, including a ban on single-use plastics.

This kind of sentiment is driving regulators to crack down, as in the EU, which introduced a €800/ton tax on unrecycled plastic waste as part of its green stimulus package.

Evidence shows that demand for plastic is largely saturated in OECD countries, which means the bulk of the alleged demand growth is supposed to come from China and other emerging markets, but there, too, steps are being taken to curtail plastic use and disposal. China recently banned a range of single-use plastic items; many other countries are expected to follow suit.

New York state began enforcing its ban on plastic bags on October 19, a policy that took effect on March 1.

"You see plastic bags hanging in trees, blowing down the streets, in landfills and in our waterways, and there is no doubt they are doing tremendous damage," Gov. Andrew Cuomo said when he signed the legislation. "Twelve million barrels of oil are used to make the plastic bags we use every year and by 2050 there will be more plastic by weight in the oceans than fish."

In summary, the plastics industry is bloated and wasteful, it imposes enormous social and ecological costs, and people are sick of it. That is not a recipe for robust growth.

There are solutions at hand for reducing growth in plastic

As policymakers get serious about plastics, there are a number of existing solutions ready to go, which are cheaper than the status quo. Those solutions were itemized and costed out by SYSTEMIQ in a report called " Breaking the Plastic Wave," released earlier this year.

Overall, bending the plastics curve looks like this:

Maximizing the three most scalable and cost-effective solutions - reducing demand through design, reuse, and new delivery models; substituting other products like compostables or paper; and better recycling - together constitutes what SYSTEMIQ calls the System Change Scenario (SCS).

Under SCS, total global plastic demand plateaus in 2020 and peaks in 2030.

(These projections were done before Covid-19, so as in many other areas, it's possible that the peak has been pulled forward. Wood Mackenzie projects a 4 percent drop in plastics demand in 2020, though it also says the virus "has paused the shift away from single-use plastics.")

Notably, SCS is also cheaper for industry than business as usual. Investment in new technologies goes up, but investment in virgin production and conversion are sharply reduced.

SCS would also reduce the amount of money governments spend on plastics (mainly on waste) and create more jobs than business as usual.

If you are interested in the details - how to better design plastic products, make them last longer, make then more recyclable, and ensure they are properly disposed of - the SYSTEMIQ report goes deep in the weeds. Suffice it to say, solutions to the profusion of cheap plastic and plastic waste are available. They would save money relative to the status quo. They would reduce pollution and create jobs.

And together, they would ensure that global demand for plastics peaks and begins declining within a decade, which would in turn ensure that global demand for oil does the same.

Policymakers just have to step up.

The politics of plastics are not favorable for Big Oil

Pouring money into plastics is a desperate gamble for Big Oil. Social pressure, technological innovations, and economic trends are all closing in on its main product, so it's trying to make a lateral move into another bloated, polluting industry.

The petrochemicals industry is already burdened with overcapacity, even as it pours billions into capacity expansions. If the anticipated 4 percent growth does not miraculously manifest out of the coronavirus-hobbled global economy in the next few years - and there are many reasons to believe it won't - the cumulative overcapacity will be crippling, enough to suppress prices and investment returns for years.

By the time the industry crawls out of the hole, it will find a different world, with electric vehicles and heat pumps eating away at its core market.

"I'm not suggesting that we will lose the cyclicality of oil," says Bond, "I'm sure we'll have higher prices again at some stage in the future. But it is cyclicality around a falling mean."

Plastics are probably not going to save the oil and gas industry. It is more likely that the peak point in humanity's centuries-long, planet-shaping fossil fuel binge is already in the rearview mirror, and that "cyclicality around a falling mean" will be the core truth of fossil fuels for the remainder of the century.
Give the gift of understanding
In April, Vox launched a way for readers to support our work with financial contributions - and we've been blown away by the response. This year, support from our founding contributors has helped us create projects that millions relied on to understand a year of chaos, and to keep their families safe. Support from our readers helps us rely less on advertising, and keep our resource-intensive work free for everyone who needs it. We want to add 2,020 more founding contributors to our supporter base by the end of the year. Help us reach our goal by making a contribution to Vox today, from as little as $3.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Big Oil's hopes are pinned on plastics. It won't end well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The fossil fuel industry has not been doing well lately. Even before the Covid-19 pandemic hit, growth in global demand had slowed to 1 percent annually. Now, lockdowns and distancing to stop the spread of the coronavirus have decimated the industry.

# data[].attributes.body
National Geographic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Once a completely natural product, much of today's plastic is man-made and largely dependent upon fossil fuels. From polymers to nurdles, learn how plastic is created and what we can do to slow the lasting repercussions this material will have on both our planet and our lives.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kenyan woman finds a way to recycle plastic waste into bricks that are stronger than concrete

# data[].attributes.subject
Kenyan woman finds a way to recycle plastic waste into bricks that are stronger than concrete

# data[].attributes.body
Catherine Garcia | Yahoo News | 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Using her ingenuity and engineering skills, Nzambi Matee found a way to help the environment by converting plastic waste into building materials.

In 2017, Matee opened a factory in Nairobi called Gjenge Makers, where workers take plastic waste, mix it with sand, and heat it up, with the resulting brick being five to seven times stronger than concrete. The factory accepts waste that other facilities "cannot process anymore, they cannot recycle," Matee told Reuters. "That is what we get."

The bricks are made of plastic that was originally used for milk and shampoo bottles, cereal and sandwich bags, buckets, and ropes. Every day, Gjenge Makers produces about 1,500 bricks, in different sizes and colors. Matee is a materials engineer, and she designed the factory's machines after becoming sick of waiting for government officials to do something about plastic pollution. "I was tired of being on the sidelines," she told Reuters.

Since opening, Gjenge Makers has recycled 20 tons of plastic waste, and Matee plans on adding a larger production line that will allow the factory to triple its output.
More stories from theweek.com
Marjorie Taylor Greene is getting exactly what she wants
Democrats may only have one chance to stop America from becoming a one-party state
GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger mocks GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz after House GOP votes to keep Liz Cheney in leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kenyan woman finds a way to recycle plastic waste into bricks that are stronger than concrete

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using her ingenuity and engineering skills, Nzambi Matee found a way to help the environment by converting plastic waste into building materials. In 2017, Matee opened a factory in Nairobi called Gjenge Makers, where workers take plastic waste, mix it with sand, and heat it up, with the resulting brick being five to seven times stronger than concrete.

# data[].attributes.body
United Nation | 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic bricks in Kenya - NZAMBI MATEE - Young Champion of the Earth 2020 for Africa

# data[].attributes.body
CoolAustralia.org