Category Archives: Plastic Pollution Articles & News

Industry figures show record production in 2021, and almost none of that plastic is getting recycled.When Exxon Mobil announced a record $56 billion annual profits last week, it noted that the company had established “one of the largest advanced recycling facilities in North America, capable of processing more than 80 million pounds of plastic waste per year.”That seems like a lot of recycling muscle, except when you consider another figure. The company produced an estimated 6 million metric tons, or 13.2 billion pounds, of polymers used to make plastic in 2021 alone. That is an estimate from a report published by the Minderoo Foundation, set up by the Australian mining magnate Andrew Forrest. Minderoo tracks plastic waste and campaigns against it.Exxon is the largest producer of virgin polymers, which are derived from petrochemicals and used in plastic. The second largest is a Chinese company called Sinopec.Asked for comment on the Minderoo report, an Exxon spokeswoman said that “plastics play a vital role in everyday life” and that the company is trying to scale up recycling. “By working with others in industry, governments, communities and consumers, we are helping expand recycling programs so that more plastic waste is transformed into valuable products rather than ending up in landfills.”Despite consumer concern, we are trashing more and more plastic.Plastics production continued to grow, according to industry data. So did plastic trash: 139 million metric tons in 2021, more than ever before. That’s a lot, especially considering that plastic entered our everyday lives after World War II. They’re so pervasive that when one reporter tried to spend a day living without plastic, it yielded this delightfully absurd essay.Almost all of that 139 million metric tons of plastic is made from “virgin” petroleum products that have never been used or processed before. Barely 2 percent gets recycled, Minderoo researchers estimated.Plastic waste is more than a local environmental pollutant.It clogs streams. It chokes turtles. It gets caught on a bare branch and blows in the breeze. It stews in landfills.But it is also a climate pollutant. From the extraction of fossil fuels to make polymers to the transport and disposal of the waste, single-use plastics produced 450 million metric tons of planet-warming greenhouse gases in 2021 alone, according to estimates by Minderoo, or just below the annual emissions of Britain.Minderoo is pressing for levies on “fossil-fuel polymer production and/or consumption” to fund the collection and recycling of plastic waste.A factory in Riverside, Calif., that makes plastic containers for fruit retailers.Mark Abramson for The New York TimesWhat about those triangles and arrows on plastic products?They’re deceptive. Many of us assume the ♺ triangle means we can dispose of the product in our municipal recycling bins. Not so. Each triangle has a number within. Numbers 1 and 2 are commonly recyclable in the United States. For Numbers 3-7, it’s sometimes, rarely or never. (California banned the use of the symbol on plastics that are not widely recyclable.)Rigid plastics are more likely to be recycled than soft plastics.Some of the worst kinds of plastics are also those products that are marketed to the poor, especially in the global south, like tiny, low-priced sachets for shampoos and creams. They’re made of soft, thin plastic that’s hard to collect, sort and recycle.Here’s our guide from last year, and an earlier Climate Forward newsletter that describes how some cities outside the United States are handling plastic waste.And the plastic bag bans?There have been many such bag bans in recent years. Among the unexpected consequences: They seem to lead to an increase in plastic trash bags.We’re keeping an eye on negotiations for a global plastics treaty.This is the battleground where plastic producers, environmentalists and negotiators from every country are hammering out what is intended to be a global agreement to deal with plastic waste.The big tension is between environmental campaigners who want to curb the production of polymers, the raw goods that go into plastic, and industry groups that want to focus on how to better collect and recycle plastic.At negotiations in Uruguay in December, the United States advocated for an accord like the Paris climate agreement under which countries would set their own national voluntary targets and plans. Others, including the European Union, want mandatory global regulations for every country and company to abide by.The next round of negotiations are in May. We’ll keep you posted.Essential news from The TimesAidan Colton, an atmospheric technician with NOAA, collected an air sample atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesLava, snow and science: An eruption in Hawaii briefly halted long-running climate research, but scientists found a way to carry on. They moved to a neighboring volcano.A warship’s demise: The Brazilian Navy said it had begun an operation to send the aircraft carrier São Paulo, packed with asbestos, to the bottom of the Atlantic.Bad news for bears: The Biden administration is taking a step toward lifting protections for some grizzlies. It could open the door to hunting in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.A Canadian quarrel: The Ontario provincial government has opened up parts of the greenbelt around Toronto for the construction of 50,000 new homes. Some locals aren’t happy.How to spy on a radical group: A literary agent struck a book deal with the spokesman for the Earth Liberation Front. Literature was the least of his concerns.From outside The TimesAccording to Axios, sales of plant-based meats are collapsing and companies that make them are in trouble.Reuters reported on deadly forest fires in Chile.The United Arab Emirates chose an oil executive to lead the next global climate summit. Now The Guardian is reporting that officials are giving oil workers other roles, too.From E&E News: President Biden has appointed a climate scientist to help evaluate the effectiveness of the country’s intelligence work.National Geographic interviewed former poachers of scarlet macaws in Honduras about why they decided to protect the birds instead.A short documentary from Scientific American shows why some scientists believe plants domesticated us, not the other way around.Carbon brief explained how Britain transformed its electricity supply in just a decade.Maria ChimishkyanBefore you go: So many questions. We’ve got answers.A few months ago we invited readers to ask us their questions about climate change, and you sent in more than 1,000 responses. Wondering what we did with all those questions? We used them to build an interactive F.A.Q. feature that lets you type in queries about climate change, in your own words, and get answers written by The Times’s climate reporters and editors. Please give it a try.We goofed: The Friday newsletter misstated the name of an advocacy group. It is Rewiring America, not Rewriting America.Thanks for being a subscriber. We’ll be back on Friday.Manuela Andreoni, Claire O’Neill and Douglas Alteen contributed to Climate Forward. Read past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Reach us at climateforward@nytimes.com. We read every message, and reply to many!

By some estimates, the world’s food system is responsible for one-quarter of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions. It happens because forests get cleared to make room for farms and livestock. Cows and rice paddies emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Fossil fuels are burned to power farm machinery, make fertilizer and ship food.Anyone focused on the climate effects of diet should keep a few broad things in mind. First, beef, lamb and cheese tend to have the biggest effects on emissions by far — creating the most greenhouse gases per gram of protein — in part because cows and other ruminants are more resource-intensive to raise. Pork, chicken, eggs and many types of fish typically have smaller effects on emissions (though they can create other environmental concerns). Plant-based foods usually produce the fewest emissions of all.So the most straightforward way of reducing diet-related emissions is to consume less meat and dairy and more plants. It’s especially the case if you live in the United States, where red meat consumption is much higher than in many parts of the world.According to a World Resources Institute analysis, if the average American simply replaced a third of the beef they eat with lower-emissions pork or poultry or legumes, their food-related emissions would fall 13 percent. Moreover, a number of studies have found that people who currently eat a meat-heavy diet could shrink their food-related footprint by one-third or more by going vegetarian.It sounds like a no-brainer, but the other big way to shrink the climate effect of your diet is simply to waste less food. According to some estimates, Americans throw out roughly 20 percent of the food they buy.Other popular strategies are less clear-cut, at least when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Studies differ on whether grass-fed beef, for instance, is any more climate friendly than conventional feedlot beef, although some argue it’s better for animal welfare. Organic crops tend to require more land than traditional crops, which could lead to more emissions if such farming results in more deforestation. As for debates over locally grown produce, or paper vs. plastic bags, those are relatively small in the grand scheme of things, since transportation and packaging are a sliver of food’s climate effects.And, of course, there are other concerns besides climate change.For example, when compared with meat, wild fish can be a lower-emissions option. But that comes with a caveat: The world is already catching about as much wild fish as it possibly can. Most fisheries are being fished at their maximum sustainable level, while others are being overexploited. So more people switching to fish could require, among other actions, increasing the number of sustainable fish farms worldwide.

— Brad Plumer

Read more:
Your Questions About Food and Climate Change, Answered

HONOLULU (AP) — A whale that washed ashore in Hawaii over the weekend likely died in part because it ate large volumes of fishing traps, fishing nets, plastic bags and other marine debris, scientists said Thursday, highlighting the threat to wildlife from the millions of tons of plastic

Recent studies reveal that tiny pieces of plastic are constantly lofted into the atmosphere. These particles can travel thousands of miles and affect the formation of clouds, which means they have the potential to impact temperature, rainfall, and even climate change.

PRIBOJ, Serbia (AP) — In southwest Serbia, construction machines are being repurposed to clear tons of waste clogging the Potpec lake. Year after year during the winter months, the lake near the southwest Serbian town of Priboj fills with tons of garbage such as plastic bottles, rusty barrels, dead animals and even furniture or home appliances. That’s because the Lim river feeding into the lake swells during the winter months and sweeps up trash from dozens of illegal landfills along its banks, as it flows from Montenegro to Serbia. It’s much the same in neighboring Bosnia’s Drina river into which the Lim eventually flows. The problem spans decades and stems from poor waste management and a general lack of environmental protection safeguards across the Balkans. Workers clearing the garbage with small cranes at the Potpec lake this week said the machines often break down because there is simply too much trash. Moreover, the cranes just weren’t designed to pick up large chunks of wood or heavy washing machines from the water. ADVERTISEMENT “You would not believe the things people throw into the river,” said Milan Visic, a tugboat pilot. “It is in fact much better now than it was before because we cleaned up a lot.”The workers say they have collected some 10,000 cubic meters (more than 353,000 cubic feet) of waste since early December. But their job is far from over as much more garbage remains piled up in the lake. . Officials from Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro have on several occasions pledged to work together to solve the problem affecting their shared rivers but little has been done in reality. All three countries are aspiring to join the European Union and are expected to do more for to protect their environment if their accession bids are to move forward. Another pressing issue is the extremely high level of air pollution affecting a number of cities in the region.The garbage problem is evident everywhere – piles of waste dot hills and valleys, trash lines roads and plastic bags twist from tree branches. Compounding the problem is that collected trash is simply dumped in a landfill and recyclables are hardly ever seperated.Environmental activists say tough action is needed now. “For a start, heavy fines should be slapped,” for throwing waste around, said Sinisa Lakovic of the local Jastreb group.

Michigan has reached its first settlement in a series of lawsuits over PFAS contamination.PFAS are a group of chemicals known for the long time they take to break down. Some kinds have been linked to certain cancers.Under the agreement announced Monday, the plastics company Asahi Kasei Plastics North America (APNA) will have to pay for the full cost of cleanup in Livingston County. Those could total in the millions.It will also have to pay for the state’s legal fees.During a media briefing, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said she hopes this settlement will lead other companies to follow suit.“It’s a really simple policy. You made the mess, you clean it up. The end. That’s what we’re looking for,” Nessel said.Two of the state’s PFAS litigation cases remain pending in state court while others, including lawsuits against 3M and DuPont have been wrapped up in multi-district litigation.Nessel told reporters Asahi Kasei’s case became separate because the company wanted to settle.When asked for a comment, an APNA spokesperson pointed to the company’s partnership with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy outlined in the consent degree.“Our President and Chief Operating Officer, Todd Glogovsky, would like to stress that APNA is a proud Michigan employer with deep ties to the local community. We are committed to protecting and preserving our State’s environment and acting as a responsible corporation and member of the community,” the spokesperson said in an email.The extent of possible contamination within Livingston County is unknown. It will be Asahi Kasei’s responsibility under the settlement to pay for the costs of investigation.Michigan Assistant Attorney General Polly Synk said she’s not sure how long it will take the state resolve the issue. She estimated it probably will take longer than “a couple months,” but she doesn’t anticipate it stretching endless years.”“This is an area where EGLE knows the groundwater, they know the depth of groundwater, they know the flow, so there’s a lot known. But once you find it, these are forever chemicals so sometimes treatment can take a long time, even when once you have a handle on the situation,” Synk said.Some environmental groups are celebrating the agreement as a milestone in the fight against PFAS contamination.Tony Spaniola co-chairs the Great Lakes PFAS Action Network. He said he’s most encouraged by the state’s commitment to bring PFAS cases to trial if need be.“It’s like saying, ‘You know what? We have a police force that’s actually going to enforce the law.’ And so, we ought to all be feeling a little safer because of that. That doesn’t mean that we’re all set and we’re out of the woods because there’s a whole bunch of other lawsuits going on,” Spaniola said.He said another main piece of the settlement he believes should get more attention is that affected community members get to weigh in on Asahi Kasei’s remediation action plan.Spaniola stressed Michigan needs to address statute-of-limitations laws that prevent some affected communities from pursuing polluters in court. He also said the state should strengthen its polluter-pay laws as well.

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Vultures scavenge for dead animals along a river turned sewer conduit in Kenya’s capital Nairobi. Its waters turn from clear to black as it traverses informal settlements and industrial hubs. The river and its tributaries cross Kibera, known as Africa’s largest slum with close to 200,000 residents, and other informal settlements. It skirts dozens of factories that manufacture textiles, liquor and building materials. Many have been accused by environmentalists of discharging raw sewage and other pollutants like oil, plastic and glass into the water.Experts and locals alike fear the water is harming plants in nearby farms that feed residents. Some community-based organizations help clean up the river and the government is also hoping to ramp up efforts. But families in the rapidly growing downstream suburb of Athi River, some 30 kilometers (19 miles) away, say they can no longer rely on the water for basic needs.ADVERTISEMENT25-year-old Anne Nduta uses the river’s dark waters to wash her babies’ clothes by hand.“When it rains, the Athi River water is usually full of garbage, and when it clears a bit we use it to wash clothes,” said the mother-of-two. “But as the dry season continues, the water becomes darker in color and we have to start buying expensive borehole water.” A 20-liter (5-gallon) jerrican of borehole water sells for 20 shillings ($0.16), and Nduta would need four of them to wash her babies’ clothes every three days.Her problems start upstream, where informal settlements have directed some of their sewer lines straight into the Nairobi River.The new national government, installed after the August election

At this point, there’s no denying that plastic pollution is ubiquitous. It appears in the remote corners of the Earth, the food chain, and even human bodies. To protect human and environmental health, global plastic pollution must be addressed.

With increasing public concern about climate change, companies might face higher expectations regarding corporate responsibility, especially those known to cause significant environmental impacts. 

In a recent One Earth study, the authors looked into the commitments made by the world’s largest companies between 2015 to 2020 to reduce plastic pollution. Based on the study, about 72 percent of the world’s largest companies have made some form of commitment to reducing plastic pollution, which ranges from one line of text to many pages of commitment. 

Although some companies have made commitments in recent years to reduce their plastic footprint, the work doesn’t end there—it’s necessary to analyze how effective they are at reducing plastic pollution. 

Corporate commitments have a limited impact on global plastic pollution

There’s no penalty for not fulfilling a non-binding commitment, especially when it comes from the company itself. It’s important to validate whether or not companies are doing what they actually promise to do, says Shelie Miller, a professor of sustainable systems at the University of Michigan.

Companies’ commitments frequently involve waste reduction strategies, like increasing recycled or recyclable content in packaging and advancing recycling-related efforts, notably paying less attention to how virgin plastic production can be reduced. For example, Nestlé Waters North America—now known as BlueTriton Brands—made a goal in 2008 to double the recycling rates for PET plastic, the kind of plastic used for water bottles, to 60 percent. However, the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR) reported in 2018 that the average recycling rate of PET bottles hasn’t changed that much over the past decade.

Based on current trends, efforts to improve waste management may be overshadowed by the production and consumption of virgin plastic. Annual virgin plastic production is estimated to increase to 1.1 billion tonnes in 2050. By that time, the petrochemicals used to produce virgin plastic polymers may very well account for nearly half of the growth in oil demand, surpassing trucks, aviation, and shipping.

“We found limited evidence to suggest that corporate commitments are actually reducing the amount of global plastic pollution,” says Zoie Diana, a PhD candidate in the Division of Marine Science and Conservation at Duke University and author of the recent One Earth study. “Unfortunately, we found reports of companies lightweighting plastic.”

Lightweighting is a practice where companies slightly reduce the volume of plastic in their packaging, like making thinner PET bottles or shorter bottle caps, which you’ve probably already noticed in your local grocery store. While it’s good that companies produce lighter and smaller plastic products, if they reinvest their savings into markets that involve new plastic products, they might only increase the total mass of plastic produced, says Diana.

Companies usually strive to increase their sales, so even if less plastic is used per package, the number of packaging units is likely to increase. For instance, products like shampoo or coffee are often sold in tiny packets or sachets, which use more packaging material compared to larger product sizes. In addition, reducing the weight of plastic packaging doesn’t make the product any less likely to become trash.

[Related: A close look at the Great Pacific Garbage Patch reveals a common culprit.]

Sometimes, consumers are misled by products that aren’t as green as they seem. Bioplastics, produced wholly or in part from renewable biomass sources, are considered the more environmentally friendly alternative to petroleum-based plastics. However, they can still contribute to plastic pollution, global warming, and land use because not all bioplastics are the same and they aren’t always biodegradable.

While some bioplastics like those derived from cornstarch decompose in the soil, others only break down at high temperatures or after being treated in a landfill under very specific conditions. Even biodegradable bioplastics can still end up in landfills and produce methane gas as they decompose. Bioplastics made from crops also use up land that could have been used for growing food. It’s important to remember that bioplastics are still just plastics, even if they are made from a different material.

Boxed water products, often touted as an eco-friendly alternative to bottled water due to the paper-based carton packaging, also appear to be better for the environment than they really are. In reality, the cartons aren’t made entirely from paper because they require plastic film and aluminum to waterproof the paper and seal the content. Moreover, they’re not necessarily easier to recycle. Only 60 percent of households in the country have access to carton recycling, whereas 87 percent of the U.S. population has access to a municipal collection of PET bottles.

Companies must reduce plastic production and overall consumption

Although recycling is an important step aimed at reducing plastic pollution, it’s not that effective. A 2017 Science Advances study reported that only nine percent of the plastic ever created had been recycled. Aside from the 12 percent of plastics that were incinerated, this means that all the plastics that were produced remain in landfills or the natural environment, continuing to pollute the planet. Even if recycling efforts were improved, they might be unlikely to keep pace with the growing rate of plastic consumption.

“We suspect that, at best, the emphasis on recycling found in this study reflects industry efforts to raise global recycling rates and, at worst, reflects industry attempts to shift responsibility toward consumers, greenwashing, and potential pre-emption of legislation aimed at reducing plastic pollution,” says Diana.

A number of companies recently explored creative ways to minimize their plastic use. In 2018, brewing company Carlsberg introduced its Snap Pack to dramatically cut plastic waste. They did away with plastic rings by bonding a six-pack of beer cans together with glue instead. When all of their four-, six-, and eight-pack beers globally have been converted to use this innovation, it would save about 1323 tons of plastic annually, the equivalent of around 60 million plastic bags. Meanwhile, Walmart Canada eliminated plastic wraps of organic banana bunches and single peppers in 2019, preventing almost 94,000 kilograms of plastic waste. 

Commitments like lightweighting and more recycling only divert attention from preventive measures that reduce virgin plastic production. The tap on unnecessary plastic production must be turned off, but only three percent of the top 300 companies on the Fortune Global 500 explicitly targeted virgin or newly produced plastics, says Diana. Unilever has a current pledge to halve the amount of virgin plastic they use in their packaging by 2025.

“Many companies focus on making packaging more recyclable or increasing the recycled content in their products,” says Miller. “While these efforts are an improvement over the status quo, they do not fully eliminate the environmental impacts of plastic.”

[Related: Dozens of companies with ‘net-zero’ goals just got called out for greenwashing.]

According to PepsiCo, 87 percent of its packaging is recyclable, compostable, or biodegradable. The multinational food, snack, and beverage corporation hopes to reach 100 percent by 2025. However, Miller notes that improving the ability of packaging to be recycled doesn’t necessarily ensure that it will actually be recycled in practice. Furthermore, a recyclable plastic that escapes waste streams and ends up in the environment can cause just as much ecological damage as a non-recyclable one, she adds.

The environmental impact of plastic pollution can only be partially addressed through improved packaging and recycling efforts because plastics don’t just cause harm when they are discarded. Starting from their production, they already contribute emissions that occur through natural gas extraction and plastic manufacturing. In the United States alone, fossil fuel extraction and production associated with plastic manufacturing contributed at least 9.5 to 10.5 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents back in 2015. Therefore, reducing plastic production and consumption remains to be a critical part of addressing plastic pollution.

“We tend to focus on visible impacts such as solid waste generation, but there are also upstream environmental impacts that are usually invisible to us,” says Miller. “The best way to reduce the environmental impacts of plastic is to reduce overall consumption. Reducing the amount of stuff that we consume is key to reducing environmental impact, not just making it easier to recycle.”