THE STATEOF PLASTICSWorld Environment Day Outlook
2018INTRODUCTION

The benefits of plastic are
undeniable. The material is cheap,
lightweight and easy to make.
These qualities have led to aboom in the production of plastic
over the past century. This trend
will continue as global plastic
production skyrockets over the
next 10 to 15 years. We are alreadyunable to cope with the amountof plastic waste we generate. Onlya tiny fraction is recycled. About 13
million tonnes of plastic leak into
our oceans every year, harming
biodiversity, economies and,potentially, our own health.
The world urgently needs torethink the way we manufacture,
use and manage plastic. This
paper sets out the latest thinking
on how we can achieve this.
It looks at what governments,

2businesses and individuals
can do to check the runaway
production and consumptionof plastic. It focuses particularattention on the burgeoning
use of unnecessary plastics – thesingle-use items that make upa large amount of the waste we
generate. The paper begins withan overview of the crisis. It goeson to explore the potential of
alternative materials and sheds
light on the effectiveness ofcurrent government legislation to
cut down on single-use plastics.
Ultimately, tackling one of thebiggest environmental scourges of
our time will require governments
to regulate, businesses to innovate
and individuals to act. This paper
outlines the possible paths to aworld free of plastic pollution.

3

THE AGE OF
PLASTIC:WHY WE NEEDTO CHANGE

ends up in landfills, dumps orin the environment. If current
consumption patterns and waste
management practices continue,
then by 2050 there will be around12 billion tonnes of plastic litter inlandfills and the environment. By
this time, if the growth in plastic
production continues at its current
rate, then the plastics industry
may account for 20 per cent of theworld’s total oil consumption.
Most plastics do not biodegrade.
Instead, they slowly break down
into smaller fragments known as
microplastics. When plastic breaks
down it becomes even moredifficult to remove from the ocean.
Studies suggest that plastic bags
and containers made of expanded
polystyrene foam (commonlyreferred to as “styrofoam”) cantake up to thousands of years
to decompose, contaminating
soil and water. Microplastics, if
ingested by fish, can enter ourfood chain. They have been foundin commercial table salt andstudies show that 90 per cent ofbottled water and 83 per cent of
tap water contain plastic particles.
Worryingly, little is known about
the impacts of microplastics onhuman health.

The scale of the challenge is daunting.
Since the 1950s, the production of plastic
has outpaced that of almost every othermaterial. Much of the plastic we produce
is designed to be thrown away after being
used only once. As a result, plastic packaging
accounts for about half of the plastic waste in
the world. Most of this waste is generated in
Asia while America, Japan and the European
Union are the world’s largest producers ofplastic packaging waste per capita. Ourability to cope with plastic waste is alreadyoverwhelmed. Only nine per cent of thenine billion tonnes of plastic the world has
ever produced has been recycled. Most

4

The most common single-use
plastics found in the environmentare, in order of magnitude,
cigarette butts, plastic drinking
bottles, plastic bottle caps, foodwrappers, plastic grocery bags,
plastic lids, straws and stirrers,
other types of plastic bags, andfoam take-away containers.
These are the waste products ofa throwaway culture that treatsplastic as a disposable material
rather than a valuable resource tobe harnessed.
Plastic waste causes a plethora ofproblems when it leaks into theenvironment. Plastic bags canblock waterways and exacerbate
natural disasters. By clogging
sewers and providing breeding
grounds for mosquitoes andpests, plastic bags can increase
the transmission of vectorborne diseases like malaria.
High concentrations of plastic
materials, particularly plastic
bags, have been found blocking
the airways and stomachs of
hundreds of species. Plastic bags
are often ingested by turtles anddolphins who mistake them forfood. There is evidence that the
toxic chemicals added during the
manufacture of plastic transfer
to animal tissue, eventuallyentering the human food chain.
Styrofoam products, whichcontain carcinogenic chemicals
like styrene and benzene, arehighly toxic if ingested, damaging
the nervous systems, lungs
and reproductive organs. The
toxins in styrofoam containers
can leach into food and drinks.
In poor countries, plastic waste
is often burned for heat or
cooking, exposing people to toxic
emissions. Disposing of plastic
waste by burning it in open-air pits
releases harmful gases like furanand dioxin.
The economic damage caused byplastic waste is vast. Plastic litterin the Asia-Pacific region alone
costs its tourism, fishing andshipping industries $1.3 billion per
year. In Europe, cleaning plastic
waste from coasts and beaches
costs about €630 million per year.
Studies suggest that the total
economic damage to the world’s
marine ecosystem caused byplastic amounts to at least $13
billion every year. The economic,
health and environmental reasonsto act are clear.

5

SECTION 1
GOVERNMENTS

Global plastic production
is rising rapidly. By 2030
the world may produce 619
million tonnes of plastic
every year. Plastic bag bans,
if properly planned andenforced, can effectively
counter one of the causesof plastic overuse. But evenwhen they are effectively
implemented, such bansare not enough. To reduce
the amount of plastic waste
we generate, governments
must enact strong policies
that push for a morecircular model of design
and production of plastics.
Plastic waste must be seen
as a resource, not a curse.
Governments need to
improve waste management
systems and introduce
financial incentives to change
the habits of consumers,
retailers and manufacturers.
They must pump moremoney into the research anddevelopment of alternative
materials, raise awarenessamong consumers, fundinnovation, ensure plastic
products are properly labelled
and carefully weigh possible
solutions to the current crisis.
Governments must engage abroad range of stakeholders
in the decision-making
process as they seek to tackle
the crisis. To meet the risingtide of plastics, we urgently
need strong government
leadership and intervention.

6

The response so far –a mixed bag
Governments around theworld are increasingly awake
to the scale of the crisis.
More than 60 countries
have introduced policies
to curb plastic pollution.
Plastic bags and, to a certain
extent, foamed plastic
products like styrofoam
have been the main focusof government action so far.
This is understandable. These
plastic products are often themost visible forms of plastic
pollution. It is estimated thatroughly 5 trillion plastic bags
are consumed worldwide
each year. That is almost
10 million plastic bags per
minute. If tied together,plastic bags could be
wrapped around the world
seven times every hour.
The following looks at thevarious strategies thatgovernments have adopted
to date. These fit into four
broad categories: levies
on consumers, voluntaryagreements with retailers,
total bans, and a combined
ban and levy. The results havebeen mixed.
Levies on plastic bags.
In countries like Ireland
where data exist, a dramatic
decrease in the use of plasticbags has been recorded
when customers are forced
to pay for bags. Money raised

from the levy can be paid intoa fund devoted to combatting
plastic pollution and otherenvironmental problems.
Voluntary agreements.
In Austria, for example,
large retailers agreed tostop providing customers
with free plastic shoppingbags. Some retailers
that have entered into
similar agreements withgovernments have gonea step further, allowing
consumers to buy only
reusable bags.
Total bans.
The Government of Rwanda,
for example, has banned
the manufacture, use,sale and importation of allplastic bags. Paper bags
have replaced plastic ones
and citizens have beenencouraged to use reusablebags made of cotton. Tax
incentives were provided tocompanies willing to invest in
plastic recycling equipment
or in the manufacture ofenvironmentally friendly
bags. Kenya, which has
introduced a similar ban,and Rwanda both punish
offenders with jail time
or fines. New York City
has banned styrofoam
products, arguing that it is
impossible to recycle thematerial in an economic andenvironmentally sound way.
China has banned plastic
tableware.

Combined bans and levies.
In South Africa, thegovernment banned
plastic bags below a certain
thickness and introduced alevy on food retailers selling
24-litre bags. The strategy
did little to reduce theconsumption of plastic bags,in part because the levy was
too low to change consumer
behaviour.
It is too early to draw
robust conclusions on theenvironmental impact thatthese bans and levies have
had. In 50 per cent of cases,
information about theirimpact is lacking, partly
because some countries
have adopted them only
recently and partly becausemonitoring is inadequate.
In countries that do havedata, about 30 per cent haveregistered drastic drops inthe consumption of plasticbags within the first year.
The remaining 20 per cent ofcountries have reported little
to no change.
Of the countries that havereported little to no impact,
the main problems appear tobe (i) a lack of enforcementand (ii) a lack of affordable
alternatives. The latter has led
to cases of smuggling andthe rise of black markets forplastic bags or to the use of
thicker plastic bags that are
not covered by the bans. This
has increased environmental
problems in some cases.
Given the broad range ofpossible actions to curb
single-use plastics andtheir mixed impact, UN
Environment has drawn
up a 10-step roadmap forgovernments to follow should
they seek to adopt similar

measures or improve on
current ones. The roadmap
is based on lessons from 60
countries around the world.
1. Target the mostproblematic single-use
plastics and their source.
Assess the impact of theseplastics on the environment,
human health, wildlife andthe economy. If adopting
a levy, find out how willing
consumers are to pay, so thelevy is big enough to change
behaviour.
2. Work out the best way totackle the problem given the
country’s socio-economic
standing. It is pointless tointroduce a ban if it cannot
be enforced, for example.
3. Assess the social andeconomic costs of theban. How will the poor beaffected? What impact
will the preferred courseof action have on different
sectors and industries?
4. Meet with key
stakeholders – retailers,
consumers, industry
representatives, local
government, manufacturers,
civil society, environmentalgroups, tourism associations– to ensure broad buy-in.
Evidence-based studies arealso necessary to defeat
opposition from the plastics
industry.
5. Raise public awarenessabout the harm caused bysingle-used plastics. Clearly
explain the decision and any
punitive measures that will
follow.
6. Before the ban or levy
comes into force, assess theavailability of alternatives.
Provide economic incentives

to encourage the uptakeof alternatives that do notcause more harm. Support
can include tax rebates,
research and development
funds, technology
incubation, public-private
partnerships, and support toprojects that recycle singleuse items and turn waste
into a resource that canbe used again. Reduce orabolish taxes on the importof materials used to makealternatives.
7. Provide incentives toindustry. Governments will
face resistance from theplastics industry, including
importers and distributors ofplastic packaging. Give themtime to adapt.
8. Use revenues generated
by a levy to maximize
public good. Support
environmental projects andboost recycling with thefunds. Create jobs in theplastic recycling sector withseed funding.
9. Enforce the measureeffectively.
10. Monitor and adjust thechosen tool if necessary
and update the public onprogress.
Strategies to phase out othersingle-use plastics haverecently started to appear
in several countries. The
plastic bag ban in Antigua
and Barbuda has led to aban on the import of plastic
food containers and the useof plastic utensils. Costa Rica
plans to ban all single-use
plastics.
Public-private partnerships
and voluntary agreements
can be good alternatives to7bans. Voluntary reduction
strategies allow citizens time
to change their consumption
patterns and provide an
opportunity for affordable
and eco-friendly alternatives
to hit the market. The
promotion and adoption of
reusable bags is an example
of a reduction strategy where
the choice lies with theconsumer. This strategy haschanged consumer behaviour
and reduced the use of
conventional plastic bags inmany regions. In Canada, forexample, reusable bags havebeen widely embraced after
they were promoted as the“green” choice. Organizations
frequently offer them as apromotional item free ofcharge. Adequate social
awareness of the plastic crisis
is vital for reduction strategies
to work.
Many types of reusable bags
are available on the market.
They are often produced
using materials that give thebag added strength; they
are also heavier and more
durable. Although moreenvironmentally friendly
than traditional singleuse plastic bags, recycling
reusable bags can becomplicated, time intensive,and costly. Dependingon their composition,
reusable bags might haveto be deconstructed in therecycling process to separate
the different materials.
Consequently, reusablebags are often not recycled.
This means that millionsof reusable bags end up in
landfills at the end of theiruseful life. It is critical toconsider the options available
locally for the recycling
or upcycling of reusablebags before they are widelyadopted.

8

Biodegradable – does it do what it
says on the bag?
In an effort to reduce plastic pollution, many
governments have outlawed conventional plastic
bags, allowing only the use and production of“biodegradable” bags. While petroleum-based
plastic still dominates the market, there has beena growth in plastic produced from renewable
resources. These products are often marketed as
biodegradable or bio-based.
But there is a catch. The term “biodegradable”
may be misunderstood by customers to meanbags that are fit for home composting or bags
that break down in the environment naturally andquickly. In reality, the majority of biodegradable
plastics only biodegrade under high temperatures.
These conditions are met in incineration plants
but rarely in the natural environment. Even
bioplastics derived from renewable sources suchas corn starch, cassava roots, sugarcane or frombacterial fermentation of sugar or lipids (PHA) do
not automatically degrade in the environment andespecially not in the ocean.
Biodegradable plastics can also be made frompetroleum-based or a combination of petroleum
and bio-based resources. Some bio-based
polymers, such as polyethylene (PE) from bioethanol, are not biodegradable. The confusion
among consumers may lead to improper disposalof plastics labelled as “biodegradable”. These bags
may also make recycling more difficult and more
expensive if they are mixed in with conventional
plastics.
Governments must ensure that a clear distinction
is made between home-compostable andindustrially compostable plastics. Consumers
need to understand that “bio-based” refers to theorigin of the resource used to make a product. It
does not refer to how the product behaves in theenvironment after it is used.
A significant increase in bio-based plastics
production to a level comparable to conventional
plastics might negatively impact the productionof food crops. Better labelling and consumer
education are vital. If governments insist
on switching to plastics that biodegrade in
incineration plants, then clearly they must also
invest in these plants and ensure that the different
types of plastic waste are properly separated.
Failure to do so could trigger bigger environmental
problems.

SECTION 2
BUSINESS

Designing the future
Ultimately, our plastic
problem is one of design. Our
manufacturing, distribution,
consumption and tradesystems for plastic – indeed
our global economy – needs
to change. The linear modelof planned obsolescence, inwhich items are designed tobe thrown away immediately
after use, sometimes
after just seconds, mustend. Governments must
drive this change, holding
manufacturers to account for
the life cycle of their products.
At the same time, companies
that actively embrace theirsocial responsibility should
be rewarded for moving to amore circular model of design
and production, incentivizing
other companies to do thesame. The private sector
must innovate, adopting
business models thatreflect responsibility for thedownstream impact of theirproducts.
The overarching aim whenit comes to innovation
should be to reduce
society’s dependence on theunnecessary use of plastics,
especially those made fromfossil-fuel sources. Solutions
exist but carry the risk ofunintended consequences.
A proper analysis of how
alternative materials behavein the environment and thedegree to which different

options can be scaled up willbe critical as businesses seek
to innovate.
Today, the use of resources
to manufacture conventional
plastics is inefficient.
End-of-life solutions forunwanted plastics arewholly inadequate. In otherwords, the current plastics
economy is unsustainable.
Plastic recycling can be aneffective way of reducing
the leakage of plastics into
the environment. But theeffectiveness of recycling isdamaged if products are notdesigned properly. Chemicals
added to plastic polymers,
products made of mixedmaterials and food packaging
contaminated with foodwaste make recycling difficultand costly.
Recycling can also lead tounintended consequences.
PET drinks bottles arereadily recycled. However,instead of producing new
PET bottles, about 80 per
cent of recycled PET is used
for fibre production in,for example, the clothing
industry. Fibres are readily
lost from these fabrics
during wear and washing,
generating a significant
source of microplastics inthe environment. In addition,
food and product packaging
is often unnecessarily
excessive and made frommaterials that are hard torecycle even in the mostdeveloped countries.
Companies should not wait
for governments to act beforechanging their ways. The
use of virgin micro-plastics
in consumer products like
toothpaste, shower gels andcreams, should be phased out
by businesses immediately.
Plastic products must also
be designed to be as durable
as possible to increase thenumber of times they canbe reused. Unfortunately,marketing considerations
often trump sustainability.
This means that plastic
products, like laptops, arethrown away when they
could easily be upgraded by,in the case of laptops, simply
installing a new computer
chip.
Manufacturers and retailers
also have a responsibility to
inform consumers about theirproducts. Consumers should
be made aware of the plastic
content of a product and its
harmful additives, as well as
its recyclability, reparability
and compostability. This
would allow consumers
to make informed choices
when buying plastic
products. Recyclability could
be reflected in the priceof products and used as amarketing strategy.

9What’s it worth?
Plastic is so ubiquitousthat it is often viewed as amaterial with no value of
its own. This perception
leads to littering andhampers recycling. It
ignores the fact thatplastics are high techand complex materials.
Consumers need tolearn to value plastic ifthey are to see value inreusing and recycling thematerial. Retailers could
introduce deposit andreturn schemes on someplastic products, like PET
bottles, to encourage
consumers to recuperate
their deposit when theybring the product back to
a designated collection
point.
In several developed anddeveloping countries, theintroduction of Extended
Producer Responsibility(EPR) and Deposit-Return
Schemes has reduced
littering from PET bottles
and boosted the recycling
sector. Germany, Japanand South Africa are a
few among many of thesuccessful examples
of countries in which
the responsibility forrecycling used PET
bottles is shouldered bymanufacturers.

10

Alternative
materials
Plastic products are cheap
and convenient. Theirabundance belies their socialand environmental harm.
Our increasing dependence
on plastic has led us toignore society’s historic
dependence on plants
and animals for clothing,shelter, textiles and foodstorage. Many products do
not need to be made withplastic. Existing or emerging
technologies may havean important part to play
as society seeks to wean
itself off its dependency
on traditional plastics. But
alternatives to plastic havereceived scant attention,
particularly for short-lived
plastics like packaging.
UN Environment has
conducted research intosome of the most promisingmaterials currently available
as it seeks to inspire andinform entrepreneurs,
start-ups and establishedbusinesses that are keen to
innovate but unsure of theiroptions. These alternatives
to plastic fit into threebroad categories: naturalpolymers; biomass-based,compostable, synthetic
biopolymers; and reusable,
durable, non-plastic
materials.
1. Natural polymers
One of the main differences
between synthetic or semisynthetic polymers andnatural polymers (material
that comes from plants andanimals) is that the latterbiodegrade very rapidly
when not maintained by aliving organism. This is why
the preservation of ancientfabrics, organic artefacts andhuman corpses is so rare. It is

why we are not buried underenormous quantities of deadplants and animals. Mostof these materials will also
biodegrade relatively rapidly
in the ocean.
Plant and animal-basedmaterials have provided formany of society’s domestic
needs for millennia. Thereis evidence that cotton has
been used to make fabrics
for at least 5,000 years. A key
question is whether the shift
away from natural fabrics tosynthetic and semi-synthetic
polymers can be reversed
without causing more harm.
This consideration is key associeties seek to react quickly
to political decisions, such as
the introduction of bans on
thin-film synthetic
shopping bags.
2. Biomass-based
compostable bio-polymers
Most synthetic polymers are
not biodegradable undernormal environmental
conditions, no matter
whether they are derived
from fossil fuels or renewablebiomass. Marketing a
product as “biodegradable”
can be misleading (see box
on page 8). Some polymers
do biodegrade when they
are composted, but eventhis can lead to confusion
among consumers.
“Compostable” can refer toa process that takes place ineither an industrial setting
or a domestic setting.
The difference is critical.
In many cases, labelling a
product or polymer as being“compostable” means it only
composts in an industrial
composting system, where
temperatures can be
maintained at around 60°C
for many weeks. Normal
domestic/garden compost

bins or heaps operate atmuch lower temperatures,
meaning these polymers
will not biodegrade in thisenvironment.
▶ Starch
The wide availability of starchhas generated considerable
interest in the potential
for starch-based products
to replace conventional
plastics. Thermoplastic starchis already used to protect
packaged goods in transit.
Research has focused onwhether it could also replacestyrofoam, especially forfood packaging. Much of theresearch focuses on cassava
starch, an important staple
crop in parts of Asia, Africa
and South America. Starchbased products are very
promising but scaling up their
manufacture means ensuringthat our ability to produce
food is not put at risk.
Further work is required tomaximize the potential of
starch-based bio-composites
to replace conventional
plastics. Research alsosuggests that starch-based
shopping bags retain 85
per cent of their original
mass after six months in
the ocean. Studies in the
Mediterranean Sea suggest
the bags significantly alter
the sediment pore waterchemistry and impact speciesof seagrass. On land, starchbased materials are readily
compostable, in both adomestic and commercial
setting. If starch-based
products are widely adopted
then ensuring they do notleak into the ocean will bejust as critical as limiting
the leakage of conventional
plastics.

▶ Non-starch thermoplastic
bio-composite
Whereas starch-based
products require land to
produce the raw material,
possibly threatening foodproduction, films madefrom alginate do notcompete with our ability togrow food. Alginate-based
thermoplastics are still underdevelopment but show great
promise. Cutin is anotherpossibility. Research showsthat the waste from tomato
production could be used inrelatively low cost and scalable
technologies. Greater use canbe made of waste products
from agricultural production.
▶ Synthetic biomass-based
polymers
A variety of plant-based
and animal-based raw
materials can be used
to synthesize polymers.
Cellulose and starch are themost common sources, but
proteins and fats can also
be used. Polylactide (PLA)and polyhydroxylkanoates(PHA) have been synthesizedin significant volumes andmarketed as “biodegradable”.
PLA is based on the bacterial
fermentation of sugars
derived from a variety ofbiomass sources. However,problems may arise whenfood crops are deliberately
grown to produce thesebiomass-based polymers
because this may lower theavailability of food for humans.
The use of water, fertilizer,
biocides and energy to
produce these crops may also
damage the environment. If
agricultural waste is used, or if
the products are composted
or anaerobically digested at
the end of their lives, then theenvironmental credentials of
PLA and PHA are easier
to defend.

PLA is becoming more
popular as a substitute forconventional plastics in thecatering sector, where foodwaste and used PLA plates,
cups and cutlery can becollected and the combined
waste sent for either industrial
composting or anaerobic
digestion. This approachworks best in a controlled,closed-loop environment thatprevents cross contamination
with waste from conventional
plastics, thus making
recycling easier. Products
could be designed to makeit easier for consumers to
distinguish between different
types of plastic to prevent
them from being mixed
together. Some research has
also explored the possibilityof producing lactic acid frommethane by fermentation.
The potential to close theloop on PLA production by
generating methane from theanaerobic digestion of PLA
waste is exciting.
Governments need tothink carefully about theconsequences of giving
subsidies to certain sectors
to ensure that the perceived
benefits (social, economic,
environmental or political)
are balanced against the realcost, especially in terms ofenvironmental damage. For
example, subsidizing maize
production as a raw material
for biofuels or biomassbased polymers makes
little environmental sense if
accompanied by excessive
use of water, fertilizer andbiocides. There may be asocial and economic benefit
to the farming community
but the overall cost fromenvironmental degradation
may be far greater.

11

3.Reusable objects
In the past, containers havebeen made from clay, leather,
metal, glass and othermaterials. This changed withthe birth of cheap plastic
alternatives. Today, estimatessuggest that we use one
million plastic bottles per
minute. Re-fillable containers
for food and drink fluids are an
obvious alternative to plastic
containers that are thrown
away, many after only one
use. The demand for singleuse PET water bottles could
also be significantly reduced
if clean drinking water weremade available for individuals
so they could fill reusable
containers.
Upcycling
We have found additional
uses for many non-plastic
goods whose primary lives
have come to an end. Thismethod can be applied toa range of items, such as
wooden chopsticks, fabrics
that have been worn out,
and “waste” materials fromthe manufacturing process.
Promoting these approaches
and adopting reusable
products will reduce theoverall demand on the Earth’s
resources and provide analternative to their plastic
equivalents.
Re-packaging: 			shifting the balance
The wider adoption ofalternatives provides anopportunity for us to moveaway from the linear“produce—use—dispose”
model that is responsible
for much of the waste we
generate. Adding natural
materials and biomass-based
bio-polymers, such as PLA,
PHA and starch blends, opens

12

up new opportunities for
closed-loop and more circular“produce—use—re-use”
patterns. However, for this
to work, more plastic waste,especially food-contaminatedwaste, needs to be composted
or sent to anaerobic digesters.
This can only happen if
these facilities are available.
Anaerobic digestion provides
other advantages, including
the ability to generate energy
from the waste product.
Compostable fossil fuel-based
polymers can also be used
in industrial composting or
anaerobic digestion. Provisionof industrial composting
and/or anaerobic digestion
facilities is necessary before
PLA and PHA are introduced
into the retail sector. These
products are not suitablefor uncontrolled retail use,
typified by the “fast food”
sector. Digesters requirea regular supply of wastematerial of similar quality inorder to work efficiently, as
well as a skilled operator. This,and the high start-up costs,
may hinder their construction.
There are two key caveats
to promoting the use of
PLA, PHA and starch-blend
products more widely: i) they
have to be excluded fromthe recycling stream to avoid
compromising the qualityof recycled conventional
polymers; and ii) PLA and PHA
will behave like conventional
polymers in the aquatic
environment and contributeto an increase in ocean plastics
if not disposed of correctly.
Fibre production
Textile production has
been transformed by the
introduction of synthetic
and semi-synthetic fibres.
But textiles represent a very

substantial source of microfibres in the ocean, introduced
largely via wastewater thatflows into our seas. Fibres ofsynthetic polymers do notbiodegrade in the ocean.
Unfortunately, it is unlikelythat the present demand fortextiles will decrease unlessthere is a major change inthe way goods are produced.
Studies suggest there is thepotential to promote moresustainable use of textiles
in the clothing sector byadopting the principles of“slow fashion” and with greaterattention to the longevity
and repair of products, andto reducing textile waste.
However, it is not clear
whether this philosophy canmake a significant difference
outside niche markets in
wealthier societies.
Life-cycling
Most analyses that look at thelife cycle of a product fail to
include its end-of-life phase.
This undermines the validityof these studies, which tend
to conclude that adopting
conventional plastics is more
beneficial than using natural
materials or biomass-based
biopolymers. Environmental
economists need to workwith agronomists, materialscientists, environmental
scientists and others to devise
more reliable techniques forproper life-cycle analyses.
These studies should also
factor in the use of wastematerials for manufacturing
new products, as well as
the benefits of adopting
a network of commercial
composting and anaerobic
digestion facilities. This will
help businesses select themost beneficial materials
when deciding what
alternatives to use.

SECTION 3
INDIVIDUALS

Individuals are increasingly
exercising their power as
consumers. People are turning
down plastic straws andcutlery, cleaning beaches
and coastlines, and secondguessing their purchase habits
in supermarket aisles. If thishappens enough, retailers willquickly get the message andask their suppliers to provide
better alternatives.
Consumers must not only
be actors but drivers forthe behaviour change thatmust happen upstream. The
plastic bag bans in somecountries followed sustainedpressure by citizens. In Bali,
two teenagers led a four-year
campaign to persuade theauthorities to ban plastic bags.
The government eventuallycommitted to phasing out
plastic bags by 2018. Similarly,
in New Zealand, high school
students called on thegovernment to impose a 10
per cent levy on plastic bags insupermarkets. Public support
for their proposal led mayors
across the country to call on
the government to impose anationwide levy. Ultimately,individuals must act as bothconsumer and informed
citizen by demanding
sustainable products
and embracing sensible
consumption habits.
Keeping your neighbourhoodclean can also have a profound
impact. One of the mostrobust findings in litter

research is that people litterless and use the bin more inplaces that are kept clean. Thismeans that cleanups are notjust about picking up litter.
They have a wider impact byraising awareness, educatingothers about plastic waste andreducing the urge to litter.

▶ Check how recyclable
products are before you buy
themEach of us has the power tochange the way we use anddispose of plastics. Guided by
the principle “if you can’t reuse
it, refuse it”, here are some of
the things we can all do to
reduce plastic waste, recycle
more and pressure businesses
and manufacturers to design
better products.

▶ Encourage local schools to
educate their pupils aboutplastic▶ Separate waste for 			
recycling▶ Avoid single-use goods likecutlery and cups
▶ Avoid buying overpackaged products▶ Use fewer single-use
plastic bags
▶ Ask food delivery
companies to exclude plastic
cutlery from deliveries▶ Use re-fillable containers
for food and drinks▶ Find out what local options
exist to reduce your plastic
footprint▶ Up-cycle products you own
where possible▶ Learn more about thealternatives to plastic▶ Educate friends and family
about the plastic crisis

Informed consumers can playa decisive role in promoting
more sustainable productionof plastic products. However,this will require governments,
manufacturers and retailers
to ensure that products areproperly labelled. In targeting
consumer behaviour,
clear, simple and concise
information about a productwill empower individuals to
make better decisions.
Social pressure can trigger
change in both policymakers
and manufacturers andeventually help reduce plastic
pollution. Public awarenessis also vital for the successof government strategies tocurb plastic pollution, like thebanks and levies discussed
above. Similarly, awarenessraising, monitoring andcommunicating progressto the public helps build
confidence and strengthen
the public’s commitment tothe cause.

13

CONCLUSION

It is neither possible nor desirable to remove
all plastic from society. However, given thescale of today’s plastic crisis, alternative
materials have a significant role to play in
reducing our dependence on plastic, whose
cost and convenience has seen productionof the material skyrocket in recent decades.
This trend is set to continue, meaningthat our ability to deal with plastic waste,
which is already beyond breaking point, will
deteriorate further.
Governments are slowly waking up to
the problem. Bans on plastic bags andstyrofoam can effectively curb the amount14of plastic waste dumped in ourenvironment. They also create
an incentive to promote theuse of bags constructed fromnatural materials while providing
businesses with an opportunity tofill the gap. But the enforcementof government regulations hasoften been poor. Single-use
plastic bags continue to be widelyused and mismanaged despitebans and levies. In contrast, inJapan, where no bans are in placeon single-use plastic, a highly
effective waste management
system accounts for relatively
limited leakages of single-use
plastics in the environment. By
working together with industries
and consumers, governments
can support the development
and promotion of sustainable
alternatives by building
infrastructure, drawing up newlegislation and funding researchand development.
Transitioning to moreenvironmentally suitable
alternatives to conventional
plastics will be a lengthy process.
In the meantime, strengthening
circular thinking and waste
management systems will help
reduce plastic pollution. The
use of alternatives must be partof a broader strategy towards
more sustainable production,
particularly of packaging andother single-use items. This will
mean redesigning products,
reducing waste and improving
recycling. We must also balance
the aim of reducing plastic
packaging waste with reducing
food waste. Scaling up potential
solutions to support a mass
market remains a big barrier.
Addressing issues like the supplyof raw material, the availabilityof appropriate skills, access tofinancing, infrastructure and thelevel of current technology will
be key. Businesses must take aclose look at how their products
are designed and disposedof as they seek to develop
environmentally friendly productsthat are easier to recycle. They
must be held to account for the
impact their products have on theenvironment.
Biomass-based biopolymers
such as PLA, PHA and TPS show
great potential as alternatives,
especially for packaging andother single-use items, provided
they are used in closed loopsystems. But their promotion as a“greener” alternative is unjustified
without industrial composting or
anaerobic digestion facilities. They
are not suitable for dispensing“fast food” in uncontrolled public
spaces. Nor will the increasinguse of PLA, PHA and TPS andsimilar biopolymers reduce theamount of plastic waste reaching
the ocean or ending up in landfill.
In addition, there is a risk thatsuch polymers will contaminate
recycling waste streams. The useof natural materials, either directlyor as a biomass source, depends
on prices in the agricultural andhorticultural sectors. These can behighly variable and unpredictable.
Building in flexibility in theselection of different materials will
be an advantage.
Moving towards more closed-loop,
carbon-neutral production cycles,
including the use of industrial
composting and anaerobic
digestion, will demonstrate thebeneficial use of waste, andshould promote more effective
waste management andwider acceptance among the
public. Natural alternatives toconventional plastics, and the useof biomass-based biopolymers,

15

have an important role to playin such systems. Governments
have a moral responsibility to
examine the consequences ofsubsidizing certain sectors toensure that the perceived benefit(social, economic, environmental
or political) is balanced against
the actual cost, especially ofenvironmental damage. The
public and private sectors
must fully cost the social andenvironmental impacts of theircurrent business models. As a rule,
the precautionary approach andpolluter pays principle must guidethe transition to more sustainableproducts and practices.
Additional research must be
conducted into the behaviour, fateand effects of natural materials,
semi-synthetic polymers andbiomass-based biopolymers
in the natural environment.
Further research into the use
agricultural and horticultural
waste is necessary as we explore
alternatives to conventional
plastics.
Governments and businesses
must ensure that materials areclearly labelled as suitable forindustrial composting. They
must discourage the use of the© Cover image: Reuters / Rupak De Chowdhuri© Image on page 2/3: Reuters / Cathal McNaughton© Other images: Respective copyright holders

16

term “biodegradable” without
clarifying the conditions underwhich biodegradation occurs. It
is essential to ensure products
are adequately labelled so thatuses and consumers are provided
with clear, comprehensible andaccurate information of which tobase purchase decisions.
All elements of society have a roleto play in exploring opportunities
for reducing conventional
plastic use and replacing itwith alternative materials orbiomass-based biopolymers.
There is a need for innovation andentrepreneurship, which could
be encouraged by competition.
Governments and individuals
must raise awareness about the
impact plastics have on society
and the environment and seek
to educate people about thepotential of alternative materials.
Ultimately, there is no single, onesize-fits-all solution to the current
plastic crisis. Governments,
businesses and individuals will
all play a major role in weaning
society from its dependence on amaterial that continues to cause
havoc in the environment.

Notes

Notes#BeatPlasticPollution
If you can’t reuse it, refuse it!

THE STATEOF PLASTICSWorld Environment Day Outlook
2018@unenvironment#WorldEnvironmentDay#BeatPlasticPollution
worldenvironmentday.global
unenvironment.org