Plastics and climate change: unwrapping the evidence

As numerous organisations, institutions, and individuals announce plans to go ‘plastic free’ - or at least reduce their plastic use - momentum around the issue of plastic waste, much like plastic itself, has not gone away.

With the Government considering further measures, such as banning plastic straws, it is worth examining in depth the wider environmental implications of moves towards a more ‘plastic free’ society.

Through their connection to fossil fuels – in both production and transportation - plastics make a significant contribution to man-made climate change, accounting for 6% of global oil demand and rising US methane emissions from associated gas extraction. Yet the interaction between tackling the twin problems of plastic waste and plastic’s contribution to climate change is potentially more complex than first appears.

Plastic pollution and climate change

Plastics are produced through ‘cracking’ and refining fossil fuels, whereby the fossil fuel - either gas or oil – is broken down into constituent hydrocarbons and re-forged into plastic resins.

The production and transport of plastic causes carbon emissions, although estimates vary as to the exact carbon footprint of plastic, in line with variation in production methods. The Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable, a coalition of global beverage companies working to improve sustainability in the sector, estimated that one 500ml plastic water bottle (about 10 grams) has an average total CO2 footprint of 82.8 grams. For context, the production of four plastic bottles produces approximately the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as travelling one mile in a medium-sized petrol car.

Turning to the emissions from the general production of plastic resin, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has put forward an estimate of over 1.15 grams CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions per gram of plastic resin produced. If transport and other associated emissions are included, plastic resin causes roughly 1.5-3.3 grams of greenhouse gas for every gram produced in total.

Plastic production has risen from 2 million tonnes in 1950 to 381 million tonnes in 2015, with only 9% of plastic discarded since 1950 estimated to have been recycled. Production is set to increase substantially, reaching 34,000 million tonnes by 2050.

Rising plastic production will exacerbate both the problems of litter and climate change. By 2050, the plastic industry is predicted to account for 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. With around 8 million tonnes of plastic ending up in the oceans every year, this not only represents a significant hazard to the marine species and human health, but considerable wastage of resources and inefficiency.

Recycling and a circular economy

Recent studies have suggested that plastic alternatives, such as paper bags, have a significantly higher energy footprint than those created from virgin plastics. In contrast, emissions from recycled plastics are significantly reduced relative to both paper and virgin plastic production, generating significant energy, financial, and resource savings. This fact bolsters the much broader case for a more efficient, 'circular economy' approach.

A circular economy is an alternative to the traditional, linear, 'make, use, dispose' structure, with resources (defined in terms of materials, water, energy and carbon, as well as natural and social capital) kept in use and at their highest value for as long as possible, reducing waste and improving efficiency.

Its main advantages include energy savings and insulation from potential raw material supply and price shocks. The Environmental Services Association suggested that a more circular economy could increase UK GDP by £3 billion a year, with a 2011 study for the Government suggesting £23 billion of economic benefits from low or no cost improvements available to businesses in the UK.

In terms of plastic, a circular economy approach emphasises recyclability, with a particular focus on increasing recyclable packaging and infrastructure. However, the extent of possible plastic recycling is limited, with some estimates suggesting only a maximum of between 36-56% could be recycled at current technology levels. Likewise current UK recycling rates have recently stalled, with some plastic items - such as the notorious disposable coffee cup - not easily recyclable and rejected by variable local recycling guidelines.

But achieving a perfect circle is difficult, with potential leakage into the environment particularly concerning for plastic, given its adverse impacts on marine species and ultimately human health. This underscores the need to develop and deploy biodegradable plastics and alternative materials.

Alternative materials

Biodegradable plastics include a broad range of materials - some biological and others petrochemical based - which can undergo 'normal' thermal decomposition into different compounds.

However, such materials are significantly more expensive to produce than standard plastics. Likewise in some cases they require specific conditions in which to safely decompose, with 'biodegradable’ not necessarily the same as ‘compostable’. As a result, they do not necessarily eliminate litter-based pollution problems, meaning that demand reduction policies, as well as measures to encourage less harmful alternative materials, should be considered.

Alternative materials such as cotton or stainless steel both have significant energy footprints. Their main advantages are their long-term reusability and the low risk they present when accidentally introduced into the ecosystem. 

The longer life-span of reusable items therefore goes some way to mitigate the short-term drawbacks of higher energy consumption. Additional carbon emissions can in turn be mitigated through the continued decarbonisation of the electricity supply and the development of carbon capture and storage technology.

Supply and demand

As shown by BP's announcement that the plastic reduction drive has the potential to reduce oil demand, it is clearly possible to tackle both problems simultaneously.

Environmental policymakers should be wary of unintended consequences. As policy and media attention continues to focus on how to address public concern over plastic pollution, its concurrent impact on climate change should also be a primary consideration. A joined-up - not single-issue silo – approach, therefore, is essential.

Philip Box is a researcher at Bright Blue

Gove not bottling it over plastic pollution

The Environment Secretary, the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, may have opened his speech at the recent Conservative Party Conference with a characteristically light-hearted joke about recycling, but the main thrust of the speech was an examination of some of the most serious environmental problems with which Britain is currently faced. One of the key messages which stood out was a clear commitment to reducing the nation’s plastic pollution, with Gove announcing a call for evidence for a new bottle deposit scheme in England.

Other government policies to tackle plastic

The Government has already made good headway on tackling the vast quantities of plastic which end up strewn across the country, and circulating in our surrounding seas. In October 2015, English supermarket shoppers saw the introduction of the plastic bag charge, which has resulted in a drop in their use of over 9 billion units – equivalent to an 83% fall.

Earlier this year Gove followed up an announcement made by his predecessor, the Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP, by publishing draft legislation which seeks to ban synthetic microbeads in cosmetic and personal care products. And in April, an England-wide ‘Litter strategy’ was created, part of which focuses on how to better ensure plastics are appropriately disposed of – through measures such as better recycling education in schools, and appraising how changes to bin collections may alter recycling rates.

The bottle deposit scheme

The emphasis on plastic bottles is not without good reason. Indeed, figures suggest that one third of all plastic deposited into our seas is beverage litter. For comparison, plastic bags and microbeads each constitute only one percent of total plastic marine debris. What’s more is that solving plastic bottle pollution also appears far more achievable relative to other pressing environmental issues.

A bottle deposit scheme works by incentivising people to recycle used bottles, rather than simply throwing them away once they are empty. A small levy – perhaps 10 to 30 pence – is charged on each bottle purchased, which is then refunded upon return of that bottle. The bottles are then crushed and sent off to be turned into brand new plastic products.

While England actually has rather robust recycling infrastructure within the household domain, the gap in facilities tends to occur outside of the home. Coupled with an ‘on the go’ culture – particularly with regards to food and drink – some individuals find it challenging to appropriately dispose of litter. Indeed, learning how to address this fact forms one line of enquiry of the consultation which the Government recently opened out to the public.

Internationally, only a handful of countries have bottle deposit schemes, but those which do tend to enjoy elevated levels of recycling. In Germany, for example, their polyethylene terephthalate bottle deposit scheme boasts a 98.5% recycling rate – which dwarfs the UK’s current performance, where only 57% of plastic bottles are eventually recycled. Over the border in Scotland, the First Minister, the Rt Hon Nicola Sturgeon MSP, recently confirmed to the Scottish Parliament her intention to do more to support recycling and the circular economy, in part through the introduction of a bottle deposit scheme.

The environmental impact

The consequences of plastic pollution can be devastating for the natural environment. For wildlife, there is the clear danger that they will ingest plastic believing it to be food, as well as becoming entangled within it. Globally, over a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals – such as dolphins, whales and seals – die from plastic pollution each year. Indeed, speaking at the recent Our Oceans Conference, Prince Charles spoke of his “mounting despair” with respect to plastic pollution and the impact which it is having on marine environments.

But for humans, too, plastic in our seas can also pose health risks. Of particular danger for human populations are microplastics, which can find their way into our oceans through accidental spills of ‘nurdles’ (the raw plastic pellets which are shipped around the world for manufacture), microbeads, and as the result of the breakdown of macroplastics – e.g. bags and bottles. Where plastic is most hazardous to humans is when it enters into the food chain. One study, for instance, found that the average European who eats seafood will ingest over 11,000 pieces of microplastic a year.

Recycling plastic bottles not only helps the environment through reducing pollution, but also in the way that doing so saves on energy and resources in production, as well as conserving landfill space. It takes 75% less energy to make a bottle from recycled plastic rather than ‘virgin’ material, for instance, and diverting a tonne of plastic away from landfill can save 7.4 cubic yards of space. Reuse of plastic helps create a more resource-efficient economy too, with significant potential cost savings for business.

Other positive consequences of bottle deposit schemes which have been touted include the potential for diminished costs for councils – as there will be less litter and household recycling to collect – and an improved, tidier, more beautiful public realm. In purely fiscal terms, one report calculates that savings to local authorities in England alone could be anywhere between £35 million to £56 million per annum.

Conclusion

At a time when the focus of the political world is fixed largely on the issues of Brexit, under Gove’s leadership Defra has been quietly and consistently churning out practical policies which in time will lead to demonstrable improvements in our nation’s natural environment. The precise configuration of a bottle deposit scheme will undoubtedly be vital to whether it succeeds at tackling plastic pollution. However, the evidence from other countries suggests it could certainly be a step in the right direction to a less polluted world.

Eamonn Ives is a Researcher at Bright Blue

Drowning in plastic waste

We have now had over a year of the plastic bag charge. Since October 2015, shoppers in England have had to pay 5p for plastic bags at retailers with over 250 employees. Many people can now be seen juggling grocery items on their way home from the shops in a desperate attempt to avoid the levy. But have these super-human feats of contortion been worth the effort? Have they together had an impact on the environment?

We now have the data to answer this question, and the answer is a firm yes. The Marine Conservation Society has already reported a 40% drop between 2015 and 2016 in the number of plastic bags they collected from UK beaches. Official figures suggest a total of six billion single-use plastic bags were avoided in the first six months of the charge. Ministers also announced the charge had already raised £29 million for good causes, with many chains opting to support environmental charities.

The harm of plastic pollution

Plastic bags are, however, just a subset of plastic pollution, which is a major environmental challenge, particularly in marine ecosystems. Bigger pieces of plastic can entrap fish, causing injuries, suffocation, or strangulation. Smaller plastics can be ingested. This harms the creature themselves. Scientists have found evidence of plastic making fish larvae less active, more likely to be eaten by predators, and less likely to thrive. This also has implications further down the food chain: For instance, by eating six oysters you are likely to ingest around 50 microplastic particles.

The scale of the problem is immense: Eight billion tons of plastic waste ends up in the oceans every year. A Greenpeace report for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) found evidence of 267 different marine species affected by plastic pollution. Another study has estimated that around half of marine mammals has either been entangled by or ingested plastic. There is growing evidence that plastic pollution affects freshwater rivers too. Researchers found 8,490 pieces of plastic in the River Thames during a three-month-long observation.

The process of plastic manufacturing contributes to climate change. The Committee on Climate Change reports that the industrial sector in general produces 32% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions (including both direct emissions and its share of electricity emissions). The plastics industry makes up 2% of this total. Plastics provide another market for oil, and so help to support global fossil fuel supply chains. Incineration of plastic waste releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Policies to cut down plastic pollution

In the spirit of Edmund Burke’s “little platoons”, litter-picking groups which collect plastic debris from beaches and coastline can ameliorate the problem. The Marine Conservation Society frequently runs such events. While the impact on the total mass of plastic in the ocean is minimal, the activity gives people a tangible connection to their local environment. This can also help raise awareness of plastic pollution, and in turn change behaviour to encourage people to use less disposable plastic.

Increased recycling rates could also help clean up plastic pollution. Single-use plastic bags have been dramatically reduced. But single-use plastic bottles, for instance, remain a major challenge: The average household recycles just 44% of the 480 plastic bottles it uses each year. Fiscal nudges like landfill taxes can encourage recycling, by ensuring businesses to pay for the effects of plastic waste. Improved and more frequent council recycling services could also cut down on such waste.  

Plastic pollution has become a major focus of circular economy studies, which seek to increase resource productivity. As well as harming the environment, single-use plastic is an inefficient use of resources. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation has found that 95% of the economic value of plastic is lost after its first use. This is worth between $80 and $120 billion annually. They call for a rapid scaling up of the global supply chain for reused and recycled plastics, with improved infrastructure for collection, sorting and reprocessing to expand the current market.

Microbeads used in cosmetic products are another area where the Government has acted to cut plastic pollution. Next year, a consultation will be launched on how to ban these entirely. This could have a significant impact: A single shower can release up to 100,000 tiny particles of plastic into the sea, according to the Environmental Audit Committee. Up to 4.1% of all microplastics in the ocean are estimated to derive from microbeads in cosmetics. Some are calling for the ban to be extended to other products containing microbeads, such as washing detergents.

Many of these different levers may be needed if the tide is to be turned on plastic pollution. Scientists found earlier this year that since the Second World War we have manufactured enough plastic to cover the entire earth in cling film. The oceans are some of our most precious environments, which host most of our diverse species and flora. We cannot afford to keep damaging them.

Sam Hall is a researcher at Bright Blue