What is the waste trade? Your questions answered

by Seema on 28/08/2024 No comments

When you put your trash in the bin, do you really know where it goes?

In this post we’re exploring the waste trade, a widespread, yet little-known practice that moves mountains of trash around the globe.

What is the global waste trade?

The waste trade is the exchange of waste materials between countries. Various types of waste get exported and imported, including hazardous, non-hazardous, recyclable, and non-recyclable waste.

What countries are involved in the waste trade?

Many countries take part but the direction of trade is mainly one way. Waste is exported from wealthy developed countries to low- and middle-income nations. The primary destinations for waste exports are countries in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America. Central Asia and Eastern Europe are other common destinations.

Waste is exported and imported by both government agencies and private companies.

Why is waste traded internationally?

Most countries in the Global North produce more waste than they can deal with. Overpackaging and overconsumption are the norm. For example, the USA represents 4% of the global population but generates 12% of global municipal waste. And then there is industrial waste, which is many, many times greater.

Environmental regulations in these countries are usually strict and the costs of recycling or disposal are high. Exporting waste avoids these inconveniences, while taking advantage of the low labour costs and much weaker regulations overseas. This effectively outsources the burden of waste management to the recipient country.

How much waste gets traded?

It is difficult to get exact numbers on the amount of waste traded globally in any year. However, it is estimated to be in the 100s of millions of tonnes, with significant volumes of hazardous, electronic, and plastic waste being moved across borders.

Why do countries agree to import waste?

While some, correctly sorted, materials – scrap metals, for example – might have value, the main reason why countries accept waste imports is because they have little choice. Global inequalities mean developing countries rarely have the economic power or influence to turn down these containers, especially if they are dependent on the exporting nations for trade, loans or investment. This situation has led the waste trade to be viewed as a form of colonialism, as it mirrors historical patterns of exploitation, pollution and human rights violations.

It is estimated that 15 – 30% of waste shipments are illegal. Containers are often mislabelled (e.g. as “recyclables”, “paper” or “commodities” when they are nothing of the sort) or sent to unauthorised facilities. Bribes are used to get past officials. Interpol has expressed concern about the rise of organised criminal gangs working in the plastic waste trade – and the lack of resources to investigate them.

What happens to the waste?

Whether imported legally or illegally and regardless of the intentions of the exporter, the majority of imported waste is mismanaged. Some common scenarios include:

  • Illegal dumping: waste is disposed of in unauthorised areas, such as rivers, forests or even inside villages. Waste from UK supermarkets was found dumped in communities in Myanmar and Malaysia. Tonnes of toxic incinerator ash from America were rejected by several countries, before some was smuggled into Haiti for unlawful disposal and the rest thrown in the ocean.
  • Unsafe recycling: waste is processed in low-tech, often illegal, recycling facilities, by workers with few rights or safety protections. Illegal recycling centres in Malaysia were found processing German waste.
  • Incineration: waste is either openly burned, often near people’s homes, sent to cement kilns, or sold as fuel.

How does the waste trade affect recipient countries?

Environmental harm

Economic harm

  • The influx of foreign waste overwhelms local waste management systems. Countries that barely have capacity to deal with their domestic recycling now have to deal with thousands of tonnes of additional trash.
  • The influx of waste also lowers market prices for recyclable materials. This leaves local waste pickers, most of whom already work in precarious conditions, further impoverished.
  • Significant public funds are needed to clean up illegally dumped waste, as well as deal with the long-term health and environmental consequences.

Social and health impacts

  • Entire communities find themselves living next to other people’s waste and unwittingly exposed to toxic chemicals.
  • Marginalised groups, including children, are often forced into sorting imported waste. They lack legal protections and face serious health risks.
  • Mismanaged plastic waste can worsen environmental disasters such as flooding, increasing the risk of disease outbreaks.

Examples: 

How does the waste trade affect exporting countries?

The waste trade is the dirty secret of high-income countries.

Most of their citizens have no idea that the waste they dutifully put in the bin marked “recycling” is then sent overseas and often ends up dumped or burned. Countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan are repeatedly praised for their “good waste management”, yet they were among the top plastic waste exporters in 2023.

This lack of public awareness has serious consequences.

Firstly, it gives people the false impression that their waste is being managed efficiently, so nothing needs to change. If everything is being “recycled”, why bother to change patterns of consumption? Companies feel no pressure to produce less waste, nor to invest in local waste management.

Secondly, it perpetuates another dangerous myth – that the Global South cannot handle its waste and is largely responsible for the plastic pollution crisis. This narrative neglects to point out that much of the “mismanaged waste” originates from producers in the Global North.

Exporting countries need to be open about and be held accountable for the waste they ship overseas.

What regulations are there to manage the waste trade?

The Basel Convention exists to control the transboundary movement of explosive, flammable, toxic, or corrosive waste and its disposal.

Signatories have agreed to:

  • Seek explicit permission from the recipient country (prior informed consent, or PIC) before exporting their hazardous waste.
  • Reduce the generation of hazardous waste.
  • Restrict the movement of hazardous waste.
  • Implement procedures and standards for the safe handling and disposal of hazardous waste.

While these measures have improved the situation, many developing countries feel they do not go far enough.

They would prefer to see a complete ban on hazardous waste exports, including hard-to-recycle plastic. The EU has agreed to this, recently banning the export of any waste to non-OECD countries from the end of 2026.

Can recipient countries do anything about the waste trade?

Recipient nations are increasingly taking a stand against the dumping of foreign waste within their borders:

But more regional collaboration, for example within ASEAN countries, is needed to develop a stronger position; and more resources are needed to investigate and stop trafficking.

How can we stop the waste trade?

No country wants to be a dumping ground for others’ trash.

To stop the waste trade definitively, countries need to take responsibility for their own waste. If it can’t be managed locally, it should not be produced or allowed on the market.

Exports of plastic and other hazardous waste from high-income to low and middle-income countries should be completely banned, following the lead of the EU.

For this ban to be effective, it will need to be supported by:

  • a reduction in plastic production;
  • robust, society-wide reuse systems; and
  • more efficient sorting, management and monitoring of waste.

Without such measures, the illegal trade in waste will only increase.

As individuals, we can make others aware of the practice of shipping waste overseas and end the “out of sight, out of mind” mentality. We can also promote zero waste lifestyles and systems to reduce the amount of waste that needs to be managed in the first place.

Negotiators for the new Global Plastics Treaty are also attempting to address all of these issues. Trash Hero is advocating for the inclusion of strong and effective measures to stop the waste trade and solve other issues caused by plastic production. Join us by signing this petition.

Waste trade watch list

Links to great, short documentaries showing the waste trade in action:
➀ Your plastic waste might be traded by criminals – DW [12:30]
➀ Tracking devices reveal where recycling really goes – Bloomberg [13:01]
➀ Trashed: The secret life of plastic exports – ABC News [27:51]
➀ Thailand is tired of recycling your trash – Bloomberg [10:31]
➀ The environmental disaster fuelled by used clothes and fast fashion – ABC News [30:02]
➀ Ghana children work in toxic haze of e-waste – Al Jazeera [2:13]

read more
SeemaWhat is the waste trade? Your questions answered

Are we eating plastic?

by Lydia on 24/07/2024 No comments

“Every week you consume a credit card’s worth of plastic.” You may have seen this claim on social media, but is it an urban myth or reality? We’re looking at why it might well be true.

How does plastic get into our food?

Modern-day food packaging is made almost exclusively from plastic – cling wrap, styrofoam boxes, and sachets are just a few examples. As plastic is used the surface breaks up into tiny particles. These are classified by their size. Microplastics are tiny fragments less than 5mm in length (roughly the size of a piece of rice). Even smaller, and invisible to the naked eye, are nanoplastics. These measure 100 nanometers (0.0001mm) or less. To visualise the difference, if a large piece of microplastic were the size of a football, a “large” nanoplastic would be the size of a sesame seed. For the purposes of this article, we’ll call all these fragments “microplastics”. 

Simply opening plastic packaging releases millions of microplastics into the atmosphere and our food.

Certain environments speed up the deterioration of plastic, meaning it releases even more particles. These include heat, such as from a microwave, and fat, grease and acidity from food. Direct contact with food is part of the reason microplastics end up on our plates, but they’re also found in products that haven’t been wrapped in plastic. So how do they get there? 

  • Environment: Microplastics contaminate soil and water. Plants absorb these, or they are ingested by livestock, passing into our fruit, vegetables and dairy products. 
  • Airborne microplastics: Plastic production, use, recycling and incineration release microplastics into the atmosphere, which are then inhaled by animals in the food chain.
  • Agriculture: Water containing microplastics is used for irrigation. Plastic mulch used to suppress weeds is ploughed into the soil where plants and vegetables grow. Even fertilisers are encapsulated in plastic. 
  • Processing: High temperatures during food processing can increase leaching from plastic equipment. Contact with vinyl gloves worn by food handlers, plastic tubing in processing machines, and the conveyor belt can contribute to the plastic in our meals. 

So one way or another, most of our food and drink contains some level of microplastic. Eating plastic raises serious concerns. But why is this? 

Chemicals in plastic

Up to 50% of plastic, by weight, is chemical additives. These are used to change how plastic behaves – for example making it flexible, hard, heat resistant, or stretchy – or to give it different colours or shine. A staggering 16,325 different chemicals have to date been identified, but the actual number is likely close to 100,000! You’ve probably heard of some already: 

  • Bisphenol A (BPA) hardens plastic
  • Phthalates make plastic soft and flexible
  • Flame retardants make plastic more resistant to heat

A significant portion (26%) of these additives are known hazardous chemicals. These chemicals are linked to issues like reproductive problems, breathing difficulties, increased risk of cancer and behavioural changes

An even larger chunk, 66%, are a mystery – scientists don’t know enough about them to say what their effects could be. Under current regulations, companies are not required to share full information about the ingredients in their plastic packaging. And many of the chemicals present are not even intentionally added – they are by-products of reactions between other additives. 

This is one of the issues with recycled plastic. Melting down and mixing different types of plastic to make a new material creates a complex “cocktail” of unknown chemicals, further complicating our understanding of the health risks.

A large body of independent research shows our constant exposure to the known chemicals in plastic, even at low levels, could pose a serious risk over time. However, the cumulative nature of microplastic exposure makes it difficult to identify the exact chemicals causing health issues. This lack of clarity is an issue for regulators. 

What regulations are there to protect us?

Some regulations are in place to limit harmful chemicals, but these vary depending on location and the specific types of plastic. The current approach relies on risk-based assessment. This means chemicals can be used freely with limited safety information and need to be proven hazardous before they are banned. This can take up to 20 years! It also allows for “regrettable substitution”, where companies can replace a banned chemical with a structurally similar one with a different name. A prime example is Bisphenol A (BPA). It was commonly found in reusable plastic water bottles until it became restricted due to safety concerns. It’s been replaced with other bisphenols, like BPS or BPF which are likely just as harmful.

Chemicals used in consumer goods and packaging should instead follow the precautionary principle. This says chemicals need to be proven safe before they can be used. With this approach, when there is not enough data to establish safety, we assume there may be risks. 

Negotiations for a global plastics treaty are well underway. Microplastics and chemical migration are high on the agenda. Scientists and activists are pushing for greater transparency in chemical use and a global shift towards the precautionary principle. The plastics industry is resisting, claiming the need for “trade secrets”, and saying a risk-based approach is enough. 

Join us in calling for a strong plastics treaty, that protects us against harmful chemicals, by signing this petition. To learn more about what a strong treaty looks like head to the dedicated section of our website.

read more
LydiaAre we eating plastic?

What’s the problem with plastic?

by Seema on 20/06/2024 No comments

The problem – ironically – began with a solution. Plastic is a lightweight, durable, airtight, decay resistant, inexpensive material that can be moulded into a huge range of products. These are excellent, practical qualities – while the product is in use.

But almost 70% of all plastic (an estimated 5,700 million metric tons[1]) has become waste: 10% incinerated[2], releasing toxic heavy metals, dioxins and hazardous nano-particles into the air, water and soil; and 60% discarded, now accumulating in landfills or the natural environment.

“More than 1.2 billion kilogrammes of plastic – primarily single-use packaging – are produced globally every single day.[3]

In the ocean, as on land, plastics persist. Their lightweight and indestructible nature allows them to disperse easily, breaking into smaller and smaller, highly toxic pieces that cause the death or injury of wildlife[4], biodiversity loss[5] and pose grave dangers to human health as they enter and contaminate the food chain. Barely 1%[6] of the 12.2 million tons of plastic that enters the ocean every year stays on the surface, making it all but impossible to recover.

Recycling cannot keep pace with the volume and variety of plastic materials in circulation. It is still only viable[6] to recycle two kinds of plastics at scale: PET and HDPE, usually with only one “loop” before the material is too degraded to recycle again. Even this is costly, often more so than producing virgin plastic[7]. This has led to many countries – who have infrastructure available – preferring to ship their plastic to the Global South in what has been termed “waste colonialism[8].

Chemical additives in plastic also make it problematic to recycle[9], resulting in unwanted emissions, cross-contamination and concentration of hazardous substances in the resulting material. More than 16,000 chemicals have been identified in plastic[10], many of them in food packaging[11]. 7,000 of these chemicals have to date been researched – and 4,200 found to be hazardous, leading the World Health Organisation (WHO) to draft a resolution[12] calling on nations to “[scale] up work on plastics and health to enable better information of the potential human health impacts”. These impacts include endocrine disruption[13], cancer[14] and infertility[15].

Research from the Center for International Environmental Law[16] further suggests there may be an imminent public health crisis caused by exposure to plastic at all stages of its lifecycle, from extraction to disposal. Humans are at risk through inhalation, ingestion and skin contact, with recent findings showing micro- and nanoplastics already present in our blood[17], lungs[18], reproductive organs[19] and able to cause damage to cells[20].

Plastic is also a climate issue. 99% of plastic is made from fossil fuels. At every stage of its lifecycle, emissions are produced[21]: from the processing of the raw material, to its application and discarding. Plastic is the fastest growing industrial source of global greenhouse gas emissions, with an estimated contribution more than four times that of the entire aviation industry[22]. This figure will only increase as Big Oil banks on plastic to make up for decreasing demand and revenue[23].

Waste management infrastructure, ecosystems, the climate, even our own bodies are already overwhelmed by the impacts of plastic. It is a problem that is impossible to ignore and will be devastating if we do[24]. We need to act and the time is now.

———————————-
Sources

[1] Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made Roland Geyer, Jenna R. Jambeck, Kara Lavender Law, Sci Adv. July 2017
[2] Ibid, based on figures quoted of 407 million tons of plastic produced globally in 2015
[3] OECD, Global Plastics Outlook, 2022
[4] Plastic & Health: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet, CIEL, Feb 2019
[5] Plastic and the environment online series, Geneva Environmental Network, Jul 2023
[6] ‘Viable’ includes both financial and technical criteria
[7] The Plastic Pandemic, Reuters investigative report, Oct 2020
[8] The Guardian, 31 Dec 2021 (and many other sources)
[9] Forever Toxic: The science on health threats from plastic recycling, Greenpeace, May 2023
[10] CNN reporting on the PlastChem Report, March 2024
[11] Food packaging and human health fact sheet, Food Packaging Forum, Dec 2018
[12] 76th World Health Assembly, Agenda item 16.3, 24 May 2023
[13] Plastic, EDCs & Health: Authoritative Guide, Endocrine Society, Dec 2020
[14] The Guardian, 28 Mar 2023 (and many other sources)
[15] Microplastics May Be a Significant Cause of Male Infertility, Chenming Zhang, Jianshe Chen, Sicheng Ma, Zixue Sun, Zulong Wang, AmJ Mens Health, 2022 May-Jun
[16] Plastic & Health: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet, CIEL, Feb 2019
[17] Blood-type: Plastic, Common Seas, Jan 2020
[18] The Guardian, 6 Apr 2022 (and many other sources)
[19] Ibid, 20 May 2024
[20] Ibid, 8 Dec 2021
[21] Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet, CIEL, May 2019
[22] The Hill, 18 April 2024
[23] ClientEarth, 16 Feb 2021
[24] Breaking the Plastic Wave, Pew Trust 2020 shows 5 years of inaction equates to an additional ~80 million tons of plastic in the ocean

read more
SeemaWhat’s the problem with plastic?

Global Plastics Treaty Jargon Buster

by Seema on 15/04/2024 No comments

If you care about plastic pollution, the announcement of a Global Plastics Treaty from the UN is big news. It means the problem is now internationally recognised and countries will have to work together to solve it. The final agreement could limit new plastic production, stop toxic chemicals and make sure products are designed for reuse.

But getting there isn’t easy. The negotiations involve almost 200 countries, with a lot of different interests. They need to follow certain rules for discussion and there are thousands of pages of documents produced. If you’re not a lawyer or policy geek, it can be hard to understand what’s going on. So we’ve made a guide that breaks down some of the terms used in the treaty discussion – and why they are important. The more people know about what’s happening and what’s at stake, the better chance we have to get a strong treaty to protect us and the planet.

So educate yourself and others! And follow us on social media @trashheroworld to stay informed about the upcoming rounds of negotiations.

1. The Instrument
Not a guitar or a piano! The Instrument is what the UN calls the Global Plastics Treaty. Its official title is the “international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment”. “Instrument” is just a legal term for any kind of formal document that records rights or duties.

Why not just call it a treaty? Because “treaty” has a specific meaning in international law. And there are other types of international agreements, like conventions, accords, declarations or protocols. As we don’t yet know what form the “instrument” will take, the UN uses this neutral word to cover all possibilities.

Having said that, it is most likely that the future treaty / instrument will be a “convention”. Ideally it should be a specific convention, where the countries’ obligations and commitments are written directly in the text.

The other option is a framework convention, where the text only agrees to do things in principle and leaves the details of how and when to be negotiated later. The framework model was used in the climate change treaty (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC), and countries are still debating actions and targets almost 30 years after it was made. COP29 will be held in Azerbaijan in November 2024 and will likely be more “blah blah blah“.

2. INC – Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee
This is the name for the group of UN member states that are discussing the future plastics treaty. The INC is facilitated by a secretariat of staff from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and it is funded by various member states. There are five meetings or sessions of the INC currently planned, roughly one every six months over two years. If the treaty is not ready after this, the member states will need to decide how to carry on. The schedule is as follows:

Nov 2022: INC-1 @ Punta del Este, Uruguay
May 2023: INC-2 @ Paris, France
Nov 2023: INC-3 @ Nairobi, Kenya
Apr 2024: INC-4 @ Ottawa, Canada
Nov 2024: INC-5 @ Busan, S. Korea

3. COP – Conference of the Parties
COPs are usually linked with the climate change treaty, but it’s a general term for what comes after any UN convention is agreed upon: the countries who signed it (the “Parties”) gather to review how it’s going and whether it needs changes. The COP for the climate convention happens every year. Some other treaties, like the Convention on Biological Diversity, hold a COP every 2 years. For the plastics treaty, it has not yet been decided how often the Parties will meet.

4. Observers and conflict of interest
Since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the UN has recognised the importance of having stakeholders present at any discussions about the future of our planet. They created nine “Major Groups“:

  • Women
  • Children and Youth
  • Indigenous Peoples
  • Non-Governmental Organisations
  • Local Authorities
  • Workers and Trade Unions
  • Business and Industry
  • Scientific and Technological Community
  • Farmers

Accredited representatives of these groups – like Trash Hero World – are called Observers. This doesn’t mean we just sit and watch things happen, though! Observers can join the INC negotiation sessions, make statements and written submissions and also receive information about what is happening in between the negotiations. But we are not able to vote and can only speak if there is time after the member states have finished.

The Observer system is not perfect. Different Observers have different levels of access and participation. Sometimes the logistics of joining all the meetings prevent some groups taking part – not everyone can afford the costs and many struggle to get visas. Observers’ rights to speak or attend meetings can also be refused by the member states – some are more friendly than others to civil society.

The whole system is a bit too friendly to certain powerful stakeholders, like the business and industry representatives, who are often invited to join official government delegations. The INC has not yet addressed the conflict of interest created by allowing the plastics industry to take part in the negotiations.

5. Plenary, contact groups, informals
At the INC meetings, the opening and closing sessions are held in plenary. This means they are open to all participants and live streamed for the public. But the main negotiations happen in Contact Groups.

Contact groups are formal meetings, usually dedicated to a particular topic, but they are not live streamed and are subject to the Chatham House Rule. This rule allows anything said in the meeting to be shared and used later, but only if the speaker is not identified. This in theory allows for a more open discussion.

If you see news reports during the INC meetings that say things like “Certain states tried to stall negotiations”, without specifying which ones, this is the Chatham House Rule in action!

The third type of negotiation is the “informal”. As the name suggests, these meetings are not recorded at all and are used to discuss sensitive issues, often between smaller groups of countries.

6. MEA – multilateral environmental agreement
An agreement between 2 countries or states is called bilateral and between many countries, it is called multilateral. The Global Plastics Treaty will be an MEA. There are already more than 250 MEAs covering everything from tuna fish to the ozone layer. This treaty needs to fit in alongside them and not duplicate or contradict anything they do. There is quite a bit of discussion about how best to do this, especially in relation to the BRS – Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm – conventions that regulate the production, use, trade and disposal of hazardous waste and chemicals, a lot of which is plastic.

7. EPR – Extended Producer Responsibility
This term refers to a wide set of measures that could be included in the treaty to make sure manufacturers of plastics (and the products and packaging made from them) are held responsible for the health and environmental costs of their products across the whole lifecycle.

At the most basic level, EPR means requiring companies to collect and recycle more of their waste. A stronger set of measures would also mandate targets for reduction of single-use plastic, design and infrastructure for reuse, labelling of the ingredients in plastic and fines for harms caused.

8. CBDR – Common but differentiated responsibilities
This is the idea that, while all countries share the responsibility for solving global environmental problems, not all countries are equally to blame. Countries in the Global North have typically done more to harm the climate and the living world and, as a result of that exploitation, now have more money to fix it. CBDR says they have an obligation to help countries in the Global South, who are less responsible. These developing nations need financial support to manage the impacts of plastic pollution and to take the actions that will be recommended by the treaty.

It’s important that the principle of CBDR should only apply to the financing of actions included in the treaty, not to the actions themselves. Some countries are already arguing that their “special national circumstances” excuse them from following any globally agreed standards. Using CBDR in this way will weaken the treaty as it lets individual countries choose whether or not to keep polluting.

9. Rules of Procedure (RoP)
They may sound like boring administrative details, but the draft rules of procedure that determine how the treaty gets decided are one of the hottest topics at the INC meetings. The big debate is whether member states should have the right to vote on decisions if they cannot reach an agreement, as stated in Rules 37 and 38.

Why would countries not want to vote? Some are afraid that, if they were on the losing side, they would be forced into doing things they don’t want to do. They prefer every decision to be made by consensus, which means a unanimous (100%) agreement is needed to pass.

However, this also means if just one country out of the 175 present disagrees with a proposal, nothing can happen until it is modified to a (usually weaker) version that the country will approve. In other words, decisions that are already agreed by a large majority of countries can be hijacked by powerful minorities.

As we head towards INC-4, the RoP are still in a draft version, which is a big risk as we get deeper into the negotiations. Powerful oil-producing countries will push for consensus so that they can veto any attempt in the treaty to limit their activities.

10. (Revised) Zero Draft (RZD)
The zero draft is a suggested text for the treaty prepared by the INC Secretariat after INC-2 in Paris. It contains all the different options for ending plastic pollution across its whole life cycle. At INC-3 in Nairobi, the text was discussed by member states and multiple pages of suggested new wordings were added. This resulted in the RZD, which is almost twice the length of the original.

At INC-4, this new text will be the basis for negotiations. For more about the zero draft and what it covers, see our Instagram post or check out the video to see what we think the treaty should include.

A legal drafting group will be set up at INC-4 to start summarising the text into a more workable version, while the countries try to find common ground on some of the more controversial points, like reducing plastic production.

If this guide was helpful and you’d like to know more about any other topics related to the Global Plastics Treaty or plastic pollution in general, drop us a comment below and we’ll see if we can cover it!

 

read more
SeemaGlobal Plastics Treaty Jargon Buster

5 reasons plastic recycling is broken

by Lydia on 19/03/2024 2 comments

For decades, the iconic recycling arrows on plastic lulled us into a false sense of security. We imagine a closed-loop system – plastic diligently sorted and reborn into new products. However, the reality of plastic recycling is far more complex, and the system itself is inefficient. Let’s find out why.

  1. Most plastic cannot be recycled – the arrows mean nothing. 

Pick up any plastic packaging and it likely has some version of the recycling arrows on it. Understandably, most people think this means it can and will be recycled. But this is far from being the case. If there are numbers inside the arrows, it just shows the type of plastic used in the product. There are six main categories:

PET (#1)

HDPE (#2)

PVC (#3)

LDPE (#4)

PP (#5)

PS (#6)

Then there’s the catch-all #7 – “other” – for the thousands of plastic varieties that don’t fit the first six. The truth is only #1 PET and #2 HDPE plastics can be effectively recycled. So, the presence of arrows around the number is often misleading – as confirmed by the US Environment Protection Agency – and has led to a widespread and false belief that all plastics can somehow be recycled.

  1.  Plastic can’t be recycled infinitely.

Another truth is that plastic was never designed to be recycled – its properties mean it always degrades after being shredded and melted down. While some materials, like glass and aluminium, can be recycled endlessly, plastic gets weaker each time it is reprocessed. This means most plastic is downcycled or used for a different purpose than the original one it was made for. For example, PET bottles often end up in clothing or carpets. These products cannot be recycled further and so will end up in landfills or incinerated at the end of their life, so they can’t be considered recycling in the traditional sense. 

Around 2% of plastic can be recycled effectively, i.e. from a PET bottle to another PET bottle, but this usually requires the injection of some new virgin plastic to make it usable. Even in these cases, only one or a maximum of two extra “loops” can be added before it too becomes unusable and discarded.

  1. It’s difficult and expensive 

The sheer variety of plastics now on the market, often with multiple layers of different materials, coatings and dyes, means sorting is a challenging, sometimes impossible task – both for the consumer and at the depot, where they are usually received mixed together. The presence of food and other contaminants adds another layer of difficulty. Many separated batches sent for processing must be thrown away entirely after finding contaminants or the wrong types of plastic mixed in.

The entire operation is so expensive and time-consuming that producing virgin plastic is still cheaper than recycling existing material. This leaves little incentive for companies to use it.

  1. Plastic recycling is not safe

More than 16,000 chemicals have been identified in plastic. Only 6,000 of these have been evaluated, and 4,000 are considered potentially hazardous. Very little is known about their effects, especially when they get mixed together during recycling, creating new compounds. 

Scientists are also concerned about cross-contamination. Dangerous chemicals such as flame retardants, found in e-waste, have been discovered in recycled plastic cooking utensils. These are a direct threat to our health as they come into contact with food but were never approved for this purpose. 

The recycling process itself raises health concerns for workers. Grinding, shredding, and heating plastics release these harmful chemicals into the air, exposing workers through inhalation and skin contact. In many countries, there is a lack of regulation to protect these workers or provide proper healthcare to address the potential health impacts. 

The process also creates microplastics, further polluting the environment for all, particularly “fenceline communities” residing near the recycling facilities. 

  1. There’s too much plastic. 

The core issue of plastic pollution remains – we’re producing it at an alarming rate, far exceeding our recycling capacity. This excess creates a new challenge: the global waste trade. 

Wealthy nations in the Global North, unwilling to bear the inconvenience and expense of managing their waste, are systematically shipping it to developing countries in the Global South. This waste trade is well-documented and often involves third party importers who promise to recycle it but simply dump or openly burn what is received, often near people’s homes. It can also involve mislabeled containers that say “recyclables” but in fact contain contaminated, hazardous or mixed waste. Receiving countries do not have the capacity to check everything coming in, nor the infrastructure to handle it once it is there.

Should I stop recycling? 

It is important to note that we are only talking about recycling plastics here: if it can’t be reused, recycling glass, paper, metal and food (compost) is effective and essential.

And recycling plastic shouldn’t be abandoned entirely. Any #1 and #2 plastics we can’t avoid should still be cleaned and put in the recycling bin.

Here are some steps we can take to tackle plastic pollution effectively: 

  • Reduce: The golden rule of zero waste – create less! Minimise single-use plastics and ensure products are made with minimal, reusable packaging.  
  • Redesign: Manufacturers need to design products with reuse and eventual recyclability in mind. Crucial steps include using standardised, simple plastics with safe and transparent ingredients and packaging that is easy to identify and separate. 
  • Responsibility: Build reduce and redesign into Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies to hold manufacturers accountable for the impacts and external costs of the waste they produce.

To learn more about how to reduce plastic pollution effectively, why not head to our learning archive

read more
Lydia5 reasons plastic recycling is broken

How does plastic pollution affect our human rights?

by Lydia on 28/02/2024 No comments

From the deepest oceans to the highest peaks, plastic has infiltrated every corner of the planet. This isn’t just an environmental issue – it’s a human rights crisis. Let’s explore how and why.  

Right to health

Plastic is a product of fossil fuels and chemicals. Toxins are released throughout its entire lifecycle, from the extraction of the raw materials, the microplastics shed during use, to disposal and beyond, through recycling and incineration. Fenceline communities, the populations who live nearby petrochemical and incineration facilities, are particularly affected. An 85-mile strip in Louisiana, USA is known as “cancer alley”, due to the elevated risk of contracting the disease – more than 80 times the national level. Residents are also more likely to develop respiratory problems, skin irritations and headaches. The same picture appears in many other locations in America and the Global South.

Almost every human likely has plastic in their body. We are eating it, and we are breathing it in. It has been found in our lungs, heart and blood. Over 16,000 chemicals have been identified in plastic, which give it qualities such as flexibility, colour, and heat resistance. Of these chemicals, only 6,000 have been evaluated, and over 4,000 of these are potentially hazardous, with links to cancer, congenital disabilities, fertility complications and other serious health issues.

The proliferation of plastic and microplastic directly contravenes our right to the “highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”. 

Right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment

The plastic pollution crisis is well documented, along with its impacts on natural ecosystems and biodiversity. Yet the UN General Assembly recently acknowledged the “right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment” as a fundamental human right.

Since 99% of plastic is made from fossil fuels, it also accelerates the climate crisis from production to disposal. The plastics industry is responsible for up to 8% of global emissions, which is higher than the entire aviation industry (responsible for 2.5% of CO2 emissions). As well as contributing to climate change, it blocks natural systems that mitigate it. The high levels of microplastics in the ocean are preventing the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere, reducing the efficacy of the planet’s biggest carbon sink. This is a concern not only for us but for generations to come.

On land, plastic waste clogs drainage systems, exacerbating the risk of flooding – a serious problem in the face of the extreme weather caused by the climate crisis. This is a physical danger that further undermines the right to a safe environment. 

Right to a decent standard of living

Everyone has the right to a “standard of living adequate for health and well-being”. This right is notably jeopardised in communities dependent on tourism or fishing. Plastic pollution in the ocean is causing fish stock to dwindle and damaging delicate underwater ecosystems. This impacts people’s ability to earn a living and feed their families. Tourism, another important source of income for many coastal communities, is also in decline as pristine beaches and colourful coral reefs are covered with plastic debris. This drives away potential visitors and puts local economies at risk. 

Right to information

The right to “participate in and access information relating to decision-making processing that affects [our] lives and well-being” is also being compromised by the plastics industry. 

Manufacturers are currently not obliged to disclose the chemicals – intentionally or non-intentionally added – in their plastic products, which can make up over half of the final material. There is no publicly available database of such chemicals and no easy means for independent scientists to test them. This lack of transparency has implications for human health and also for recycling, which can further mix and concentrate the additives into a “toxic cocktail” in the new products.  

A recent report from the Centre for Climate Integrity (CICC) also revealed a history of the plastics industry misleading the public. The report shows that, despite being advised that recycling was not a viable solution from as early as the 1980s, the industry created advertising campaigns that promoted it as the best way to deal with plastic waste. Even now, “solutions” like waste-to-energy and waste-to-fuel continue to be promoted, despite documented evidence of its harmful effects on human health, the climate and the environment. 

Whose rights are impacted the most? 

Plastic disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable. Frontline communities exposed to the pollution from refineries, petrochemicals plants and waste treatment facilities are often low-income, marginalised populations. 

Women are more susceptible to plastic’s health risks due to biology and traditional gender roles. They have a higher risk of exposure to endocrine disruptors in cosmetics, menstrual and cleaning products that threaten their reproductive health. They are also more likely to work in informal sectors such as waste picking, which increases the likelihood of developing breast cancer, among other health issues. Meanwhile their children are at greater risk of developmental issues and compromised lungs from polluted air. 

Many of these communities lack a voice in decision-making. Their right to information about plastic’s dangers and involvement in shaping plastic policies has often been denied. 

What can we do about it? 

  • Support a strong Global Plastics Treaty
    • Advocate for a solid and comprehensive Global Plastics Treaty that addresses the entire lifecycle of plastics and explicitly incorporates human rights principles in its framework. 
  • Stay informed and share your knowledge with others
    • Were you aware of the link between plastic pollution and human rights? Whether it was a surprise or not, please share this blog so more people understand the complexity of the issues. 

By acknowledging the human rights dimensions of plastic pollution and taking collective action, we can protect our right to a healthy planet for us and for future generations. Remember, it’s not just about saving the environment, it’s about protecting our right to exist and thrive. 

read more
LydiaHow does plastic pollution affect our human rights?

What’s the problem with plastic?

by Seema on 02/02/2024 No comments

Before you start reading, take a few minutes to think: how would YOU answer this question? Most people have seen news stories about the plastic in our oceans that is harming animals. But are there any other issues? Maybe you see the problem not with plastic itself, but with the fact that people aren’t disposing of it properly or recycling enough.

To help us think it through, let’s look at the material itself.

WHAT EXACTLY IS PLASTIC?

Plastic is a mixture of fossil fuels and chemicals. First, refined crude oil or gas is put under high heat and pressure to “crack” the hydrocarbon molecules into simpler versions called monomers (mono = single). Examples of fossil fuel monomers are styrene or ethylene. These are then fused together to form polymers (poly = many), with names like polystyrene or polyethylene.

These polymers are finally melted together with various chemicals to form plastics. Each plastic product has a special recipe of polymers and chemicals that makes it more or less shiny, transparent, hard, flexible, heat-resistant etc. Plastic can also be mixed with other materials like foil or paper. Scientists have identified more than 16,000 different chemicals in plastics that we use today, and very few are known to be safe for humans. Companies currently don’t need to tell anyone what’s inside the plastic they make.

You can find out more about this process and how plastic was invented in the reading and watch lists below.

WHAT IS PLASTIC USED FOR?

Probably the easier question to answer is what isn’t plastic used for?! In a few decades, it has taken over the world. Aside from obvious uses like soft drinks bottles or straws, plastic can be found in everything from clothes to paint and even in products we use on our face and body. Some plastic things can be used for a long time, like car doors. But most plastic things we use only once, often for just a few seconds, like a coffee stirrer.

WHAT HAPPENS TO PLASTIC AFTER WE’RE FINISHED USING IT?

Because it’s manmade, plastic doesn’t act like other materials when it’s thrown away. The polymers are tightly fused together and mixed in with a lot of different chemicals so it can’t break down naturally. Recycling it is tricky – as we’ll see later on. Burning it releases those chemicals into the atmosphere, along with all the regular greenhouse gases from the fossil fuel it’s made from.

Basically, every piece of plastic ever made still exists on Earth in some form. Your toothbrush will easily outlive your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren 😀

In summary, we might say the problem with plastic is that there is way too much of it being produced.
That’s an issue because of what it’s made from – fossil fuel and toxic chemicals – and how it acts.

Here are the twins with more:

 

In the video, we hear there are three main impacts of plastic – and all of them affect you in some way.

  • Plastic destroys ecosystems
  • Plastic affects your health
  • Plastic accelerates climate change

We’ll be looking at these in depth in the next parts of the series. Until then, you’ll find a lot of great info in the reading / watch lists below. Take your time and check out whatever appeals to you. You can also apply your new knowledge in an activity, or test it out in the quiz. Don’t forget to let us know your thoughts on this topic below.

❗ TRY THIS

Look around you, where do you see plastic? It’s not always obvious! But once you start looking, you might start to see it everywhere… You’re probably wearing it, drinking or eating from it, working, playing and even washing with it. Can you reach 100+ things in one day?

What things do you / your family buy in plastic? Or that contain plastic?
How many of those things are single-use?
Start to keep a list if you like. It might come in handy later.


Feel confident with your new knowledge?

TAKE THE QUIZ!

❓ OVER TO YOU

Plastic is everywhere in our lives but it’s causing a lot of problems. What do you think we can do about this?

💡 Think about what plastic is used for. Are all of these things necessary?

Let us know in the comments below!
Note: comments are moderated so they won’t appear right away

read more
SeemaWhat’s the problem with plastic?

What’s the difference between refill and reuse?

by Lydia on 29/01/2024 No comments

We hear the words refill and reuse a lot and often use them interchangeably. But did you know that they are not the same thing? In this blog, we’ll show you what the differences are – and why they are important as we move towards a zero waste world. 

Imagine this: you’ve drained the last drop of your washing-up liquid. So you rinse out the bottle, cleaning all the gunk that’s built up around the lid. Later, you pack the bottle in your bag, trek to a refill shop (that’s not near your usual supermarket), fill it up, get it weighed, and take it home. 

This system – familiar to thousands of dedicated zero wasters around the world – is a great way to reduce packaging waste, but it puts the responsibility for doing it squarely on our shoulders.

Refill systems are based on the customer providing their own packaging. They are easy to set up and don’t need a lot of investment but they rely on individuals being motivated, organised and often wealthy enough to get their products in this way.

In some contexts, for example in rural villages or in a network of public water fountains, refill works really well. In others, there are significant downsides:

  • Impracticality: to do a full weekly grocery shop, as is common in the Global North, planning ahead to take your own containers for everything would be challenging. Even on a day-to-day basis, remembering to carry reusable bottles, cups, cutlery and bags takes effort. It’s easy to see that most people with busy lives would not be able to do it.
  • Legal concerns: issues surrounding hygiene and food safety can make supermarkets, restaurants and other companies wary of “bring your own container” schemes, as they would be liable for any problems with the products purchased, even if not at fault. 

So what about reuse?

Picture this: you finish that same washing-up liquid and toss the bottle in a bag of empties. On your next supermarket run, you simply drop them off and buy a new, pre-filled bottle from the shelf! 

With a reuse system, the packaging is owned by the producer or a third party who has responsibility for collecting, cleaning and refilling it for the next round. It’s highly scalable and addresses all the issues raised with refill:

  • It’s easy and convenient: no extra trips, no meticulous weighing, just buy what you want and drop off or hand over the empties later. Companies create the whole infrastructure, making it easier for everyone to participate.
  • It gives companies control: as the reusable packaging can be produced in specific sizes and cleaned to specific standards, it removes the legal issues that come with refill.
  • It boosts the economy: collecting, sorting and cleaning reusable containers will create new jobs for people in the waste management sector and ensure a just transition.

So why is this difference between reuse and refill important to keep in mind? 

As supermarkets start to take steps to address plastic pollution, they often do pilot schemes to reduce single-use packaging, which are refill-based – as these cost less money to implement. And often, these schemes fail – due to the reasons we explored above (lack of individual motivation, planning fatigue etc.).

These supermarkets then use these failures to say “refill and reuse doesn’t work” and go back to business as usual. They say “customers don’t want it”. And it’s true: when the weight of responsibility lands on people who are already juggling a million things (and probably running on empty coffee cups), it’s no surprise refill systems are not popular. 

But to dismiss reuse systems at the same time is at best a failure of imagination – or at worst, cynical greenwashing.

A safe, well-designed reuse system can fit seamlessly into our lives and be implemented on a much larger scale than refill. But it requires investment and infrastructure. Companies should not use the limitations of one system to justify avoiding the transformative potential of the other.

If you are aware of the difference, you can use it to spot these kinds of tactics and also to help people around you to see that zero waste does not need to be hard, if companies are prepared to support our actions.

Share your thoughts! Is this article useful for you? Have you seen any examples of refill or reuse systems in your area? Why do you think they work (or don’t work)?

read more
LydiaWhat’s the difference between refill and reuse?

Plastics treaty must not go the way of the climate convention

by Seema on 29/11/2023 No comments

The third of five rounds of negotiations for the Global Plastics Treaty in Nairobi ended in confusion and uncertainty last week. Trash Hero was there and reports on the key takeaways from the meeting.


K E Y   O U T C O M E S
– The draft text of the treaty was made more complicated, not simplified
– No working groups will be set up to look at terms and definitions before the next meeting
– Oil-producing countries again attempted to delay and derail proceedings
– Importantly, they did not succeed in any meaningful way
– Wastepickers and indigenous groups achieved greater recognition for their roles


It was again a huge honour to represent our volunteers from 11 – 19 Nov 2023 at the UNEP headquarters in Nairobi and take my place alongside committed and knowledgeable colleagues in the Break Free From Plastic, GAIA and IPEN networks. (To understand why Trash Hero was there and what the talks were about, see Background, below).

The nine-day proceedings were intense, starting early morning and often finishing late at night. Discussions (in so-called “Contact Groups”) on different parts of the treaty text happened simultaneously in different parts of the building, which made them challenging to follow. At times progress was frustratingly slow and, despite many countries taking strong positions, it was not enough to overcome the blocking tactics of more powerful nations, with vested interests in continued plastic production.

Trash Hero met with many delegates, including those from Switzerland and Thailand, both of whom deserve mention for their strong stances on identifying the toxic chemicals in plastic. A joint proposal to advance work on chemicals and polymers of concern before INC-4 received support from 130 countries present, even though it ultimately failed to pass.

Access remained an issue at the daily Asia-Pacific regional meetings, which barred observers from attending – in contrast with the meetings of other regional groups, which are open to all participants. The Asia-Pacific region stretches from the Gulf States in the west to the Small Island Developing States in the Pacific Ocean and some members do not see the need for transparency and civil society participation.

During breaks in the official meetings, there were many side events, where we heard from experts on topics such as plastic and health and reuse systems, as well as from waste pickers and indigenous leaders, who shared their perspectives on a just transition.

INC-3 MEETING SUMMARY

Prior to the meeting, the INC Secretariat had prepared two documents, intended to form the basis of discussions:

  1. The “Zero Draft” text, based on the outcomes of INC-2. This provided a clear structure for the treaty. Each part proposed a broad yet concise set of options, ranging from strict, globally-enforced rules to voluntary commitments, dependent on each country’s particular circumstances.
  2. A “Synthesis Report“, an additional document containing recommended text for definitions, scope, principles and other items submitted by member states that had not yet been discussed by the INC.

The expectation before INC-3, based on the usual negotiating process for these kinds of agreements, was that member states would do two readings of these documents, discussing and expressing preferences for the different options. The goal was to move forward with a mandate to create a streamlined First Draft, reflecting the common ground and supporting detailed text negotiation at INC-4.

The second expectation was that member states would agree to carry out intersessional work – meetings in between the official rounds of negotiation – to discuss (among others) how they would define specific terms, establish targets, categorise chemicals and propose means of financing that could be used later in the negotiations, without prejudging the final outcome. This work is essential for member states to understand what is meant when the treaty refers, for example, to “chemicals of concern” or “safe, environmentally sound disposal”. It also brings independent science and expertise into the process, which has thus far been lacking.

However instead of a mandate for a first draft and intersessional work, what we actually got in Nairobi was quite different.

Should there be any doubt remaining about the intentions of oil-producing countries after the derailment of INC-2, INC-3 proved that this same minority continue to negotiate in bad faith. Branding themselves as the “like-minded group” of countries, they started by calling into question the “balance” of the Zero Draft and the Synthesis Report, then insisted that the existing text be expanded to take into account all views in the room. This was necessary, they said, in order to establish trust moving forward.

It resulted in chaos. Hundreds of amendments to the text were submitted within a matter of hours. The vast majority of these were designed to weaken the provisions or, in some cases, delete them entirely. The Secretariat scrambled to accommodate all the changes over the remaining days. Precious time was spent simply trying to establish whether the inputs had been recorded correctly.

What we are now left with is a bloated, 100+ page document (compared with the 30 pages of the original Zero Draft), with each of the original clauses expanded to include several, often confusing and contradictory options. This is not allowed to be streamlined or summarised, only edited for typos. It will be published by the Secretariat as a “Revised Zero Draft” by 31 December 2023. The only positive from the expansion is that support for waste pickers is now more clearly recognised and included throughout the text.

Meanwhile, similar stalling tactics meant there will be no intersessional work before INC-4. The topics for discussion and the format could not be agreed. The same minority of countries wanted to leave key issues like polymers, chemicals and EPR (extended producer responsibility) off the table and focus solely on waste management and finance. This will delay progress at INC-4 as no groundwork on terms and definitions will have been done.

The final outcome of the meeting was that a new Chair of the INC Secretariat was elected. Luis Vayas Valdivieso of Ecuador will replace outgoing Chair, Gustavo Meza-Cuadra of Peru, and preside over INC-4, 5 and beyond.

Analysis by CIEL identified at least 143 participants at the talks as members of the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries, outnumbering the representatives of the 70 smallest country delegations. Six member states, including Malaysia, hosted industry lobbyists as part of their official delegations.

Oil producing countries’ delegations in general tended to be far larger than those of the self-styled “downstream” countries, who suffer most from plastic pollution. This gave them an unfair advantage when it came to following the simultaneous discussions, speaking at the various Contact Groups, drafting submissions at speed and accessing technical and tactical assistance.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

On the surface, it may seem like the plastics treaty is going in the same direction as the climate change convention (UNFCCC), which is struggling to make a meaningful impact almost thirty years after its adoption.

We are seeing the same dominance of fossil fuel interests; the failure of the countries responsible for the crisis to take the lead in solving it; and the familiar move towards “pledges” based on “national circumstances” instead of a commitment to the globally binding measures needed to tackle the problem at the source.

But one critical difference with the plastics treaty is that we still have the means and the will to change this pattern. The member states taking part have yet to make any conclusive decisions. Although the outcomes of INC-3 mean the final treaty is likely to be significantly delayed, it is important to remember that as yet no real concessions have been made. The original text of the Zero Draft may be buried under new suggestions, but it is still in play. Countries chose to delay intersessional work, rather than settle for partial or watered down discussions. Many observers see this as a win: no progress is better than a compromise.

And unlike UNFCCC, the INC still has the possibility to make decisions by majority voting, not consensus (unanimous agreement). Consensus decision-making is widely seen as the fatal flaw of UNFCCC, as a single country with vested interests is able to veto any proposal. If the new Chair of the INC is able to take control of the proceedings and implement a strong conflict of interest policy – similar to that which the World Health Organisation used during the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – as well as support smaller countries to take a more active role, there is hope.

Ambition in many corners of the room – from Africa, Latin America, and small island states among others – is still high. If these member states succeed in creating a strong treaty that truly covers the whole life cycle of plastic, it will have huge implications, not only for our health and biodiversity but also for the climate and the UNFCCC. It will prove that caps on fossil fuel production are possible and that Big Oil can be defeated. Perhaps INC-4 in Ottawa will be the turning point that is so badly needed.

 


 

BACKGROUND

What is the Global Plastics Treaty?
In February 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly made a historic resolution (UNEA 5/14) to develop “an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment” – the Global Plastics Treaty – and gave member states just five meetings in two short years to agree on the text.

With the scope of the treaty covering the whole life cycle of plastic, there is a lot of ground to cover: the ever-mounting evidence about the toxicity of plastic, from extraction to disposal; its significant role in planetary warming; its destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity; the impossibility of plastic circularity; and the disproportionate impacts of all of these issues on the Global South and vulnerable communities.

Member states must also agree on the implementation of any agreed measures – whether they will be voluntary or binding, how they will achieve compliance and how they will be financed.

Why is Trash Hero involved?
In 2022, Trash Hero World received UNEP accreditation, recognising the work of our volunteers on plastic pollution worldwide, and allowing us to join the talks as civil society observers. This means we can take part in the negotiation process, contributing both formally through written submissions and statements and informally through discussions with official government delegates. Like all observers, who represent UNEP’s “major groups” of stakeholders – farmers, local authorities, women, children and youth, scientists, workers and businesses – we are not able to vote or make any decisions.

What is INC-3?
INC stands for Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, the group of around 175 UN member states who will decide on the form and content of the treaty, facilitated by a Bureau and Secretariat made up of UNEP staff and representatives of member states, who act in a neutral capacity.

The whole process is funded by member states, primarily from the Global North.

INC-3 is the third round of meetings of the INC, and the longest to date. It officially took place from 11 – 19 November 2023 (including two days of preparatory meetings) in the UN compound in Nairobi, Kenya. More than 1900 people were in attendance representing 161 countries and 318 observer organisations. The final two planned meetings of INC take place in Ottawa, Canada in April 2024 and in Seoul, S. Korea, in November 2024.

read more
SeemaPlastics treaty must not go the way of the climate convention

The burning issue of incineration

by Lydia on 21/09/2023 No comments

Clever marketing promotes incineration as an efficient, green, and even “zero waste” approach to energy and trash. We can make our waste “disappear” and produce energy at the same time – who wouldn’t want that? 

So why has the EU banned new incinerators? And why do we believe that it has no place in the world of zero waste? 

What exactly is incineration? 

The term ‘incineration’ covers processes that burn waste, with or without oxygen, usually to produce electricity, heat or fuel. It includes things like waste-to-energy, chemical recycling, pyrolysis and plastic-to-fuel. Each process treats the trash slightly differently, but their impacts are similar. So, as we dive in and examine three bogus claims made about incineration, we’ll group them all together.

Myth 1: Incineration is an efficient way to deal with waste

Incinerators are sold as big energy generators for cities, but the reality is they are hugely inefficient. Their fuel – municipal waste – is rarely sorted. This means it contains a lot of food, which has a high water content, making it hard to burn. Of the fuel put in, often less than 20% can be recovered as energy. This number would be even lower in the Global South, where municipal waste typically contains higher levels of organics. In comparison, coal power has a 35% efficiency rate and natural gas 42%.

This means a typical incinerator can only cover about 5% of a city’s energy needs. Let’s look at this at a household level. The average family (depending on where you live) produces 2.98 tonnes of waste per year. On average, burning 1 tonne of waste will produce 160 kwH of electricity, which can power a house for ten days. So the trash from one household in a whole year can power their house for less than a month. 

In addition, incineration plants are neither cheap to build, nor to run. They require expensive specialised equipment such as pollution control systems, air quality monitoring, wastewater management and waste disposal systems. These add up: incineration costs $190-$1200 per tonne, compared to landfills costing $5-$50 per tonne. The low efficiency of incineration makes it hard to generate revenue from selling energy and balance the high set-up and operational costs. Consequently, seeing any return on investment can take 20 – 30 years.

Myth 2: Incineration is an environmentally friendly, renewable energy source

Incineration produces more greenhouse gas emissions than any other means of energy production. And of all the ways to manage plastic waste, it has the biggest climate impact. Burning one tonne of plastic for energy recovery will result in a net emission of 0.9 tonnes of CO2, even after offsetting the virgin fossil fuel that was saved in the process. This is compared with 60kg of CO2 for landfilling the same amount.

Incinerators are also a major source of fine particulates, heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants. As such, they should be equipped with expensive air pollution control systems, and often are in the Global North. These systems work by reducing the toxins in the exhaust gas and concentrating them into other byproducts like fly ash, slag and wastewater. These residuals are hazardous but are often still used in building materials or disposed of in landfills. Inevitably they will find their way into the environment, eventually entering the food chain. In the Global South, more lenient regulation and lower budgets mean even basic air pollution controls and safe disposal of byproducts are often skipped.

Exposure to dioxins, furans and other toxins leads to serious health issues. Studies in communities living near waste incinerators reveal a significantly increased rate of certain cancers, respiratory and neurological diseases, stomach ailments, fatigue, risk of miscarriages, birth defects and premature births. Disproportionately, it is marginalised communities that are exposed to such pollution. In the US, 8/10 incinerators are close to low-income communities or communities of colour. As the EU has stopped investing in new incineration plants, there has been a push to set up more in the Global South. This means that even more vulnerable communities are being exposed to harmful toxins.

Finally, incineration is often touted as “renewable energy”, as waste is constantly produced. However, the calorific part of waste is largely made up of non-renewable fossil fuel materials, such as plastic, that cannot then be reused. And, when the calorific percentage is low – in cases where there is a lot of organic material mixed in – incineration facilities often end up supplementing with virgin fossil fuels to keep the fire burning. This happens in China, where they depend on coal to keep their incinerators going. 

Myth 3: Incineration is “zero waste”

The definition of zero waste centres around the conservation of natural resources, by designing and managing products and processes to systematically avoid and eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste. 

Incineration is the opposite of this. By using waste as fuel, resources are destroyed, including materials such as metal or glass, which are reusable, or organic materials that could create compost.

Its high investment cost and the need to keep the fire burning around the clock means it relies on the continuous production of waste, especially fossil fuel-based plastic. The volume of waste produced can actually increase in a situation where an incinerator is present.

For example, Denmark predominantly manages its waste through incineration. They currently produce the highest levels of waste per person per year in the EU: 845kgs! This is far more than the average, which is 505kgs. Once an incinerator is built, it creates a lock-in effect, which means there is no incentive to reduce waste at all. 

Incinerating rubbish also removes any incentive to sort and recycle it, because doing so reduces the amount available to burn. In 2019, a policy came into force in Shanghai, China to separate organics and recyclables from municipal waste. This resulted in 54% of waste being diverted from disposal, compared to 21% prior to implementation. The unforeseen consequence was that there was not enough waste for their incinerators to run. In May 2023, there were 88 days of closures across the city’s 12 plants, due to a lack of fuel.

One other positive aspect of zero waste is that it supports employment in the waste management sector – sorting, composting, recycling – as well as additional jobs around reuse, refill and repair. Incineration takes all of these livelihoods away. The jobs it creates are far fewer and carry a higher risk of toxic exposure.

So when you see any industry-sponsored promotion of incineration as “efficient”, “renewable” or “clean and green”, you can now call this out as greenwashing. 

Instead of destroying resources, heating the climate and creating unsafe communities, local and national governments must help implement systems supporting zero waste. This will lead to more jobs, less emissions and healthier people! Do you agree? Then, share this blog post with anyone who thinks incineration could benefit their community. 

Want to bust more myths? Check out our blog post that exposes the truth about plastic credits.

read more
LydiaThe burning issue of incineration