Do facts really change people’s minds? How to communicate about plastic pollution

by Lydia on 07/07/2025 No comments

We live in a world that often feels deeply divided. Whether it’s about politics, economics, or social issues, the gaps between us seem wider than ever. Sometimes even within our own families. It can be tempting to try and correct people who have succumbed to online disinformation with the facts.  But if you’ve ever tried to convince someone with data only to see them dig their heels in, you know it’s rarely that simple. Facts, if delivered at the wrong time or with the wrong sentiment, can make differences even more entrenched. 

Today, we’re exploring this as a reminder to ourselves and everyone who is working to change the status quo. Because while knowledge is power, emotional intelligence is a superpower. 

Why facts aren’t always enough

We often assume a simple chain reaction: if people know, they’ll care, and if they care, they’ll act. But the reality is much messier than that. 

While truth is vital, and knowledge matters – especially at a time when the world is flooded with disinformation – bombarding people with facts can often backfire. Environmental organisations, for example, often publish horror stories about pollution, toxic chemicals or climate change. 

But the truth, when it feels too overwhelming, scary or inconvenient to face, can cause people to shut down rather than engage. We go into fight, flight or freeze mode – a natural human response to protect ourselves from what feels unmanageable. 

Being told about a problem doesn’t automatically lead to action, especially when the scale of change feels too big, too hard or too lonely. 

What stops people from acting? 

It’s this feeling of powerlessness or lack of clear direction that turns people off. People can’t act if they don’t know what to do, or if they genuinely believe their actions won’t make a difference. 

Here are some common assumptions that can hold us back: 

  • “Change will be expensive and mean sacrifice” The perception that living more sustainably or advocating for change will be a financial burden or require giving up comforts. 
  • “Whatever I do won’t make a difference one way or the other”. A paralysing sense of futility, that leads people to believe their individual efforts are insignificant against global challenges.
  • “It’s easier to stay in my bubble than face the crisis” An avoidance tactic – it’s human nature to seek comfort and avoid discomfort. Facing daunting realities can be emotionally draining.

Those with vested interests in keeping business as usual will also exploit and reinforce these beliefs on their own media channels. They will either deny the science altogether, or invest it with incredible powers: “science will come up with a solution, we don’t need to do anything.” This both reassures people and frees them from guilt and obligation.

So, what does work? 

To spark bottom-up action, people need more than just facts: they need support, motivation and a sense of agency. This is something we have experienced first-hand in Trash Hero, working in communities often resistant to change.

Here’s how we try to engage people in our mission: 

  1. Empathy and connection: hold the judgement

Instead of asking “Why do you do that?” or telling someone “You’re wrong”, approach conversations with compassion and curiosity. We are all shaped by the systems around us. Inspiration moves people, whereas fear and shame often freeze. 

  1. Connect with identity and values, before presenting facts 

People are most likely to act when their behaviour aligns with who they are, or who they want to be. We encourage our volunteers to share their own “why” – their personal motivation for wanting change – and tell stories about justice, community and courage. These narratives provide hope, which isn’t naive: it’s a powerful motivator. 

  1. Lead by example

Actions truly do speak louder than words. We are social creatures, and we learn by observing others. When people see us composting, using reusable items, or speaking up respectfully, it makes these actions feel possible and normal. 

  1. Make it easy and social 

Behaviour change spreads when it feels normal, visible and supported. When reducing waste is made simple and becomes a shared activity, it fosters a sense of belonging and makes the journey less daunting. Eventually, we will reach a tipping point – and when culture shifts, systems often follow. 

  1. Small steps with visible impact and repetition

Huge, overwhelming goals can paralyse us. Small, achievable steps that have a visible impact – like cleanups with education – help us move forward. Consistent action builds habits and trust and reaches a wider audience over time.

  1. Relevance to everyday life 

People need to feel that environmental issues are connected to their daily experiences. How does plastic pollution affect their local park, their health or their community? When people can see the immediate relevance of an issue to their own lives, it becomes more personal and pressing.

Be the change, inspire the change 

The truth matters, but so does how we share it. Big change starts with better conversations. We need to use our compassion, connection and consistent modelling alongside our knowledge and data in order to be effective. This takes time and patience, but eventually has better results than trying to “win” an argument, blaming or gimmicks.

We’ve summarised these findings in a social media post, along with some case studies of effective environmental campaigns – please share to help more people understand the power of emotional intelligence in the zero waste movement. And follow us online to keep yourself inspired!

read more
LydiaDo facts really change people’s minds? How to communicate about plastic pollution

Why extended producer responsibility (EPR) isn’t working – and how we can fix it

by Seema on 07/05/2025 No comments

Wherever you’re reading this, stop and take a look around you. You’re likely surrounded by products deliberately designed for short lives: packaging thrown in the trash after a single use, electronics with built-in obsolescence, appliances that can’t be repaired and fast fashion that unravels after a season.

For decades, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) was touted as the solution – a policy idea that makes producers pay for the environmental cost of their products. The theory is simple: if companies are made responsible for their products after use, they will design better, longer-lasting, less polluting products.

But that’s not what happened in practice. A new report by Zero Waste Europe, which analyses the past 30 years of EPR implementation in the EU and beyond, shows waste levels are still rising, recycling rates are stagnating, and reuse rates have actually fallen drastically over this time1. Many producers have simply paid fees to comply – without improving how they design, deliver or market their products.

Something has gone seriously wrong. The idea of EPR remains powerful – but today’s systems need a major rethink if they are to live up to their promise.

What is EPR?

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is exactly what it sounds like: extending the responsibility of manufacturers beyond the point of sale. Instead of letting products become someone else’s problem at end-of-life, EPR policies make companies responsible – financially, logistically, and sometimes physically – for what happens to their products and packaging after consumers finish using them.

Originally, this was intended to make the environmental impacts of products a business cost, thereby creating incentives for producers to design products that are easier to reuse, repair, and recycle – or better yet, to prevent waste in the first place.

But too often today, this “responsibility” has been watered down. Companies have ended up paying nominal fees to fund waste collection, take-back programmes or a few extra recycling bins – effectively a “pay to pollute” scheme.

How the current system works

Today, most EPR schemes work like this:

  • Producers pay fees into a collective system, often run by a Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO).
  • The PRO funds the collection, sorting, and recycling (or disposal) of waste products.

Producers claim this ‘closes the loop’ – but in reality, the system has serious flaws:

  1. End-of-life The focus remains heavily on recycling, not on preventing waste or promoting reuse. This treats waste as inevitable, rather than something to be avoided through better design and infrastructure. As the Zero Waste Europe report shows, implementing EPR without reuse targets has had the effect of making reuse the least favoured option.
  1. Fee structures Producers often pay based on weight or general material type (e.g. ‘metal’ or ‘plastic’), without strong enough “eco-modulation” to reward truly sustainable designs and penalise bad ones. This weakens the incentive to innovate.
Eco-modulation adjusts EPR fees based on the environmental performance of individual products, making it cheaper to do the right thing, and more expensive to pollute. Example: a reusable glass bottle = lower EPR fee. A multilayer plastic sachet that can’t be recycled = much higher EPR fee. The goal is to create a strong financial incentive to design products that are better for the environment – not just to manage waste but to prevent it.
  1. Lack of regulation Many PROs are industry-controlled and self-regulating, leading to a conflict of interest. Producers have little motivation to set ambitious reuse targets or high environmental standards when they effectively police themselves. At the same time, the revenue they provide to the government gives them a platform for lobbying and allows them to claim that “something is being done”.
  1. Lack of transparency It’s often unclear what PROs’ targets are (e.g. is “recycling” measured at the collection point or on delivery to a recycling plant?); whether they are being met; how funds are being used; or what really happens to the waste collected. As a result, municipalities and taxpayers still shoulder much of the burden of management. Fraud and greenwashing are real risks.
  1. Lack of integration It is very rare in current EPR legislation that the treatment of the collected waste is specified or controlled. PROs can therefore follow any existing waste management laws, whether these send plastic for incineration or closed loop recycling. In other words, EPR can only work well if there is already a good waste management system in place.

So at best the current EPR system locks us into endless waste management and does nothing about waste prevention, resource efficiency or a just transition; at worst it actively fights against these outcomes.

How we could make EPR work

EPR can still play a major role in creating a circular economy, but only if it’s fundamentally restructured to follow the waste hierarchy, with prevention first. This is what it would look like:

Priority for prevention and eco-design: The first goal is to reduce the amount of waste we generate. EPR funds help build reuse systems, refill networks, and repair services – not just more waste treatment infrastructure. EPR fees strongly encourage reusable, durable, and non-toxic designs.

Strong eco-modulation: Fees clearly reward sustainable products and penalise polluting, wasteful ones, sending tangible financial signals to drive better design.

Deposit return schemes (DRS): Consumers pay a small surcharge for packaging and are thus incentivised to return it to a collection point in order to get a refund, enabling producers to preserve reusable items or ensure high quality recycling. (DRS are a type of EPR and are proven to be the most efficient and effective way to achieve high collection rates of packaging. Many countries that have implemented a DRS have achieved collection rates of over 90%.)

Clear, ambitious targets: Mandatory targets for waste prevention, reuse, recyclability, and toxic material phase-outs are at the core of EPR legislation, not just recycling rates. Targets are clearly defined (i.e. when and how they are measured), progressive and ensure the local waste management system is equipped (or can be over time) to deal with them effectively.

Independent governance: Producer Responsibility Organisations are independently managed and regulated, with strong public oversight to avoid industry capture.

Transparency and public accountability: Open access to data, third-party verification and monitoring and meaningful penalties for non-compliance is standard.

Integration with other policies: EPR is one piece of a wider resource management strategy, considered together with waste management, climate, health and other material resource policies, so they are all compatible. Bans, cap and trade, production reduction, reuse targets, taxes and other policy instruments are used alongside EPR to mutually support circularity.

If EPR systems are redesigned along these lines, they can become powerful drivers of innovation, sustainability, and climate action instead of a symbol of greenwashing and weak “pay to pollute” policymaking. The Global Plastics Treaty negotiations will play a key role in determining whether this happens.

It seems obvious that producers must be held responsible not just for managing their waste – but for creating less of it to begin with. Truly extending their responsibility means looking beyond “recycling” to designing products and building infrastructure, like DRS, that make circularity the easy choice, not the exception.

  1. In Indonesia in 1999, 76% of beer and soft drinks came in refillable containers. In 2019, this had dropped to just 4%.
read more
SeemaWhy extended producer responsibility (EPR) isn’t working – and how we can fix it

Plastic on TV: it’s time for a change

by Lydia on 10/04/2025 No comments

What image comes to mind when you picture a successful, busy character in a TV show? For many, it’s someone striding into an office, mobile phone in one hand and a disposable coffee cup in the other. This image of success and power has been reinforced by decades of TV and film. Think of Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada: a high-powered woman whose assistant fetches her very specific coffee order every day in a single-use cup. This is just one example of how props function as symbols of character and status. A throwaway lifestyle signifies success, but is this the right message to be sending audiences? And in general, given what we now know about its impact, should single-use plastic be presented on screen as a positive – or even neutral – part of society?

Media’s role in normalising behaviour 

“We are shaped and formed by what we watch”- Diana Cohen, Co-founder and CEO of the Plastic Pollution Coalition (PPC). 

The media has the power to normalise or demonise behaviours. Characters become popular because people relate to them, idolise them and want to be like them. Take smoking: once a symbol of the “cool” character (e.g. Danny Zuko in Grease), its use on screen shifted with growing awareness of health impacts. Regulations limited its presence, and depictions changed. Broadly speaking, it became a symbol of weakness, struggle or villainy.

How is plastic portrayed on screen? A 2021 PPC study found that 93% of plastic shown in a sample of popular TV and films from 2019-2020 was not disposed of on screen. Of the 7% that was disposed of, 80% was littered. This gives the audience two messages: 

  1. That plastic simply “disappears”.
  2. Irresponsible disposal, like littering, is acceptable. 

Since then, knowledge about plastic’s impact on our planet, climate and health has grown massively and the public’s attitudes towards plastic have also shifted. It’s clear TV and film producers need to catch up. Let’s look at some recent popular TV shows and how they have, or haven’t, addressed single-use plastic.

Direct references to reuse culture

Hacks (2021-present) uses the age gap between young writer Ava and veteran comedian Deborah to discuss a variety of environmental issues. In early episodes, Ava chastises Deborah for always getting single-use plastic cups for fizzy drinks and persuades her to get a reusable cup instead. In “One Day” (season three, episode five), Deborah initially dismisses climate change: “the Earth is a billion years old. It just self-corrects from any damage that’s done to it…Trust me, we’re fine”. Ava gradually educates her, and in the closing scene, Deborah reprimands her makeup artists for using plastic. These conversations are not clunky or forced. As The Hollywood Reporter notes, the show seamlessly integrates “deeply felt activist stances” without sacrificing comedy. 

Quietly sustainable: the power of visual cues

Of course, reuse doesn’t have to be talked about directly by the characters to have an impact. By simply showing reuse in action, Shrinking (2023 – present) and Abbott Elementary (2021- present) make it feel natural and commonplace. In Apple TV’s Shrinking, Gaby’s “emotional support water bottle” is a recurring feature, but its environmental impact is not explicitly mentioned. Instead, the characters discuss how hydrated Gaby is, and she uses it as a way to bond with one of her colleagues.

Planet-friendly behaviour is seen regularly in Disney’s Abbot Elementary. The teachers all have reusable coffee cups, the staff car share or walk to events, and there is a school garden project. While some single-use items are still present on screen, in general, sustainable choices are the default option without making any particular fuss about it. Having popular, likeable characters associated with reuse sends a powerful message to audiences.

In comparison, Only Murders in the Building (2021 – present), like most shows, missed an opportunity to show reuse as a standard option. The Disney show centres around a friendship between Charles and Oliver, in their 70s, and Mabel, in her early 30s. They frequently use disposable coffee cups and cutlery. Like in Hacks, the writers could have used the age gap to spark conversations about reuse. For example, Mabel could carry a reusable coffee cup while Oliver and Charles take single-use – the outdated option. Or they could have had characters of all ages using reusable cups and cutlery – normalising the behaviour across generations. 

Perhaps in the future we might even see whole reuse systems in action in popular TV shows and movies?

Behind the scenes

Who can forget the famous Starbucks coffee cup left on set in Game of Thrones? The TV and film industry is known for waste. A typical 60-day shoot uses 39,000 single-use water bottles. On top of that, large quantities of disposable plastic plates, utensils and coffee cups are used every day on set. Quinta Brunson, creator, writer and star of Abbott Elementary, has been open about the need for change in the industry. She is leading by example, providing reusable water bottles for everyone on her set. Lucia Aniello, showrunner for Hacks, also supports sustainability. She worked with the studio to reduce waste by eliminating plastic water bottles on set and having characters repeat outfits. Changes we want to see on screen should be mirrored by changes off screen. 

What needs to happen? 

Given the well-documented health and environmental harms of plastics, the way they are portrayed on screen needs to be addressed. Producers should consider their depiction with the same responsibility now applied to tobacco and alcohol. If they acknowledged their duty it would undoubtedly help to make sustainable behaviours more mainstream. It would also reflect the attitudes of growing numbers in their audiences who are concerned about single-use plastics. 

As viewers, we should be aware of how single-use plastic is portrayed on screen.  The Begley-Cohen Test, developed by the PPC, encourages the critical evaluation of single-use plastic in the media.

To pass the test, the following criteria must be met:

  1. No single-use plastics appear on the screen
  2. If single-use plastic does appear on the screen, it is portrayed or discussed as problematic

Try it on the next thing you watch and share your findings! The stories we see on screen can be shaped by pressure from the people who watch them. Films and TV shows are both a reflection and an important driver of aspirations. And what better goal to have than a world free from plastic pollution?

read more
LydiaPlastic on TV: it’s time for a change

How plastic is causing climate breakdown

by Lydia on 12/02/2025 No comments

The last ten years have been the hottest on record, and 2024 was the first year to surpass the 1.5-degree Celsius warming threshold that scientists have suggested will trigger irreversible damage to ecosystems. The impact is evident. From catastrophic floods in Central Europe and heatwaves across Southeast Asia to droughts in West Africa and devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, recent years have delivered an onslaught of life-threatening extreme weather events. These are not “natural disasters”, as often reported, but highly unnatural events caused by climate breakdown. 

In this blog post, we’re going to explain how plastic production is driving climate change and why its impact has flown under the radar for so long. 

Emissions from fossil fuels are the leading cause of climate change; and fossil fuels are the building blocks of 99% of all plastic. Global plastic production is nearing a staggering 500 million tonnes annually and is projected to triple in the next four decades. The plastics industry is the fastest-growing source of industrial emissions, already responsible for up to 8% of the global total – many times more than the 2.5% produced by the aviation industry. If plastic production increases as projected, it will consume the world’s entire carbon budget by 2060, or at the very latest 2083. This means that even if every other industry were to completely decarbonise, the plastic industry alone would still produce enough to push global warming past safe limits.

Where do the emissions come from?

Plastic generates greenhouse gas emissions at every stage of its lifecycle, from fossil fuel extraction and production, to when it is being used and finally disposal.

Over 90% of the greenhouse gas emissions attributed to plastic are released before it even reaches the public – during the production stage. The process of extracting fossil fuels, refining them and manufacturing the plastic products themselves is incredibly energy-intensive. 

The role of the plastics industry

Investigations have revealed the plastics industry has a history of hiding its environmental and climate impacts. The connection between fossil fuels and climate change has been known for decades, with oil companies themselves aware of the link since at least the 1970s. Yet, they publicly denied any knowledge and continued to invest in and promote fossil fuel industries such as plastic. To protect their market, and their profit, they spent millions blocking plastic bans, lobbying against producer responsibility legislation and obstructing the Global Plastics Treaty. They also created organisations such as the American Chemistry Council and the Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW), which actively promote climate change denial and misinformation.

AEPW, formed in 2019 and funded by major oil and chemical companies like ExxonMobil, Shell and Dow, actively promotes recycling and waste management initiatives – despite knowing since the 1980s that recycling plastics could never be a long-term solution. This is a classic case of greenwashing, deliberately misleading the public about the safety and sustainability of their products in order to continue producing them.

The plastic industry’s deception doesn’t end there. They invest in and promote false solutions like chemical recycling and “waste-to-fuel” technologies. These initiatives, while presented as innovative, actually perpetuate the need for waste, especially plastic. They also promote “biodegradable” and “plant-based” plastics most of which contain fossil fuels. All of this distracts from the real issues and ensures a continued market for their plastic production.

What needs to happen? 

Preventing complete climate breakdown depends on urgent and drastic cuts in plastic production. While we can take steps to reduce plastic in our daily lives, such as using reusable bags and containers, avoiding single-use plastics, and supporting businesses that prioritise sustainability, ultimately we need serious system change. Governments and corporations must provide alternatives to single-use materials by investing in reuse systems that make it easy for everyone to reduce plastic use. We also need strong legislation that controls plastic production and holds polluters accountable for their impact on the climate.

A strong Global Plastics Treaty – currently being negotiated by UN member states – has the opportunity to put climate first. Unlike the weak Paris Agreement, it could include legally-binding plastic production caps that would result in a huge drop in fossil fuel emissions. 

Learn more about the potential impact of the treaty and the impacts of waste on our climate in our blogposts:

read more
LydiaHow plastic is causing climate breakdown

What is the waste trade? Your questions answered

by Seema on 28/08/2024 2 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:
➤ Your plastic waste might be traded by criminals – DW [12:30]
➤ Tracking devices reveal where recycling really goes – Bloomberg [13:01]
➤ Trashed: The secret life of plastic exports – ABC News [27:51]
➤ Thailand is tired of recycling your trash – Bloomberg [10:31]
➤ The environmental disaster fuelled by used clothes and fast fashion – ABC News [30:02]
➤ 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?