Why “plastic is more eco-friendly than glass” is a misleading claim

by Seema on 31/10/2025 No comments

We often hear that plastic bottles or packaging are more “eco-friendly” than their glass counterparts, primarily because plastics are lighter and (so the argument goes) create fewer greenhouse gas emissions in production and distribution. But a closer look at these “life cycle assessments” (LCAs) makes it clear that this narrative is flawed in several fundamental ways. In particular, work by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Life Cycle Initiative has shown that focusing only on a narrow set of impacts obscures the broader environmental harms of plastics and fails to capture the advantages of reuse systems.

So what are the pitfalls of the “plastic is greener than glass” claim?

1. Narrow focus on climate impacts

Many “plastic versus glass” studies focus on one core metric: carbon or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Because plastics are lighter and require less energy for transport, they often appear to have a lower carbon footprint than glass, at least in the framing used by the researchers.

But climate impact is only one of many categories a robust environmental assessment should cover. Other key impact areas – toxicity, biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and the social or justice dimensions of pollution (harms to communities, waste pickers, Indigenous Peoples) – are often downplayed or excluded entirely as they are difficult to measure and quantify.

Plastic LCAs for example typically omit leakage into the environment, which happens at all points in its life cycle – from pellet spills (the second largest source of microplastics in the ocean) to shedding and leaching during use and litter. Leakage is one of the most damaging and irreversible impacts of plastics, leading to ingestion by wildlife, entanglement, fragmentation into persistent microplastics and cumulative ecosystem harm.

2. Over-reliance on LCAs as a decision-making tool

LCAs, as noted above, are not designed to capture the full system of impacts. They need to be supplemented with additional studies and knowledge to give a full picture.

But even the insights they provide using indicators such as energy and water use, or emissions and resource extraction, should not be taken at face value. The system boundaries and assumptions in each study make a huge difference: what production processes, what end-of-life scenarios, what transport distances, what reuse rate have been assumed? Minor shifts in assumptions can flip the results.

LCAs can also, intentionally or not, hide “burden-shifting”: improving one impact category (e.g., lowering GHGs) may worsen another not included in the study (e.g., ecotoxicity, microplastic release). Indeed, the UNEP meta-study warns, “like any tool, [an] LCA does not replace the need to draw upon a range of information sources when making decisions.”

So when someone cites an LCA that says “plastic is better for the climate”, the key questions are: “what have they left out? What were their assumptions? What alternatives did they model? And do those reflect the system we could realistically move towards?”

3. False comparison: single-use glass vs single-use plastic

Another shortcoming of many LCAs is that they compare single-use glass with single-use plastic, with the typical end-of-life scenario being recycling. In reality, glass can be reused tens if not hundreds of times before needing to be recycled.

Why does this matter? Because reuse avoids the vast majority of any material’s climate impacts, particularly the energy-intensive melting process of glass. Instead, reuse only requires washing, drying and local transport. These impacts are far lower, and are declining further as energy grids decarbonise and reverse-logistics systems improve. Meanwhile plastic production remains closely linked to fossil-fuel extraction and refining, global supply chains, and a poor 9% recycling rate, much of it shipped to countries in the Global South.

In short, if we make a more realistic comparison between single-use plastic and reusable glass, the advantage swings firmly towards glass plus reuse systems.

4. Ignoring business models and system design

A major methodological flaw in many LCAs is the assumption that the business model will be the same for the existing and replacement materials. That is, they compare plastic bottles shipped long distances to glass bottles shipped in exactly the way. But what if that’s not the way it would work?

For example, if we slot heavy glass bottles into a conventional global production-and-distribution model, they will naturally perform worse than plastic if shipped halfway around the world for a single use. That’s because this model was built around and optimised for single-use plastics. But glass functions best with local bottling and refilling, reverse logistics, and much smaller distribution networks.

If the comparison privileges the status quo, rather than the alternatives we may prefer to cultivate, it skews the results. If we want a better system (reuse and refill within local networks) then this is what should be modelled. A comparison of materials within the existing system is not going to make sense.

5. The broader issue: redefining “eco-friendly”

Ultimately the myth that “plastic is greener than glass” stems from a too-narrow definition of what “eco-friendly” means. If we define it purely as “the lowest carbon footprint in today’s system”, plastics could emerge as a winner. But if we define it in a way that includes:
– chemical toxicity
– persistent pollution and ecosystem damage
– leakage and microplastics
– resource circularity
– reuse potential
– environmental justice
– future-proofing (energy decarbonisation, logistics innovation)
then the narrative changes dramatically.

The UNEP/Life Cycle Initiative recommendation emphasises this clearly: the priority is reuse, reducing single-use products, and system redesign, regardless of the material.

➤ Cut through the greenwashing

When you see a claim that “plastic is greener than X material” ask these questions:
– What impacts were assessed (just GHGs, or also (eco)toxicity, persistent pollution and social / health outcomes)?
– What was the alternative material and was it reused or used once and recycled?
– What system design assumptions were built in (transport distances, reuse, decarbonised energy)?
– What life-cycle boundaries were applied (upstream fossil-fuel extraction, pellet loss, end-of-life leakage)?
And lastly: what if we changed the system, would the result still favour plastic?

When the full picture is taken into account, the “plastic is greener than glass” claim collapses. The more constructive agenda is not material substitution alone, but system change: moving away from single-use, designing for circularity and investing in local infrastructure enabling safe reuse, refill and repair.

Further reading:
Are LCAs greenwashing plastic?
A review evaluating the gaps in plastic impacts in life cycle assessment
How life-cycle assessments can be (mis)used to justify more single-use plastic packaging

read more
SeemaWhy “plastic is more eco-friendly than glass” is a misleading claim

Plastics treaty talks stall again – but open the way for a reset

by Seema on 20/08/2025 No comments

INC-5.2 was a failure of process, not of outcome

Billed as the make-or-break moment in a process launched in 2022, the sixth round of negotiations on a global plastics treaty (INC-5.2) ended on 15 August in Geneva without agreement, leaving the whole process in limbo.

To many of us involved it was a bitter blow, yet the collapse was far better than the alternative. Headlines proclaimed the talks a “failure”; but if there was a failure in Geneva, it was (again) one of process, not of outcome.

From the outset, the plastics treaty negotiations have been held hostage by a small but powerful group of petrostates, wielding a procedural rule as their weapon. This rule, favouring consensus-based decision making, has allowed them to veto any measures that would reduce plastic production – the key to addressing pollution, according to the majority of states.

At INC-5.2, the Chair, Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso, again struggled to break this deadlock and – at the eleventh hour – took the decision to table a weak compromise text. The hope was that countries present would accept it rather than leave with nothing.

But the treaty text read like an industry wishlist, and was rightly rejected by the ambitious majority. That refusal was a victory: it prevented the world being trapped in a hollow agreement and has kept open the possibility of negotiating something stronger.

Read our full report on INC-5.2 below.

Ambition meets obstruction

Hopes going into Geneva were tempered by the scale of the challenge. The procedural wrangling and stalled progress of the previous five rounds of talks had made it clear that a new approach would be needed if a treaty was to be finalised. Although a long shot, many observers remained cautiously optimistic that a call for a vote to override obstruction was possible.

A record 184 countries took part, joined by civil society organisations, scientists and Indigenous leaders. But industry presence was larger than ever: analysis from CIEL counted 234 officially accredited lobbyists from the fossil fuel and petrochemicals sector at the talks, many embedded within state delegations. Their influence was felt throughout: reinforcing the positions of oil-producing states; spreading disinformation; and even occupying limited seats in meeting rooms to keep rightsholders out.

They also succeeded in keeping the same dead end process in place. The vast majority of discussions were again held behind closed doors, denying rightsholders full and equitable participation. Even some member states complained of unclear scheduling, lack of seating and access to microphones.

These tactics only deepened the sense that the integrity of the talks was being compromised and undermined by well-coordinated obstruction. Calls for a conflict of interest policy have been consistently sidestepped by the INC secretariat.

In the face of this, civil society and rightsholder groups present in Geneva mobilised rapidly, staging several actions in- and outside the UN throughout the two weeks to remind negotiators to “fix the process, keep your promise and end plastic pollution.”

Parallel red lines

From the opening days, it was clear that the fundamental fault line – the relentless production of plastic and toxic petrochemicals – had not shifted, with countries putting their red lines firmly on either side. A broad coalition of more than 100 countries continued to press for binding measures to reduce production, regulate chemicals and mandate product redesign.

Opposing them were producer states, who insisted the treaty should focus only on downstream waste management and recycling, leaving production unaddressed.

As in previous rounds of negotiations, any proposals that might limit business as usual were systematically vetoed. Efforts to bridge the divide stalled, and whole sessions were taken up with procedural disputes rather than substantive progress.

At the midway “stock-taking” plenary session on 9 August, many delegates made clear their belief that seeking consensus was a futile endeavour. They were instructed to plough on regardless.

The Chair’s gambit

As the talks entered their final stretch, with progress nowhere in sight, the Chair took the unusual step of introducing a compromise text of his own making. The move was intended to salvage at least a minimal outcome and prevent the talks from collapsing entirely. Yet its timing – unveiled late in the process, with almost no time left for negotiation – and its content – stripped of articles on production, chemicals and health and any legally binding language – proved divisive.

Many ambitious countries saw the text as a capitulation to the lowest common denominator. Producer countries, meanwhile, were still unwilling to endorse even these watered-down obligations. The gamble backfired: rather than finding common ground, the move increased frustrations. Diplomatic niceties were abandoned, as state after state called the text a “betrayal”, a “surrender” and a “mockery” of majority wishes.

With only hours left, the Chair was under huge pressure to find a new solution.

Collapse but not erasure

By this time, more than 60 ministers had already flown in order to get the deal done. Yet after a marathon final session that lasted almost 30 hours, a new and only slightly improved Chair’s text failed to get an agreement. The session was brought to an abrupt close. No clear roadmap was adopted beyond a vague commitment to continue discussions.

The sense of anticlimax was overwhelming. After two and a half years and $40 million poured into negotiations, governments were no closer to resolving the core question of whether the plastics treaty will address the problem at its source, or simply manage waste at the margins.

Exhausted negotiators and observers could not disguise their deep disappointment.

Yet it was also clear that, had the compromise text been adopted, it would have locked us in to a weak treaty with no power to curb plastic pollution. Time, money and energy had certainly been wasted trying to reach unanimity, but valuable work had nonetheless been done. The foundations of a strong treaty are in place, ready to be revived when the political will emerges.

Where next?

Two main paths now lie ahead. The first is to continue negotiations at an INC-5.3, but currently there is no budget, nor any mandate for this. And, for ambitious countries to return, UNEP would need to provide assurances of procedural reform. Enforcing the rule that allows voting on substantive matters remains the only way for them to move forward within the INC framework. Doing this would however risk a walkout by producer states – and potentially then a wider crisis for UNEP and the multilateral system.

A more promising option is the formation of a “coalition of the willing”, as used to create the global treaty banning landmines in Ottawa in 1996. Ambitious states could negotiate an agreement outside the UN framework, setting binding production limits and chemical phase-outs. Obstructors would be left out, while still feeling the effects of the agreement through trade and market forces. UNEP could be involved in the treaty’s implementation, ensuring they remain relevant.

This option is made easier by the fact that, over the course of the negotiations, progressive states have already developed a series of conference room papers (CRPs). These are official proposals for text that could become the building blocks of a strong treaty. More than 100 countries signalled support for ambitious CRPs at INC-5.2.

This means that there is a solid shared foundation to return to when talks resume.

Civil society groups emphasise that political momentum can still be built. But pressure from outside the negotiating halls will be critical. Without stronger mobilisation to counterbalance industry lobbying, governments may continue to stall.

Less an ending than a reset

INC-5.2 was not the breakthrough many hoped for, but nor was it the disaster some feared. By refusing to endorse a toothless compromise, governments kept alive the chance for a treaty that can truly end plastic pollution.

The challenge now is to convert the foundation of existing CRPs into a finished text, whether through procedural reform at UNEP or a coalition of the willing elsewhere. The coming months will determine whether governments have the courage to deliver a treaty fit for purpose, or squander the chance to confront one of the defining environmental challenges of our time.

Trash Hero at the treaty talks
As a UNEP-accredited observer, Trash Hero is able to attend all INC meetings. We join our colleagues in the large civil society delegation that advocates for strong and just measures in the treaty and support the communications and advocacy work done in and around the meeting venue.

read more
SeemaPlastics treaty talks stall again – but open the way for a reset

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 tool 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 potential 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 – with the ultimate goal of preventing 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

Plastics treaty talks end in deadlock

by Seema on 10/12/2024 No comments

It was supposed to be the final round of UN negotiations for a global plastics treaty. In the end, INC-5 wound up without an agreement – though not without progress.

The meeting was held in Busan, South Korea from 25 Nov to 1 Dec 2024, with almost 4,000 people in attendance. The Chair, Luis Vayas Valvidieso, was under intense pressure to seal a deal. He spent the week imploring countries to find common ground and “get it done”, even agreeing to closed door negotiations for almost three days – a flagrant disregard for transparency that left scientists, civil society groups and rights-holders most impacted by plastic pollution out in the cold.

But still a deal was not to be. The talks only highlighted the deep divisions among countries over three key issues: limiting plastic production (Article 6), regulating toxic chemicals (Article 3), and funding (Article 11).

A minority of so-called petrostates – major fossil fuel exporters – continued to block any attempts to cap or reduce plastic production, arguing this was irrelevant to the issue of pollution. They rejected scientific evidence of the harms of petrochemicals and claimed plastic was essential to progress, climate goals and the “right to development“.

However the majority of countries, covering both the Global South and Global North, were determined to include binding obligations to reduce plastic production, the phaseout of harmful plastic products and toxic chemicals, and a dedicated fund to support treaty implementation. They pointed to the UNEA resolution to take a full life cycle approach to plastic pollution and recalled the thousands of studies linking plastic chemicals with serious health issues.

With Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, the inspirational delegate from Panama.

Stand up for ambition

The emergence of this coalition of 100+ countries, led by Panama, Rwanda, Mexico and Fiji and backed by the EU, Switzerland, UK and Australia, was the high point of the talks. Appearing midweek, they swiftly gained the upper hand, using strong language – “if you’re not contributing constructively… then please get out” – that completely changed the energy and dynamics in the room.

At the closing plenary session, Juliet Kabera, the Director General of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority, received a thunderous standing ovation for her statement vowing to “stand up for ambition”.

For most observers, the failure to reach an agreement at INC-5 was a victory for courage over compromise. Instead of succumbing to the relentless petrostate bullying and watering down the text, progressive countries stood firm and opted for no treaty over a weak treaty. This leaves the door to real change very firmly open.

A failure of process

Indeed, the real failure at INC-5 was the process itself. Negotiations have gone much the same way over the last three rounds of talks: a text is proposed by the Chair with instructions to find an agreement or consensus. Countries then proceed to share their views, with the petrostates systematically vetoing whole articles and obfuscating every line with qualifications, additions and deletions. This results in an unintelligible and unusable document that has to be “streamlined” at the next round, before the process begins all over again.

Instead of switching up this failing formula at INC-5, the Chair simply increased the speed of the loop, bringing out two new streamlined proposals, one on Friday and one on Sunday, as each previous version was mangled within hours.

As Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director of GAIA, put it, “we cannot keep doing things the same way and expect different results – that is the definition of insanity. The ambitious majority needs to do whatever it takes to get these negotiations back on track and reclaim the spirit of multilateralism.” That might involve insisting on their right to vote on a text, instead of trying to find consensus, or even taking the whole process outside of the UN.

Broader implications

The divisions exposed in Busan have clear parallels with the challenges faced in the climate negotiations, where petrostates have been stalling progress for decades. Their orchestrated effort to obstruct and derail all multilateral environmental agreements needs to be recognised for what it is and seriously addressed by the UN. There are precedents for this, such as the conflict of interest policy used in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Failure to act decisively on plastic production will hinder broader environmental goals, including climate targets, as we know this sector alone could exceed the global carbon budget by 2060. Failure to act quickly will also intensify the looming public health crisis, as petrochemicals bioaccumulate and our exposure is growing every day.

A treaty in 2025?
INC-5 ended with negotiators agreeing to reconvene their session in 2025 – this will be known as INC-5.2, rather than INC-6, as it is a continuation of the same meeting. The date and venue is likely to be announced in January, and it is expected to take place within the first half of the year. This gives the new coalition of ambitious countries a few precious months to demonstrate strong leadership, intensify diplomacy and address the challenges of the process and vested interests to ensure we get a treaty that can truly end plastic pollution.

Trash Hero at the treaty talks
As a UNEP-accredited observer, Trash Hero is able to attend all INC meetings. We join our colleagues in the large civil society delegation that advocates for strong and just measures in the treaty and support the communications and advocacy work done in exhibition booths and side events around the meeting venue.

read more
SeemaPlastics treaty talks end in deadlock

Last chance for a fossil phase-out?

by Seema on 23/11/2024 No comments

Forget COP 29, the plastics treaty is the most important environmental agreement in the world right now.

Is there anyone left – except the oil industry – who doesn’t roll their eyes at the mention of the climate COP? These conferences have become synonymous with blatant conflicts of interest, empty “blah, blah, blah” posturing of world leaders, and a frustrating inability to deliver real progress.

But next week in Busan, South Korea, there’s a glimmer of hope. UN member states are convening at INC-5, at what is expected to be the final round of negotiations for a global treaty to end plastic pollution. This is the chance for governments to show they are serious about tackling the harms of plastic overproduction and consumption. And a strong agreement, capable of addressing the interlinked crises of wildlife loss, chemical pollution and climate breakdown, could set in motion the fossil fuel phase-out that has eluded the climate convention for three decades.

The hidden driver of climate change
Plastic is not only a source of pollution choking oceans and poisoning ecosystems but also an important and overlooked driver of climate change. 99 percent of plastic is made from fossil fuels and, as production skyrockets, it’s become the world’s fastest-growing source of industrial greenhouse gases, pumping out more than double the emissions of the aviation industry.

Plastic also contains a staggering 16,000 chemicals. Less than 1 percent of these are regulated, most are untested, and around 4,000 are known hazards to human health. These are substances that bioaccumulate and are linked to cancers, respiratory and neurological problems and hormone disruption. Microplastics carrying these toxins permeate our air, water, soil, and even our bodies.

The plastic crisis impacts us all, but it’s felt hardest in poor communities, often in the Global South, where plastics are produced, burned, or dumped.

We can do better than the Paris Agreement
Since November 2022, countries have been going back and forth on what the plastics treaty should include, how to enforce it, and who will fund it. The good news is that the measures needed for meaningful change are all still on the table. Just as importantly, so are provisions for monitoring, compliance and transparency. These key elements were missing in the Paris Agreement: its voluntary approach has allowed emissions to climb year after year.

At INC-5 then, negotiators face a crucial question: will they learn from Paris or repeat its mistakes?

How to build an effective treaty

Binding commitments
Deep, rapid cuts in plastic production are required to avoid breaching the 1.5°C warming limit. Analysis shows a minimum reduction of 12% to 17% per year, starting now, will be necessary. This needs measurable targets, deadlines and penalties, not hollow pledges.

Global implementation
Treaty measures must apply universally, with no exemptions under “special national circumstances” – the excuse countries used in the Paris Agreement to sidestep action.

The principle they invoked – of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR) – was originally intended to recognise the differing roles of countries in causing environmental crises and their corresponding financial needs and obligations. It was never meant to allow countries to choose whether or not to pollute.

Issues like harmful chemicals in plastic are impossible to address if countries claim CBDR. Without transparency and strict regulation across the board, we end up with piecemeal bans that leave gaps in protecting public health.

Sufficient and predictable funding
Another critical lesson from the climate COPs is the need for a dedicated global fund to support developing countries and those hit hardest by plastic pollution. Here is where the principle of CBDR should be applied. Wealthier countries and the plastic industry itself must provide this funding, with investments in redesign, repair, and reuse – not just waste management.

Civil society and rights-holders
Those directly impacted by the plastic life cycle, from waste pickers to fenceline communities and Indigenous Peoples, must be involved in shaping the treaty and their needs reflected in the final text.

But there is a very real danger of their voices being drowned out. The UN still recognises business and industry reps as “stakeholders” in environmental fora. Like at the climate convention, they are officially invited to the talks, often as part of government delegations. This conflict of interest is a major hurdle for good faith negotiators in Busan.

The fight against Big Oil
More than 60 countries have already called for the treaty to include binding phasedown targets for fossil fuels, enforced through global caps on plastic and petrochemical production. Many more support a treaty grounded in environmental and climate justice, public health and human rights.

On the other side, a vocal minority of oil-producing countries insist that solving plastic pollution is just a matter of improving recycling and waste management. They downplay the harms of plastic as “unproven” and argue the benefits to society outweigh the risks.

It’s a bold position that ignores the UN Environment Assembly’s resolution that the treaty address the full life cycle of plastic – from fossil fuel extraction to disposal. It also flies in the face of tens of thousands of studies confirming plastic’s devastating impacts on health, ecosystems, and the climate.

Meanwhile, these same countries plan to triple plastic production over the next 30 years, investing in petrochemical plants and promoting flawed and dirty technologies like chemical recycling. At COP28, their promise to transition away from fossil fuels was carefully applied only to “energy systems” – not plastics.

If left unchecked, plastic production alone could exceed the global carbon budget by 2060, according to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

UN member states must now choose whether to stop this happening.

The world is watching
Can negotiators deliver an effective treaty in just one week, with industry lobbyists hovering and a “need for consensus” pressuring them to water down the text rather than risk a vote?

Yes – but only if the world is watching. Governments must feel the pressure to support an ambitious, effective treaty that serves science and public interest, not corporate agendas.

International agreements can and should be more than a stage for world leaders to claim progress without commitments. We deserve treaties that are fit for purpose.

So, all eyes on Busan: if negotiators get it right, the plastics treaty could become the world’s most impactful environmental agreement, offering a path to cap fossil fuel production, restore planetary health and build a fairer, safer and more sustainable future for all.

Seema Prabhu is programmes director at Trash Hero. Trash Hero World attends the plastics treaty talks as a UNEP civil society observer.

read more
SeemaLast chance for a fossil phase-out?

Avoid these 5 zero waste mistakes

by Lydia on 06/11/2024 No comments

Embracing zero waste is a fantastic way to reduce your environmental impact. But let’s be honest, it can get confusing sometimes! There are many misconceptions and pitfalls to avoid. Don’t worry, we’ve all been there. In this post, we’ll address 5 common zero waste mistakes and share the secrets to set you on the path to success.

#1: Thinking zero waste means zero waste

Hold on a minute! Zero waste doesn’t mean absolutely no waste. It’s about reducing waste as much as possible and managing the waste you do have correctly. For example, cleaning and separating your recycling and composting your food waste.

Secret to success: Be kind to yourself – focus on progress, not perfection.

#2: Buying more stuff

Zero waste does not have to look a certain way, you don’t need a brand-new set of matching mason jars. Before spending lots of money, look at what you already have! Old jars, bottles and containers can be used to store food and drink.

Secret to success: Use what you have – don’t buy more stuff

#3: Choosing the wrong alternatives

Replacing single-use plastic with other single-use materials doesn’t reduce waste. Look for reusable alternatives made from safe, long-lasting materials like glass or stainless steel. These are your zero-waste heroes! Durable reusable plastic is also an option, but avoid using it for hot, fatty food.

Secret to success: Choose reusable over single-use

#4: Getting duped by greenwashing

Eco-marketing can be a minefield. Companies love buzzwords like “sustainable” and “ocean-friendly.” Don’t be fooled! Learn to spot vague claims and question if the product truly reduces waste. Check out our FREE guide to greenwashing to become a greenwashing detective!

Secret to success: Learn to spot greenwashing

#5: Thinking it’s all about your lifestyle

While individual choices matter, we also need to call for serious system change. Advocate for zero-waste infrastructure that makes reducing waste accessible for everyone. Such as supporting stores that offer refills, signing petitions and sharing this information with others. 

Secret to success: Support system change

We’ve got two carousels on Instagram that spread these important tips.

Remember, zero waste is a journey, not a destination. Embrace the process, learn from mistakes, and celebrate your achievements.

read more
LydiaAvoid these 5 zero waste mistakes

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

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

The burning issue of incineration

by Lydia on 21/09/2023 1 comment

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