No, Recycling Won’t Solve Our Plastic Problem

There are many global environmental challenges, but few pose such profound consequences as plastic pollution.

The scale of the problem is staggering: It ranges from the vast expanses of plastic waste clogging the world’s rivers and oceans to the microplastics infiltrating even the most remote ecosystems, including Antarctica. The plastics crisis also poses a risk to human health—for example, through the exposure to the miniscule plastics particles prevalent in bottled drinking water. If left unchecked, global plastic waste is expected to triple by 2060, reaching more than 1.2 billion metric tons.

While efforts to address plastic pollution have gained momentum around the world, significant hurdles remain, casting doubt on the efficacy of current strategies and policies. One of the biggest hurdles in the fight is the misconception that recycling plastics will solve the problem. Despite the widespread promotion of recycling programs such as a national recycling strategy in the United States, the reality is that recycling is fraught with issues. Of all plastics produced since large-scale production of the material began in the 1950s, researchers estimate that only about 9 percent have been recycled.

Because of the various shortcomings of plastics recycling, there is a consensus emerging that reducing overall plastic production is imperative. This does not entail doing away with plastics completely—that is, at this point, impossible—but curbing the use of problematic and avoidable plastics while also addressing the underlying issues of chemical additives and polymer composition.

A United Nations committee set up in 2022 to address the problem of plastic pollution is meeting in Canada this week. If this committee can agree to target the root causes of the crisis—such as the uncontrolled production of single-use plastics and nonrecyclable materials—in the form of a treaty, it will become possible to make meaningful strides toward ending plastic pollution.

The main reason why plastics recycling isn’t working is that many types of the single-use plastics that are widely used for packaging and other applications are not recyclable. Some plastics contain polymers that form irreversible chemical bonds and cannot be melted and remolded in an environmentally friendly and cost-effective way. Composite multilayered plastics, plastic-coated wrapping paper, and cling films are widely used in everyday life, but they are nonrecyclable.

Furthermore, plastics production uses a staggering array of different chemical compounds, and many are known to possess hazardous properties. Many studies show that harmful chemicals can accumulate in plastics during recycling processes. Especially when recycled plastic is used for food contact packaging, there is concern about the migration of hazardous chemicals into food.

Compounding this problem is the presence of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in plastics. Certain types of plastic containers commonly used for household cleaners, pesticides, personal care products and, potentially, as food packaging were found to contain significant concentrations of PFAS. Growing evidence links exposure to PFAS to a wide range of serious health effects—from developmental problems to prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; low birth weight; immunotoxicity; and thyroid disease.

There is also a cost barrier to using recycled plastics, because they often end up being more expensive than their virgin counterparts. The plastic resin created from recycled material is frequently undercut by cheaper primary material. In January 2024, prices for recycled polyethylene terephthalate—one of the most recyclable types of plastic, used to make bottles, food containers, or fibers for clothes—were around $1,000 per metric ton, while virgin plastic was around $800 to $900 per metric ton. This economic disparity undermines the incentive for companies to choose recycled materials, leading to a reliance on new plastic production and perpetuating the cycle of pollution.

One reason why new single-use plastics materials are cheaper to produce is because of subsidies given to the petrochemical industries which make them. Fossil fuel subsidies, estimated by the International Monetary Fund to be in the order $7 trillion or 7.1 percent of the global GDP in 2022, also benefit plastics feedstock production, which is derived from crude oil and natural gas. (Plastics production makes up 6 percent of global oil consumption.)

In addition, plastic production receives substantial additional direct subsidies. Since 2012 in the United States alone, 32 plastic production facilities received a total of almost $9 billion in state and local subsidies, according to estimates by the Environmental Integrity Project, a U.S.-based nonprofit organization. This is not only an American issue, though, but a global one.

As a result of these subsidies, the world currently suffers a supply glut of cheap plastics—especially plastics manufactured in China and the United States. Changing the economics of plastics and addressing the overproduction of problematic materials will be key to solving the pollution crisis.

The transboundary nature of plastic pollution requires a global approach—regulating across the entire life cycle, from chemical feedstock production to the end-of-life stage of plastics. This was recognized in the mandate that the United Nations Environment Programme received in March 2022. At the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly, governments agreed to convene an intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) to develop a legally binding instrument for regulation that  addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its upstream production, design, use, and disposal.

The next round of negotiations—the fourth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee—convenes from April 22-26 in Ottawa. It could advance solutions; however, as previous negotiations have shown, regulating plastics across the full value chain is not only a complex technical issue, but also comes with multifaceted political dynamics.

For example, countries with economies largely dependent upon petrochemical and plastic industries oppose the setting of a cap on plastic production volumes, a measure that has been called for by a group of scientists. Instead, producer countries are pushing for a narrower approach to the problem, focusing primarily on waste management, which for plastics involves landfill and incineration.

Producer countries’ resistance is not without justification, because there will be impacts on these nations’ industries. For example, in India, about 2 million people are directly employed in the chemicals and petrochemicals sector—and the industry is growing at more than 6 percent annually. In addition to this, millions of people living around industrial areas manufacturing petrochemicals depend on them indirectly for their livelihoods. As government negotiators grapple with these complex political dynamics, effective solutions hinge on overcoming these barriers.

The upcoming U.S. elections in November also play into the negotiation dynamics. The current government in Washington supports addressing the full life cycle of plastics, including both upstream and downstream aspects, aligning largely with European countries on this issue.

However, there is concern that this alignment could shift in the event of a second Trump administration. Former President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement underscores the potential for significant policy reversals on environmental matters. If the negotiations for a plastics treaty extend beyond the current year and into 2025 or beyond, the prospect of a Trump White House raises the possibility of the United States instead adopting positions advocated by groups such as the American Chemical Council, which has invested substantially in lobbying efforts. This could lead the United States to align with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, potentially resulting in a heavily diluted agreement lacking meaningful impact.

The prospect of Trump’s return to power may also factor into strategic considerations and delay tactics employed by some of the negotiating parties. This adds complexity to the diplomatic process.

Still, there are pathways forward. Embracing innovative technologies and alternative materials can help reduce reliance on plastics, while incentivizing recycling and reuse through policy measures and economic incentives can drive meaningful change.

First, instead on setting a cap on production—which faces stiff opposition—implementing a global fee on primary plastic materials, such as a levy of $100 per metric ton, could serve as a transformative measure to reshape the economics of plastic production and consumption. By internalizing the external costs associated with plastic pollution and environmental degradation across the plastics industry, this fee would help to level the playing field for recycling and reuse models to compete with single-use plastics. Such a fee would help to reflect the real environmental and social costs of plastic production, incentivizing producers and consumers alike to shift away from production of problematic materials and single-use items toward prioritizing circular plastics alternatives.

Second, the revenue generated from this fee could help to address the financing gap. An estimated $17 trillion ($1.5 trillion in public expenditure and $15.4 trillion in private sector investments) will be needed from 2025 until 2040 to reduce annual mismanaged plastic waste which leaks into the environment by 90 percent relative to 2019 levels. The levy could be reinvested into initiatives aimed at improving waste management infrastructure, especially in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa where this investment is lacking, and supporting communities affected by plastic pollution. By aligning economic incentives with environmental objectives, a global fee on primary plastic materials has the potential to catalyze a transition toward a more sustainable plastics economy.

Third, ensuring a just transition for the informal waste sector, comprised of 20 million workers worldwide, would enhance workers’ labor and human rights, as global, national, and local interventions such as deposit return schemes increasingly disrupt the livelihoods of these communities. Similarly, just transition provisions will also be needed for the upstream value chain petrochemical sector.

A fourth measure would be enabling widespread adoption of safe reuse systems for packaging, bottles, and containers. These systems entail the refilling and recycling of reusable plastic items for the same purpose in their original forms, with no additional reprocessing needed. Currently, setting up these systems is in most cases uneconomical if single-use plastics production and their use is not controlled.

The urgency to address the global plastic pollution crisis presents a critical dilemma in the negotiations for a legally binding agreement. There is a pressing need to meet a deadline that was set by the U.N. Environment Assembly at its last meeting in South Korea to achieve an agreement by the end of 2024. This is especially true given the possibility of a changing U.S. administration that is unlikely to support a legally binding agreement.

However, while such an agreement would represent a significant step forward in tackling plastic pollution, it may fall short of addressing the root causes and full life-cycle impacts of plastic pollution. Extending the negotiations into 2025 to achieve a more comprehensive agreement that encompasses the entire life cycle entails the risk of further delay and uncertainty. However, this approach could lead to a more robust and effective treaty that addresses the complexities of regulating overall production volumes, use, and disposal.

Balancing the need for expedience with the imperative for comprehensive action that fulfills the U.N. mandate is a formidable challenge that policymakers and negotiators must navigate to ensure that any agreement strikes the right balance between urgency and effectiveness in combating plastic pollution.

Finally, governments should not wait to act until the finalization of such a treaty—the mechanisms of which may take several years to come to fruition. Regardless of the outcome, action to prevent plastic pollution can and must start now.