From November 25 to December 1, 2024, representatives from 175 countries gathered in Busan, South Korea; the fifth and final round of negotiations on a global treaty on plastics pollution. One of the main questions being: will the treaty include binding targets on reducing plastic production? Some countries fear negative impacts on their economies. But research suggests the opposite: countries should fear threats from failing to reduce plastic production.
Future costs will be higher
On this subject, Mateo Cordier wrote an article published in The Conversation. Plastic production still increases fast, in spite of the crises that plastics trigger. For instance, Cordier writes, the plastics industry is estimated to have accounted for 5.3% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2019. If no action is taken, these emissions could double or even triple by 2050. And then of course, there is the environmental damage. Microplastics are now found in 26% of marine fish, a figure that has doubled over the past decade. And at least 1.8 million people in the European Union were suffering from illnesses linked to exposure to chemicals found in plastics. Plastics pollution is becoming a threat to the environment and to human health.
Amélie Chatel wrote an article in the Conversation on precisely this subject: what are the risks to human health of this plastics pollution? It is clear that plastics have entered into our bodies, in the form of micro and nano particles. Mainly through our food. Generally, microplastics ingested by species we eat, will not be excreted by our bodies.
Damage done by plastics
Already in the sea, we see this mechanism at work. They interfere with biological processes in sea organisms. We find high concentrations of microplastics in species on top of the food chain like eels. These can cause damage to DNA and to cellular functions. The severity of these effects depends on the plastics’ size, composition, degree of degradation and any harmful chemical additives they may contain. For instance phthalates, often present in plastics as an additive, interfere with hormonal systems.
Such disruption takes place in marine species; but possibly in humans as well. They may cause damage similar to that observed in fish. Micro- and nano-plastics can disrupt cellular functions. Scientists are particularly concerned about the toxic impacts of plastic additives. Moreover, micro- and nano-plastics can act as carriers for pathogens or bacteria, and therefore potentially increase the risk of infectious diseases.
Costs
So, what will it cost to prevent such effects? In his article, Cordier goes into that question. He calculates them for the period 2016-2040.
Costs of plastics pollution
| Costs 2016-2040 ($ billion) | Low | High | Low | High |
| Collecting, sorting, recycling and disposing of municipal plastic waste | 643 | 1,610 | ||
| Damages to marine and terrestrial environments | 1,860 | 268,500 | ||
| Effects on human health | 11,210 | 11,690 | ||
| Of which: US | 384 | 403 | ||
| EU | 44 | 44 | ||
| Canada | 18 | 18 | ||
| Total | 13,700 | 281,800 |
First, there are the costs of collecting, sorting, recycling and disposing of municipal plastic waste. They are mainly borne by public bodies like companies responsible for household waste management; but it is the taxpayers who will ultimately pay the bill. Next, there are the damages to marine and terrestrial environments. Turtles, fish, seabirds and countless other species suffer harm from ingesting plastic debris.
Plastics pollution also has significant impacts on human health. Additives in plastics, such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, are linked to intellectual disabilities, diabetes, obesity, infertility, hormonal disorders and cancer. The figure mentioned is likely to be a conservative estimate, as annual costs are expected to grow with rising plastic production and population growth. In total, the plastics pollution that has accumulated in the global ecosystem since 1950 could cost between $13.7 and $281.8 trillion in damages in the period between 2016 and 2040. That’s up to 2.5 times Germany’s GDP.
The main problem: plastic production
But there are countries that attempt to water down the global plastics treaty. They want it to focus merely on waste management. But this would fail to address the root of the problem: plastic production. As production rises, writes Cordier, treatment systems will struggle to keep pace; and this will lead to more plastics leaking into nature. Therefore we should address the subject of plastic production itself.
Unfortunately, Cordier continues, the economic figures mentioned are likely to be a vast underestimation. There are missing costs, like the costs for human health outside of Europe, the US and Canada. And the costs of damage to terrestrial ecosystems across the world. We cannot estimate the cost of nano-plastic clean-up, as currently only macroplastics can be dealt with. And then, there is the immense challenge of dealing with plastics that have sunk to the ocean floor.
The unequal burden of plastics pollution costs
The burden of the cost of plastics pollution is distributed unequally. According to one study, low-income countries pay 10 times as much as rich countries; even though they have little responsibility for plastic production and consumption. This uneven distribution is also reflected in the burden carried by countries in the global North, vs. those in the global South. Rich countries the US, Japan, Germany, France and the UK profit from plastic production and sales; whereas some poor countries like China, Turkey, Vietnam, India and Malaysia are net importers of plastic waste.
We could start solving the problem by removing subsidies for plastics. These amount to about $30 billion per year in the top 15 plastic-polymer-producing countries alone. Reduction of plastic production might be economically beneficial if we should count all costs. Cordier has calculated that the net cost of inaction ($13.7 to 281.8 trillion) could be significantly higher than the cost of measures to reduce plastic production and pollution ($18.3 to 158.4 trillion).
A well-managed transition
A halt to plastic production should of course be supplemented by a well-managed transition to a post-plastic economy. If we should only permit essential products, Cordier writes, we could stimulate economic growth by creating jobs in the reuse sector and in local deposit-return schemes. Moreover, we would avoid environmental damage caused by continued plastic production. Some economists even argue that an international production cap would be advantageous to the plastic industry itself!
In a post-plastics economy, only essential products – such as intravenous tubing for example – would remain in use. On the other hand, less useful products like single-use plastics would be banned. Reusable items should be collected, cleaned and reused.
Costs and benefits
In the short term this would cost money. But there would also be economic benefits, like the creation of an entire sector focused on packaging reuse. This would benefit everyone without harming human health or ecosystems. So, if ‘Busan’ doesn’t produce solutions like these, citizen-consumers will pay the price. Because costs of plastics pollution would grow higher and higher every year. We need action in the short term.
Interesting? Then also read:
Plastic recycling: urgent, but a major problem
Plastic waste: let’s put an end to it in 10 to 15 years
Toward a global treaty on plastic pollution