Adobe Stock photo |
Among the various players that Grist contacted, "only two agreed to answer questions about the policies they support," Winters writes. "What we found is that, although they fall far short. . . . the industry groups’ proposals to bolster recycling and waste collection could cause a significant reduction in mismanaged plastic waste — even in the absence of a cap on plastic production."
When their proposals were entered into a policy analysis tool developed at the University of California, "the elements of the treaty that industry groups support, cobbled together, could cut global plastic pollution by 43 million metric tons annually by 2050 — a 36% reduction below business-as-usual estimates," Winters adds. "Meanwhile, a realistic production cap could cut annual pollution by 48 million metric tons all by itself."
When it comes to global garbage, the plastics industry is economically influential. Unsurprisingly, the industry does not think that the solution to plastic waste reduction is making less plastic. Instead, industry groups support a concept called "plastics circularity," which "seeks to keep the material in use for as long as possible before it’s thrown away. Generally, this means more recycling," Winters reports.
But that can be challenging. "The world only recycles about 9 percent of all plastic it produces; the rest gets sent to landfills or incinerators, or winds up as litter," Winters explains. Given the problem, the industry is promoting more and better recycling by supporting policies that build recycling infrastructure and placing some of the onus for recycling costs on companies that use it.
Even as the plastic waste reduction agreement takes shape, "it’s clear that self-preservation is at the heart of the petrochemical industry’s agenda for the treaty," Winters reports. "The policies it supports could have a positive impact on plastic pollution."
No comments:
Post a Comment