Troubling Ubiquity

Plastic, a versatile material with a lifespan of hundreds of years, has multiple benefits and uses. However, its production, consumption, and disposal have severe environmental consequences, including water pollution, marine life deaths, and a significant carbon footprint due to fossil fuel dependence. According to European Environment Agency (EEA), the average annual plastic consumption in Western Europe is approximately 150 kg per person, exceeding the global average of 60 kg by more than twofold. According to a recent report, the United States generates the most plastic waste per capita worldwide, with an average American producing 130.09 kg annually. In contrast, India’s per capita plastic waste generation stands at around 19.88 kg. As a relatively recent invention, plastic’s affordability and adaptability have made it ubiquitous in modern times. However, its lifecycle poses significant challenges. Alarmingly, only about 9 per cent of all plastic ever produced has been recycled, while 12 per cent has been incinerated. The remainder remains in use or has been disposed of in landfills or released into the environment, including oceans, as per EEA.

In March 2022, the fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly adopted a landmark resolution to develop an internationally legally binding instrument addressing plastic pollution, including in marine environments. The resolution tasked the UNEP Executive Director with convening an INC to craft the instrument, adopting a comprehensive approach that encompasses the entire life cycle of plastic, from production and design to disposal. A growing tide of plastic waste is threatening the Ruzizi dam in eastern Congo, leading to frequent power outages in several major cities. Local authorities are scrambling to address the issue, which highlights the devastating environmental consequences of plastic pollution. The environmental impacts of discarded plastics, littering, leaching of toxic components and the contamination of ecosystems and the food chain with micro plastics, are well established. Even after centuries, plastic waste remains, refusing to decompose. Its persistence harms marine life and ecosystems. The toxic chemicals leach into water sources and there are several human health risks from micro plastic consumption. The plastic waste disintegrates into microscopic pieces, contaminating the food chain and endangering humans and animals. Oceans and landscapes are congested with plastic, from the deepest sea beds to the highest mountains. Emissions from production, use, and disposal degrade the environment, accelerating climate change. Despite mounting evidence, plastic production is expected to rise, intensifying the crisis. Urgent action is necessary to mitigate the effects of plastic pollution. Consensus on plastic pollution remains elusive, mirroring challenges in climate talks, due to economic, job, and development concerns. The High Ambition Coalition advocates drastic measures, including a 40 per cent production cut by 2040 and lifecycle interventions. In contrast, oil and petrochemical lobbies resist reductions, promoting recycling and waste management instead.

Plastics, primarily made from fossil fuels like petroleum, natural gas, and coal, are at the centre of this debate. The Global Coalition for Plastic Sustainability, an alliance of plastic-producing countries, pushes for a waste management-focused approach. According to a Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) report, Iran’s announcement of Global Coalition for Plastic Sustainability faced opposition at the INC’s third session. The coalition’s status was downgraded to a “like-minded group”. However, Iran’s interventions on behalf of this group garnered support from Russia, India, Cuba, and Western Asian nations, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Iraq. This coalition advocates for a legally binding instrument prioritising waste management to minimise the impact on plastic-producing countries. India, adhering to the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) on climate issues, emphasises that any legally binding instrument should consider individual countries’ circumstances. Indian officials assert that solutions to pollution should not involve binding targets or production caps.

India has implemented measures such as banning certain single-use plastics (SUPs) and introducing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Additionally, the country is exploring alternative solutions. However, the effectiveness of these measures remains debatable. Despite a ban, SUPs – including plastic bags, cups, water bottles, and straws – continue to litter the environment. India generates 5.5 million tonnes of SUP waste annually, but only addresses around 11 per cent of it, according to environmental groups. In 2018, India announced plans to phase out SUPs by 2022. The Environment Ministry notified the Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules, 2021, which took effect on July 1, 2022. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) also issued a Comprehensive Action Plan to State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and Pollution Control Committees (PCC). However, despite the ban, SUPs continue to be in circulation and one of the reasons seems to be its definition— “plastic item intended to be used once for the same purpose before being disposed of or recycled”. The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) criticises this definition for failing to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary plastics or recyclable and non-recyclable plastics. This loophole allows non-recyclable plastics, such as multi-layered packaging, to continue circulating. The plastic industry supports millions of workers worldwide, including in India, making it a significant sector of the global economy. Consequently, countries with substantial plastic industries favour waste management solutions over production caps or targets.

“Production is a vital part of our economy,” argue plastic industry supporters. “The focus should be on finding the right balance, as the real challenge lies in disposing of and recycling waste.” They also highlight the environmental footprint of alternative materials, such as reusable paper and cotton bags, which come with their own carbon costs. While plastics are non-biodegradable, proponents point out that alternatives like paper and glass also have significant carbon footprints. But no one can beat a plastic carbon footprint.

Views expressed are personal