The dismal global recycling statistics do make us wonder whether we will ever efficiently adopt 100 per cent recycling of plastics. A more fundamental solution is to switch to variants from biodegradable sources like wood, corn starch and sugarcane
Plastics have for long been associated as an environmental contaminant. Slowly but irretrievably, rampant use of this material is adversely impacting the climate system. This is apparent from the fact that our once pristine habitat and fragile ecology, the flora and fauna, are getting increasingly eroded. The damaging impact is clear not only on land but also on the oceans. Newly published research calculates that across their life cycle, plastics account for 3.8 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. That’s almost double the emissions of the aviation sector. If it were a country, the “Plastic Kingdom” would be the fifth-highest emitter in the world.
Insatiable demand for plastic is fuelling the almost endless pursuit to procure all things made out of it and the bad news is that this burgeoning demand is all set to grow. At 380 metric tonnes a year, we produce 190 times more plastic than we did in 1950. If the demand for plastic continues to grow at its current rate of four per cent a year, emissions from plastic production will reach 15 per cent of global emissions by 2050. This toxic increase in the use of plastic will surely send the environment and climate into a shock unless measures are taken to bring down the plastic exposure.
More than 99 per cent of plastics are manufactured from petrochemicals, most commonly from petroleum and natural gas. These raw materials are refined to form ethylene, propylene, butene and other basic plastic building blocks, before being transported to manufacturers. The production and transport of these resins require an awful lot of energy — and, therefore, fuel. Greenhouse gas emissions also occur during the refining process itself — the “cracking” of larger hydrocarbons from petrochemicals into smaller ones suitable for making plastic releases carbon dioxide and methane. According to the study, about 61 per cent of total plastic greenhouse gas emissions comes from the resin production and transport stage.
A further 30 per cent is emitted at the product manufacturing stage. The vast majority of these emissions come from the energy required to power the plants that turn raw plastic materials into the bottles, bin bags and bicycle helmets we use today. The remainder occurs as a result of chemical and manufacturing processes — for example, the production of plastic foams uses HFCs, particularly potent greenhouse gases. The remaining carbon footprint occurs when plastics are thrown away. Incineration releases all of the stored carbon in the plastic into the atmosphere, as well as air pollutants such as dioxins, furans, mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls, which are toxic and damaging to human health.
As plastics take centuries to degrade, disposal in landfill makes only a small contribution to emissions in theory. However, as much as 40 per cent of landfill waste is burnt in open skies, dramatically speeding up the release of otherwise locked-up carbon.
If we are to combat climate breakdown, reductions in plastic emissions are clearly needed. Thankfully, the solution with the biggest potential is already in motion, albeit slow. In showing that transitioning to a zero carbon energy system has the potential to reduce emissions from plastic by 51 per cent, the study provides yet another reason to rapidly phase out fossil fuels. However, beyond urgently required global decarbonisation, we need to reduce our seemingly insatiable demand for carbon-based plastic. Increasing recycling rates is one simple way of doing this.
The highest-quality plastics can be recycled many times, and nearly all plastic can be recycled to some extent — but only 18 per cent was actually recycled worldwide in 2015. Although each recycle process requires a small amount of new plastic, we can greatly increase the life cycle of the material by efficiently reusing what we make. But the dismal global recycling statistics do make us wonder whether we will ever efficiently adopt 100 per cent recycling of plastics. To counter this, a more fundamental solution is to switch to making plastics from biodegradable sources such as wood, corn starch and sugarcane.
The materials themselves are carbon neutral, although renewable power is essential to eliminate the climate impact of energy costs during production, transport and waste processing. However, a massive ramping up in the production of bioplastics — which currently make up less than one per cent of total plastic production — would require vast swathes of agricultural land. With the population set to rise dramatically, increasingly coveted arable space may not be able to satisfy demand. The bottom line, therefore, is that we will need to reduce our demand for plastic. According to the study, simply reducing the annual growth in plastics demand from four per cent to two per cent could result in 60 per cent lower emissions from the sector in 2050.
While a life without plastics may seem unimaginable, it’s worth remembering that their prevalence is a relatively recent phenomenon. The first artificial plastic, Bakelite, was developed in 1907, but it wasn’t until the 1950s that the age of plastic began. If we show a genuine appetite to address plastic pollution, the world could change again just as quickly and so will the environment — for the better.
Governments, corporations, and individuals must make research into alternatives a priority and support their use to needless plastic waste. Of course, any of these solutions alone will not be enough but if we manage to do all of this, then we can cut plastics emissions to just seven per cent of current levels.
(The writer is an environmental journalist)
