Neither von Pechmann (1898), who invented polyethylene, nor the two Americans—Hyatt (1869), who invented celluloid for billiard balls, and Baekeland (1907) – were possessed by the devil, nor is it true that there was any inherently malicious intent behind the creation of any plastic. Nevertheless, plastics now symbolize humanity's unsustainable lifestyle, and we are suffocating in plastic pollution, which can only be combated if we are able to reevaluate our attitude toward plastics and the life cycle of the material within a strict time frame. It would be very welcome if we took the issue of plastics as seriously as we did the phasing out of freon, used as a refrigerant in refrigerators, from our everyday lives. However, the 1987 Montreal Protocol remains the only UN pact in history that has been ratified by every country in the world. At present, it looks like this will remain the case, and there will be no consensus on solving the plastic crisis anytime soon.
Why have we reached an impasse on the plastic issue?
The Nairobi Resolution adopted in March 2022 under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which is a fundamental document on the topics of plastic production, emissions, and recycling (equivalent in importance and universality to the Paris Climate Agreement, and which aims to make manufacturers responsible for the entire life cycle of plastics and to make policy part of everyday life as soon as possible, was simply overturned by US politics. However, the ultimate economic objective would be to finance a near-complete collection system (Deposit Return Scheme, DRS) through an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)https://www.unep.org/ietc/what-we-do/extended-producer-responsibility system, which would be extended to all plastics in the global economy (not just packaging in its final version), and subsequently achieve a high level of plastic recycling.
At the end of a system process based on a well-functioning global agreement, there may be an opportunity to virtually eliminate the use of toxic additives and the generation of plastic waste that is harmful to the environment. Over time, even historical plastic waste could be recycled, thereby minimizing the "victims of growth" in the economy. This theory quickly leads to the conclusion that the regulatory process will result in a "two-in-one" benefit. On the one hand, microplastic pollution and the use of hazardous additives in our world can be drastically reduced. On the other hand, we are also taking a significant step towards avoiding climate catastrophe. The latter statement is based on the fact that the problem of plastics overlaps significantly with the goal of achieving climate neutrality (net zero emissions). In other words, the permissible future carbon footprint associated with the 1.5°C global warming target for 2050 is closely linked to plastics – i.e., their production and disposal or storage as waste – by 20-30 percent. At present, however, it seems that nothing will come of this!
Why is this such a big deal?
These events represent yet another failure of international diplomacy, even though it is perhaps clear to everyone by now that "humanity is living in unsustainable ecological overshoot." Without the implementation of a new, bold political logic that is willing to undertake even significant systemic change, current global plastic consumption (440 million tons per year) could triple (to over 1,230 million tons) by 2060. Furthermore, based on OECD models, it is also likely that if "humanity does not wake up," this could mean the production of 238 kg of plastic waste per capita per year in Hungary. If, as is currently the case, no one takes on the actual financial and economic responsibility for the entire life cycle of plastics, and as a result, this additional cost is not incorporated into the cost calculation model for polymer-based products – and nowadays we are surrounded by plastic almost everywhere – then nothing will prevent the predicted huge increase in demand.
On the other hand, since no one is paying for the costs, there are currently insufficient transferable resources to deal with the crisis, i.e., to research new, environmentally friendly substitute materials or to implement systematic material recycling, even though the latter technology is essentially available. As a result, no significant change is expected in the fact that 90 percent of the annual amount of plastic produced worldwide ends up in landfills or in our immediate or distant environment, polluting our entire ecosystem, as is currently the case.
Unfortunately, the current US government's position that there is no proven link between plastic production and the planned global restrictions and bans is not exactly the right way to address these issues in a reassuring manner. They do not want to hear about increasing the costs of plastic manufacturers and insist that the whole issue should be renegotiated from scratch. They are not even listening to their own experts, such as the American Chemistry Council (ACC), who argue that the US economy would also benefit significantly if Washington took a more active role in boosting recycling.
Although the system that began to be built with the Nairobi decision has not yet completely collapsed, as The Conversation wrote: the solution to the plastic crisis must currently be found in the fact that "it is not knowledge that is lacking, but the political will to match words with binding actions." The practical options are limited as long as GDP fetishism, and the resulting overproduction, overpackaging, and irresponsible consumption go hand in hand with the plastic problem: we throw away most of the manufactured products in their packaging before we ever use them, meaning that the system produces a high proportion of waste from the outset. The well-known single-use logic and the resulting proliferation of plastic devices and packaging—which has now become not only a logistical but also an important marketing tool—carries the symbolic message "Consume more!", which is the main cause of the entire crisis. This is why plastic, which is otherwise useful when used in moderation, has now become a public enemy for green-conscious citizens. At the same time, it has also become a symbol of excess, appearing everywhere from the oceans to our brains in the form of microplastics, 25 decagrams of which we all consume every year. The stalling of the Nairobi process thus indicates to me that, unfortunately, the dilemma of whether to approach plastic pollution from a moral-scientific standpoint or from an opportunistic attitude is currently only theoretical.
Is there such a thing as non-capitalist plastic?
Digging deeper, I believe that the real question here is how. That is, how can we reframe our social narratives about consumption so that we can align production with actual use, rationalize packaging, and create a culture of recycling? And all this while maintaining global political will behind the change.
As in Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the answer to the question is forty-two, which concerns life, the universe, and everything, may be as follows tomorrow: the solution to the plastic crisis is the path that symbolizes the entire ecological overshoot in itself. The first step is to shift this issue into a realistic dimension where a solution is possible. This is where we are aware of the main counterarguments: the transformation of manufacturing processes, the change of packaging materials, or the systematic requirement for material recycling all require huge, practically unfinanceable investments, while the pressure for growth, cost pressures, and profit interests consistently override long-term sustainability considerations. All these factors must be taken into account, which means that only a business-based solution can be considered.
The first step towards a solution is recognizing that sustainability is not only a moral issue, but also a game theory issue. Solving the plastic crisis is a non-zero-sum, infinitely repeated game! In such a situation, outright legal prohibition, drastic regulation, and sanctions alone cannot be effective, because establishing and maintaining a system of voluntary cooperation is the winning strategy in the long run (this is also true for the climate crisis and its management). The system works well if the conditions of the game are set correctly. In other words, the players are patient enough (i.e., the future is important to them), cooperation is the rational strategy as a general rule (which requires long-term incentives for the players, as it conflicts with individual short-term profit maximization), and punishment for rule-breaking is credible (the sanction regime is only secondary, but it works). Therefore, I believe in a two-gear solution, combining primary financial incentives, secondary legal and moral sanctions, and credible information. I also believe that society and thus the political majority can be rallied behind this. But let's look at the feasibility of these three pillars!
Down with disinformation!
The first and most important is the provision of information and credible content in an accessible, popular way. The climate crisis, the decline in biodiversity, and the plastic crisis are closely related problems, all of which are symptoms of global unsustainability, and it is important to raise awareness of this. In order to generate social support for the necessary changes, it is particularly important to produce and disseminate credible, professional content on the subject, as misinformation is very prevalent in both domestic and global content.
When it comes to sustainability, domestic researchers have used artificial intelligence to measure global awareness, and the situation is as follows: although social media content can still be considered credible on the topic at a ratio of 60 to 40, hoaxes are much easier to access and more popular. As a result, 66% of misinformation about sustainability reaches users on social media platforms. This is a major problem that can and must be counterbalanced by the state stepping in to promote credible and understandable information. Without this, it will be very difficult to make the players "patient enough," i.e., to attract them to long-term cooperative play despite short-term personal conflicts of interest.
Manufacturer responsibility and the voluntary credit system
A compromise, two-gear solution is needed to tackle plastic pollution. To achieve this, we must first accept that plastics are important raw materials that are and will continue to be needed in many areas of life. It is not worth denying their raison d'être ab ovo. This is not an inquisition, so the solution is not to grind down the plastics industry! Rather, it is a fundamental transformation of the existing business model - based on the principle of voluntarism, i.e., on commercial grounds.
The first stage of the transformation is to encourage the use of plastic substitutes and plastic recycling through a plastic credit system. Does this sound familiar? Of course it does! Making plastic pollution manageable is in many ways similar to the possibilities for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and can even be linked to it. So, if we focus first on the most obvious solution, recycling plastics into new materials, then it is encouraging in the current situation that all the necessary conditions for such a change are in place.
On the one hand, there have been many proven technologies for recycling plastics for decades, they just need to be rolled out. On the other hand, incentives through a credit system can also be implemented in a transparent and scalable way. Verra, a Washington-based organization that certifies and develops global standards, recently announced a plastic waste reduction standard. The complex program based on this standard aims to mobilize green financial resources for the development of integrated plastic waste collection and recycling infrastructures. This would enable the certification and independent verification of voluntary projects in this area, thus ensuring the development of scalable solutions that shift the environmental and financial responsibility for plastic waste management from governments to manufacturers. Thirdly, more countries (and the European Union in one form or another, but on a mandatory basis) are already operating market organizations based on extended producer responsibility (EPR), on which an institutionalized take-back system (DRS) can also be built. The challenge is how to link these three peripheral conditions: how to combine the responsibility system, which must necessarily be extended to all types of plastic, and mandatory waste collection in a way that is compatible with a green financing system that supports material recycling.
The logical solution is therefore to further develop the EPR regime further (EPR 2.0) and extend it globally, to establish a plastic credit system (with reliable recording and accountability), and to link these two systems, where success depends on two factors. On the one hand, a uniform data structure and integration to ensure traceability, based on the infrastructure of the Digital Product Passport (DPP) infrastructure, and on the other hand, the development of a uniform and appropriately quality-assured international crediting methodology, either in line with the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM) or independently. This link would create an incentive, i.e. a business motivation, for manufacturers to make the amounts spent on certified plastic and/or carbon credits from voluntary plastic recycling projects deductible from EPR fees. This would also ensure direct financing for additional recycling investments.
In my opinion, this connection is feasible not only logically but also in practice, as all the components are in place. If this is successful, in addition to ensuring the annual cycle, valuable additional recycling capacity can also be built up over time. This would allow a large part of the historical plastic pollution to be recycled, turning the problem into a resource that could significantly serve the growing global economy's hunger for plastic. On the one hand, the credit system can require the use of purely renewable energies for the energy needs of the recycling process (through local production, direct purchase of green electricity, or even through guarantees of origin). On the other hand, the demand for fresh polymerization and traditional waste management (i.e., energy recovery and landfill disposal) can be eliminated or significantly reduced, so this solution also positively promotes climate action. This could be the sustainable competitive economy of the future, in which the EU could voluntarily take a leading role, and in which there is much to be gained from the implementation of the "Fit for 90" program by 2040. To achieve this, we must first and foremost view this discourse not as a threat to the economy, but as an opportunity to catalyse it.
A supportive legal basis is needed
The creation of a legal framework that is fundamentally supportive but also credibly threatens retaliation against those who violate cooperation is essential for the proper functioning of the system. This begins with defining the scope and stating that, under the EPR 2.0 regime, the regulation must cover all plastics. This means that it must cover plastic products beyond packaging materials and products that contain plastics in part, and on the waste generation side, not only packaging waste, but also all manufacturing (intermediate) waste and by-products that meet the circular economy definition of waste. It is important that the classification of materials and plastic waste by the emitter should not allow them to escape the scope of the regulation, and this extended definition provides an opportunity to approach waste as a resource.
The second critical point of the regulation is the establishment of a long-term market transformation schedule based on an international agreement. This is the basis for the predictability necessary to change the market mechanism, primarily the return on long-term additional green investments. My proposal is that this should be implemented along the lines of a two-gear model:
Conclusion: forty-two is now plastic!
I have put a lot of effort into achieving real and measurable results in relation to environmental protection, particularly climate change and the plastic crisis, but this requires certain forward-looking compromises. I approach the situation as described in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "Once you know what the question is, you will understand the answer." Of course, what is already too much for some people and even crosses a certain red line, seems to others to be an unprincipled compromise. But now it is imperative to understand the other side and make sensible compromises to move forward, because further dithering on the plastic issue could also be fatal.
In the current situation, I have concluded that a two-gear "plastics roadmap" could be a good starting point. This would be a looser, but mandatory for all, long-term baseline scenario, complemented by a crediting system embedded in the EPR regime, which would encourage faster-moving countries to voluntarily commit to achieving additional results. I see compromise as necessary to achieve a widely supported international agreement. I believe a global roadmap is needed to ensure that the return on green investments in plastic recycling is predictable in the long term. If this can be ensured, there will be many such investments. Therefore, the answer is "forty-two": the breakthrough in the sustainability of the global economy can be achieved primarily through plastics!
This article was first published on the 7th of November by Levente Tóth, CEO of mitigia, on his personal LinkedIn profile.