Progress on the plastic problem?

In the face of endless bleak news on the ubiquity of plastics, a Japanese company recently made headlines for inventing a plastic-like substance that breaks down harmlessly in seawater. Could this be the future?

Some good news is desperately needed: the charge sheet against plastics has been getting longer and longer this year.

In June, the practice of spreading sewage sludge on farm land became much more widely understood when an open letter to the Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, called on the government to regulate the practice. At first sight sludge spreading feels like a good example of nutrient cycling, using treated sewage sludge to add fertility to soils. But the publicity laid bare the details: that waste water treatment sites were either selling cheap (or giving for free!) sewage sludge to farmers, and although the sludge was screened for pathogens and heavy metals, the presence of other ‘nasties’ was ignored. Different organisations have stressed different ‘nasties’, which include PFAs (‘forever chemicals’), dioxins (herbicidal toxins) and, of course microplastics. There were even suggestions that water companies used this waste stream to 'mask disposal of individual high risk waste streams not suitable for land spreading' (Environment Agency report 2017).

However, there was little appetite under the last government to deal with this, in spite of the EA report conclusion that levels of contaminants 'may present a risk to human health' and that 'perhaps the biggest risk to the landbank' is from the spreading of physical contaminants such as microplastics into agricultural soil. Food and farming are the human losers, but let’s not forget the wildlife also affected by contaminated soils and runoff.

And now for some good news – campaign group Fighting Dirty (who organised the open letter) has just (22 July) won a victory in the form of a recommendation by the Independent Water Commission Report, that sewage sludge be regulated under the Environmental Permitting Regime (EPR), which would mean stringent controls on spreading, backed by monitoring and enforcement, all built on the precautionary principle. Now all that is needed (!) is for the government to act to bring sewage sludge under the EPR, and of course for the monitoring and enforcement to be funded effectively. I feel a letter to the minister coming on…

What about plastics at sea? We are almost inured now to the sight of piles of plastic waste on foreign beaches, the ocean gyres, sea creatures suffering malnutrition or worse through contact with plastics. And then came a July report in the scientific journal Nature, which introduced a whole new level of pollution: nanoplastics in seawater. The study looked at the prevalence of nanoplastics in the North Atlantic: a startling 27m tonnes, which equals what the researchers called ‘the dominant fraction’ of ocean plastics – it’s even worse than we had thought. And the smaller the particle, the easier it is able to cross biological barriers and accumulate, with ill effects for marine life. There has been some progress in clearing bigger plastics, but no hope of that with such tiny particles. As with a lot of the issues around plastic, the only way forward is to NOT produce it, rather than vain attempts to recover it.

Which brings us neatly to the UN Global Plastics Treaty, with the latest round of negotiations due to start in Geneva in August. The aim of this is to finalize a legally binding global treaty to end plastic pollution, looking at the full lifecycle of plastics.  As with much to do with the petrochemical industry, we find scientists on one side, calling for “ambitious, enforceable measures, including binding caps on plastic production, the elimination of harmful chemicals in plastics, equitable protections for communities affected by plastic pollution, and a treaty architecture grounded in science and accountability”, and the industry on the other. The treaty negotiations began in 2022, and the final negotiations were meant to be concluded in December last year. In the meantime, plastic producers have not only continued production, but expanded capacity: INEOS, a UK plastics producer, has increased capacity by over 20% since 2022. The longer the delay in anything binding, the more profits they make. Representatives from the companies also form a huge and agressive lobbying group at the negotiations – as The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights comments, 'There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the plastics industry […] and the human rights and policy interests of people affected by the plastics crisis.' Those interests are well funded, and of course have the urgency of an industry already under threat from the switch to renewables. If we are not burning fossil fuels, continued plastic production is the next best way to make money out of them. 

Plastic producers are heavy on greenwashing: one industry group has well publicised clean up operations in the South, whilst still increasing global production. And as they promote the recycling element of a circular approach (expensive chemical recycling that doesn’t even touch the sides of current production), they resist any caps on virgin production. They have a lot to lose: Dow has earned an estimated $5.1 billion from plastics since negotiations began. 

This brings us back to prospects for the Japanese breakthrough. From a planetary perspective, a product that has the utility of plastic without the polluting aspects sounds ideal. But here’s the rub: it’s not made from petrochemicals, and will therefore be subject to the full might of the well-funded and politically-connected lobbying and disinformation of the big fossil fuel extractors / plastics producers.

So there are glimmers of light in the plastic gloom, but they are just glimmers, faced with the dark petrochemical wall.

So what can we do? The hardest thing is to stay shockable – to be capable of outrage that microplastics are spread on our fields; that the ocean is even more full of plastic than we feared; that huge corporate interests act (and are allowed to act) so diametrically opposed to the health of the planet. And of course we can use our personal power to consider carefully where we spend our money - to boycott certain products, use refilleries, make switches on everyday non-food items like cleaning cloths, use less. But even more important is that we talk about these things, write letters to suppliers explaining our choices, and most of all, lobby our governments at local and national levels. Write to your council about plastic use in schools and offices; write to your MP requiring their support on areas that matter to you; write to Ministers to demand they act swiftly and decisively.

Use our voices, use our wallets, support alternatives, support pressure groups, stay shockable! And maybe, just maybe, Plastic Free July can become Plastic Free Lives.