They are officially announcing their new second-generation bottle platform, which they call PB1, on Thursday.
This time, they are relying less on bioplastic and putting more emphasis on fiber bottle technology that can be recycled using the paper recycling infrastructure already in place. “The mission of the company has always been to effectively develop a strong case study that offers a picture of what it could look like to move beyond plastics,” says Cove CEO and founder Alex Totterman.
The company says that their first launches in 2026 will include a focus on cosmetics and personal care, and they think the volume of the PB1 bottle could be measured in the “tens of millions of units” by the year after.
Cove, which has raised $29 million so far, began about seven years ago with a problem, curiosity, and a hopeful solution. While working for a water purification startup, Totterman came face-to-face with the massive problem of microplastics. “I’ve always been very interested in sustainability, more on solving it than being worried about it,” Totterman adds. “It just seems sort of obvious—why wouldn’t you try and find a solution?”
This first solution was Cove’s initial product: a single-use water bottle made from polyhydroxyalkanoates, or PHA. This mouthful of a polymer is made by fermenting sugars and fats from cooking oil gathered from local restaurants, and the bottles made from it can theoretically biodegrade within one to five years. While this sounds awesome in theory, Cove faced all sorts of barriers: It was expensive to create, relied on inconsistent industrial composting infrastructure, and bioplastic bottles themselves ran the risk of mucking up conventional recycling streams.
“For us,” Totterman adds, “it was about going back to the first principles of if we want to really have the impact we’re looking for, how do we deliver the biomaterial in a format that would actually work?”
Microplastics could be a factor in driving up cases of osteoporosis worldwide, according to recently published research. The study reveals that when these tiny plastic particles enter the body, they disrupt the functioning of bone marrow stem cells, which are essential for maintaining and repairing bone tissue.
Throughout your life, your bones are replenished. Osteoporosis is a condition where this process goes wrong, with the breakdown of bone outstripping the rate at which it is replaced. This leads to bones weakening over time and becoming more likely to fracture. The condition has many risk factors—age, sex, medications, diet, smoking and drinking, and genetics are all known to influence it—with the disease developing slowly over time. Often people don’t realize they have the condition until they break a bone.
This new analysis, published in the journal Osteoporosis International, adds exposure to microplastics as a potential new risk factor. The research reviewed 62 scientific articles that had run various laboratory and animal tests on the possible effects of micro- and nanoplastics on bone. Analysis of lab experiments showed that microplastics stimulate the formation of osteoclasts, cells created by stem cells in the bone marrow that degrade bone tissue to promote resorption, the process in which the body breaks down and eliminates old or damaged bone.
The study also found that, in relation to bones, plastic particles can reduce the viability of cells, induce premature cellular aging, modify gene expression, and trigger inflammatory responses. The combination of these effects generates an imbalance in which osteoclasts destroy more bone tissue than is regenerated, causing an accelerated weakening of bone structure.
When then looking at animal studies, the researchers found that the accumulation of microplastics in the body decreases the white blood cell count—which is suggestive of alterations in bone marrow function. In addition, these animal studies suggested that the impact of microplastics on osteoclasts may be associated with deterioration of bone microstructure and the formation of irregular structures of cells, increasing the risk of bone fragility, deformities, and fractures.
“In this study, the adverse effects observed culminated, worryingly, in the interruption of the animals’ skeletal growth,” said coauthor Rodrigo Bueno de Oliveira in a press release. “The potential impact of microplastics on bones is the subject of scientific studies and isn’t negligible.”
Oliveira, who is the coordinator of the Laboratory for Evaluation of Mineral and Bone Disorders in Nephrology at the State University of Campinas in Brazil, is now working with his team to further prove in practice the relationship between exposure to microplastics and bone deterioration. This research will begin by evaluating the effects of microplastic particles on rodents’ femurs.
“Although osteometabolic diseases are relatively well understood, there’s a gap in our knowledge regarding the influence of microplastics on the development of these diseases. Therefore, one of our goals is to generate evidence suggesting that microplastics could be a potential controllable environmental cause to explain, for example, the increase in the projected number of bone fractures,” Oliveira said.
Microplastics and nanoplastics are small fragments of plastic—some so small that they’re invisible to the naked eye—that become detached from everyday objects when sunlight, wind, rain, seawater, or abrasion degrade them. The main difference between the two lies in their size: microplastics measure from 1 micrometer (one-thousandth of a millimeter) to 5 millimeters, while nanoplastics are smaller than 1 micrometer. These particles have been detected all over the world in natural environments, as well as throughout the human body and in meat, water, and various agricultural products.
Studies have started to show that this type of plastic contamination can damage health. Experts argue that this means the world urgently needs to reduce its use of plastics. Every year more than 500 million tons of the material are produced worldwide, but only 9 percent is recycled, with much of the remainder spreading into the environment and degrading.
This story originally appeared onWIRED en Españoland has been translated from Spanish.
Plastics that support modern life are inexpensive, strong, and versatile, but are difficult to dispose of and have a serious impact when released into the environment. Polyethylene, in particular, is the most widely produced plastic in the world, with more than 100 million tons distributed annually. Since it can take decades to decompose—and along the way can harm wildlife and degrade into harmful microplastics—its disposal is an urgent issue for mankind.
In 2017, European researchers discovered a potential solution. The larvae of wax moths, commonly known as wax worms, have the ability to break down polyethylene in their bodies. Wax worms have been considered a pest since ancient times because they parasitize beehives, feeding on beeswax. However, we now know that they also spontaneously feed on polyethylene, which has a chemically similar structure.
“Around 2,000 wax worms can break down an entire polyethylene bag in as little as 24 hours, although we believe that co-supplementation with feeding stimulants like sugars can reduce the number of worms considerably,” said Dr Bryan Cassone, a professor of biology at Brandon University in Canada, in a news release. Cassone and his team have been researching how these insects could be harnessed to help combat plastic pollution. “Understanding the biological mechanisms and consequences on fitness associated with plastic biodegradation is key to using wax worms for large-scale plastic remediation,” he says.
In previous experiments, Cassone and his team found out exactly how wax worms break down polyethylene. To understand their digestive mechanism, Cassone’s team fed polyethylene to wax worms for several days and followed the insects’ metabolic processes and changes in their gut environment. They found that as the wax worms ate the polyethylene, their feces liquefied and contained glycol as a byproduct.
But when the insects’ intestinal bacteria were suppressed by administering antibiotics, the amount of glycol in their feces was greatly reduced. This revealed that the breaking down of polyethylene is dependent on the wax worms’ gut microbes.
The team also isolated bacteria from the guts of wax worms and then cultured strains that could survive on polyethylene as their sole food source. Among them was a strain of Acinetobacter, which survived for more than a year in the laboratory environment and continued to break down polyethylene. This revealed how robust and persistent the wax worm’s gut flora is in its ability to break down plastics.
Yet in reality, when it comes to consuming plastic, gut bacteria are not working alone. When the researchers conducted genetic analysis on the insects, they found that plastic-fed wax worms showed increased gene expression relating to fat metabolism, and after being fed plastic, the wax worms duly showed signs of having increased body fat. Armed with their plastic-digesting gut bacteria, the larvae can break down plastics and convert them into lipids, which they then store in their bodies.
However, a plastic-only diet didn’t result in wax worms’ long-term survival. In their latest experiment, the team found that wax worms that continued to eat only polyethylene died within a few days and lost a great deal of weight. This showed that it is difficult for wax worms to continually process polyethylene waste. But researchers believe that creating a food source to assist their intake of polyethylene would mean wax worms are able to sustain healthy viability on a plastic diet and improve their decomposition efficiency.
Looking ahead, the team suggests two strategies for using the wax worm’s ability to consume plastics. One is to mass produce wax worms that are fed on a polyethylene diet, while providing them with the nutritional support they need for long-term survival, and then integrating them into the circular economy, using the insects themselves to dispose of waste plastic. The other is to redesign the plastic degradation pathway of wax worms in the lab, using only microorganisms and enzymes, and so create a means of disposing of plastic that doesn’t need the actual insects.
In the insect-rearing route, a byproduct would be large amounts of insect biomass—countless larvae that have been fed on plastic. These could potentially be turned into a highly nutritious feed for the aquaculture industry, as according to the research team’s data, the insects could be a good source of protein for commercial fish.
This story originally appeared onWIRED Japanand has been translated from Japanese.
Now is not the time to spend hours in the stores shopping for festive Halloween decorations – and besides, with everything going on, who has the time?! So, here are 7 ways to make your house Halloween-ready in 10 minutes or less.
Ghosts outside
Put a plastic or styrofam ball on top of a bamboo gardening stake, then cover with a white plastic tablecloth or sheet. Stick into the ground.
Tattered garbage bags
Take black garbage bags and shred them. They can be hung around exterior doorways and overhands, or along roof eaves, to give a haunted, billowing effect.
Spiderwebs
Spiderwebs scream Halloween – spread them across corners of rooms and doorways inside, and along bushes and small trees outside. A few plastic spiders will make them uber-creepy.
Lightbulbs
Change up the lightbulbs on your front porch or in your backyard to purple, green or black.
Music
Go on YouTube and crank up the classics: Monster Mash, Time Warp, and Thriller. Don’t forget the spooky soundtracks too.
Games
Set up a big bowl of water and apples for some bobbing fun (you can also thread donuts onto a string and hang the string up). Stack toilet paper rolls that have ghost faces drawn on them and see how many you can knock down with a ball. You can also find slews of easy minute-to-win-it games on Pinterest.
Pumpkin carving station
Stock up on some pumpkins and let everyone’s creativity run wild. You can carve the pumpkins, draw on them with Sharpies, or paint them. Stuff some clothes with newspaper and make a pumpkin-headed man for the yard. Display them on social media. And, if you want to get competitive, invite friends to vote on their favourite.
A full-time work-from-home mom, Jennifer Cox (our “Supermom in Training”) loves dabbling in healthy cooking, craft projects, family outings, and more, sharing with readers everything she knows about being an (almost) superhero mommy.
In fact, bubble bursts caused by wave energy can release 100,000 metric tons of microplastics into the atmosphere each year. Since dolphins and other marine mammals breathe at the water’s surface, they may be especially vulnerable to exposure.
Where there are more people, there is usually more plastic. But for the tiny plastic particles floating in the air, this connection isn’t always true. Airborne microplastics are not limited to heavily populated areas; they pollute undeveloped regions too.
Our research found microplastics in the breath of dolphins living in both urban and rural estuaries, but we don’t know whether there are major differences in amounts or types of plastic particles between the two habitats.
During these brief permitted health assessments, we held a petri dish or a customized spirometer—a device that measures lung function—above the dolphin’s blowhole to collect samples of the animals’ exhaled breath. Using a microscope in our colleague’s lab, we checked for tiny particles that looked like plastic, such as pieces with smooth surfaces, bright colors or a fibrous shape.
Since plastic melts when heated, we used a soldering needle to test whether these suspected pieces were plastic. To confirm they were indeed plastic, our colleague used a specialized method called Raman spectroscopy, which uses a laser to create a structural fingerprint that can be matched to a specific chemical.
Our study highlights how extensive plastic pollution is—and how other living things, including dolphins, are exposed. While the impacts of plastic inhalation on dolphins’ lungs are not yet known, people can help address the microplastic pollution problem by reducing plastic use and working to prevent more plastic from polluting the oceans.
Our planet is choking on plastics. Some of the worst offenders, which can take decades to degrade in landfills, are polypropylene—which is used for things such as food packaging and bumpers—and polyethylene, found in plastic bags, bottles, toys, and even mulch.
Polypropylene and polyethylene can be recycled, but the process can be difficult and often produces large quantities of the greenhouse gas methane. They are both polyolefins, which are the products of polymerizing ethylene and propylene, raw materials that are mainly derived from fossil fuels. The bonds of polyolefins are also notoriously hard to break.
Now, researchers at UC Berkeley have come up with a method of recycling these polymers that uses catalysts that easily break their bonds, converting them into propylene and isobutylene, which are gases at room temperature. Those gases can then be recycled into new plastics.
“Because polypropylene and polyethylene are among the most difficult and expensive plastics to separate from each other in a mixed waste stream, it is crucial that [a recycling] process apply to both polyolefins,” the research team said in a study recently published in Science.
Breaking It Down
The recycling process the team used is known as isomerizing ethenolysis, which relies on a catalyst to break down olefin polymer chains into their small molecules. Polyethylene and polypropylene bonds are highly resistant to chemical reactions, because both of these polyolefins have long chains of single carbon-carbon bonds. Most polymers have at least one carbon-carbon double bond, which is much easier to break.
While isomerizing ethenolysis had been tried by the same researchers before, the previous catalysts were expensive metals that did not remain pure long enough to convert all of the plastic into gas. Using sodium on alumina followed by tungsten oxide on silica proved much more economical and effective, even though the high temperatures required for the reaction added a bit to the cost.
In both plastics, exposure to sodium on alumina broke each polymer chain into shorter polymer chains and created breakable carbon-carbon double bonds at the ends. The chains continued to break over and over. Both then underwent a second process known as olefin metathesis. They were exposed to a stream of ethylene gas flowing into a reaction chamber while being introduced to tungsten oxide on silica, which resulted in the breakage of the carbon-carbon bonds.
The reaction breaks all the carbon-carbon bonds in polyethylene and polypropylene, with the carbon atoms released during the breaking of these bonds ending up attached to molecules of ethylene. “The ethylene is critical to this reaction, as it is a coreactant,” researcher R.J. Conk, one of the authors of the study, told Ars Technica. “The broken links then react with ethylene, which removes the links from the chain. Without ethylene, the reaction cannot occur.”
The entire chain is catalyzed until polyethylene is fully converted to propylene, and polypropylene is converted to a mixture of propylene and isobutylene.
This method has high selectivity—meaning it produces a large amount of the desired product: propylene derived from polyethylene, and both propylene and isobutylene derived from polypropylene. Both of these chemicals are in high demand; propylene is an important raw material for the chemical industry, while isobutylene is a frequently used monomer in many different polymers, including synthetic rubber and a gasoline additive.
Mixing It Up
Because plastics are often mixed at recycling centers, the researchers wanted to see what would happen if polypropylene and polyethylene underwent isomerizing ethenolysis together. The reaction was successful, converting the mixture into propylene and isobutylene, with slightly more propylene than isobutylene.
Mixtures also typically include contaminants in the form of additional plastics. So the team also wanted to see whether the reaction would still work if there were contaminants. They experimented with plastic objects that would otherwise be thrown away, including a centrifuge and a bread bag, both of which contained traces of other polymers besides polypropylene and polyethylene. The reaction yielded only slightly less propylene and isobutylene than it did with unadulterated versions of the polyolefins.
Another test involved introducing different plastics, such as PET and PVC, to polypropylene and polyethylene to see if that would make a difference. These did lower the yield significantly. If this approach is going to be successful, then all but the slightest traces of contaminants will have to be removed from polypropylene and polyethylene products before they are recycled.
While this recycling method sounds like it could prevent tons upon tons of waste, it will need to be scaled up enormously for this to happen. When the research team increased the scale of the experiment, it produced the same yield, which looks promising for the future. Still, we’ll need to build considerable infrastructure before this could make a dent in our plastic waste.
“We hope that the work described … will lead to practical methods for … [producing] new polymers,” the researchers said in the same study. “By doing so, the demand for production of these essential commodity chemicals starting from fossil carbon sources and the associated greenhouse gas emissions could be greatly reduced.”
WIRED’s gear team has tested dozens of bags meant to ease commutes and withstand wear and weather. Here, our favorite ecological bags are as capable and durable, but made using recycled materials like plastic water bottles, old nylon, and even fishing nets retrieved from the ocean.
It’s important to find ways to reuse what would otherwise pollute our oceans and sit in landfills forever. But first, ask yourself: Do you need a new bag? Buying sustainable items when you already have good ones at home doesn’t help much. But if the bag you have now isn’t working out, then you might get some peace of mind with our picks below that utilize recycled materials. Not every bag is made from 100 percent recycled materials, but every little bit counts.
Updated July 2024: We’ve added a crossbody purse and reusable shopping bags from Kind Bag, plus Sherpani’s Skye Mini Crossbody. We’ve also updated prices and links throughout.
Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting that’s too important to ignore for just $2.50 $1 per month for 1 year. Includes unlimited digital access and exclusive subscriber-only content. Subscribe Today.
How Do We Test Bags?
When it comes to products like bags, personal style dictates what you (and we) like. It’s the first thing you’ll notice. We try to test a number of different types of bags in many different styles. Beyond just looking good, we make sure they’re actually worth your money in terms of comfort and durability.
When we get a new bag, we start using them as one normally would, taking purses to the grocery store or out to bars, filling backpacks and totes with our laptops and work gear and heading to a coffee shop to work for the afternoon, and stuffing travel bags with clothes and shoes. We note what they’ll fit, how they’re organized, and if the straps are comfortable or start to dig in after a while. We also fill them with heavy objects—sometimes weights, and sometimes just a bunch of random other products we’re testing—and we fling them around. If threads and straps start to pull, they’re out. Whenever possible, we keep bags to use over and over again for months or years to test long-term durability too, and will update this guide if our feelings change.
Coastal Animals Are Thriving on Plastic Pollution Out in the Pacific Ocean | Extreme Earth
In the time it takes you to read this sentence — say, four seconds — the world produces nearly 60 metric tons of plastic, almost entirely out of fossil fuels. That’s about 53,000 metric tons an hour, 1.3 million metric tons a day, or 460 million metric tons a year. Those numbers are fueling widespread and growing contamination of Earth’s oceans, rivers, and the terrestrial environment with plastic trash.
In March 2022, the United Nations’ 193 member states got together in Nairobi, Kenya, and agreed to do something about it. They pledged to negotiate a treaty to “end plastic pollution,” with the goal of delivering a final draft by 2025. The most ambitious vision espoused by member states in the negotiating sessions that have taken place so far would require petrochemical companies to stop making so much of the darn stuff by putting a cap on global plastic production.
Given the existential threat this would pose to fossil fuel and chemical companies, you might expect them to be vociferously opposed to the treaty. Yet they claim to support the agreement. They’re even “championing” it, according to statements from a handful of industry groups. The American Chemistry Council has repeatedly “welcome[d]” progress on the treaty negotiations, while an executive from the International Council of Chemical Associations told Plastics Today in April that the industry is “fully committed” to supporting an agreement.
So what exactly do plastic-producing companies want from the treaty? To answer this question, Grist sifted through dozens of public statements and policy documents from five of the world’s largest petrochemical industry trade organizations, as well as two product-specific industry groups. These documents included press releases reacting to treaty negotiating sessions and longer position statements detailing the industry’s desired pathway to a “world without waste.”
Much of what these groups have published is vague — many documents call for “targets,” for example, without saying what they should be. Grist reached out to all of the groups for clarification, but only two agreed to answer questions about the policies they support.
What we found is that, although they fall far short of what so-called “high-ambition” countries and advocacy groups would like to get out of the treaty, 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. According to a policy analysis tool developed by researchers 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 percent reduction below business-as-usual estimates.
Meanwhile, a realistic production cap could cut annual pollution by 48 million metric tons all by itself. Excluding a production cap from the treaty will make it much harder to rein in plastic pollution, said Douglas McCauley, an associate professor of biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and one of the creators of the policy tool. “It means you really have to ramp up your ambition on what some of the other policies would need to do,” he told Grist.
These numbers matter, because the plastic industry’s influence over the treaty negotiations seems to be growing stronger. At the most recent round of talks — held in Ottawa, Canada, at the end of April — nearly 200 petrochemical and fossil fuel lobbyists registered to attend. That’s 37 more than were registered for the previous session, and more than the number of representatives from European Union member states.
At the same time, several delegations promoted solutions on the industry’s terms. Malaysia warned about the unintended economic consequences of limiting plastic production, and India said the treaty should focus on pollution while considering plastics’ utility to modern society. Given the power of the plastics industry and the tendency of international negotiations to cater to the lowest common denominator, it’s possible that the treaty will strongly reflect these industry priorities.
How the industry sees the problem
To understand the industry position on the plastics treaty, it’s important to understand how plastic makers conceptualize the plastics crisis. While they agree that pollution is a scourge, they don’t think the solution is to reduce society’s production and use of plastic. After all, plastics come with myriad benefits. They’re inexpensive, lightweight, and widely used in important sectors like clean energy and medicine — their “unmatched properties and versatility have allowed for incredible innovations that conserve resources and make more things in life possible,” as the Plastics Industry Association has put it. America’s Plastic Makers, an arm of the American Chemistry Council, says policymakers should ensure that the material stays “in our economy and out of our environment.”
The way to do this, according to industry groups, is through “plastics circularity,” a concept that seeks to keep the material in use for as long as possible before it’s thrown away. Generally, this means more recycling. But circularity can also refer to scaled-up systems allowing plastic to be reused, or better infrastructure for waste collection. As plastic makers see it, the plastic treaty’s function should be to increase circularity while retaining the social and economic benefits derived from plastic products.
Perhaps the biggest problem faced by circularity proponents is plastic’s abysmal recycling rate. At present, 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. What’s more, in most cases the material can only be reprocessed once or twice — if at all — before it has to be “downcycled” into lower-quality products like carpeting. Although some experts believe it’s impossible to recycle much more plastic due to technological and economic constraints, plastic makers say otherwise. Indeed, plastics circularity hinges on the possibility of a better recycling rate.
The industry’s first solution: Recycling targets
To that end, several industry groups — including the World Plastics Council, the self-described “global voice of the plastics industry” — are advocating for “mandatory minimum recycling rates” as part of the treaty, as well as higher targets for recycled content used in new products.
This could mean that countries, regions, or other jurisdictions would set legally binding quotas for the amount of plastic recycled within their borders and then converted into new items. Plastic makers typically favor targets that are set at the local or national level and that differentiate based on the type of plastic, since some types are harder to recycle than others.
Industry groups also want recycling targets to be “technology-neutral,” meaning they should count plastics processed through controversial “chemical recycling” techniques. Although these techniques do not yet work at scale, the industry says they will one day be able to break down mixed post-consumer plastic into their constituent polymers using high heat and pressure, and then turn those polymers back into new plastic products. Environmental experts oppose chemical recycling, pointing to evidence that it is primarily used to burn plastics or turn them into fuel.
The two policies — on plastics recycling and recycled content — could be mutually reinforcing, with the latter creating a more reliable market for the recycled material generated by the former. Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers, told Grist via email that recycling and recycled content targets would “create demand signals and provide added certainty for companies to make additional investments for a circular economy, so more plastic products are reused or remade into new plastic products.”
Plastics Europe and the World Plastics Council declined to be interviewed for this article. They did not respond to questions about their support for specific recycling and recycled content targets, although Plastics Europe has voiced support for “mandatory data and reporting objectives for all stages of the life cycle of the plastics system.” For the U.S., America’s Plastic Makers supports a 30 percent recycled content requirement in plastic packaging by 2030, and for 100 percent of plastic packaging to be “reused, recycled, or recovered by 2040.”
The industry’s second solution: Infrastructure and design changes
Additional policies supported by industry groups could indirectly facilitate an increase in the plastics recycling rate by raising money for recycling infrastructure. These policies typically involve systems for “extended producer responsibility,” or EPR, requiring companies that make and sell plastics to help pay for the collection and recycling of the waste they generate, as well as the cleanup of existing plastic pollution. Every industry group Grist reached out to says it supports EPR as a part of the treaty, although some specifically note in their policy documents that such policies should be adopted at the local or national level, rather than globally. Some groups, including the American Chemistry Council and Global Partners for Plastics Circularity — an umbrella group supported by a dozen plastics associations and companies — also call more vaguely for additional financing through “public-private partnerships and blended finance.”
For plastic packaging — which accounts for about 36 percent of global plastic production — a European industry consortium called the Circular Economy for Flexible Packaging supports “mandatory legislation on product design” to make products easier to recycle. It doesn’t back any specific design elements, but points to ideas laid out by the Consumer Goods Forum, an industry-led network of consumer product retailers and manufacturers. These ideas include using clear instead of colored plastics, limiting the use of unnecessary plastic wrap, and ensuring that any adhesives or inks applied to plastic packaging don’t render it nonrecyclable. Plastics Europe additionally supports technical and design standards for biodegradable and compostable plastics intended to replace those made from fossil fuels.
Many groups also say they support targets for “pellet containment,” referring to the tiny plastic pieces that are melted down and shaped into larger items. These pellets are notorious for spilling out of manufacturing facilities or off of cargo ships and into waterways; in Europe, 20 truckloads of them escape into the environment every day. Several trade groups say in their public statements that they support an industry-led program called Operation Clean Sweep to help companies achieve “zero resin loss” by “fostering a venue for precompetitive collaboration and peer-learning opportunities.”
However, Operation Clean Sweep has been around since 1991 and has not yet achieved its goal; some policymakers have recently called for stricter regulations on plastic pellet loss.
The industry’s third solution: Application-based regulations
In addition to capping plastic production, many countries’ delegates — along with scientists and environmental groups — would like the treaty to ban or restrict some of the most problematic plastic polymers, as well as certain chemicals used in plastics. They call these “chemicals and polymers of concern,” meaning those least likely to be recycled, or most likely to damage people’s health and the environment. Potential candidates include polyvinyl chloride, widely used in water pipes, upholstery, toys, and other applications; expanded polystyrene, or EPS, the foamy plastic that’s often used in takeout food containers; and endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as phthalates, bisphenols, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
The general idea of identifying problematic chemicals and polymers in the plastics treaty is very popular; observers of the negotiations say it’s been one of the areas of greatest convergence among delegates. Industry groups are also supportive — but only of a very specific approach. According to the World Plastics Council, the treaty shouldn’t include “arbitrary bans or restrictions on substances or materials,” but rather regulations based on the “essential use and societal value” of particular types of plastic.
For instance, polystyrene used in packing peanuts and takeout containers is virtually never recycled and might be a good candidate for restriction. But the Global Expanded Polystyrene Sustainability Alliance — a trade group for EPS makers — points to evidence that, in Europe and Japan, the material can be recycled at least 30 percent of the time when it’s in a different format — namely, insulation for products like coolers, as well as big pieces used to protect fragile shipments.
In a press release, the group said this distinction in polystyrene formatting demonstrates the need to assess plastics’ “individual material applications and uses independently.”
“We’ve got five major types” of polystyrene, said Betsy Bowers, executive director of the Expanded Polystyrene Industry Alliance, a trade group representing the U.S. EPS market. “Some of them can be recycled, and some of them can’t.”
Plastics Europe has said an application-based approach could also consider plastic products on the basis of “leakage,” how easily the products become litter; the feasibility of redesigning them; or “effects on human or animal health.” That said, the organization does not support restricting plastic-related chemicals as part of the treaty, beyond what is already spelled out in existing international agreements like the Stockholm Convention. The International Council of Chemical Associations, whose members include individual chemical manufacturers and regional trade groups, does not support any chemical regulation as part of the treaty.
In an email to Grist, the American Chemistry Council said it supports a “decision-tree approach” to prevent specific plastic products from leaking into the environment. The organization said in a letter sent to President Joe Biden last May that it opposes “restrictions of trade in chemicals or polymers” because they would “make U.S. manufacturers less competitive and/or jeopardize the many benefits plastics provide to the economy and the environment.”
The International Council of Chemical Associations, the Plastics Industry Association, and the Circular Economy for Flexible Packaging initiative did not respond to Grist’s request to be interviewed for this story, or to questions about the policies they support.
The impact of the plastic industry’s favorite policies
While it’s clear that self-preservation is at the heart of the petrochemical industry’s agenda for the plastics treaty, the policies it supports could have a positive impact on plastic pollution. According to the policy analysis toolcreated by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, Santa Barbara, a suite of ambitious policies to hit recycling and recycled content rates of 20 percent, reuse 60 percent of plastic packaging (where applicable), and dedicate $35 billion to plastics recycling and waste infrastructure could prevent 43 million metric tons of plastic pollution annually by midcentury. Most of this reduction would come from the infrastructure funding.
McCauley, one of the creators of the tool, said these policies are certainly better than nothing. They can bring the world “closer to a future without plastic pollution,” he told Grist, although he emphasized that recycling is not a silver bullet.
The policy tool takes for granted that higher recycling and recycled content rates are achievable, but this might not be the case. Bjorn Beeler, executive director and international coordinator for the nonprofit International Pollutants Elimination Network, said a 20 percent recycling rate would be “nearly impossible” to reach, given the relatively low cost of virgin plastic and the petrochemical industry’s projected expansion over the coming decades. Jan Dell, an independent chemical engineer and founder of the nonprofit The Last Beach Cleanup, estimated the maximum possible recycled content rate for consumer product packaging would be about 5 percent, due to insurmountable technological constraints related to plastics’ toxicity.
Experts tend to favor plastic production caps as a much faster, reliable, and more straightforward way to reduce plastic pollution than relying on recycling. According to McCauley’s policy tool, capping plastic production at the level reached in 2019 would prevent 48 million metric tons of annual plastic pollution by 2050 — even in the absence of any efforts to boost recycling or fund waste management. “It’s possible to be effective without the cap,” said Sam Pottinger, a senior research data scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a contributor to the policy tool. “But it requires a huge amount of effort elsewhere.”
There’s no reason the plastics treaty couldn’t incorporate a production cap in addition to the industry’s preferred recycling interventions. Some experts say this would form the most effective agreement; according to the policy tool, a production cap at 2019 levels plus the suite of recycling targets and funding for waste infrastructure could prevent nearly 78 million metric tons of annual plastic pollution by 2050. Bumping up the funding for recycling and waste infrastructure to an aggressive $200 billion, in combination with the production cap and other policies, would avert nearly 109 million metric tons of pollution each year.
“We need to use all of the tools in our toolbox,” said Zoie Diana, a postdoctoral plastics researcher at the University of Toronto who was not involved in creating the policy tool. She too emphasized, however, that governments should prioritize reducing plastic production.
What the industry doesn’t like to talk about
The case for a production cap goes beyond plastic litter concerns. It would also address the inequitable impact of toxic pollution from plastic manufacturing facilities, as well as the industry’s contribution to climate change. In April, a study from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that plastic production already accounts for 5 percent of global climate pollution, and that by 2050 — given the petrochemical industry’s plans to dramatically ramp up plastic production — it could eat up one-fifth of the world’s remaining carbon budget, the amount of emissions the world can release while still limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). To achieve international climate goals, some environmental groups have estimated that the world must reduce plastic production by 12 to 17 percent every year starting in 2024.
“Whether the treaty includes plastic production cuts is not just a policy debate,” said Jorge Emmanuel, an adjunct professor at Silliman University in the Philippines, in a statement describing the mountains of plastic trash that are harming Filipino communities. “It’s a matter of survival.”
Petrochemical companies, for their part, do not deeply engage with these arguments — at least not in their public policy documents. They claim that plastics actually help mitigate climate change, since the lightweight material takes less fuel to transport than alternatives made of metal and glass. And industry groups’ public statements mostly do not address environmental justice concerns related to plastic use, production, and disposal, except to vaguely say that the treaty shouldn’t harm waste pickers — the millions of workers, most of them in the developing world, who make a living collecting plastic trash and selling it to recyclers.
The fifth and final round of negotiations for the plastics treaty is scheduled to take place in Busan, South Korea, this November. Although many observers, including a group of U.S. Congressional representatives and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, have called for conflict-of-interest policies to limit trade groups’ influence over the talks, these requests face long odds. The dozens of countries advocating for production limits may have to defend their proposals against an even larger industry presence than they did at the last session in Ottawa.
BOSTON — Byproducts of a trip to the market and convenience store, plastic bags get a bad rap from environmentalists as wasteful consumables that litter oceans, parks and beaches and take hundreds of years to break down.
Voters in at least 160 cities and towns in Massachusetts, including Gloucester, Manchester, Newburyport and Marblehead, have banned the bags or restricted their use.
Others are considering limits, including lawmakers on Beacon Hill, who have revived a push for a statewide ban.
The state Senate voted 38-2 Thursday to approve a bill that will ban single use plastic bags and require retailers to charge customers 10 cents for a paper bag, among other initiatives to reduce plastic waste.
Supporters of the ban say single-use plastic bags clog the waste stream and litter oceans, parks and beaches.
“They may sit in a landfill. They may be incinerated, both of which release microplastics and greenhouse gases back into the environment,” Sen. Becca Rausch, a Newton Democrat, the bill’s primary sponsor, said in remarks ahead of the bill’s passage. They probably won’t be recycled because less than 10% of plastics are actually recycled in the United States. And plastics can persist in the environment for decades to centuries to an entire millennium.”
Members of the Senate’s Republican minority voted against the bill, arguing that a single use plastic ban will hurt the state’s small businesses while doing little to reduce pollution.
“This is going to cost consumers more, in a state that already has an incredibly high cost of living and while we’re trying to increase affordability,” Sen. Peter Durant, R-Spencer, said in remarks on Thursday. “I think this becomes too much, too much for us to bear. There are still solutions we can take to implement moving forward, but we have to look at the cost-benefit ratio.”
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, one of two Republicans who voted for the bill, filed an amendment that would have removed the paper bag fee from the bill, but it was rejected by the Democratic majority.
“If we are going to, rightfully, ban plastic bags, then we should not be dictatorial about how the market responds to the consequences,” the Gloucester Republican said.
Lawmakers withdrew a proposed amendment that would have banned plastic liquor “nips” following pushback from the state’s package store owners who argued it would hurt business and do too little to reduce plastic pollution.
Efforts to phase out the bags are opposed by the plastics and paper industries, as well as some retail groups, who call the restrictions unnecessary and costly.
Beacon Hill has wrestled with the issue for years. Attempts at a statewide ban have faltered amid industry pressure.
In 2019, a similar proposal fell apart after a legislative committee, deliberating behind closed doors, stripped the fee and added a “preemption” clause that would effectively override local plastic bag bans, many of them voter-approved.
“What we’re really trying to do is encourage reuse,” said Janet Domenitz, executive director of MassPIRG, said Thursday. “So the ban on single use plastics gets rid of the most deleterious material. The fee on paper is a way to incentivize people bring your own bag.”
Then-Gov. Charlie Baker suspended local plastic bag bans in 2020 and banned the use of reusable bags as part of a raft of measures to stop spread of COVID-19. The state rescinded those limits a year later after it proceeded with reopening plans, citing research that the virus doesn’t survive well on plastic surfaces.
Nationwide, Americans throw away some 100 billion plastic bags a year, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which says the average bag takes up to 1,000 years to break down. Most bags are used an average of 12 minutes.
The bill now moves to the House of Representatives, which must approve it before sending it to Gov. Maura Healey’s desk for consideration.
Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com
Humans haven’t been kind to the planet. Climate change is out of control, microplastics are poisoning our oceans, and landfills are overflowing with trash. No matter how much we try to reduce our footprint, we still occasionally need new things. Luckily, some companies have figured out how to reuse waste to make new products from old plastic, textiles, and other materials that would otherwise fill our landfills and oceans. We’ve highlighted our favorites here.
Updated April 2024: We’ve added the new Nimble Champ portable charger, Humanscale’s Path chair, Bearaby’s Ocean Hugger weighted blanket, Revival’s denim rug, House of Marley’s Redemption 2 ANC headphones, Keiko Furoshiki gift wrap, and the new recycled MakeUp Eraser.
Special offer for Gear readers: GetWIRED for just $5 ($25 off). This includes unlimited access toWIRED.com, full Gear coverage, and subscriber-only newsletters. Subscriptions help fund the work we do every day.
They are used to give plastic products their distinctive durability, bendability and sleek, nonstick surface.
Yet some of these chemical additives have been tied to maladies such as breast and prostate cancer, heart disease and diabetes, as well as problems with children’s brain development and adult fertility.
Of particular concern are a class of additives known as endocrine disruptors — chemicals that mimic and confuse hormone signaling in humans.
Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.
Now, a team of physicians, epidemiologists and endocrinologists have estimated the costs of plastic exposure on the U.S. healthcare system and come to a sobering conclusion.
In 2018, several common endocrine disruptors cost the nation almost $250 billion — just $40 billion shy of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed 2024 budget for the entire state of California.
“This study is really meant to put a bright, bold line underneath the fact that plastics are a human health issue,” said Leo Trasande, a pediatrician and public policy expert at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine and Wagner School of Public Service.
“Fundamentally, we’re talking about effects that run the entire life span study from brain development in young children … to cancer,” he said.
The study was conducted by researchers from NYU, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Defend Our Health — an environmental organization based in Portland, Maine.
Using epidemiological and toxicity data, the researchers itemized the disease burden of a collection of fairly well-studied chemicals, including bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, a class of flame retardants known as PBDEs, and PFOAs — the “forever chemicals” used to make nonstick cookware and which have been found in nearly half of U.S. tap water samples tested by the federal government.
They used previously published cost data on select disease burdens to come up with their estimate, which Trasande described as “conservative.”
Both he and Avi Kar, senior attorney and senior director for the Natural Resource Defense Council’s Health and Food, People & Communities Program, said there are tens of thousands of chemicals used in plastic production and manufacturing that probably also contribute to negative health issues, but for which available data are scarce.
“Even from a health perspective, these are likely underestimates,” said Kar, who was not involved in the research. He noted that “in addition to the costs associated with the chemicals and plastics, there are health costs associated with exposures to the macro and micro plastics, as well as the pollution associated with their production and disposal.”
Kar and Trasande said that while research on the effect of micro- and nanoplastics in the human body is still in its early stages — they’ve been found in our brains, lungs, hearts and blood — there is a large body of research on these chemical additives.
News that we may be ingesting hundreds of thousands of nanoplastic particles every time we drink a liter of water bottled in plastic has researchers concerned — not so much because of the plastic itself, but because these chemicals sit on those particles “like a passenger pigeon,” gaining unfettered entry into our cells and brains, said Trasande.
“Apart from the plastic polymer itself, the chemicals associated with plastic may pose a health risk, if not a greater health risk as they are encapsulated or attracted to these plastic materials,” said Vahitha Abdul Salam, a senior lecturer in vascular pharmacology at Queen Mary University of London.
She noted there are no standard risk assessment measures available for plastics or chemicals associated with plastics, which is why she is working in collaboration with others, such as the U.K.’s WRc Group — a water consultancy firm — “to identify and quantify the amount and types of plastics and their associated chemicals in the water systems and verify the potential harm of the top 10 materials/chemicals to human health using cell-based assays.”
Meanwhile, Trasande and others are hopeful their work will register with lawmakers and spur them to consider the health and financial costs of plastic debris in the environment and humans.
“What this study tries to do is to say” to plastic manufacturers that “‘it’s not just that you’re hurting people’s lives, it’s that you’re costing the economy. … You are profiting as companies off the backs of people’s health and well-being,’” he said.
Newsletter
Toward a more sustainable California
Get Boiling Point, our newsletter exploring climate change, energy and the environment, and become part of the conversation — and the solution.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
Pets are our companions, service animals, and beloved members of the family. But their waste, if left behind, can cause real problems at that spot and well beyond.
Fact:Pet poop is pollution.
Pet waste can contain bacteria, viruses, and parasites, like roundworm and E. coli, many of which can live for days or months after being deposited. Even after the pile of waste has vanished, these unseen organisms can make the pets and people, especially kids, who come across it sick. Paws and shoes can track waste into homes, and rain washes waste into our creeks and lakes, where it can make the water unsafe for recreation and hazardous for fish and other wildlife.
Preventing pet poop pollution is EASY.
Pick up pet waste in a plastic bag
Seal the bag
Toss it into a trash can
You have help! In case you run out of bags while walking your dog or forget to bring bags with you, the City of Austin’s Scoop the Poop program provides pet waste bags in City-maintained parks.
To help keep neighborhoods and natural areas healthy and beautiful, leave no pile behind! Help spread the word – visit www.ScoopThePoopAustin.org for free yard signs, brochures, printable posters, and other educational materials.
Pets are our companions, service animals, and beloved members of the family. But their waste, if left behind, can cause real problems at that spot and well beyond.
Fact:Pet poop is pollution.
Pet waste can contain bacteria, viruses, and parasites, like roundworm and E. coli, many of which can live for days or months after being deposited. Even after the pile of waste has vanished, these unseen organisms can make the pets and people, especially kids, who come across it sick. Paws and shoes can track waste into homes, and rain washes waste into our creeks and lakes, where it can make the water unsafe for recreation and hazardous for fish and other wildlife.
Preventing pet poop pollution is EASY.
Pick up pet waste in a plastic bag
Seal the bag
Toss it into a trash can
You have help! In case you run out of bags while walking your dog or forget to bring bags with you, the City of Austin’s Scoop the Poop program provides pet waste bags in City-maintained parks.
To help keep neighborhoods and natural areas healthy and beautiful, leave no pile behind! Help spread the word – visit www.ScoopThePoopAustin.org for free yard signs, brochures, printable posters, and other educational materials.
