False Solutions Cannot Resolve the Plastic Crisis

• “Plastic neutrality”.  For decades, the plastic industry has worked alongside fossil fuel corporations to present false solutions that allow both to continue with business-as-usual and produce more and more plastic while largely evading their responsibility to prevent this problem. The industry’s most recent strategy is called “plastic neutrality”, a term adopted by companies such as Nestle and Nutri Asia. “Plastic neutrality” does not mean companies produce zero or less plastics, but that they will collect the same amount of plastic they produced themselves or via offsets, a strategy that does nothing to address plastic pollution. Instead of addressing the problem at root by reducing plastic production, companies continue producing more plastics, justifying increased production by saying they will collect the amount they produced. Following collection, some plastics end up in incinerators, which release carcinogens that harm nearby communities, while the rest are supposedly recycled. However, the 2020 Philippine Brand Audit Report found that 91% of the plastic waste collected from the country’s top three polluting brands were non-recyclable.[9] Even if the proportion of recyclable plastic was higher, recycling alone, while necessary to manage current waste, is not enough. Recycling actually shifts the attention to “waste management” and the burden to consumers while companies continue their unregulated, massive manufacturing of single-use plastics. Thus, “plastic neutrality” schemes fail to address the problem’s root cause. Put simply, there is no such thing as plastic neutrality. It is merely the latest avenue for greenwashing. 
• Waste-to-energy. “Bioplastics” Plastics are used as fuel for so-called “waste-to-energy” (WTE) plants, which are being passed off as renewable energy sources. However, these waste burning plants are not only inefficient and non-renewable, but are also highly polluting and harmful to human health. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) listed WTE facilities as major sources of mercury and dioxin emissions[10]. These chemicals are carcinogenic substances that also result in developmental issues, immune system dysfunction, and internal organ damage. WTE also requires a huge volume of waste in order to operate, encouraging a society to produce more waste, and its dependence on plastic waste as fuel means less incentive for governments and manufacturers to reduce plastic production. WTE is a quick fix that does not address the plastic pollution at its source. Since 99% of plastics are made from fossil fuels, burning plastics will contribute more GHG emissions.
• “Bioplastics.” Bioplastics only give industries license to continue using disposable plastic products and do not resolve issues related to the throwaway culture. Designed to be disposable, bioplastics’  mass disposability is as wasteful, resource-intensive, and unsustainable as regular plastic. Relying on bioplastics may also lead to exploitation of regulatory loopholes for biodegradables, false marketing or improper labeling, and unintentional pollution. They may also lead to deforestation due to land conversion for crops to turn into plastic, and worsen food insecurity as it competes with crops for food production[11]. Without a standard definition, “bioplastics” from organic matter or fossil fuels can be biodegradable, compostable or neither. If compostable, they usually require specialized industrial composting facilities[12] only available in very few cities globally[13]. Otherwise, bioplastics remain in the environment[14] indefinitely or end up in landfills or incinerators. 

Youth and Communities

Many people still see the plastic crisis as a problem about waste and individual responsibility. However, the gravity of their impacts extends not only across boundaries, but also across generations. Without drastic interventions, its adverse impacts on environmental health and subsequent economic and social effects would be felt from the global to the local level for decades. This makes the plastics crisis an impediment to intergenerational justice, hindering the ability of the current youth and future generations to achieve sustainable development in an individual or collective capacity.

The linkage between the plastics crisis and social injustices is also manifested in how communities experience losses and damages from its impacts. Social and economic inequalities from the global to the local level result in poorer communities bearing the brunt of both direct and indirect impacts that can compound already existing vulnerabilities[15][16]. Marginalized sectors such as women and fisherfolk are at higher short and long-term risk to plastic pollution, in terms of health and livelihoods[17][18].