Major Plastic-Reduction Alliance’s Efforts Fall Short Amid Increased Production

In a surprising turn of events, data obtained by Greenpeace reveals that the Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW), a coalition of some of the world’s leading oil and chemical companies, has produced an astounding 1,000 times more new plastic in the past five years than the amount of plastic waste it claims to have diverted from the environment. This revelation raises questions about the integrity of the AEPW’s pledges to combat plastic pollution amidst growing scrutiny over the industry’s environmental impact.

The Alliance’s Initial Commitments

Formed in 2019, the AEPW comprises prominent players in the plastic and fossil fuel sectors, including ExxonMobil, Dow, Shell, TotalEnergies, and ChevronPhillips. The alliance pledged to divert 15 million tonnes of plastic waste from the environment by the end of 2023 through enhanced collection and recycling efforts, promoting a circular economy. However, the ambitious target faced significant challenges and was recently deemed "just too ambitious" and quietly scrapped.

Documents reviewed by the Guardian suggest that a primary objective of the AEPW was to shift the narrative away from straightforward bans on plastic, which were gaining traction worldwide amidst concerns over plastic pollution’s impact on public health and the environment.

Disparity Between Production and Diversion

According to new analysis from Wood Mackenzie, shared with the Guardian and Greenpeace, the five companies involved in the AEPW produced a staggering 132 million tonnes of polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP)—two of the most common forms of plastic—over five years. In stark contrast, the alliance reported diverting just 118,500 tonnes of plastic waste through various methods, including mechanical and chemical recycling.

Will McCallum, co-executive director at Greenpeace UK, criticized these findings, stating, “The recycling schemes they’re promoting can barely make a dent in all the plastic these companies are pumping out. They’re letting the running tap flood the house while trying to scoop up the water with a teaspoon. The only solution is to cut the amount of plastic produced in the first place.”

The Role of Lobbying in Plastic Waste Treaties

As the world’s eyes turn towards Busan, South Korea, where delegates are gathering for a pivotal meeting to draft the first global treaty aimed at reducing plastic pollution, the involvement of fossil fuel companies has sparked controversy. Heavy lobbying pressures from the AEPW and associated oil companies are reportedly impacting the negotiations, particularly regarding potential caps on global plastic production.

Bill McKibben, a prominent environmentalist, remarked on the situation: “It’s hard to imagine a clearer example of greenwashing in this world. The oil and gas industry— which is pretty much the same thing as the plastics industry—has been at this for decades.”

Governmental Response to Plastic Pollution

In an emerging shift, the UK’s Labour government has signed a ministerial declaration advocating for the inclusion of production reduction limits in the treaty, reflecting a growing awareness of the need for systematic change. Similarly, the Biden administration has adopted a supportive stance regarding production caps. The decision by the incoming leadership in the United States remains uncertain.

A UK government source stated: “The government supports an effective treaty which covers the full life cycle of plastics including reducing the production and consumption of plastics to sustainable levels.”

The Case for Reducing Plastic Production

Experts emphasize that the only viable solution to the escalating plastic waste crisis lies in reducing the production of virgin plastic. Professor Steve Fletcher from the Revolution Plastics Institute at the University of Portsmouth underscored this necessity in recent remarks, supporting a more sustainable approach to tackling plastic waste.

Moreover, AEPW communications in 2019 revealed that the alliance was constituted after being urged by the American Chemistry Council to counteract the “demonization” of plastic and to provide long-term solutions amid increasing calls for bans.

Stations of Lobbying and Deception

Internal documents suggest that a significant focus of the AEPW’s public relations efforts was to reframe the discussion away from immediate bans towards developing innovative long-term solutions. However, cases filed in California against ExxonMobil highlight allegations of decades-long deceit surrounding the recyclability of plastic. Critics argue that such efforts are more about preserving industry interests than enacting genuine change.

Despite industry claims, significant evidence contradicts the narrative being promoted. The rise in global plastic production—which doubled from 2000 to 2019, reaching 460 million tonnes—coupled with a doubling of plastic waste, underscores the need for urgent reform.

Ongoing and Future Developments

The AEPW maintains that it plays a vital role in tackling the plastic waste challenge and that varying stakeholders contribute to solutions across all phases of the plastics lifecycle. ExxonMobil’s public statements assert its commitment to addressing plastic waste while engaging with recycling initiatives.

As the negotiations in Busan advance, all eyes will be on how treaties are shaped in response to these complex dynamics between political frameworks, environmental concerns, and corporate interests.

Invested parties, including environmental activists and governments, must remain vigilant and proactive in advocating for measures that address the core issues driving plastic pollution. By emphasizing a reduction in the production and consumption of primary plastic polymers, stakeholders can pave the way for sustainable solutions that protect our environment.

For more information on the ongoing developments related to plastic pollution and corporate accountability, follow our coverage.

Feel free to leave a comment or share your thoughts on this unfolding saga of the plastic pollution crisis. What measures do you believe could effectively address the issues at hand? Share your perspective with us!

Beyond reducing⁣ plastic production, what innovative strategies could be ⁤implemented to effectively tackle the plastic ​waste crisis⁣ and promote ⁣a more sustainable future?

‍ Guest ​1: As the executive director ‌of⁤ Greenpeace UK, can you please share ​your thoughts on the recent findings about the Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW)? Specifically, ​how do you interpret​ the discrepancy between their production and diversion​ rates, and ​what​ implications does this have⁣ for their credibility as an organization committed ⁢to combating plastic pollution?

Guest 2: As a professor of‍ sustainability ‍science at the University of Portsmouth, you ⁢have been at the forefront of research on plastic waste and its impact on the environment. In your opinion, is reducing plastic production the only ⁤solution to ⁣addressing the plastic waste crisis?⁣ What ⁣other measures should be considered?

Guest 1: The AEPW’s ⁢production and diversion rates highlight ​a glaring disparity⁣ between their‍ actions ‍and commitments. Their claims to combat ​plastic pollution seem hollow when they’re producing so much more⁤ plastic than ‍they can manage. It’s concerning that they’re more focused⁤ on lobbying against ‍government⁣ efforts to ⁣reduce plastic ‌production rather than finding ways to reduce their own contributions. This undermines‌ their credibility as an organization ‌genuinely committed to solving the ⁤problem.

Guest 2: Reducing ⁤plastic production is indeed crucial, but it’s not the only solution. We need to focus on all phases of the plastic lifecycle, ⁢including improving ⁣collection and recycling systems, increasing the use of alternative materials, ⁢and⁣ designing products that​ are less detrimental to the environment. Additionally, we ‌must engage​ communities and ​individuals in ⁢reducing ⁢their dependency on single-use ⁢plastics. Circular economy models are also important, ⁣where we reuse, recycle, and ‍repurpose plastics rather than disposing of‌ them.

Guest 1: Can you elaborate on the implications​ of the AEPW’s involvement in the global treaty ⁣negotiations on plastic waste? How do you see their ‍influence impacting ‍the final outcome of the treaty?

Guest 2: The AEPW’s influence in the negotiations is concerning, given ⁤their financial interests ‍in maintaining ⁣the status quo.⁤ Their efforts to shift the focus ⁤away ⁤from production caps suggest that‌ they‌ prioritize industry interests over environmental concerns.⁢ The treaty‌ needs to prioritize production⁢ reduction targets⁤ to address ‌the⁢ root cause of⁤ plastic pollution.