The topic of plastic is divisive. Some see plastic as one of the quintessential enablers of modern society and a key material that will help usher in a more sustainable future. Others see it as a relic of an era too focused on profit over the planet. Regardless of where you stand, we can all agree on one thing: Plastic pollution has no place in the environment.
With the fourth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC-4) concluded in late April, keeping plastic pollution out of the environment was a major priority for plastic producers. Throughout INC-4, governmental negotiators and other international stakeholders negotiated to develop an international legally binding instrument with that end in mind.
While the goal of this gathering was to make progress on eliminating plastic pollution, it is critical to reiterate that ending plastic pollution does not mean ending plastic. Simply put, plastic is too integral to modern life to regulate away. From lifesaving health care devices to the very sustainable infrastructure that will move us collectively to a lower-carbon future, none if it is possible without plastics.
The best way to protect those advancements while still addressing plastic pollution is through a circular economy, or more specifically, focusing on designing for circularity as the thread that ties the circular economy together.
A circular economy creates an ecosystem in which plastic is viewed as a valuable resource that can be reused, repaired and recycled over and over again. It goes beyond recycling. It does not simply address the "What do we do with this when we are done with it?" question. Fundamentally, it changes the mindset of how and why we use the materials we do, including plastic, from the initial design to the end of its use, and its eventual reuse.
It requires a design for circularity mindset. It requires ensuring that when a product is produced, its reuse is already planned, its life cycles are already mapped. This can take many shapes, and both alternative raw materials and advanced recycling have a role to play. Using alternative raw materials, such as recycled content, in feedstock to replace fossil fuels is essential. Equally as important is advancing recycling technologies, such as chemolysis — chemical recycling — to complement existing mechanical recycling so that recycled feedstock is readily available. These are the sorts of considerations that must be evaluated when embracing circular design.
In the context of the broader plastic pollution discussion and the INC meetings, it is crucial that stakeholders, including governments and industry, adopt a forward-looking view of circularity.
When negotiating complex, interconnected topics like financing models, production limits and chemicals of concern, countries must allow circular thinking to guide their strategies for tackling plastic pollution. In the case of chemicals of concern, for example, it is important to let existing regulations, like the Toxic Substances Control Act in the U.S., serve their purpose and not create redundant efforts. Instead, focusing on the goal of eliminating plastic pollution and the pathways to achieve it, like circularity, will allow for more concrete and actionable outcomes to these negotiations.
While encouraged by the open dialogue and creative solutions put forward, it's important to recognize that there is much more work to be done. As we prepare for INC-5 later this year in Busan, South Korea, we must maintain the momentum as we design an international legally binding instrument. This should be tailored to the varying needs of governments around the world, while keeping circularity central to the solution.