Plastic pollution: Why doing nothing will cost us far more than taking action

When you buy a bottle of Coca-Cola or a Snickers bar, the price probably doesn’t break the bank. But what if the true cost of the plastic packaging is taken into account at the supermarket checkout? Say, for example, the cost to clean up the pollution from making that plastic, or the cost to manage the packaging when you throw it away? Or even the medical bills that rack up from human health threats connected with plastics? And let’s not forget the cost of damages inflicted on terrestrial and marine life, along with entire ecosystems. That receipt would be a mile long.

From November 25 to December 1, representatives from 175 countries are gathering in Busan, South Korea for the fifth and final round of negotiations on a global plastics treaty. The most hotly contested issue is whether or not the treaty will include binding targets on reducing plastic production. While the scientific consensus is that cutting production is essential to solving the environmental and health threats that it poses, some countries are concerned about potential negative impacts on their economies. However, research conducted by several of us in France and around the world in the fields of economics and environmental sciences suggests that countries should be concerned about the opposite: how failing to reduce plastic production could be an even bigger economic threat.

The relentless production of plastics is driving pollution with increasingly severe impacts, leading to substantial costs as the crises it triggers multiply. Regarding the climate, the plastics industry is estimated to have accounted for 5.3% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2019. If no action is taken, these emissions could double or even triple by 2050. In terms of environmental damage, the impact on biodiversity is alarming. Microplastics, resulting from the breakdown of plastic waste, are now found in 26% of marine fish – a figure that has doubled over the past decade. And a human health crisis is already unfolding: for example, a 2010 estimate found that at least 1.8 million people in the European Union were suffering from illnesses linked to exposure to chemicals found in plastics. Given these statistics, reducing plastic production is becoming an environmental and public health imperative.

The astronomical costs of the plastic crisis

The costs of the plastic crisis worldwide are unfathomable, but in our latest paper, we aimed to analyse existing data to identify a partial price tag.

First, there are the costs of collecting, sorting, recycling and disposing of municipal plastic waste. These costs, which are offset by revenues from selling recycled plastics and electricity generated from incineration, are estimated to range between $643 billion and $1.61 trillion globally during the 2016-to-2040 period. They are mainly borne by municipalities or companies responsible for household waste management, but it is taxpayers who ultimately pay the bill.

Next, there are the damages to marine and terrestrial environments. Turtles, fish, seabirds and countless other species suffer harm from ingesting plastic debris. The costs of these ecological damages are estimated to range between $1.86 trillion and $268.50 trillion during the same period.

Plastic pollution also has significant impacts on human health. Additives in plastics, such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, are linked to intellectual disabilities, diabetes, obesity, infertility, hormonal disorders and cancer. Diseases linked to these chemical substances were estimated to annually cost $384 to $403 billion in the US, $44 billion in the EU and $18 billion in Canada – in 2010 prices. Adjusted for 2021 and spread over the 2016–2040 period, these costs amount to $11.21 to $11.69 trillion. This is likely a conservative estimate, as annual costs are expected to grow with rising plastic production and population growth.

Across these three categories – waste management, marine and terrestrial pollution, and public health – we found that under a business-as-usual scenario, the plastic pollution that has accumulated in the global ecosystem since 1950 could cost between $13.7 and $281.8 trillion in damages in the period between 2016 and 2040. That’s the equivalent of $548 billion to $11.27 trillion per year – up to 2.5 times Germany’s GDP. These figures highlight the massive economic toll of the plastic crisis, which far exceeds the price of a bottle of soda or a candy bar.

However, there are countries attempting to water down the global plastics treaty to focus merely on waste management, thereby failing to address the root of the problem: plastic production. As production rises, treatment systems will struggle to keep pace, leading to more plastics leaking into nature. If nothing changes, the amount of plastic released into ecosystems could double by 2050, reaching 121 million tonnes per year (up from 62 million tonnes per year in 2020). Without addressing plastic production, we will spend more and more on cleaning up pollution that could have been prevented, like trying to empty a bathtub while the tap is still running at full blast.

Unfortunately, the economic figures we have are likely a vast underestimation. The available have significant gaps – missing are the costs for human health outside of Europe, the US and Canada, the costs of damage to terrestrial ecosystems across the world, the cost of micro- and nano-plastic clean-up (currently, only macroplastics can be dealt with) and the immense challenge of dealing with plastics that have sunk to the ocean floor.

The unequal burden of plastic pollution costs

Other studies also show that the lifetime cost of plastic pollution is 10 times higher in low-income countries, despite their holding little responsibility for plastic production and consumption. Moreover, countries in the Global South will be more severely impacted by plastic pollution than those in the Global North. The countries profiting from plastic production and sales include the US, Japan, South Korea, Germany and Saudi Arabia as well as self-governed Taiwan.

Wealthy countries play a central role in the global trade of plastic waste by exporting a portion of their waste to developing nations for recycling. However, this process doesn’t always guarantee effective recycling, thereby increasing the risk of plastic debris leaking into local ecosystems. Major net importers of plastic waste include China, Turkey, Vietnam, India and Malaysia, which receive significant volumes from exporting nations such as the US, Japan, Germany, France and the UK. Despite a recent decline in the share of developing countries in these imports, they remain the primary destinations for global plastic waste flows, with concerning environmental and social consequences.

Not only are countries paying the price for plastic pollution, they are also paying to produce it. An International Monetary Fund report estimates that fossil fuel subsidies amounted to $7 trillion worldwide in 2022, or 7.1% of global GDP. Most plastics are derived from oil and natural gas. Eliminating subsidies for plastics would recover $30 billion per year in the top 15 plastic-polymer-producing countries alone.

An economic opportunity

However, far from being a hindrance, reducing plastic production could be economically beneficial. Our research shows that the net cost of inaction ($13.7 to 281.8 trillion) could be significantly higher than the cost of measures to reduce plastic production and pollution ($18.3 to 158.4 trillion).

Furthermore, a well-managed transition to a post-plastic economy, where only essential plastics would be permitted, could stimulate economic growth by creating jobs in the reuse sector and local deposit-return schemes. While any transition incurs short-term costs for the private sector, avoiding the environmental damage caused by continued plastic production leads to long-term net benefits – and possibly even short-term ones, considering the underestimated scale of current costs. In other words, reducing plastic production may boost national and global economies. Some economists are arguing that an international production cap would be advantageous for the plastic industry itself!

Time is running out

In a post-plastics economy, only essential products – such as intravenous tubing for example – would remain in use, while others, such as single-use plastics, would be banned. Local deposit-return schemes would also be implemented for reusable items such as bottles, cutlery, cups, food containers, trays and packaging.

Focusing on local solutions is key to avoiding the greenhouse gas emissions associated with long-distance transportation. However, this approach needs to be scaled globally for maximum impact. This shift would create an entire sector focused on container and packaging reuse, driving economic growth in a way that benefits everyone without harming human health or ecosystems.

If leaders fail to act during the treaty negotiations in Busan, citizen-consumers will pay the price for decades to come. With the cost of plastic pollution growing higher and higher every year, we cannot afford to wait.

This article is dedicated to Juan Baztan, who left us far too soon following an accidental fall in Lanzarote at the conclusion of the MICRO 2024 international conference on plastic pollution. His work focused on the impacts of human activities on marine ecosystems, particularly plastic debris in the oceans and the interactions between coastal communities and pollution. Through a transdisciplinary research approach, he sought to contribute to societal transformation toward a future that respects all living beings. His work was driven by a rigorous and human-centered ethical commitment, which he applied with great precision to research on plastic pollution.