This article is part of the series—Raisina Edit 2022.
A circular economy is the opposite of a linear economy. According to the Ellen Macarthur Foundation, “In our current economy, we take materials from the Earth, make products from them, and eventually throw them away as waste – the process is linear. In a circular economy, by contrast, we stop waste being produced in the first place. The circular economy is based on three principles, driven by design: Eliminate waste and pollution, circulate products and materials (at their highest value), and regenerate nature. A circular economy decouples economic activity from the consumption of finite resources.”
The need for a global consensus for a legally binding agreement on plastics by 2024 became evident at the United Nations Environment Assembly 5.2 in February-March 2022. Plastics have recently taken centre stage in the circular economy discourse. Each year, about 400 million tons of plastic waste is strewn across the planet, equivalent to the weight of the entire human population. Recent research has thrown light on the severe crisis caused by plastics. A February 2022 study by the World Wide Fund for Nature sees plastic pollution as a planetary crisis. It points out that almost every species group has “encountered plastic pollution, “ with 90 percent suffering adverse effects.
The circular economy is based on three principles, driven by design: Eliminate waste and pollution, circulate products and materials (at their highest value), and regenerate nature.
A shift to the circular economy framework is a challenge in the context of the current levels of trash across the world. As more information about the dangers of plastic pollution becomes available, it is necessary to curb the use of plastic. Thus far, the focus on reducing plastic pollution has centred on single-use plastics (SUPs), a loosely defined category. Two key instruments are bans and extended producer responsibility (EPR). India, ahead of the global curve on this front, has banned several identified SUPs in its Plastic Waste Rules, 2021.
There are several other sources of plastic pollution in addition to SUPs. One study identified “anthropogenic particles in 159 samples of globally sourced tap water, 12 brands of Laurentian Great Lakes beer, and 12 brands of commercial sea salt. Of the tap water samples analysed, 81% were found to contain anthropogenic particles. The majority of these particles were fibers (98.3%) between 0.1-5 mm in length. The range was 0 to 61 particles/L, with an overall mean of 5.45 particles/L. Anthropogenic debris was found in each brand of beer and salt. Of the extracted particles, over 99% were fibers.” The significance of the findings is that of microfibres, over 35 percent of which originate from washing synthetic textiles at home.
Microplastics contaminate both physically and chemically. Additives that give plastics their utility also leach. Some of these include flame retardants, BPAs, and heavy metals. These are found in several everyday plastic items such as electronics, furnishing textiles, cling wrap, and children’s toys. When these leak into the soil and waterways, they also leave a toxic footprint. Their inherent toxicity renders them a challenge to recycle safely.
The key to moving towards the goal of a circular economy is a shift away from the current ‘recycling mindset’. Several global initiatives are pivoted around this. These range from retrieving ocean plastics to make shoes to adding plastics to park furniture. Unfortunately, the science makes it impossible to recycle any plastic repeatedly. Most of it is eventually likely to leak back into the ecosystem. This compels us to consider four propositions toward a viable circular economy for plastics, at the core of which is less plastic.
Refills are still viable alternatives to plastic milk pouches, as milk dispensers in cities like Delhi continue to be well used.
The first is centred on shifts in design. Plastic waste cannot be addressed through materials substitution alone. Almost every physical material is finite, leaving a footprint that is ill-afforded in this era of climate change. Where alternative material substitution is inevitable, standards must be developed, so these do not leave us with unintended consequences. Design shifts must drive systemic changes in retail and purchase. Transition to reuse and refill is key, where the former has deep roots in most countries. India’s glass reuse is still propelled by the informal sector, whether for beer or other beverages, by collecting and sorting bottles. In fact, larger beer bottles across brands were once similar and easier to reuse. Refills are still viable alternatives to plastic milk pouches, as milk dispensers in cities like Delhi continue to be well used. Both these systems demonstrate the viability of new models. Design must also phase out the need for some plastics, such as seals, stoppers, adhesives, labels, and rings on containers.
The second proposition is phasing out toxicity in plastics. This requires investment in research and development and making it affordable globally. While bans on SUPs, as India has done, are welcome, the early phase-out of key toxics in plastics should follow. This also requires more public participation, predicated on easily available and lucid information about products and additives. A barcoding process can be adopted for several products that will allow consumers to learn more. A toxicity labelling system, similar to Sri Lanka’s labelling system for food, will also bolster this. Companies selling in the global markets must use the same packaging standards globally—i.e., the highest—regardless of national standards.
Beyond bans and EPR, policies must start taking into account externalities while taxing SUPs, some synthetic garments, and the most toxic additives.
The third proposition is just transition. India and many other countries are deeply dependent on the informal sector (notably, waste-pickers and small aggregators) to manage and recycle plastic waste. This sector collects, segregates, washes, and trades the plastic waste before it is turned into a feedstock for a new product or fed into EPR systems. A pan-India study showed that phasing out plastics can cause them a livelihood loss of 40 percent to 61 percent, but that can be prevented by their inclusion and formal integration into greener, circular systems. Such action can build on the circular economy vision for greener livelihoods and the International Labour Organization’s vision of decent jobs as both are poverty-defeating options.
Fourth, policy and law is central to the circular economy. Beyond bans and EPR, policies must start taking into account externalities while taxing SUPs, some synthetic garments, and the most toxic additives. Often, regulators require a robust capacity to monitor the implementation of rules and verify data. Such foot soldiers of law should be strengthened and incentivised to ensure compliance. Policies can make or break the circular economy around plastics. If they incentivise the refill and reuse economy, while appropriately pricing virgin plastics, it will be possible to make a global segue into a circular use of less plastics, less toxic additives, and an improved quality of life for everyone.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Bharati Chaturvedi is the founder of the non-profit Chintan a columnist with the Hindustan Times and contributes option pieces on environmental and climate concerns.
Read More +
PREV
