US singles out plastic pollution

In a two-step of ideas and action, the White House has released a report that outlines a government-wide approach for addressing plastic pollution and announced that buying single-use plastics for federal operations is on the chopping block.

The Biden administration calls the document the first comprehensive report on addressing plastic pollution. In it, officials concede that plastic pollution is a severe problem and list steps and opportunities to address the issue. Environmentalists say that they’re happy to finally see a strategy but that the report leaves out important aspects of dealing with plastic pollution and doesn’t include any new policies.

Concurrently, officials announced that the US government will stop buying single-use plastics for federal food service operations, events, and packaging by 2027. They plan to quit single-use plastics for all federal operations by 2035.

“Especially as the United States is the number one generator of plastic waste in the world, we’re excited to see the federal government lead by example,” Anja Brandon, associate director of US plastics policy at Ocean Conservancy, says in a statement. The US government is the world’s largest buyer of consumer goods, spending around $600 billion annually. The plan follows a 2022 initiative to not allow single-use plastics on public lands.

But Björn Beeler, international coordinator for the advocacy group International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), says both the phase-out and the report fall short of what’s needed to adequately address plastic pollution. “Restricting single-use plastics neglects the fact that plastic production is set to triple before 2060,” he says. “We can’t deal with plastics from the 1970s, so how can we survive the plastic production tidal wave coming over the next 25 years?”

The report, put out by the Biden administration’s Interagency Policy Committee on Plastic Pollution and a Circular Economy, lists a number of “opportunities for action,” including updating existing rules such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act; gathering information on plastic manufacturing, imports, and exports; and measuring plastic pollution and its public health and environmental impacts.

The plastics industry is also unhappy with the report but for different reasons. “We are disappointed in today’s White House announcement, which arbitrarily singles out plastic under the false pretense of a lower environmental impact,” Plastics Industry Association CEO Matt Seaholm says in a statement, citing a disputed study on the environmental impact of plastics. He says the plastics industry continues to work with policymakers to help keep plastic waste out of the environment.

The fact that the US government put out a report is positive, says Jen Fela, vice president of programs and communications for the Plastic Pollution Coalition, an advocacy group. The report touches on all aspects of plastic pollution, acknowledges damages caused by plastic production and use, and highlights plastic’s fossil fuel origins and its harmful impact on frontline communities, she says.

Fela is also encouraged that the report says a strong “global agreement” can help address the plastic pollution crisis. Some people involved in developing a UN plastics treaty have expressed frustration at the lack of detail on the US’s stance on plastic pollution.

But while the new report does provide some of that detail, much is missing, Fela says. “What we are still not seeing in this strategy is a cap on plastic production, which the science necessitates, along with legally binding requirements for implementation.” The report doesn’t introduce new regulations or promise any changes, she says. Near the end, the report states that it’s a planning document, Fela says. It’s not legally binding and is not new policy.

The report “really kicks the can down the road for the next generation to deal with,” IPEN’s Beeler says. Unless US strategy recognizes that more plastic production means more pollution, “its potential impact is very minor,” he says.