When it comes to plastic waste, the numbers are alarming, and they are getting worse.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says that 91 percent of all plastic used goes unrecycled into nature, oceans, landfills or incinerators every year — that is 320 million tonnes.
By 2060, there is expected to be an additional 30 billion tonnes. Only 5 billion tonnes are predicted to be recycled.
Illustration: Constance Chou
The world needs a plan to fix its plastic problem. The UN has committed to delivering a legally binding Plastic Treaty by the end of this year.
This month, more than 175 governments are to convene in Ottawa for the fourth and penultimate round of negotiations of the Plastic Treaty.
The most important thing for the Plastic Treaty to get right is the development of sufficient global recycling capacity to ensure that all plastic used is recycled and a circular economy is realized. That is a colossal industrial undertaking.
The business of plastic recycling is economically fragile at best, and in many ways it is also broken.
At the heart of the challenge is the task of selling the “feedstock” that is produced by plastic recyclers.
Right now, buyers of plastic feedstock can choose between virgin plastic or recycled plastic when they make their packaging. If the price of recycled plastic is lower than virgin plastic, buyers switch to recycled plastic, and if the price of virgin plastic is lower, buyers switch to virgin plastic.
Regrettably, many companies are more concerned about the price of plastic feedstock than the environmental impact of more plastic.
What makes this switching unpredictable is that the price of virgin plastic is directly related to the price of oil from which it is sourced.
If the price of oil drops, so does the price of virgin plastic. If the oil price drop is material, then the market for recycling plastic feedstock collapses. As such, plastic recycling the world over is essentially hostage to the price of virgin plastic.
For example, a substantial portion of Europe’s plastic recycling capacity has disappeared in the past two years due to unsustainable trading conditions brought on by the drop in the price of oil. Imagine you are an investor or an entrepreneur looking to invest US$10 million in an expensive plastic recycling facility. Would you do so knowing that some global event completely unrelated to your business could result in a drop in the price of oil, making virgin plastic cheaper than the recycled plastic you would produce?
The answer is clear — and explains why the world has just 9 percent of the recycling capacity it needs.
Several solutions are being put forth. Some countries demand that companies pay a tax for the amount of virgin plastic they use. Other countries require the use of a certain amount of recycling plastic in packaging.
However, there is a big problem with the “virgin plastic tax” and the “minimum recycled content” solutions: They rely on the market to stimulate the development of a plastic recycling industry.
Neither approach helps to directly finance the significant capital requirements of the recycling industry. Where will the money come from to pay for the costly infrastructure required for plastic recycling?
The question is how to get capital investment directly to the recycling industry so that it can invest confidently in the equipment, personnel and training necessary to create a dramatically expanded global plastic recycling industry.
Discussions around the Plastic Treaty meetings have so far produced very few ideas on this front. Other than a global sinking fund from UN member states, which few taxpayers are likely to be happy about, the draft treaty is eerily silent.
Plastic Collective, the World Bank and Citibank have spent many years developing a scalable financing mechanism to directly address the capitalization of plastic recycling in countries where plastic waste is at its worst and financing options are few. The result is the Plastic Waste Reduction Bond, the first of which was offered in January.
It is a US$100 million principal protected bond, with US$14 million deployed for two plastic recycling projects in Ghana and Indonesia. The two projects are to use the funds to invest in new technologies, equipment, facilities and staff to increase their collection and recycling capacity by 500 percent over the next three years and process an additional 250,000 tonnes of plastic waste over the next 10 years.
What makes this transformative is that the projects that receive the money pay it back using plastic credits, with each plastic credit representing a tonne of plastic removed from nature and a tonne of plastic diverted from a landfill.
Underlying this financing mechanism is a regulatory framework called the Plastic Waste Reduction Standard, which independently monitors, measures and verifies the environmental impact of the projects.
The net effect of this financing mechanism is that a project’s expected environmental impact over the next decade can be collateralized into an investment today. This can be used to fund major capital expansion in capacity and infrastructure, support ongoing operational cash requirements and invest in the livelihoods and welfare of those who collect waste.
This can change the way that plastic recycling is funded — especially in emerging nations where the plastic problem is at its worst — by putting a value on the environmental and social impact that these projects generate. It can help finance recycling projects that would otherwise be unfinanceable.
As delegates convene in Ottawa this month, they will hopefully embrace the Plastic Waste Reduction Bond as a vital tool to support the goals of the Plastic Treaty.
Steve Hardman is the chief executive officer of Plastic Collective.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS