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.
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) provided several reasons for military drills it conducted in five zones around Taiwan on Monday and yesterday. The first was as a warning to “Taiwanese independence forces” to cease and desist. This is a consistent line from the Chinese authorities. The second was that the drills were aimed at “deterrence” of outside military intervention. Monday’s announcement of the drills was the first time that Beijing has publicly used the second reason for conducting such drills. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is clearly rattled by “external forces” apparently consolidating around an intention to intervene. The targets of
RSS