Solutions of Plastic Pollutions

The UN wants to drastically reduce plastic pollution by 2040. Here’s how.

Plastic waste is piling up in the world’s landfills, sewer systems and in the ocean. As William Brangham reports, the United Nations has set a goal of sharply reducing plastic pollution by 2040.

William Brangham: Lodged at the bottom of the sea or floating on top of it, many of the world’s waterways are clogged with plastic. This man-made non-biodegradable substance is hurting wildlife. And it’s showing up almost everywhere we look. Researchers in Brazil recently discovered plastic melted into rocks on a remote island, it’s circulation in the air we breathe, it’s made its way into our very bloodstream. The plastic problem is not new, but its reach seems to have no limits. 430 metric tons of plastic is produced each year, two-thirds of which almost instantly after being used becomes garbage. Plastic production is set to triple by 2060. To try and limit this flow of waste, ESpen Barth Eide, UNEA President: I see no objections. It is so decided.

William Brangham: Last year in Nairobi, Kenya, 193 nations agreed the world must get the plastic problem under control.

Inger Andersen, Executive Director, U.N. Environment Program: And we will have a strong global international and comprehensive framework on plastic pollution.

William Brangham: The U.N. also recently released this report laying out the concrete steps needed to do it, “Turning off the Tap: How the world can end plastic pollution and create a circular economy.” It aims to slash plastic pollution by 80 percent by 2024. How to realize that goal is the task of global delegates meeting in Paris next week to work on a legally binding agreement. The head of the United Nations Environment Program Inger Andersen will lead the negotiations. I spoke with her recently. Inger Andersen, thank you so much for being here. Before we get to the solutions that you’re talking about, I wonder if we could just talk a little bit about the problem. I mean, here especially in the U.S., but worldwide we have heard this phrase, reduce, reuse and recycle for what feels like a generation. And yet we still haven’t gotten our hands around this problem. Why is that?

Inger Andersen: Well, I guess it is fairly hard. This recycle story is not as simple as it sounds when I put my plastic toothpaste to that is now empty in my recycling bin. It doesn’t always make its way. In fact, globally, we produce about 430 million tons of plastic a year, globally speaking and 9 percent of that just 9 percent ends up being recycled. So, it’s clearly something that we need to deal with. And recycling is not the only answer. We need to rethink the entire system of plastic production.

William Brangham: Walk me through some of the details there. How do we then try to divert this tide to a more productive and healthy stream?

Inger Andersen: Let’s think about it, we liquefy a lot of stuff that in just 20 years ago was not liquid, Let’s take soapfor laundry detergent, it’s largely liquid, certainly in the U.S. market, it used to be powder, and therefore it could be transported in a carton box. Let’s think about soap that we wash our hands with. It used to be  in a bar. And now we need the convenience of one pump. We have to ask ourselves if all that is worth it, when we understand that that liquid application of the product for our convenience, yes , but it is very, very inconvenient for the environment. So, we need to rethink and redesign the products themselves. We need to make sure that we minimize that wasteful single use plastic bag that we’re going to be using for 10 minutes as we carry five tomatoes home from the store. And then thereafter, depending on the kind of polymer, it could be between 100 and 1000 years in the landfill. That’s just not very efficient use of a scarce resource. But I think that there are certainly industry leaders that are saying, look, this is actually something that if we don’t get it right, it detracts from our shareholder value. And it detracts from the pride that our workers have in this product if it’s fobbing out around in the ocean. This is not good for business, it’s not good for the brand. So let’s find solutions to it.

William Brangham: Some of what your report is calling for is the creation of a circular economy around plastics. Is that possible when we know though the plastic as you’re describing keeps breaking down in the environment? Are those things compatible?

Inger Andersen: So I think that there are many things that are ready now we can just exit. But no, circularity is not the solution, but it’s one of the elements of a solution. And that means that take back schemes, whether it’s extended producer responsibility or whether it’s municipal take back schemes. There are many, many things that we’ve seen across different countries. In Chile, for example, which is a poor country than the U.S of course, you buy a bottle and that is yours for keeps and it has an electronic little gadgets so that when you go to the machine, the machine knows that it’s your bottle, and you put in the money that you want, and you get the detergent from the machine that you want. And if you can only afford this much, that’s what you get, And if you can afford more, you can buy more. So, we feel schemes are very interesting. So I think that it we have to think across the entire chain, but circularity will be part of it.

William Brangham: When you look at these upcoming negotiations on this issue, what stands out to you as the potential biggest roadblocks to this type of change that you’re talking about?

Inger Andersen: I think that any systems change in this size is one that is difficult. So my concern will be that there may be in some locations and some member states and desire to just focus on the Waste Management. But we need to look at the whole thing. But the good thing is that I think across the political spectrum form left to right, and across the world, there is a desire to find solution. And that’s unique, It’s very much similar to the ozone negotiations that we had back in the late 70s and early 80s, where it was clear that we needed to exit CFCs chlorofluorocarbons, these chemicals that degraded the ozone layers, and were opening human health to cancers and ourselves to runaway climate change and impacts. An the time, it was said it’s impossible. How can you change the freons

That are enabling our cooling systems and our air conditioners and our fire retardants and our spray cans. And then we did it so it is difficult but when we do it right, we can do this and it is exactly the same on the plastic side.

William Brangham: All right, Inger Anderson of the United Nations Environment Program. Thank you so much for being here.

联合国希望到2040年大幅减少塑料污染。方法如下。

塑料垃圾堆积在世界各地的垃圾填埋场、下水道系统和海洋中。正如William Brangham报道的那样，联合国设定了到2040年大幅减少塑料污染的目标。

William Brangham：在海底或漂浮在海面上，世界上许多水道都被塑料堵塞了。这种人造的不可生物降解的物质正在伤害野生动物。它几乎无处不在。巴西的研究人员最近在一个偏远的岛屿上发现了融化在岩石中的塑料，它在我们呼吸的空气中循环，并进入了我们的血液。塑料问题并不新鲜，但它的影响似乎没有限制。每年生产430公吨塑料，其中三分之二在使用后几乎立即变成垃圾。到2060年，塑料产量将增加两倍。为了限制这种废物流，UNEA主席Espen Barth Eide：我认为没有人反对。就这么决定了。

William Brangham：去年在肯尼亚内罗毕，193个国家同意世界必须控制塑料问题。

联合国环境规划署执行主任Inger Andersen：我们将拥有一个强大的全球国际综合框架来应对塑料污染。

William Brangham：联合国最近还发布了这份报告，列出了实现这一目标所需的具体步骤，“关掉塑料龙头：世界如何终结塑料污染并创造循环经济。”它的目标是到2024年将塑料污染减少80%。如何实现这一目标是全球代表下周在巴黎开会以制定具有法律约束力的协议的任务。联合国环境规划署负责人英格安德森将领导谈判。我最近和她谈过。英格安徒生，非常感谢你来到这里。在我们找到您正在谈论的解决方案之前，我想知道我们是否可以稍微谈谈这个问题。我的意思是，尤其是在美国，但在世界范围内，感觉已经有一代人,我们都听到过这句话，减少、再利用和回收。然而我们仍然没有解决这个问题。这是为什么？

Inger Andersen：嗯，我想这相当困难。这个回收故事并不像我把用过的塑料牙膏放在回收箱里听起来那么简单。它并不总是成功。事实上，在全球范围内，我们每年生产约4.3亿吨塑料，全球范围内，只有9%的塑料最终被回收利用，9%。所以，这显然是我们需要处理的事情。回收并不是唯一的答案。我们需要重新思考整个塑料生产系统。

William Brangham：带我了解那里的一些细节。那么我们如何尝试将这股潮流转向更有成效和更健康的潮流呢？

Inger Andersen：让我们想一想，我们液化了很多在20年前还不是液体的东西，让我们以洗衣服的肥皂为例，它主要是液体，当然在美国市场上，它曾经是粉末，因此它可以用纸箱运输。让我们想想我们用来洗手的肥皂。它曾经是以块状出现的。现在我们需要只要按一下的便利。我们必须问自己，这一切是否值得，当我们了解到产品的液体应用是为了我们的方便，是的，但它对环境非常非常不方便。所以，我们需要重新思考和重新设计产品本身。我们需要确保将这种一次性塑料袋的使用减到最小，只是为了将五个在西红柿带回家而使用10分钟。这些塑料，根据聚合物的种类，它可能会在垃圾填埋场中存放100到1000年。这是对稀缺资源的效率不高的使用。但我认为肯定有行业领导者在说，看，这实际上是如果我们做的不好，就会损害我们的股东价值。如果它在海洋中漂浮，它会损害我们的工人对这种产品的自豪感。这对企业不利，对品牌不利。因此，让我们找到解决方案。

William Brangham：您的报告呼吁围绕塑料创造循环经济。当我们知道您所描述的塑料在环境中不断分解时，这是否可能？这些东西兼容吗？

Inger Andersen：我认为现在我们可以终止了，很多事情都已经准备就绪。但是，循环不是解决方案，但它是解决方案的要素之一。这意味着回收计划，无论是扩大生产者责任还是市政回收计划。我们在不同国家/地区看到了很多很多事情。例如，在智利，这是一个比美国还贫穷的国家。当然，你买了一个瓶子，那是你自己的，它有一个电子标记，所以当你走到机器前，机器就知道这是你的瓶子，然后你投入你想要的钱，然后你从机器里得到你想要的洗涤剂。如果你只能负担得起这么多，那就是你得到的，如果你负担得起更多，你可以买更多。所以，我们觉得方案很有意思。所以我认为我们必须考虑整个链条，但循环性将是其中的一部分。

William Brangham：当您审视这些即将就此问题进行的谈判时，您认为阻碍您所谈论的此类变革的潜在最大障碍是什么？

Inger Andersen：我认为这任何如此规模的系统变化都是困难的。所以我担心的是，在某些地方和某些成员国中可能会有人希望只关注废物管理。但我们需要审视整个事情。但好消息是，我认为从左到右的政党，在世界各地，都渴望找到解决方案。这是独一无二的，它与我们在70 年代末和 80 年代初进行的臭氧谈判非常相似，当时很明显我们需要退出 CFCs 氯氟烃，这些化学物质会降解臭氧层，并使人类健康向癌症和我们自己对失控的气候变化和影响。当时，据说这是不可能的。你怎么能改变氟利昂。这使我们的冷却系统、我们的空调、我们的阻燃剂和我们的喷雾罐成为可能。然后我们做到了，所以这很困难，但是当我们做得对时，我们可以做到这一点，并且在塑料方面完全相同。

William Brangham：好的，联合国环境规划署的 Inger Anderson。非常感谢你来到这里。