Plastic neutrality: climate solution or greenwashing?

Depending on who you ask, the definition of plastic neutrality changes, but the underlying idea remains the same: an offset to remove an equal amount of plastic from the environment for every amount of plastic we use.

It is similar to carbon offsetting and comes in a “pay for what you use” system. That system will involve a recycling business and waste management system to collect plastic waste from the environment, like introducing a waste collection and recycling plant in a community that still lacks this necessary infrastructure.

But lacking a standard definition for plastic neutrality is a concern. While the system sounds like a potential solution to addressing the massive plastic problem the world is facing, a deeper look at the details shows concerns that we consumers will need to be aware of, lest we be exploited or misled.

Is it a valid climate solution to clean up plastics from vulnerable communities and oceans? Or is it a greenwashing opportunity that businesses use to shift responsibilities away? Let’s look at it from the perspectives of pros and cons.

Pros of plastic neutrality

Promises of creating funding to change the infrastructure

One of the problems in our current economies is the difficulty of avoiding plastics. While not all plastics are frowned upon, plastic is the standard for single-use, from shampoo containers to potato chip bags to coffee chains’ cups. Through an exchange of plastic credits, we can “pay” for the use of plastics, which will turn into funding for activities that directly tackle plastic waste problems.

For example, users can fund Waste Ventures India to collect and ethically process plastic packaging waste, thus diverting the garbage from being illegally dumped. The funds also allow Waste Ventures India to develop a transparent tracking platform that uses technology to source plastic waste. This project directly links with existing waste pickers and formalizes a recycling infrastructure in Hyderabad.

Addressing promoting sustainability in vulnerable communities

Another benefit is sustaining socially and/or environmentally beneficial activities in specific regions that may otherwise not have the funding to do so. As mentioned, there is often a lack of funding to back these essential activities, which are often on the back burner when other infrastructures take precedence (like water and food).

Putting the onus on companies to act on plastic

Through plastic offsetting, businesses are encouraged to take responsibility for their choice to continue using plastic. Even though we would prefer they move away from plastics immediately, it gives businesses a way to counter their negative environmental impact by supporting climate-positive activities by other organizations. This gives them time to gather resources to make a change in business models. Changes can include redesigning their packaging or reevaluating their supply line to reduce, and ultimately eliminate unnecessary use of plastics.

Cons of plastic neutrality

Doesn’t address fundamental consumption patterns or old business models

The world is tackling the gargantuan problem of “take-make-waste” linear economies harming society and the environment. A circular economy movement is encouraging businesses and governments to rethink and redesign for the well-being of everyone and nature.

Unfortunately, plastic neutrality is a concept that doesn’t encourage rethinking or redesigning. “It’s okay to use plastic as long as you pay for it” is not the message the world deserves right now, nor present an excuse for oil companies to continue making money out of creating more plastics. There is no incentive to reduce or eliminate plastic waste, let alone a change in fundamental business models to do so.

We are just not as good as we thought we were at recycling

Furthermore, we are overly trusting of our ability to recycle. A United Nations agreement to regulate the international plastic waste trade came into effect on January 1, 2021. However, watchdogs are reporting that developed countries are still exporting their plastics to other countries. We are still unable to handle plastic waste domestically, and introducing a “plastic offset” feels like a small bandaid for a deep, wasteful gash.

Inconsistent definition of Plastic Neutrality can lead to greenwashing

As of 2020, there are at least 32 plastic certification programs, showing an inconsistency in definition. This can become misleading for consumers.

For example, one online shop selling female-oriented products that uses plastic packaging, defined plastic neutrality as:

“Being plastic neutral means that for every amount of plastic created, a measured equivalent of plastic waste is recovered and removed from the environment by an individual or company through recycling/waste management efforts or plastic offset credits.”

If the definition is “every amount of plastic created,” then from the viewpoint of plastic materials, this is a net increase in the amount of plastics in the economy. More fossil fuels will be involved in the creation. Using a “plastic-neutral” label becomes misleading.

Then there is the “upgraded” “plastic positive” label, which encourages businesses and consumers to offset more than they use. Again, it could mean a net gain in plastics in the economies.

With a lack of a standard for consistency, transparency and reporting, plastic neutrality can open doors to greenwashing. Maybe because it’s an emerging market, there is no industry standard at the moment. Therefore, we’ll need to continue studying effective elements and avoid detrimental influences.

Consumers get stuck with the “plastic bill”

Even if businesses pay for the plastics they use, it does nothing to promote responsible consumer behavior or makes it easier for consumers to learn about waste management. Like carbon offsetting, some companies push consumers to focus on their carbon footprints as a distraction from making changes to their business models.

Better alternatives are available

Some argue that carbon offset is not effective, with the core fact that it still allows the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Plastic Neutrality seemingly allows users (both businesses and individuals) to do the same, and that will allow manufacturers to continue producing plastics through fossil fuels.

But luckily, like carbon offsetting to address carbon emissions, plastic neutrality is not the only solution available. If we refocus using the Circular Economy framework, which already shares ten strategies to circulate resources, we have role models who show us solutions without involving creating plastics.

For example, the MANATII project calls upon visitors to pay to clean up beaches, creating sustainable tourism, sustainable waste management and community building. Or Re&Go, a reusable container take-out system, redesigns the food takeaway system and eliminates the use of plastic containers. It reminds us that solutions exist, if we care to implement and scale them.

An emerging market that still needs more work

While there seem to be more demerits than merits, success will likely fall upon implementation. Just like how some companies use carbon footprint as a “blaming tool,” what are the measures to prevent greenwashing and avoid exploitation? How will they be enforced?

There is also the question of risk and how transparent they are. For example, if we are going to use plastic-neutral businesses in developing countries, how well can the collection and removal of plastic work under the shadow of, for example, political instability? How will business risks be handled? And is the intended system based on the needs of the local community rather than a copy-paste model that ignores the nuances of local needs?

Start with redefining our relationship with plastic

The strongest argument for plastic neutrality is that avoiding plastic is hard, and as long as infrastructures do not change, consumers have no alternatives. However, the discussion should not end there. The fundamental question that businesses and individuals need to answer is our relationship with plastics.

We have a perfect example brand, buøy, that demonstrates this philosophy. Founded by the company Technolab, buøy collects ocean plastics to create valuable plastic items. However, the lesson is not about upcycling plastics. The message buøy wants to send is how, in the convenience and proliferation of plastics, we have abused its cheapness and usefulness at the cost of the environment. It is time to relook at our relationship with plastics and figure out how to properly use plastics (like using plastics for as long as possible).

Until we see such a discussion, we must remain vigilant of companies who brand themselves as “plastic neutral.” We will need to put in the research to see how the money is used (transparency will always be important), how the activities reduce or eliminate plastic from a macro level (are they going to increase the production of virgin plastics or circulate existing material), and if there are alternatives (which may be more deserving of the funds, especially if these inspire structural changes).