A ban or phase-out of problematic plastic products could result in economic savings ranging from $4.7 to $8 trillion between 2025 and 2040, albeit with certain assumptions and limitations, according to a new study by Earth Action (EA), commissioned by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
While there may be short-term costs associated with both bans and phase-outs, these are far outweighed by the long-term benefits, the study suggested. WWF defines problematic plastics as “those with a high likelihood of ending up in the environment and potentially harmful impacts on the environment and human health.”
The study also found that an immediate ban on problematic plastics currently under consideration by the United Nations Treaty to End Plastic Pollution, such as packaging made from expanded polystyrene, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride and single-use items like cotton buds and straws, would be more effective than a gradual ban or phase-out.
The projected savings would be in the form of reduced plastic waste management burdens, lower greenhouse gas emissions and cuts in administrative costs, mismanaged waste and other associated social and environmental impacts.
Mismanaged waste is defined as waste that is neither recycled, incinerated nor properly disposed of in landfills and instead re-enters the environment, causing pollution.
The extent of savings varies depending on the scenario modelled, ranging from a complete ban to phased approaches, compared to a business-as-usual (BAU) trajectory. EA outlined six scenarios, two of which include additional subcategories:
The scenarios were developed using a literature review of existing plastic product bans and phase-outs implemented in various countries and municipalities, as well as the design of previous multilateral agreements targeting environmental pollutants, most notably, the Montreal Protocol, said Hanna Dijkstra, environmental consultant at Earth Action, told Down To Earth (DTE).
“The decision to focus on certain types of problematic plastics was made in collaboration with WWF, which had previously conducted research on the types of plastics that are both most harmful and most feasible to regulate via treaty,” Dijkstra added.
Globally, humans produce around 430 million tonnes of plastic each year, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Of this, 280 million tonnes become waste. Forty-six percent of plastic waste is landfilled, while 22 per cent is mismanaged and becomes litter.
If the world implements bans or phase-outs of problematic plastics, global plastic consumption could drop by 173-224 million tonnes between 2025 and 2040, the study estimated. In the same period, mismanaged plastic waste could be reduced by 51-74 million tonnes. Faster bans or phase-outs would yield greater reductions.
The study also outlined the economic benefits tied to reduced consumption and other associated gains. The authors used modelling tools to generate their estimates of costs and savings.
“The models were built using the Plasteax dataset to map current and projected plastic consumption trends, helping to establish a baseline,” Dijkstra told DTE. “We then modelled the different policy scenarios to forecast how much plastic would be produced and consumed under each.”
“We built the cost model around this forecast — attributing different cost or benefit values depending on the volume of plastic produced, consumed or wasted,” she added.
Dijkstra noted that they applied a range of waste management costs for different country groups (high-, middle- and low-income), multiplying these by projected waste volumes in each scenario.
The modelled outcomes were staggering. In the BAU scenario, the total cost of producing and consuming plastics, including public, private and social costs, was $10 trillion for the 2025-2040 period.
By contrast, an immediate global ban on the assessed plastic products would cost $2 trillion, resulting in savings of $8 trillion compared with the BAU scenario. A global phase-out would yield $7 trillion in savings. If bans or phase-outs follow staggered timelines for high-income versus lower-income countries, the savings drop to $4.7 trillion, which is the lowest among the scenarios.
An immediate ban would entail the highest administrative cost — around $323 million — but would also reduce waste management costs by $50 billion, more than compensating for the former. Administrative costs would fall further under scenarios where high-income countries support lower-income ones.
For the private sector, transition costs are estimated at around $143 million, while total losses, including the shrinkage of plastic markets, could amount to $228 billion in the case of an immediate ban. Under the BAU scenario, the market value of the assessed plastics is estimated at $362 billion.
However, the study notes that these figures only reflect direct expansions in markets for alternatives to the banned plastics. They do not account for “for all possible new economic opportunities, particularly the growth in a burgeoning market of reusable products, systems, and circular business models. Thus, expected benefits for the private sector will likely exceed those identified in this assessment.”