To date, over 10 billion metric tonnes of plastic have been produced worldwide, with plastic production skyrocketing by more than 18,300 per cent over the past 65 years. Currently, around 460 million metric tonnes of plastic are produced annually, and without intervention, this figure is projected to triple by 2050.

Despite this massive production and recycling being pitched as the solution for plastic pollution, less than 9 per cent of all plastic ever made has been recycled, 12 per cent is incinerated or openly burned, and the remaining 79 per cent ends up in landfills or the environment.

Plastic recycling, once touted as a cornerstone of environmental sustainability, has proven largely ineffective in combating plastic pollution. Despite decades of advocacy and public education campaigns by plastic manufacturers, governments, and organizations, plastic waste continues to proliferate. This disconnect raises critical questions about the viability of recycling as a sustainable solution.

Historically, plastics were never designed to be recycled. In 1956, a packaging industry executive bluntly declared that “the future of plastic is in the trash can”, reflecting the industry’s intent for plastic to be disposable rather than recyclable. The recycling process often leads to downcycling, where plastics are transformed into products of lesser quality and utility, such as plastic lumber, park benches, among others.

Many of these products cannot be recycled again, and the process is energy-intensive, contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and contaminating water resources.

Additionally, recycled plastics frequently contain a toxic cocktail of chemicals, making them unsuitable for many applications, particularly food and beverage packaging. Research has shown that these toxic chemicals can leach into products, posing serious health risks.

The concept of plastics circularity, where plastics are endlessly reused without adverse effects, is fundamentally flawed. Current recycling practices exacerbate environmental degradation, climate change, and public health issues. Effective recycling requires significant inputs of virgin plastics and toxic additives, undermining the notion of a closed-loop system.

For example, when plastics are collected for traditional “mechanical” recycling, they must be sorted by colour and type, washed and shredded. These processes consume large amounts of fossil fuel energy, emitting chemicals and greenhouse gases, wasting and contaminating water, and creating microplastics and nanoplastics.

Moreover, to restore some of the useful properties of recycled plastics, manufacturers often need to mix in virgin plastic and / or toxic additives. Studies have identified hundreds of additional toxic chemicals, including pesticides and pharmaceuticals, in recycled plastics. This is in addition to the mix of more than 16,000 chemicals in the newly made plastics, with over 4,000 of them identified as toxic. This raises further questions on the safety and sustainability of plastic recycling.

Since monitoring of plastic waste trade began in 1988, more than 250 million tonnes have been legally exported across the world, highlighting stark inequalities by often shifting the burden of plastic waste to the Global South. These regions become dumping grounds where plastic waste is frequently burned in the open, releasing toxic pollutants into the air and disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities.

India, for instance, imported around 121,000 metric tonnes of plastic in 2019, according to a report by Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Smriti Manch. The report, along with objections from environmentalists, eventually led the Indian government to ban plastic imports in 2019.

Although the government had already banned plastic imports in 2014, a loophole allowed companies in Special Economic Zones to continue importing plastic, which was heavily exploited. This loophole was finally closed in August 2019.

Malaysia has a recycling capacity of 515,009 tonnes but imports an average of 835,000 tonnes of plastic waste each year, in addition to an estimated 2.4 million tonnes of domestic plastic waste. The import of plastic waste has led to severe environmental and health impacts, with local communities facing polluted air and water, increased disease rates and degraded living conditions. These practices perpetuate environmental injustice, as communities near recovery facilities and recycling plants, typically the most underserved, face increased health risks, including polluted air, soil and drinking water, as well as frequent fires and exposure to hazardous materials.

As awareness of plastic recycling’s limitations grows, the plastic and fossil fuel industries have promoted “chemical recycling” techniques, which involve the chemical breakdown of plastics into fuels or other materials. These methods are marketed as innovative solutions but often perpetuate harmful practices, diverting attention from the need to reduce plastic production.

These industries’ substantial lobbying efforts aim to maintain the status quo, hindering meaningful progress toward addressing the root causes of plastic pollution. For example, in the United States, significant investments in chemical recycling facilities have faced criticism for failing to deliver promised environmental benefits while continuing to pollute. In Europe, similar projects have also been scrutinised for their environmental impact and questionable effectiveness in reducing plastic waste.

To address the plastic crisis, a paradigm shift is necessary. Policymakers must prioritise reducing plastic production and supporting sustainable, reuse-based solutions. This involves implementing policies that restrict single-use plastics, incentivise reusable alternatives and promote equitable waste management practices.

On an individual level, adopting plastic-free habits in daily life can significantly reduce the demand for disposable plastics. Countries like Sweden have made strides in reducing plastic use by implementing strict regulations and promoting reusable alternatives, resulting in lower plastic waste levels.

Scientific consensus and indigenous knowledge emphasise minimising plastic use to protect human health and the environment. For instance, indigenous communities around the world have long practiced sustainable living and resource management, offering valuable insights into reducing plastic dependency. Society must move beyond the false promises of recycling and embrace comprehensive strategies that tackle plastic pollution at its source.

The notion that we can recycle our way out of plastic pollution is a dangerous illusion. Evidence shows that current recycling practices are insufficient and often counterproductive. By focusing on reducing plastic production and fostering a culture of reuse, substantial strides can be made toward mitigating the plastic crisis. It is time to abandon the myth of plastic recycling and implement real, effective solutions that prioritise the health of our planet and its inhabitants.

Simply Put: Ghazipur, Delhi’s very own volcano