The Blueprint for Success: Prof. Richard Thompson on Tackling Global Plastic Pollution From A Design Perspective

With over 100 nations showing shared ambition for regulating plastic pollution, marine scientist Richard Thompson OBE from the University of Plymouth discusses how essentiality, safety and sustainability criteria could transform plastic production and pave the way for slowing down plastic pollution. This approach would ensure only plastics that are essential, safe to humans and the environment, and sustainably designed for end-of-life management are produced. In an interview with Earth.Org, Thompson explores the urgent need for such criteria.  

—

This is part 2 of a two-part interview with Richard Thompson. Read part 1. 

Tyres are an excellent example of a plastic product that could benefit from application of essentiality, safety and sustainability criteria. Unlike the microbeads in cosmetics – a type of plastic deemed unessential and banned internationally – tyres are critical for the functioning of society and there are currently few acceptable alternatives. 

Tyres are the largest source of microplastic. The Pew Charitable Trust reported that 1.2 million tons of microplastics from tyres are released into the ocean annually. 

The chemical composition of tyres varies dramatically between manufacturers. Innovative design could reduce the amount of microplastic shedding, making them last longer and pollute less. Meanwhile, imposing safety criteria on their chemical composition could reduce associated health and environmental impacts.  

Establishing a process that rigorously tests whether a plastic is essential, safe and sustainable could ensure that only plastics that benefit society are produced.  

The Challenge of Global Consensus 

For Thompson, achieving global consensus on the introduction of essentiality, safety and sustainability criteria will be challenging.

“The devil is in the details,” he told Earth.Org. “We might not get consensus among 180 nations via the treaty negotiations, due to the cherry picking of isolated scientific information which can be weaponized by low ambition states, when the environmental and health implications of business as usual are already well researched.”

If nations fail to reach consensus on the level of ambition needed to end plastic pollution, Thompson says a separate agreement might be needed. Adopted by so-called high-ambition states, the deal would incorporate essential safety and sustainability criteria and be supported by appropriate standards, testing and labelling. 

Implementation Framework 

According to Thompson, the alternative agreement could be facilitated by four key mechanisms: 

1. Grouping of Chemicals of Concern

Chemicals are grouped into close relatives. Close relatives of a known harmful chemical are treated as being equally harmful. This would ensure that producers are not able to manipulate legislation by producing a tweaked formulation of a known toxic material. Grouping of chemicals of concern would need to be listed in an annex so that they are prohibited. 

2. Time-bound measures

Parties would agree on deadlines to phase out chemicals of concern, giving time for innovation toward safer and more sustainable alternatives. 

3. A sectoral approach

Decisions on essentiality, safety and sustainability should be considered in relation to specific sectors that rely on plastic, such as agriculture, fisheries, and transport. 

4. Informed by an independent science body

Scientists do not stand to benefit personally from the decisions on plastic production, plastic alternatives or plastic chemicals. They would exclusively provide recommendations, for example on which chemical compositions should be in the annex listings, acting as a resource of information to help states make decisions. 

Once essentiality, safety and sustainability criteria are in place, agreed testing, standards and labeling procedures would facilitate trade of essential, safe and sustainable plastics. Currently, a lack of cohesive plastic labeling creates significant hurdles for both international trade and effective waste management, hindering the ability to identify and sort recyclable plastics, verify product sustainability, and sort waste into proper receptacles

Designing for End of Life 

Meeting the requirements of essentiality, safety and sustainability criteria calls for innovation. Product designers will need to work on plastic products that are made from fewer chemicals, that are known to be safe, and that can be adequately reused or recycled in the country the product will be used in.  

“Product designers were never asked to think about how those single-use products would be disposed of. The brief only extended as far as functionality and being attractive to the consumer. It’s hardly surprising we have a plastic pollution crisis,” said Thompson. 

Production vs Waste Management  

“We need to be certain that if we are designing a product with different materials or substituting for something else, we have a yardstick to know the new item is better, not merely different,” said Thompson. 

He added that bio-based or biodegradable plastics can only work if appropriate waste management systems are also in place.

The argument of producing less plastic versus improving waste management has been referenced as a key reason why we have not been able to achieve a Global Plastic Treaty. Currently, most plastic waste is either mismanaged, sent to landfill, incinerated, traded or recycled. Recycling is often praised as the preferred method; however, current levels of global recycling are minimal and vary significantly between regions. 

Northern Europe is seen to have good waste management, where on average 40.7% of plastic packaging waste is recycled. In the US, the plastic recycling rate is estimated to be approximately 5%, while in India and China, it rises to approximately 13% and 14%, respectively. Globally, most plastic is not recycled. 

According to a paper published in Nature, some 40% of plastic waste globally is either sent to landfill and 34% is incinerated. Waste incineration is linked to adverse health effects, including some cancers, reproductive issues, and infant deaths. 

Arguably, how a plastic product is managed at the end of its life is a global issue. Professor Thompson calls for criteria that addresses waste management in the design stage. This way, internationally, only essential plastic products that are safer and more sustainable are produced.  

The Road Ahead

While an ambitious treaty that all nations agree upon is the most desirable outcome, Thompson suggests one way out of the current stalemate could be an ambitious agreement by a majority of nations with shared ambition to reduce plastic pollution. He calls for a clearly defined set of criteria that ensures plastic producers create products designed to ensure essentiality, safety and sustainability. 

As negotiations continue, the path forward may require bold action from ambitious nations rather than global consensus on a treaty so weak that it will fail to deliver. With 2,000 truckloads of plastic entering our oceans daily, the urgency for action has never been clearer.