Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Plastic Pollution Is Drowning Earth. A Global Treaty Could Help

News Feed
Wednesday, April 3, 2024

Our world is increasingly plastic. Back in the 1950s, humanity produced just 5 million metric tons of plastic per year; today it’s 400 million metric tons. Since plastic can take hundreds or thousands of years to biodegrade, pretty much all of it is still around, except for the roughly 20 percent that’s been burned. By some estimates, there are now eight gigatons of accumulated plastic on Earth — twice as much as the weight of all animal life.Much of this plastic is still in use, in products like cars and homes, but a lot is junk; 40 percent of plastic production goes toward packaging that’s typically tossed after being used once. Some of our plastic waste is recycled, responsibly incinerated or properly landfilled, but tens of millions of tons are mismanaged annually — burned in open pits or left to pollute the environment. Plastic pollution has been found at the poles and the bottom of the ocean, in our clouds and soils, in human blood and mothers’ milk. If things keep going as they are, it is predicted that annual rates of plastic flowing into the sea will triple from 2016 to 2040.The impacts are manifold. Debris can choke and tangle wildlife; even zooplankton can fill up on microplastics instead of food, altering how much oxygen is in the ocean. And some of the chemicals used in plastics — including additives that make plastics flexible or fire-resistant — can leach out into water, soil or our bodies. Some of these are carcinogenic or endocrine disruptors, capable of interfering with development or reproduction. The net impacts of our lifelong exposure to this chemical soup are hard to tease out, but one recent study concluded that it cost the United States $249 billion in extra health care in 2018.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Delegates are working now on the world’s first plastic pollution treaty, which is due to be completed by the end of this year. That treaty might cap plastic production, phase out problem chemicals and regulate how waste is managed — but how ambitious this treaty will be is yet to be seen. (See box.)Imogen Napper, a marine science postdoc at the University of Plymouth in the United Kingdom who specializes in plastic pollution, is one of many scientists whose research is informing the treaty process. Her detective work has documented plastic pollution in surprising places and pointed to solutions that have made their way into government regulations around the world. Knowable Magazine spoke with her about the plastic problem and what we can all do about it. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.Why did you decide to focus on plastic pollution as a researcher?I was lucky to grow up in a small seaside town in the southwest of the UK. I don’t remember any discussion about plastic pollution or beach cleanups when I was younger. But now, going back home, plastic pollution is one of the most obvious environmental challenges that we have, because it’s so visible.I’m hoping that plastic pollution can be used as a gateway issue to other environmental concerns. Climate change, I’d argue, is a far bigger beast than plastic pollution. But for plastic pollution, we’ve got all the tools that we need — we’ve got potential solutions, and discussion happening now through the plastics treaty. We have that burning fire of desire to make a change. We can fix it.You and many other researchers spend a lot of time documenting where plastic is in the wild, and how it gets there. Why is this so hard?When it comes to microscopic pieces in, say, a soil or water sample, it takes a lot of grunt work. I have spent a lot of time looking under the microscope trying to identify, just from the look of it, whether something is cellulosic — coming from plants, like cotton — or plastic. You get a good eye for it. But it can be really tricky.Nor is it easy to document the accumulation and distribution of bigger, macro-sized chunks of plastic. There are so many sources, leakage points and places where plastic is building up. In one of our studies, led by Emily Duncan at the University of Exeter, we put GPS tags in plastic bottles and tracked them thousands of kilometers down the Ganges River. That sort of work helps to improve scientific models.The commonly used estimate is that about 8 million metric tons of macroplastic enter the ocean each year. We know a lot less about the land. Technology is getting far better, with remote sensing, drones and satellite imagery. That will be very useful in the next few years to help us accurately identify how much plastic is going into the environment.A lot of plastic litter is single-use products that have been tossed aside: In the UK, one survey showed that more than half of plastic litter was beverage-related, including cups, lids and straws. But some sources are more surprising, like tiny pieces of plastic thrown up by tire wear on highways.That was also surprising to me. It’s so obvious — it’s right in front of you — but often we just don’t consider it. Research has only really focused on tire wear in the last few years, but it’s predicted to be one of the biggest single sources of microplastics — it has been estimated to make up five to 10 percent of the plastic entering the ocean.In our lab, we have done a lot of research looking at clothing. I’d say about 60 percent of our wardrobe contains plastic, like polyester, acrylic or a natural-synthetic blend. A big part of my PhD research was centered around building a washing machine lab, and I tested for the first time different fabrics to see how many fibers would come off in a typical wash.We found that for acrylic it was the most, at 700,000 fibers per wash. For polyester-cotton blend, it was a lot less, around 130,000 fibers. This started discussions about how we might make clothes differently or change our washing machines. In France, by 2025 all new washing machines will have to come with a filter, which is exciting. It’ll be really interesting to see how that develops. Ideally, the filter should be reusable, so we’re not just making more potential rubbish. There are a lot of different options; independent testing will be important.Where does all this plastic wind up?You could argue that plastic really is everywhere. We did some research that found plastic fibers just below the summit of Mount Everest. In some regions, plastic microfibers can go down the drain into the sewage treatment plants; the collected solids, called sewage sludge, is then treated and then often applied on agricultural land as fertilizer. There’s evidence that the chemicals in those plastics can then be absorbed into plants.There are some surprising ecological effects, too. I have read that some plastic pieces, because of their dark colors, absorb heat, which means they’re contributing to melting snow and ice.Yes. Plastic can also increase sand temperature, and this has been found in turtle nesting sites. And turtle sex is dependent on the temperature of the sand. So we might end up with a lot more female turtles.What’s the best thing to do with plastic at the end of its life?Landfill isn’t great, but it does contain and control waste when done right. Incineration has pros and cons; it gets rid of the plastic and can be used to make energy. A lot of small island developing states may use incineration because they haven’t got the space for landfill, but then it’s often open burning, which is not good for the planet or your health.People often think that recycling is a golden solution. But recycling is not fully circular — the recycled plastic is often made into a polymer of worsening quality. At some point, it will not be recyclable. Recycling can also generate problematic microplastics. And if there isn’t a market for the recycled material, it can end up in landfill.None of this gets rid of the core issue. It’s just delaying it. I’m a big believer of tackling the problem at its source. My supervisor, Richard Thompson, says plastic pollution is like an overfilling bath. We’re very good at mopping up the floor, but the bath keeps overflowing. What we need to do is turn off the tap.Are there good alternatives to conventional plastic, like biodegradable or compostable plastics, or bioplastics that are made from plants rather than from fossil fuels?We did some research on this. We did a study looking at biodegradable carrier bags: We buried them in the soil, we submerged them in the ocean, and we left them hanging outside for three years. The ones outside completely fragmented into tiny bits — the plastic didn’t disappear, it just got smaller. The ones in the soil and in the ocean could still hold a full bag of shopping.Biodegradable plastics that are marketed today need to go into a really specific waste management facility with high moisture, high heat, maybe a certain pH, to disappear.Many bioplastics used today — such as bio-polyethylene — are chemically the same as other plastics, just made from a different source. They’re made from plant carbon instead of from fossil fuel carbon, but they may behave exactly like all other plastic. If they’re still single use, is that any better?There’s a lot of work going into alternative products, but we need to be careful that they’re actually better for our health and the environment.How is the plastics treaty (see box) coming along?It’s going to take a lot of discussion, and I will be delighted if it happens this year, but realistically, I think it is going to take a little bit more time. It is difficult to get nations to agree to firm action, because a lot of it comes down to money — both the money to be made from manufacturing plastic, and the money it costs to deal with waste.This is an amazing opportunity that we have, where globally we can have a unified decision on how to protect our planet. The treaty needs to be ambitious, it needs to be specific, and it needs to be binding.Is it reasonable to think that some plastics might be banned?Legislation has already banned some plastics and additives in some countries or regions. Our lab quantified microbeads in beauty products: We found that 3 million microbeads could be in a bottle of facial scrub. So there can be thousands in a squirt on your hand. We took this research, we published it, and then one day I came in to work and I had so many emails in my inbox from journalists. It was making quite a stir. And there were campaigns like “Beat the microbead,” because consumers didn’t want to wash their faces with plastic.So the consumers started to boycott the products, then industry voluntarily removed microbeads and showcased that information in their own marketing. And then governments around the world started to ban microbeads in facial scrubs.Research is all about providing information. And then, with that information, people can take it forward and make a change. I feel very privileged to be in a position that I can be part of that.If you were in charge, would you ban specific plastics or chemicals?I’d flip the question on its head and ask: What would I keep? We don’t need all the plastic we make. And instead of using a big chemical cocktail of additives that we don’t know anything about, let’s just have a list of the chemicals that we can use.When I started my PhD, I wrongly thought that plastic was evil. Plastics are incredibly useful and can solve other environmental and health problems. Plastic can keep our food fresh, and food waste is a huge problem. During the pandemic, it helped to keep people safe. It is lightweight, so products need less energy for transport.But let’s think, right from when we’re designing it, how can we make sure it’s sustainable? Often, we’re not thinking about that right at the beginning, we’re thinking about it far down at the end of its life.Treaty timelineIn 2022, 175 nations at the United Nations Environment Assembly agreed to draft a legally binding treaty against plastic pollution by 2024. That work is now underway, but progress has been slow, leaving observers wondering if it will be completed as planned at the meeting in Busan, South Korea, this December — and, if so, how ambitious it will be.In 2023, delegates released an updated, 70-page pre-draft outlining issues to be tackled, along with a handful of options for how to address them. The issues span the full lifecycle of plastics — from their creation, including the greenhouse gases emitted during their production, through to the uses of plastics (including as single-use products and microbeads), to recycling and waste management. Topics such as tax schemes and pots of money for capacity-building in poorer nations get their share of coverage too.The options for each issue range from hard to soft: Even the options for the stated objective of the treaty, for example, span from “to end plastic pollution” to the much gentler “to protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution.”Many observers at the treaty’s third meeting, in Nairobi in November 2023, said that agreement on firm solutions seemed far away, with delegates from some fossil fuel-rich nations, including Saudi Arabia, pushing against hard production caps. Analysts have noted that as the planet cracks down on burning fossil fuels for energy, the oil industry has increasingly focused on plastic production as a profitable market.On the other hand, a group of nations led by Norway and Rwanda — called the “high ambition coalition” — is pressing for strong action. “It’s a bit of a roller coaster,” says marine biologist Richard Thompson, Imogen Napper’s PhD supervisor at the University of Plymouth; he attended the treaty meeting as one of the coordinators of the independent Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. “There’s great support and traction in one direction — and half an hour later, things seem to turn.”One scientific model shows that it will take an extremely ambitious bundle of policies to drive mismanaged waste down. By this model, for example, cutting mismanaged plastic waste by 85 percent by 2050 would require implementing a 90 percent reduction in single-use packaging, a cap on primary plastic production at 2025 levels, and a mandate that at least 40 percent of plastics be recycled and that more than 40 percent of new products be made from recycled content — along with heavy taxes and more than $200 billion of investments in global waste infrastructure.Scientists are also thinking hard about the treaty’s proposed list of polymers and chemicals of concern, which could be used to guide bans by specific dates, or just to encourage regulation. Such a list could include, for example, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polystyrene — often called “the toxic two” by environmental groups — alongside additives including phthalates (which are often used to make PVC more flexible and some of which are endocrine disrupters).Many analysts and concerned observers would like to see the plastic treaty modeled after the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, which in 1986 famously phased out specific chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons with hard, time-targeted commitments. But it might, alternatively, be modeled more like the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, which allows nations to determine their own targets for action. That might be easier to agree upon, but less ambitious.“It’s difficult to get all these nations to agree on all the nuts and bolts,” says Thompson. It remains to be seen how things will pan out at the next meeting, scheduled for Ottawa, Canada, this April.Thompson remains hopeful for a big change in how society uses plastic. “It’s so cheap we can use it for a few seconds before throwing it away. That’s the problem,” he says. But, he adds, “a problem we can solve.”— Nicola JonesThis article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews. Sign up for the newsletter.

A marine scientist discusses the problem of plastic pollution and her hopes for an international treaty to tackle it

Our world is increasingly plastic. Back in the 1950s, humanity produced just 5 million metric tons of plastic per year; today it’s 400 million metric tons. Since plastic can take hundreds or thousands of years to biodegrade, pretty much all of it is still around, except for the roughly 20 percent that’s been burned. By some estimates, there are now eight gigatons of accumulated plastic on Earth — twice as much as the weight of all animal life.

Much of this plastic is still in use, in products like cars and homes, but a lot is junk; 40 percent of plastic production goes toward packaging that’s typically tossed after being used once. Some of our plastic waste is recycled, responsibly incinerated or properly landfilled, but tens of millions of tons are mismanaged annually — burned in open pits or left to pollute the environment. Plastic pollution has been found at the poles and the bottom of the ocean, in our clouds and soils, in human blood and mothers’ milk. If things keep going as they are, it is predicted that annual rates of plastic flowing into the sea will triple from 2016 to 2040.

The impacts are manifold. Debris can choke and tangle wildlife; even zooplankton can fill up on microplastics instead of food, altering how much oxygen is in the ocean. And some of the chemicals used in plastics — including additives that make plastics flexible or fire-resistant — can leach out into water, soil or our bodies. Some of these are carcinogenic or endocrine disruptors, capable of interfering with development or reproduction. The net impacts of our lifelong exposure to this chemical soup are hard to tease out, but one recent study concluded that it cost the United States $249 billion in extra health care in 2018.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Delegates are working now on the world’s first plastic pollution treaty, which is due to be completed by the end of this year. That treaty might cap plastic production, phase out problem chemicals and regulate how waste is managed — but how ambitious this treaty will be is yet to be seen. (See box.)

Imogen Napper, a marine science postdoc at the University of Plymouth in the United Kingdom who specializes in plastic pollution, is one of many scientists whose research is informing the treaty process. Her detective work has documented plastic pollution in surprising places and pointed to solutions that have made their way into government regulations around the world. Knowable Magazine spoke with her about the plastic problem and what we can all do about it. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Why did you decide to focus on plastic pollution as a researcher?

I was lucky to grow up in a small seaside town in the southwest of the UK. I don’t remember any discussion about plastic pollution or beach cleanups when I was younger. But now, going back home, plastic pollution is one of the most obvious environmental challenges that we have, because it’s so visible.

I’m hoping that plastic pollution can be used as a gateway issue to other environmental concerns. Climate change, I’d argue, is a far bigger beast than plastic pollution. But for plastic pollution, we’ve got all the tools that we need — we’ve got potential solutions, and discussion happening now through the plastics treaty. We have that burning fire of desire to make a change. We can fix it.

You and many other researchers spend a lot of time documenting where plastic is in the wild, and how it gets there. Why is this so hard?

When it comes to microscopic pieces in, say, a soil or water sample, it takes a lot of grunt work. I have spent a lot of time looking under the microscope trying to identify, just from the look of it, whether something is cellulosic — coming from plants, like cotton — or plastic. You get a good eye for it. But it can be really tricky.

Nor is it easy to document the accumulation and distribution of bigger, macro-sized chunks of plastic. There are so many sources, leakage points and places where plastic is building up. In one of our studies, led by Emily Duncan at the University of Exeter, we put GPS tags in plastic bottles and tracked them thousands of kilometers down the Ganges River. That sort of work helps to improve scientific models.

The commonly used estimate is that about 8 million metric tons of macroplastic enter the ocean each year. We know a lot less about the land. Technology is getting far better, with remote sensing, drones and satellite imagery. That will be very useful in the next few years to help us accurately identify how much plastic is going into the environment.

A lot of plastic litter is single-use products that have been tossed aside: In the UK, one survey showed that more than half of plastic litter was beverage-related, including cups, lids and straws. But some sources are more surprising, like tiny pieces of plastic thrown up by tire wear on highways.

That was also surprising to me. It’s so obvious — it’s right in front of you — but often we just don’t consider it. Research has only really focused on tire wear in the last few years, but it’s predicted to be one of the biggest single sources of microplastics — it has been estimated to make up five to 10 percent of the plastic entering the ocean.

In our lab, we have done a lot of research looking at clothing. I’d say about 60 percent of our wardrobe contains plastic, like polyester, acrylic or a natural-synthetic blend. A big part of my PhD research was centered around building a washing machine lab, and I tested for the first time different fabrics to see how many fibers would come off in a typical wash.

We found that for acrylic it was the most, at 700,000 fibers per wash. For polyester-cotton blend, it was a lot less, around 130,000 fibers. This started discussions about how we might make clothes differently or change our washing machines. In France, by 2025 all new washing machines will have to come with a filter, which is exciting. It’ll be really interesting to see how that develops. Ideally, the filter should be reusable, so we’re not just making more potential rubbish. There are a lot of different options; independent testing will be important.

Where does all this plastic wind up?

You could argue that plastic really is everywhere. We did some research that found plastic fibers just below the summit of Mount Everest. In some regions, plastic microfibers can go down the drain into the sewage treatment plants; the collected solids, called sewage sludge, is then treated and then often applied on agricultural land as fertilizer. There’s evidence that the chemicals in those plastics can then be absorbed into plants.

There are some surprising ecological effects, too. I have read that some plastic pieces, because of their dark colors, absorb heat, which means they’re contributing to melting snow and ice.

Yes. Plastic can also increase sand temperature, and this has been found in turtle nesting sites. And turtle sex is dependent on the temperature of the sand. So we might end up with a lot more female turtles.

What’s the best thing to do with plastic at the end of its life?

Landfill isn’t great, but it does contain and control waste when done right. Incineration has pros and cons; it gets rid of the plastic and can be used to make energy. A lot of small island developing states may use incineration because they haven’t got the space for landfill, but then it’s often open burning, which is not good for the planet or your health.

People often think that recycling is a golden solution. But recycling is not fully circular — the recycled plastic is often made into a polymer of worsening quality. At some point, it will not be recyclable. Recycling can also generate problematic microplastics. And if there isn’t a market for the recycled material, it can end up in landfill.

None of this gets rid of the core issue. It’s just delaying it. I’m a big believer of tackling the problem at its source. My supervisor, Richard Thompson, says plastic pollution is like an overfilling bath. We’re very good at mopping up the floor, but the bath keeps overflowing. What we need to do is turn off the tap.

Are there good alternatives to conventional plastic, like biodegradable or compostable plastics, or bioplastics that are made from plants rather than from fossil fuels?

We did some research on this. We did a study looking at biodegradable carrier bags: We buried them in the soil, we submerged them in the ocean, and we left them hanging outside for three years. The ones outside completely fragmented into tiny bits — the plastic didn’t disappear, it just got smaller. The ones in the soil and in the ocean could still hold a full bag of shopping.

Biodegradable plastics that are marketed today need to go into a really specific waste management facility with high moisture, high heat, maybe a certain pH, to disappear.

Many bioplastics used today — such as bio-polyethylene — are chemically the same as other plastics, just made from a different source. They’re made from plant carbon instead of from fossil fuel carbon, but they may behave exactly like all other plastic. If they’re still single use, is that any better?

There’s a lot of work going into alternative products, but we need to be careful that they’re actually better for our health and the environment.

How is the plastics treaty (see box) coming along?

It’s going to take a lot of discussion, and I will be delighted if it happens this year, but realistically, I think it is going to take a little bit more time. It is difficult to get nations to agree to firm action, because a lot of it comes down to money — both the money to be made from manufacturing plastic, and the money it costs to deal with waste.

This is an amazing opportunity that we have, where globally we can have a unified decision on how to protect our planet. The treaty needs to be ambitious, it needs to be specific, and it needs to be binding.

Is it reasonable to think that some plastics might be banned?

Legislation has already banned some plastics and additives in some countries or regions. Our lab quantified microbeads in beauty products: We found that 3 million microbeads could be in a bottle of facial scrub. So there can be thousands in a squirt on your hand. We took this research, we published it, and then one day I came in to work and I had so many emails in my inbox from journalists. It was making quite a stir. And there were campaigns like “Beat the microbead,” because consumers didn’t want to wash their faces with plastic.

So the consumers started to boycott the products, then industry voluntarily removed microbeads and showcased that information in their own marketing. And then governments around the world started to ban microbeads in facial scrubs.

Research is all about providing information. And then, with that information, people can take it forward and make a change. I feel very privileged to be in a position that I can be part of that.

If you were in charge, would you ban specific plastics or chemicals?

I’d flip the question on its head and ask: What would I keep? We don’t need all the plastic we make. And instead of using a big chemical cocktail of additives that we don’t know anything about, let’s just have a list of the chemicals that we can use.

When I started my PhD, I wrongly thought that plastic was evil. Plastics are incredibly useful and can solve other environmental and health problems. Plastic can keep our food fresh, and food waste is a huge problem. During the pandemic, it helped to keep people safe. It is lightweight, so products need less energy for transport.

But let’s think, right from when we’re designing it, how can we make sure it’s sustainable? Often, we’re not thinking about that right at the beginning, we’re thinking about it far down at the end of its life.


Treaty timeline

In 2022, 175 nations at the United Nations Environment Assembly agreed to draft a legally binding treaty against plastic pollution by 2024. That work is now underway, but progress has been slow, leaving observers wondering if it will be completed as planned at the meeting in Busan, South Korea, this December — and, if so, how ambitious it will be.

In 2023, delegates released an updated, 70-page pre-draft outlining issues to be tackled, along with a handful of options for how to address them. The issues span the full lifecycle of plastics — from their creation, including the greenhouse gases emitted during their production, through to the uses of plastics (including as single-use products and microbeads), to recycling and waste management. Topics such as tax schemes and pots of money for capacity-building in poorer nations get their share of coverage too.

The options for each issue range from hard to soft: Even the options for the stated objective of the treaty, for example, span from “to end plastic pollution” to the much gentler “to protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution.”

Many observers at the treaty’s third meeting, in Nairobi in November 2023, said that agreement on firm solutions seemed far away, with delegates from some fossil fuel-rich nations, including Saudi Arabia, pushing against hard production caps. Analysts have noted that as the planet cracks down on burning fossil fuels for energy, the oil industry has increasingly focused on plastic production as a profitable market.

On the other hand, a group of nations led by Norway and Rwanda — called the “high ambition coalition” — is pressing for strong action. “It’s a bit of a roller coaster,” says marine biologist Richard Thompson, Imogen Napper’s PhD supervisor at the University of Plymouth; he attended the treaty meeting as one of the coordinators of the independent Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. “There’s great support and traction in one direction — and half an hour later, things seem to turn.”

One scientific model shows that it will take an extremely ambitious bundle of policies to drive mismanaged waste down. By this model, for example, cutting mismanaged plastic waste by 85 percent by 2050 would require implementing a 90 percent reduction in single-use packaging, a cap on primary plastic production at 2025 levels, and a mandate that at least 40 percent of plastics be recycled and that more than 40 percent of new products be made from recycled content — along with heavy taxes and more than $200 billion of investments in global waste infrastructure.

Scientists are also thinking hard about the treaty’s proposed list of polymers and chemicals of concern, which could be used to guide bans by specific dates, or just to encourage regulation. Such a list could include, for example, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polystyrene — often called “the toxic two” by environmental groups — alongside additives including phthalates (which are often used to make PVC more flexible and some of which are endocrine disrupters).

Many analysts and concerned observers would like to see the plastic treaty modeled after the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, which in 1986 famously phased out specific chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons with hard, time-targeted commitments. But it might, alternatively, be modeled more like the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, which allows nations to determine their own targets for action. That might be easier to agree upon, but less ambitious.

“It’s difficult to get all these nations to agree on all the nuts and bolts,” says Thompson. It remains to be seen how things will pan out at the next meeting, scheduled for Ottawa, Canada, this April.

Thompson remains hopeful for a big change in how society uses plastic. “It’s so cheap we can use it for a few seconds before throwing it away. That’s the problem,” he says. But, he adds, “a problem we can solve.”

— Nicola Jones


This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews. Sign up for the newsletter.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Supreme Court justices consider reviving industry bid to ax California clean car rule

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case that could revive a bid by fuel producers to ax California’s clean car standards. The court was not considering the legality of the standards themselves, which ​​require car companies to sell new vehicles in the state that produce less pollution — including by mandating...

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case that could revive a bid by fuel producers to ax California’s clean car standards. The court was not considering the legality of the standards themselves, which ​​require car companies to sell new vehicles in the state that produce less pollution — including by mandating a significant share of cars sold to be electric or hybrid.  Instead, the Supreme Court was considering whether the fuel industry had the authority to bring the lawsuit at all. A lower court determined that the producers, which include numerous biofuel companies and trade groups representing both them and the makers of gasoline, did not have standing to bring the case. Some of the justices were quiet, so it’s difficult to predict what the ultimate outcome of the case will be. However, others appeared critical of the federal government and California’s arguments that the fuel producers do not have the right to bring a suit. Justice Brett Kavanaugh in particular noted that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) itself did not initially try to have the case tossed on that basis.  “Isn't that a tell here? I mean, EPA, as you, of course, know, routinely raises standing objections when there's even — even a hint of a question about it,” Kavanaugh said.  The fuel producers argued that while it was technically the auto industry that was being regulated, the market was being “tilted” against them as well by California’s rule, which was also adopted by other states. The EPA and California have argued that the fuel producers are arguing on the basis of outdated facts and a market that has shifted since the rule was first approved by the EPA in 2013.  The EPA needs to grant approval to California to issue such rules. The approval was revoked by the Trump administration and later reinstated in the Biden administration.  If the justices revive the currently dismissed case, lower courts would then have to decide whether to uphold the California rule — though the underlying case could eventually make its way to the high court as well.  Meanwhile, California has since passed subsequent standards that go even further — banning the sale of gas-powered cars in the state by 2035. That rule was approved by the Biden administration — though Congress may try to repeal it.

EPA fires or reassigns hundreds of staffers

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to fire or reassign more than 450 staffers working on environmental justice issues, it said Tuesday.Why it matters: The large-scale changes could effectively end much of the EPA's work tackling pollution in historically disadvantaged communities.It's part of the Trump administration's effort to vastly shrink the federal workforce. EPA has around 15,000 employees.Driving the news: EPA notified roughly 280 employees that they will be fired in a "reduction in force." Another 175 who perform "statutory functions" will be reassigned.The employees come from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, the Office of Inclusive Excellence, and EPA regional offices."EPA is taking the next step to terminate the Biden-Harris Administration's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Environmental Justice arms of the agency," a spokesperson said.Between the lines: The firings will likely see challenges from congressional Democrats and the employees themselves.EPA had previously put many environmental justice staffers on administrative leave.Administrator Lee Zeldin, during a Monday news conference, defended the agency's broader efforts to cut environmental justice grant programs, arguing the money is ill-spent."The problem is that, in the name of environmental justice, a dollar will get secured and not get spent on remediating that environmental issue," he said.

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to fire or reassign more than 450 staffers working on environmental justice issues, it said Tuesday.Why it matters: The large-scale changes could effectively end much of the EPA's work tackling pollution in historically disadvantaged communities.It's part of the Trump administration's effort to vastly shrink the federal workforce. EPA has around 15,000 employees.Driving the news: EPA notified roughly 280 employees that they will be fired in a "reduction in force." Another 175 who perform "statutory functions" will be reassigned.The employees come from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, the Office of Inclusive Excellence, and EPA regional offices."EPA is taking the next step to terminate the Biden-Harris Administration's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Environmental Justice arms of the agency," a spokesperson said.Between the lines: The firings will likely see challenges from congressional Democrats and the employees themselves.EPA had previously put many environmental justice staffers on administrative leave.Administrator Lee Zeldin, during a Monday news conference, defended the agency's broader efforts to cut environmental justice grant programs, arguing the money is ill-spent."The problem is that, in the name of environmental justice, a dollar will get secured and not get spent on remediating that environmental issue," he said.

EPA firing 280 staffers who fought pollution in overburdened neighborhoods

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will fire 280 staffers who worked on tackling pollution in overburdened and underserved communities and will reassign another 175. These staffers worked in an area known as “environmental justice,” which helps communities that face a disproportionate amount of pollution exposure, especially minority or low-income communities.  The EPA has framed its...

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will fire 280 staffers who worked on tackling pollution in overburdened and underserved communities and will reassign another 175. These staffers worked in an area known as “environmental justice,” which helps communities that face a disproportionate amount of pollution exposure, especially minority or low-income communities.  The EPA has framed its efforts to cut these programs — including its previous closure of environmental justice offices — as part of a push to end diversity programming in the government. Supporters of the agency's environmental justice work have pointed out that Black communities face particularly high pollution levels and that the programs also help white Americans, especially if they are poor.  “EPA is taking the next step to terminate the Biden-Harris Administration’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Environmental Justice arms of the agency,” an EPA spokesperson said in a written statement.   “Today, EPA notified diversity, equity, and inclusion and environmental justice employees that EPA will be conducting a Reduction in Force,” the spokesperson said. “The agency also notified certain statutory and mission essential employees that they are being reassigned to other offices through the ‘transfer of function’ procedure also outlined in [the Office of Personnel Management’s] Handbook and federal regulations” The firings will be effective July 31, according to E&E News, which first reported that they were occurring. The news comes as the Trump administration has broadly sought to cut the federal workforce. The administration has previously indicated that it planned to cut 65 percent of the EPA’s overall budget. It’s not clear how much of this will be staff, though according to a plan reviewed by Democrat House staff, the EPA is considering the termination of as many as about 1,100 employees from its scientific research arm.  Meanwhile, as part of their reductions in force, other agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs have fired tens of thousands of staffers. The EPA is smaller than these agencies, with a total of more than 15,000 employees as of January.  Nearly 170 environmental justice staffers were previously placed on paid leave while the agency was “in the process of evaluating new structure and organization.”

The Polluting Paper Mill That Helped Inspire the First Earth Day

Earth Day coordinator Denis Hayes grew up in Camas, Washington, surrounded by natural beauty and unchecked pollution. The post The Polluting Paper Mill That Helped Inspire the First Earth Day appeared first on The Revelator.

Every day drivers head north on Route 205 out of Portland, Oregon, cross the mighty Columbia River and the state line, and arrive in Washington. Many of them will immediately head east, where on a clear day they’ll soon see snow-capped Mt. Hood looming over Highway 14. Also known as the Lewis & Clark Highway, this busy road will take them toward the suburban cities of Camas and Washougal. But as they arrive in Camas and cross a narrow bridge, something else will loom over the scenic view: an enormous paper mill on the river’s edge. That paper mill, which at one point processed hundreds of tons a day, has been a defining element of Camas for more than a century. The town grew up around it. Residents walked down the hill to work there and sent their kids up the hill to go to school, where the local basketball team is still called the Papermakers (complete with a mascot, the Mean Machine, that looks like an anthropomorphic paper press). A portion of the mill in downtown Camas. Photo: John R. Platt/The Revelator Today the mill, now owned by Koch Industries, is a shadow of its former self. Relatively few people still work there. Much of the 660-acre property lies fallow. But its legacy lives on — in the history and pride of Camas, in the minds of its residents, and in the soil and water, which many people worry carry the burden of generations of pollution. And although few realize it, the paper mill’s legacy also exists on the national stage. In many ways it inspired the first Earth Day. Famed environmental advocate Denis Hayes coordinated the first national Earth Day in 1970. He later founded the Earth Day Network and became a leader in solar power and energy policy. But before that he grew up in Camas, which at the time had an occasionally noxious reputation. “If you talked to someone in Portland and mentioned Camas, universally the response was, ‘Oh yeah, that’s where the stink comes from,’ ” Hayes, now 80, recalled during a recent Zoom presentation to an in-person audience at the Camas Public Library. “The whole region was known for the stink of this uncontrolled paper mill.” The stink came from “vast quantities of uncontrolled sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide” emitted by the mill. Those pollutants came back down in the form of acid rain — and as Hayes noted, it rains quite a bit in the Pacific Northwest. Hayes speaking to Camas residents over Zoom. Photo: John R. Platt/The Revelator The effect was immediately visible in town, where the roofs of cars corroded under the acidic onslaught. “People began to ask, well, if it’s doing that to my car, what’s it doing to me,” Hayes said. “The answer, with regards to the automobiles, was that instead of reducing the pollution, they put a shower at the end of the parking lot” to rinse cars before they drove home. Wildlife was affected, too. “Every now and then you’d go down to the Columbia River slough and find scores of dead fish, in some cases hundreds of dead fish, just floating there,” Hayes said. Camas had its good sides, of course. “What I did have growing up was the ability to walk through some of the most magnificent forests on Earth and to ride my bicycle down through the Columbia River Gorge and the spectacular scenery,” Hayes recalled. But even there the paper mill took a toll. “You’d go out in the forest and go hiking in the summer, in these astonishingly beautiful Douglas fir forests, and then two years later you go back there and it is almost clearcut. There was this catastrophic approach to clearing out natural resources.” The beauty and the destruction “came together and sort of made me think, not too profoundly, that it must be possible to make paper without destroying the planet,” he said. Camas was just one of Hayes’ influences, and Hayes was one of many people behind the first Earth Day and the environmental successes that followed. But what followed remains significant. “The context then was one where we were pretty highly motivated to try to get some kinds of regulations someplace,” Hayes recalled. “This is not a personal accomplishment. There were a huge number of things that were involved in this, including the presidential aspirations of a senator named Ed Muskie.” Posters about Hayes and the first Earth Day at Camas Public Library. Photo: John R. Platt/The Revelator After the first Earth Day, the organizers — who had formed a nonprofit called Environmental Action — launched what they called “the Dirty Dozen” campaign targeting congressional representatives with bad records on environmental issues. “We tried to take out several of the worst members of Congress, and we successfully defeated seven of 12 incumbents,” Hayes said. “It is really, really hard to beat an incumbent member of Congress. And we managed to take out seven of 12. And it was clear that we were the margin of a victory in each of those cases.” Among the defeated politicians was Rep. George Fallon. “At that time Fallon was the chairman of the House Public Works Committee. If you wanted to have a federal building, you wanted to have a prison, a courthouse, a dam, any kind of public work in your district anywhere across the country, you had to have the permission of the guy who chaired that committee. When we took out George Fallon, clearly with an environmental campaign, that absolutely transformed the House of Representatives.” One month after that election, Muskie helped introduce what would become the Clean Air Act. “And the Clean Air Act passed the Senate on a voice vote and passed the House of Representatives 434 to 1. There was one member of both Houses of the American Congress that voted against the Clean Air Act. Something that would have been inconceivable in 1969 became unstoppable in 1970,” Hayes said. “Those are the kinds of magic moments that can happen in a democracy where everything, just like a school of fish is going in this direction and suddenly it goes in a different direction,” he continued. “It was my thrill to have been part of a handful of those occasions.” A new generation of Camas residents — in fact, multiple generations — has taken the lesson of the first Earth Day to heart. Several residents recently came together to form the Camas Earth Day Society, which organized Hayes’ talk at the local library and is working toward a sustainable future in their home town. They’ve worked with local students, many of whom asked Hayes questions during the event. The organization has also held an art show, organized a native pollinator display, and raised awareness of clean air and water issues in Camas. They have ambitious dreams that boil down to a simple truth, both in Camas and around the world: Everyone can make a difference. Fifty-five years after the first Earth Day, the future of environmental protection has darkened once again. The Trump administration has enabled corporate polluters, slashed climate programs and budgets, and seeks to slash and burn practically all environmental regulations. But the crowd that gathered earlier this month at the Camas library — people young and old — came together despite those threats, ready to talk about solar power, protecting native plants, improving water quality, reducing pollution, and mobilizing for the future. More than one T-shirt that night read “Earth Day Is Every Day” — a sign that the seeds of that first day continue to sprout. Previously in The Revelator: Comics for Earth: Eight New Graphic Novels About Saving the Planet and Celebrating Wildlife The post The Polluting Paper Mill That Helped Inspire the First Earth Day appeared first on The Revelator.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.