- Plastics emit more CO2 than airlines, alarming study reveals
- $38 trillion global warming cost projected if plastic production rises
- Vital to address plastics’ role in climate change, study shows
A new study reveals that the plastics industry emits thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases annually, which is multiple times worse than the airline industry’s contribution.
An investigation conducted by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory revealed that the plastic industry emits an estimated 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually, in contrast to the 1 billion tonnes released by the airline industry.
The majority of plastic-related news focuses on the trash that winds up in the oceans and even the human body, but scientists have discovered that plastic emits astounding quantities of greenhouse gases long before it is ever used.
Plastic production on a global scale, which is powered by coal and utilizes petroleum byproducts in its manufacturing process, is equivalent to the emissions from 600 coal-fired power plants. This figure is three times the number of coal power plants located in the United States.
Researchers wrote in the government-funded study, “The production of the majority of plastic products is projected to increase exponentially, straining planetary boundaries through a triple crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.”
The climate impact of plastics is projected to increase significantly in the future decades, given that industry analysts anticipate a minimum twofold increase in production by 2050.
They estimate that the resulting global warming will cost $38 trillion if this occurs.
Leonie Wenz, the report’s lead author from the Potsdam Institute, predicted that “climate change will cause massive economic damages within the next 25 years in almost every country in the world, including highly developed nations like Germany, France, and the United States.”
However, the majority of scientific and public attention regarding plastics is directed towards their fate after they are discarded.
However, this disregards a substantial portion of the picture, as stated by the scientists who authored the report.
Researchers wrote, “The continued reliance on fossil fuels for production and the exponential growth of plastics production have contributed to a multitude of environmental issues and health risks.
Consequently, plastic pollution has escalated into a pressing concern regarding climate change, human health, and natural ecosystems.
But they continued, “There is insufficient information available regarding the contribution of plastic manufacturing to greenhouse gas emissions and the overall ‘carbon budget’ that must be adhered to in order to limit global warming to a rise of 3.6 or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.”
The carbon budget denotes the maximum allowable carbon emissions while remaining within specified limits.
Their endeavor sought to address those deficiencies.
The investigation centered on the fossil fuels utilized throughout the plastic manufacturing process, encompassing both the energy inputs for manufacturing and the petroleum products comprising the plastic itself.
The research investigated the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions originating from the nine distinct plastics derived from fossil fuels, which constitute 80% of the total plastic production.
The sample comprised, among other things, polyethylene (PE) utilized in plastic bags, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) discovered in pipelines, and plastic utilized in automobile components.
The production of these nine plastics was responsible for approximately 2.24 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (GtCO2e), which is a metric used to quantify the global warming potential of greenhouse gases emitted, such as nitrous oxide and methane.
2.5 billion tonnes is equal to 2.24 gigatonnes.
5.3% of global greenhouse gas emissions were attributable to these sources, excluding land use changes and forestry.
The scientists discovered that even with a moderate rate of expansion in the plastic industry, these figures would exponentially increase in the years to come.
Researchers wrote, “Greenhouse gas emissions from plastic manufacturing would more than double to 4.75 GtCO2e by 2050, accounting for 21-26% of the remaining global carbon budget to keep average temperature increases below 1.5°C PUT FAHRENHEIT IN () under a conservative growth scenario of 2.5 percent per year.”
This research contributes an essential element to the discourse on plastic pollution that has been omitted in the majority of reports.
Undoubtedly, plastic debris is causing severe damage to both the environment and human health.
Scientists estimate that millions of tonnes of plastic are adrift in the world’s oceans.
Furthermore, the aforementioned waste decomposes into minuscule particles known as microplastics, which have been observed to accumulate in organs such as the brain, liver, kidneys, and placenta. Such accumulation not only diminishes fertility but also elevates the risk of inflammation-related ailments including cancer, Alzheimer’s, and inflammatory bowel disease.
The pervasiveness of microplastics has been observed to extend to the clouds.
However, the detrimental effects of plastic products begin well in advance of their eventual disposal as refuse.
“Unlock your financial potential with free Webull shares in the UK.”
It begins with the production of plastic and manifests itself in the form of greenhouse gas emissions that significantly warm the planet, according to a new study.
The ramifications of this pollution extend beyond global warming to include the tangible economic expenses associated with addressing the issue of a warming planet.
In addition, a study that was published in Nature this week demonstrated how exorbitant that cost is.
The cost of continuing to use fossil fuels is six times greater than the time required for the global transition to renewable energy, according to a team of German scientists.
In addition to the expenses associated with carbon removal efforts, these costs also encompass the repercussions of climate change on labor, agriculture, and flood restoration.
Undoubtedly, plastics find utility in certain contexts, particularly within the medical field: syringes, IV tubing, packaging for bandages, and the list continues.
Although the authors of the new study do not advocate for an outright moratorium on plastics, they do recommend reducing the scale of the plastics industry.
They wrote that by reducing production volume, eliminating non-essential uses of plastics without alternatives, such as microbeads in cleaning products, could reduce global [greenhouse gas] emissions from primary plastic production.
‘However, the [greenhouse gas] impact might be altered if recycling or the use of alternative materials is implemented to reduce primary plastic production.’
