Photo credit: phys.org
Global Plastic Recycling Rates Stuck Below 10%
A recent study reveals that the global recycling rate for plastic remains alarmingly low at less than 10%, with the majority of new plastic still derived from fossil fuels. This study, conducted by researchers at Tsinghua University in China, highlights an ongoing environmental crisis as plastic production has surged without a commensurate increase in recycling efforts.
The research findings, published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, coincide with preparations for renewed international negotiations aimed at crafting a treaty to combat plastic pollution. Previous negotiations yielded no concrete agreement, underscoring the complexity of the issue.
Plastic pollution has permeated ecosystems worldwide, detectable in the most isolated ocean depths and even at the peaks of the highest mountains. Moreover, microplastics have been identified in human blood and breast milk, heightening public health concerns.
Despite mounting global awareness, researchers note a significant absence of thorough analysis regarding the entire plastics supply chain. To fill this gap, Tan and his colleagues synthesized national data, industry reports, and international statistics, resulting in a comprehensive assessment of the global plastics landscape for 2022, from production to disposal.
The findings reveal that only 9.5% of the 400 million tonnes of new plastic generated in 2022 was made from recycled materials. The overwhelming reliance on fossil fuels—chiefly from oil and gas—for plastic production signals minimal advancements in addressing the environmental challenges posed by plastics.
The authors assert that the ongoing dependence on fossil-fuel-derived feedstocks complicates global initiatives aimed at climate change mitigation.
Challenges to Recycling
Several obstacles hinder the recycling process, such as contamination from food residues and labels, which complicate the recycling of certain plastics. Additionally, the intricate variety of additives in plastic products presents further challenges.
However, economic factors play a significant role as well. It is often less expensive to produce new, “virgin” plastic than to recycle existing materials, creating a disincentive for investment in recycling infrastructure and advanced technologies, thus perpetuating the cycle of low recycling rates.
The United States stands out as one of the highest per capita consumers of plastic, yet it boasts one of the lowest recycling rates, with only about 5% of plastic being reused. Furthermore, the study notes a noteworthy shift in global waste management practices, where reliance on landfills is decreasing, and approximately one-third of plastic waste is now incinerated.
Landfills still serve as the primary disposal method for plastic waste, accounting for about 40% of the total globally. There is a notable trend towards incineration as a waste management practice, with higher rates observed in regions such as the European Union, China, and Japan.
However, the study acknowledges that it did not account for the considerable impact of informal waste disposal systems, which could significantly influence overall recycling rates. In a related study released in September by researchers at the University of Leeds, it was discovered that the informal burning of plastic in dumps and open fires poses comparable environmental risks to traditional littering. This practice is especially prevalent in developing countries where limited alternatives exist, contributing to worsening air quality and endangering workers through exposure to harmful toxins.
The authors of the current study express hope that their findings will contribute to the ongoing negotiations for a groundbreaking international treaty aimed at addressing plastic pollution. These negotiations are set to continue in August in Geneva after a previous session failed to reach an agreement.
More information: Complexities of the global plastics supply chain revealed in a trade-linked material flow analysis, Communications Earth & Environment (2025). DOI: 10.1038/s43247-025-02169-5. www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02169-5
Source
phys.org