As an employee at a fast-food restaurant, I have not only discarded bulging trash bags of wasted food, but I have also emptied garbage cans overflowing with wasted plastic, such as cups, silverware, and straws. Without a doubt, food waste is a major concern, but plastic waste is also rapidly spiraling out of control. Reduce, reuse, recycle, are the three R’s that have impelled our society to decrease plastic waste; however, recycling is not enough to save our planet. Only 9% of plastic waste has been recycled, which means that the other 79% has “accumulated in landfills, dumps, or the natural environment.”

The 3 R’s of recycling have exposed our world to the issue of plastic waste, but most people do not realize the severity of plastic waste. According to National Geographic, the amount of annual plastic waste “will reach 22 million tons and possibly as much as 58 million tons” in the next 10 years. The statistic also includes the impact of reducing, reusing, and recycling. Without the 3 R’s of recycling, the amount of annual plastic waste would have reached 99 million tons in the next 10 years, according to National Geographic. Recycling is fortunately able to reduce plastic waste, but it is not able to control plastic waste. On top of the amount of plastic that is discarded each year, did you know that about “8.8 million tons flow into the oceans annually” as well? The plastic leakage into the oceans is detrimental for several reasons, and may lead to serious human health problems in the future.

According to the United Nations Environment Program, plastic is designed to be durable and to resist degradation, a type of substance that momentarily benefits humans while wreaking havoc on the planet. Plastic is nature’s adversary because the substance is not degradable; instead, the material only breaks down into smaller pieces, never completely vanishing. Consequently, the tiny particles of plastic are ingested by living organisms, including domestic and wild animals. In the future, microscopic particles of plastic will appear on our dinner plates as a result of what we consume, leading to lethal diseases. To be clear, human diseases due to plastic particles in our food have not arisen; however, uncontrolled plastic waste will undoubtedly bring us closer to this threat. Plastic can lead to diseases because microscopic plastic can pass through the pores of our skin and the blood-brain barrier in our bodies. Tiny plastics are negatively charged, so once the particles trespass the blood-brain barrier, our positively charged brains will attract the negatively charged particles. Not only will pieces of plastic cross the blood-brain barrier, but they will also expose our bodies to fatal diseases because the microscopic plastics can effortlessly transfer pathogens. The threats that plastic waste pose to the world are deeply concerning and, without proper mitigation, the threats will become a reality in the future. Fortunately, ways to reduce plastic waste have been devised, but each one leads to unique pros and cons that require thoughtful consideration.

One project funded by the National Science Foundation through the University of Maryland’s Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) has reached the conclusion that modifying the materials of products, upscaling waste collection and recycling, and improving the packaging of products will decrease the amount of annual plastic waste. Limiting plastic waste is the greatest advantage of this multi-layered idea; however, the plan has several drawbacks that can lead to other issues. First, increasing waste collection and recycling would require the addition of recycling facilities that simply do not exist. The process of building more recycling facilities is also expensive and time consuming. Next, replacing plastic materials with other substances, such as glass, is not as simple as it sounds. According to the American Chemistry Council, “alternatives to plastics can significantly increase our environmental footprint.” For example, replacing plastic bottles with glass bottles would equal 22 large coal-fired power plants. On top of substituting plastic products and packaging with other materials, the SESYNC also proposed decreasing the production of virgin plastic, or new plastic, by using more recycled plastic. SESYNC claims that the approach will efficiently diminish the accrual of new plastic in the environment, but the American Chemistry Council and other groups disagree. The American Chemistry Council advocates that producing virgin plastic with recycled plastic is counterproductive, especially since oil is extremely cheap. Plastic is derived from oil, a nonrenewable resource that has become an accessible and cheap commodity for all plastic companies. On the other hand, recycled plastic is more expensive and not easily accessible. Replacing oil with recycled products would essentially undermine “the economics of the recycling market,” says the American Chemistry Council. Despite the disadvantages of the SESYNC plan, someone has devised a way to counteract the proposal’s cons and to engender better outcomes, including a decrease in plastic waste.

In an interview on a TED Talk, Andrew Forrest revealed a plan that will not only encourage companies to replace oil with recycled plastics, but will also decrease the overall amount of plastic waste in the environment (I strongly recommend watching the TED Talk). Forrest’s idea is to raise the price of the components of virgin plastic that are synthesized from oil. The increase in price will be miniscule, but enough to enhance the value of plastic all across the globe. As a result, companies will have an excess of revenue that can be used to replace oil with recycled plastics. In addition, the excess of revenue can also be invested in other projects that are working hard to decrease plastic waste. Plus, the enhanced value of plastic across the globe would give people in Third World countries employment opportunities, such as jobs that require people to collect recycled plastic and to exchange that plastic with companies for financial gain. This idea clearly has advantages, but initiating the plan will be difficult because most plastic companies have to agree with increasing the price of constituents that contribute to the production of plastic in the same time frame. Nonetheless, Forrest’s idea is an approach worth considering.

To conclude, plastic waste is a major concern that will only become more severe over time. Plastic waste not only pollutes our environment and harms wildlife, but the toxicity of plastic also threatens the future of human lives. The different approaches on reducing plastic waste presented by the National Science Foundation, Maryland’s Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, the American Chemistry Council, and Andrew Forrest, have initiated discussions about plastic waste. But, reaching a final solution that will efficiently balance both the advantages and disadvantages of changing plastic production and limiting plastic waste depends on all of us. Our future depends on all of us.

So, what will you do about plastic waste?