

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years," said one critic.
Critics are slamming Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy for his Thursday veto of a bill that would have banned state agencies and restaurants from using single-use polystyrene foam food containers.
The legislation, which passed last month with bipartisan support and would have taken effect starting in January, was intended to stop the use of non-biodegradable polystyrene containers, whose usage has resulted in microplastics polluting Alaska's waterways.
In justifying the veto, Dunleavy said that the bill would "create a short and unrealistic implementation timeline" and would “be especially difficult for businesses in rural Alaska, where shipping limitations, supply availability, and higher costs already make operations more expensive."
In an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska House Speaker Bryce Edgmon (I-37) expressed frustration that Dunleavy has vetoed a number of measures this year that have had broad support, simply because they did not conform with his "far-right beliefs."
"Every bill that he has vetoed thus far, in my view, served in a valid public purpose," Edgmon explained. “It’s difficult to put so much work and so much public process and so much time and energy, and then, because they don’t meet the standards—whatever the standards are—they get canned."
Environmental advocates criticized Dunleavy for the veto, with Christy Leavitt, senior campaign director at Oceana, calling it "a setback for Alaska and our oceans."
"This veto undermines bipartisan action to reduce single-use plastic pollution at the source, and will only put Alaska’s communities, wildlife, and waters in further jeopardy," said Leavitt. "We applaud the efforts of the state legislature and look forward to working with lawmakers to pass this important bill in the future to phase out plastic foam foodware."
Dyani Lezama, state director at Alaska Environment, said she was "incredibly disappointed that the governor vetoed this opportunity to make Alaska’s environment safer and cleaner."
"Polystyrene foam is bad for our health, produces a huge amount of litter, and is incredibly hard to clean up," Lezama emphasized. "Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years."
Had Dunleavy not vetoed the legislation, Alaska would have become the thirteenth state to ban polystyrene foam containers, following Maryland, Maine, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Virginia, Washington, Delaware, Oregon, Rhode Island, and California.
To protect their markets, the petrochemical companies began a decades-long, coordinated effort to sell the public on plastic recycling—despite their knowledge that it was neither technically nor economically viable.
We’re all living in a world—and in bodies—more polluted with plastic than the one our parents grew up in. And with global plastic production increasing by 3-3.5% annually and expected to double by 2040 or 2050, our children, and their children, will inherit even more plastic particles in everything from their food systems to their internal organs.
Two new pieces of media shine a light on the enormous harm that these invasive plastics are causing to our health across generations—and how Big Oil and the plastics industry have not only caused this crisis but also are bent on continuing it with no end in sight.
The Netflix documentary Plastics Detox details how the endocrine-disrupting chemicals from plastics contaminate three generations: the mother, the fetus, and the fetus' developing reproductive cells—“a toxic trespass," according to an expert interviewed by the film’s producers. Following environmental and reproductive epidemiologist Dr. Shanna Swan as she strives to help couples struggling with infertility, the film shows how chemicals found in plastic are identified as major endocrine disruptors, significantly contributing to hormone dysfunction, lower sperm quality, and falling fertility rates.
Just as viewers begin to wonder, how did we even get here? How is there so much plastic in… well, everything? California Attorney General Rob Bonta appears on screen, succinctly explaining that “the entire plastics industry is built on a lie”—that we can simply recycle our way out of the problem. “The only reason that plastics today are ubiquitous is because the people were told that this product can be recycled,” Bonta explains. Investigations from the Center for Climate Integrity and others have revealed that the major fossil fuel and petrochemical companies that produce and sell plastics have long known recycling was not a technically or economically viable solution to plastic waste.
Attorney General Bonta has the right idea—we need to bring an end to the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lies.
On behalf of California, Bonta has filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against ExxonMobil that seeks to hold the oil giant, and the world’s biggest producer of the polymers used in single-use plastics, accountable for helping to create and push that myth.
A new book by journalist Beth Gardiner, Plastics Inc.: The Secret History and Shocking Future of Big Oil’s Biggest Bet, details the more than 100-year evolution of the plastics industry, including the industry’s deliberate efforts to reshape our society from one that, coming out of the Great Depression and World War II, reduced and reused its materials to one that simply disposed of them. Disposability equals profitability to the industry. Gardiner details how plastics’ inability to be reused or recycled was not a bug, but a feature. As one industry leader put it at the 1956 Society of Plastics Industry conference, “The future of plastics is in the trash can.” To actualize plastics’ true selling potential, the industry would have to “teach people how to waste.”
From there, the world’s leading petrochemical companies, with their ethos of single-use disposability, went on to create the plastic waste crisis. The American public, though, quickly became wary of plastic pollution and began to push back. In response, the industry first promoted landfilling and incineration to hide the plastic from view. But it quickly became clear that these disposal options would not placate a public frustrated by a flood of disposable plastics. People did not want more landfills, did not want incineration, and did not want plastic in the environment. This public outcry led to calls for bans on single-use plastics. To protect their markets, the petrochemical companies began a decades-long, coordinated effort to sell the public on plastic recycling—despite their knowledge that it was neither technically nor economically viable.
No amount of effort, investment, public education, or consumer diligence can overcome a material that resists recycling at a molecular level. Plastic’s intrinsic structure creates technical and economic barriers that make successful, safe, and scalable plastic recycling impossible—barriers that plastics producers identified in their own internal assessments as early as the 1970s. Rather than acknowledging these limitations, the industry has embarked on a nearly half-century long campaign to ensure the public never learned about them.
Now the world’s largest plastics producers make public commitments to expand the use and capacity of chemical (or “advanced”) recycling, even in the face of overwhelming evidence demonstrating that major economic and technical limitations remain unresolved. Chemical recycling operations continue to flounder as a result of predictable issues, including many of the same factors that industry insiders identified decades ago, while companies quietly retreat from their heavily publicized commitments once their public relations value has expired.
We are now awash in plastic. It is literally everywhere, quietly changing our human existence. Attorney General Bonta has the right idea—we need to bring an end to the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lies. Consumers are legally entitled to make informed decisions. Corporations cannot be given unfettered license to continue to sell us baseless false solution after baseless false solution. They must be held accountable.
We are building a new and sustainable economy on our terms. This is what Dow wants to take away from us; I refuse.
I’m a 77-year-old shrimper from the Texas Gulf Coast, and the AI revolution has reached my town. Early this year, Dow Chemical announced global cuts to 4,500 jobs as it moves toward artificial intelligence. News of the layoffs tore through our rural community of Seadrift–where some of the thousand people work at the local Dow facility–with the devastation of a hurricane. Replacing workers with robots might be Dow’s latest blow, but this toxic industry has wronged my hometown of Seadrift for 70 years.
I recently completed a 30-day hunger strike on the public property (ditch) outside of Dow Chemical, during which time the sheriff actually arrested me while I was attempting to deliver my letter of demands to a company representative here in my hometown.
For decades, Dow has illegally dumped plastic and chemical waste into the local bays and waterways, which have sustained this fishing community for more than 170 years. Now, the company wants government approval for a new permit that would legalize plastic pollution at the Seadrift plant, and allow the construction of experimental nuclear reactors to power it.
As a native Seadrifter, I say: No.
Industry promised us prosperity, but we lost our economy and our heritage.
Dow is planning massive job cuts right now, despite collecting $177 million in bank finance since 2019—which is more funding than any other petrochemical company currently expanding in the US, according to a new report, "Toxic Finance."
What lasting good have these toxic pollution factories ever done for this community?
My family made a living on the water for four generations, and I’ve been a shrimper all my life. I remember when Union Carbide (now Dow) and Formosa Plastics came to our communities with glossy pamphlets and slick presentations. Our elected officials made a devil’s bargain, and “a little pollution” turned into billions of plastic pellets and tons of chemicals in our water.
When the local bays got sick, the communities started dying with it. First, as in Formosa Plastic’s case, industry bought out the ranchers; then an elementary school; and finally, through a class action suit, bought out citizens and now own their homes. Local businesses have been boarded up throughout the county. As a young woman, I worked at Froggy’s fish house; now, it’s a concrete slab. Four more were bulldozed. A hundred boats used to launch from our docks at the start of shrimp season; today, we’re lucky if we have five. Industry promised us prosperity, but we lost our economy and our heritage. As the old saying goes, our downtown died by a thousand cuts.
I always knew it was a raw deal, but at least some of us got steady jobs… at least for a little while. Now, Dow can’t even deliver on that meager promise. Instead, Dow joins the likes of Amazon, UPS, and dozens of other multinational corporations looking to replace American workers with artificial intelligence.
Nobody from Dow has even responded to me after 30 days of fasting and living in a tent outside of their facility, despite acknowledging receipt of my demand letter to Dow's CEO. To be clear, I will not rest until this company:
On a bright note, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has confirmed that a public meeting about Dow’s proposed changes to the water discharge permit will be held at some unspecified time in the future… and so, the fight continues!
Believe me, dear folks, people still have power. I sued Formosa Plastics and won the largest citizen lawsuit settlement under the Clean Water Act in US history—$50 million plus additional fines because the company can’t stop polluting the bay—all of which has gone into a public trust designed to restore the fishing communities, the bays, and the local environment.
Our trust funded a cooperative of 250 fisherfolk working together to revitalize our seafood industry, which now has its own office, a processing plant, and a 60-acre oyster farm that will grow to become the largest in the Gulf. We are building a new and sustainable economy on our terms.
This is what Dow wants to take away from us. I refuse.
Will you join me in fighting back against corporate greed?
Committing $144 million to study microplastics while subsidizing fossil fuels by nearly $31 billion a year is like trying to clean up an oil spill with a spoon while the tanker is still spewing.
At a time when the science is clear, and action is overdue, the Trump administration’s STOMP initiative—aimed at measuring and removing microplastics from the human body—is a convenient distraction that delays real action. We do not need more studies to understand microplastics in our bodies. We need policies that prevent them from getting there in the first place.
For years, scientists have warned that we are breathing, eating, and drinking plastic. Microplastics—which contain more than 4,200 chemicals known to be hazardous to human health—are in our blood, lungs, and unborn babies.
And while there’s something validating about the Trump administration finally acknowledging this problem, putting microplastics on a watch list is not protection. Instead, this declared "war on microplastics" is a gift in disguise to the industries driving the crisis.
“Make America Healthy Again” was a rallying cry: Take on the corporate polluters, clean up our food supply, eliminate toxic chemicals, and hold the chemical industry accountable. The MAHA Report acknowledged that microplastics are found in "the blood and urine of American children and pregnant women,” and promised action from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The problem is that the only real way to fix it is to stop it at the source. That means taking on the fossil fuel industry driving plastic production—an industry to which this administration has shown deep loyalty.
That was the promise. But instead, the Trump administration gave us plastic straws and put single-use plastics back in our National Parks. They slashed the EPA's budget nearly in half—the very agency responsible for the new microplastics plan—and fired more than 1,000 of its scientists. They dismantled the agencies that protect us from chemical disasters and exposure to harmful hazards, like lead. They ramped up glyphosate production and appointed chemical-industry lobbyists to leadership roles within the EPA. They’re also weakening the Toxic Substances Control Act and rolling back protections on PFAS in drinking water.
While EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin claims the administration is holding itself “to the highest standards to protect the health of every American,” it continues to gut science, weaken laws, and hollow out the very institutions responsible for protecting public health—giving polluting industries a free pass to keep producing more.
Even MAHA advocates are beginning to see through the rhetoric. In a recent letter to the EPA, they urged:“The EPA must choose whether it will uphold a chemical status quo or honor the promise to make this country healthy again. The public is watching. Families are organizing. Scientists are sounding the alarm.”
Microplastics don’t just randomly end up in our bodies. They come from a system designed to produce endless plastic at any cost. That system is fueled by oil, gas, and coal. Nearly 99% of plastics are made from fossil fuels. Committing $144 million to study microplastics while subsidizing fossil fuels by nearly $31 billion a year is like trying to clean up an oil spill with a spoon while the tanker is still spewing.
The Trump administration has put a spotlight on a serious health crisis. The problem is that the only real way to fix it is to stop it at the source. That means taking on the fossil fuel industry driving plastic production—an industry to which this administration has shown deep loyalty. As Secretary of the US DHHS, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., put it on Fox News: “A lesson we were all supposed to learn in kindergarten is that you clean up after yourself. You don't force the public to do it.”
The coming months will show whether this administration is serious about action or simply delivering lip service to a disillusioned MAHA ahead of the midterms. If the administration is really committed to making Americans healthy again, it must act where it matters: Set enforceable limits on microplastics in drinking water, restore strong chemical safety laws, halt new plastic production, rebuild the EPA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and revoke the red-carpet access it has granted industry within regulatory agencies.
Above all, it could truly end the war on microplastics by backing a global plastics treaty that limits production in the first place.
Because you cannot detox a body you are still poisoning.
Tossing out the trash is something you’re just supposed to do, no questions asked, at least if you want to live a normal, respected life. But what if you're missing something wondrous?
Hey, want to read a poem with me? Warning: It opens several disturbing doors, the least disturbing of which is the “crazy old coot” part, i.e., me. Once you start getting lost in the paradoxes of life, you need to watch out. They could start coming after you.
But more disturbing is the paradox itself, which is both environmental and spiritual. And it’s right there on my front lawn. The life I’ve been given—the lives we’ve been given—are partially disposable, apparently. Mostly I took this for granted, but suddenly one summer afternoon, as I was pushing my hand mower up and down the lawn, something shifted in me. I started feeling... reverence for garbage? Tossing out the trash is something you’re just supposed to do, no questions asked, at least if you want to live a normal, respected life. Doubting this could be a tad problematic.
The poem is called “Buddha’s Lawn.” I wrote it a decade ago. Back when I still had a lawn to mow.
I mow the lawn and feel gratitude
my neighbors
haven’t pigeonholed me as a crazy old coot.
I’m stalled in my transition
from a lifestyle and sense of order based on
killing things,
like weeds, mice, whatever,
to one based on reverence for all stuff,
however weird.
It’s a cool day but
I work up a sweat.
On the lawn, I pick up a shred
of burst red balloon, a used napkin,
a transparent plastic juice container.
This stuff is all just litter
and the weeds are still weeds.
If I really let myself
see them differently,
I’d be the crazy neighbor, right?
Well, sorry (I apologize to myself.) I can’t help it. Once the door opens and a ray of awareness shines in, burst balloons, tossed straws, plastic grocery bags, discarded pop bottles, etc., etc., aren’t what they used to be. There’s an inner awareness that won’t go away. You might call it “litteracy”—an awareness of what happens next.
For instance, according to the Center for Biological Diversity: “In the first decade of this century, we made more plastic than all the plastic in history up to the year 2000. And every year, billions of pounds of more plastic end up in the world’s oceans. Studies estimate there are now 15-51 trillion pieces of plastic in the world’s oceans—from the equator to the poles, from Arctic ice sheets to the sea floor. Not one square mile of surface ocean anywhere on Earth is free of plastic pollution...”
The analysis goes on:
Thousands of animals, from small finches to blue whales, die grisly deaths from eating and getting caught in plastic...
Hundreds of thousands of seabirds ingest plastic every year. Plastic ingestion reduces the storage volume of the stomach, causing starvation. It’s estimated that 60% of all seabird species have eaten pieces of plastic, with that number predicted to increase to 99% by 2050. Dead seabirds are often found with stomachs full of plastic, reflecting how the amount of garbage in our oceans has rapidly increased in the past 40 years...
Dead whales have been found with bellies full of plastic.
I can’t dismiss this with a shrug... just toss the plastic in the trash and go on mowing my lawn, being normal. I start to stare with curiosity and wonderment at the litter. And this is where the old coot starts looking, or at least feeling, crazy, at least until his sense of awareness expands: “The word ‘garbage’ means a resource nobody is smart enough to use yet.”
Hmmm. Really? I quoted these words in a column I wrote in 2013. Called (I kid you not) “Reverence for Garbage,” it talks abouts the documentary Landfill Harmonic, about a Paraguayan village built on a landfill. Reclaiming and reselling the trash was the residents’ primary means of survival. But they did something else as well. Inspired by a local musician, the residents also started making musical instruments out of the trash: “violins and cellos from oil drums, flutes from water pipes and spoons, guitars from packing crates.”
Real instruments were beyond expensive, far more costly than anyone there could afford. But children in the village learned to play the instruments hand-crafted from the landfill trash. And what was worthless became heavenly.
Is there a larger cultural takeaway pulsating in this story? Could it be that we value too little of our own planet? I wonder if maybe.. maybe... we should begin crumpling up our certainties and tossing them in the trash.
The biggest threat isn’t scientific uncertainty, since there’s a considerable amount of scientific consensus that there is plastic in us. The biggest threat is weaponized uncertainty used to delay regulations.
“Microplastics are everywhere, and they’re harming us.”
“Actually, maybe not.”
“Hold on, that study might be flawed.”
“Bombshell… the whole field is in doubt.”
The headline isn’t “microplastics in people might be wrong,” but rather “quantifying microplastics in human samples is challenging, and the science is evolving in the right direction.”
If you’ve been hearing about microplastics recently, you may have been getting whiplash from the headlines. But you shouldn’t be.
Because this is what science looks like when it’s working: Researchers test new ideas and challenge each other’s methods. This helps refine what we know. What isn’t supposed to happen is a normal, healthy, scientific process getting manipulated into a dramatic storyline about a fictional scandal—a story that can leave the public confused.
For over two decades, we’ve studied plastic pollution in the ocean. Scientists started describing the accumulation zones of plastic in the subtropical gyres, the places where wind and water currents concentrate floating debris. The research pointed to a truth that was complicated but clear: Most of the pieces are tiny, fragmented plastic—microplastics—along with some larger marine debris, like fishing gear.
But the media put a spin on it, and gave the world a simpler picture: a floating island of trash, “twice the size of Texas.” Some even called this a “garbage patch” you could supposedly walk on. People cried, “Why can’t I see it on Google Maps?” Some wondered if the US should plant a flag, and a handful of naive entrepreneurs fabricated fantastic ocean cleanup contraptions.
It was dramatic. Word spread. But eventually, it backfired.
All those who went looking for an island, didn’t find one. Instead they concluded, “It’s more like smog than a landfill,” and some pointed out, “Maybe it was exaggerated and the world had been duped.”
The pattern—one that goes oversimplify, sensationalize, backlash, dismissal—can drain urgency from a real crisis. Misinformation gets the headline. This gets repeated, as we’ve seen before in other environmental debates, such as the hole in the ozone layer, or climate change. The same thing is unfolding now with microplastics and human health.
The recent article in The Guardian that sparked this debate focuses on a real issue. In our research studying microplastics in the environment and animal studies, measuring micro- and nanoplastics in human tissue is incredibly hard. It is particularly difficult when researchers are looking for very small particle sizes, where laboratory contamination from airborne sources becomes harder to rule out. This is especially the case in human tissue.
Microplastics are not like other contaminants, such as lead in water, where you can measure parts per billion, and lean on decades of standardized instruments and test methods. Plastics come in many polymers, sizes, and shapes. Nanoplastics behave differently than microplastics. And plastic is everywhere, meaning background contamination is always a risk. This is sometimes called the “pig pen effect”—it is a challenge to study a material that is so widespread.
The Guardian article is not a devastating blow. It’s a scientific debate around specific methods in a research field that is rapidly improving.
The headline isn’t “microplastics in people might be wrong,” but rather “quantifying microplastics in human samples is challenging, and the science is evolving in the right direction.”
That difference matters. If the public hears “doubt cast,” then it translates it as “maybe plastic pollution isn’t really there or not that bad.” The question is, does it hold up across methods, across labs, across time?
So what has science taught us?
The biggest threat here isn’t scientific uncertainty, since there’s a considerable amount of scientific consensus that there is plastic in us. The biggest threat is weaponized uncertainty.
Environmental health has a predictable plot—when evidence starts piling up that a pollutant is harmful, a well-funded countermovement doesn’t always try to prove it’s safe. On the contrary, it tries to prove that the science is messy, uncertain, and “we need more data.”.
We’re not asking journalists to avoid urgency. Plastic pollution is urgent. Certain phrases, however, may signal that you’re being pulled into a pattern of mythmaking.
The industry has a playbook with favorite phrases, such as: “not conclusive,” “uncertain,” “scientists disagree,” “lack of consensus.” Disagreement in science is healthy. However, this (very routine) component of science can also become a winning political strategy used against science and public policy. Casting doubt can delay regulation.
Naomi Oreskes writes in Merchants of Doubt, “The industry had realized you could create the impression of controversy simply by asking questions.” That’s why our concern isn’t that researchers are debating methods. Our concern is that sensational headlines can warp debate, and give merchants of doubt an opportunity to skew public perception.
We’re not asking journalists to avoid urgency. Plastic pollution is urgent. Certain phrases, however, may signal that you’re being pulled into a pattern of mythmaking, such as “bombshell,” or “debunked,” when what’s really happening is refinement. Those phrases shock and entertain, but do little to foster understanding.
What we actually need next is for the microplastics field to keep growing. Researchers across the board—from those that think studies are exaggerated to those that stand behind their research findings—are making calls for better lab protocols, contamination controls, reporting requirements, and inter-lab studies to validate results. These are unglamorous, but they’re what solidify early research findings into trusted science. A first-of-its-kind finding of plastic somewhere in the human body shouldn’t be framed like the final truth. It should be heralded as the beginning of a more complete picture.
Rather than framing plastic reduction as individual sacrifice, the campaign presents it as a communal act of care, rooted in culture, seasonality, and public health.
Mardi Gras is a transnational, diasporic cultural tradition rooted in Christian liturgical calendars and continually reshaped through Afro-diasporic, colonial, and migrant histories. Across cultures and centuries, the passage from winter to spring has carried a shared meaning: renewal. It is a moment marked not only by seasonal change but by intentional pause, a time to reassess habits, responsibilities, and the ways individual actions shape collective life.
In New Orleans and across South Louisiana, that pause arrives right after Mardi Gras. Carnival season, with its music, artistry, and communal joy, gives way to Lent, a period traditionally devoted to reflection, restraint, and service. Similar practices appear across faiths and cultures, from Ramadan in Muslim communities to Passover in Jewish tradition and secular observances tied to the spring equinox. Each reflects a collective understanding that cycles of abundance must be balanced by intention.
Within Christian tradition, Lent centers on three practices: prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. These concepts readily translate into environmental responsibility. Fasting becomes a restraint from unnecessary consumption. Prayer becomes a reflection on the consequences of habitual behavior. Almsgiving becomes solidarity with communities bearing the costs of environmental harm.
Plastic-Free Friday, a weekly initiative launched by RISE St. James, draws directly from these shared values. Rather than framing plastic reduction as individual sacrifice, the campaign presents it as a communal act of care, rooted in culture, seasonality, and public health. That framing matters, particularly along the Gulf Coast, where plastic pollution is a lived and often encouraged reality.
Mardi Gras is among the world’s most recognized cultural celebrations and is central to New Orleans’ identity and economy. Yet when the parades end, and the streets are cleared, the environmental consequences of Carnival season remain.
In 2023, Mardi Gras celebrations generated approximately 1,162 tons of waste over 11 days, according to data from the City of New Orleans Department of Public Works. An estimated 25% of that waste consisted of plastic beads, according to local waste audits and bead recovery organizations. While recovery efforts have expanded, reclaiming more than 10,000 pounds of beads during the 2025 Carnival season, these initiatives capture only a fraction of the plastic distributed each year.
Plastic-Free Friday leverages cultural timing, community norms, and shared identity to reframe plastic reduction as a public health intervention rather than a personal moral test.
Much of the remainder enters landfills, clogs storm drains, or is carried into surrounding waterways. Over time, these plastics degrade into microplastics that are now detected in soil, seafood, drinking water, and human tissue. Peer-reviewed research increasingly links microplastic exposure and associated chemical additives to endocrine disruption, reproductive harm, immune dysfunction, and elevated cancer risk.
These risks extend far beyond festival cleanup. They intersect with a deeper public health and environmental justice crisis that has long shaped life along the Gulf Coast.
Plastic pollution is often framed as a waste management issue. In communities along Louisiana’s industrial corridor, it is also a determinant of health.
Plastic production relies on fossil fuels and petrochemical infrastructure that is disproportionately concentrated in low-income and predominantly Black communities along the Mississippi River. Residents living near these facilities experience elevated exposure to air and water pollution, higher rates of respiratory illness, and increased cancer risks, trends documented by the Louisiana Tumor Registry and federal environmental justice screening tools. From extraction and production to disposal, plastic reinforces structural inequities that shape who bears the health costs of modern consumption.
Every single-use item, whether a bottle, a bag, or a Mardi Gras bead, participates in that system. The connection between consumption and harm is rarely visible in moments of celebration, but it becomes clear when examined through a public health lens.
Plastic-Free Friday situates that connection within everyday life. By encouraging individuals and communities to reduce plastic use one day a week, the campaign lowers barriers to participation while fostering habit formation and collective awareness. Behavioral science research shows that recurring, socially reinforced practices are more likely to produce sustained change than isolated actions. Plastic-Free Friday leverages cultural timing, community norms, and shared identity to reframe plastic reduction as a public health intervention rather than a personal moral test.
Along the Gulf Coast, particularly in Louisiana, residents and environmental organizations have turned to the courts to challenge permitting practices they argue ignore cumulative pollution and disproportionate health risks. Lawsuits supported by national groups, including Earthjustice, contest permit extensions for proposed petrochemical and plastics projects in St. James Parish, where residents already face elevated rates of respiratory illness and cancer.
Through small but consistent acts of restraint, reflection, and solidarity, communities across the Gulf Coast can reduce plastic exposure, protect public health, and support those most affected by the plastic economy.
Additional litigation seeks broader remedies. Residents of St. James Parish, represented by the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, have filed civil rights lawsuits alleging discriminatory land-use practices and calling for a moratorium on new petrochemical development. A federal judge’s decision to allow key claims to proceed reflects increasing judicial scrutiny of cumulative environmental harm linked to industrial siting.
These cases emphasize the limits of addressing plastic pollution solely through waste management. Plastic-Free Friday complements, rather than replaces, legal and regulatory accountability by addressing demand and public awareness.
Mardi Gras is sustained by continuity, creativity, and collective participation. Plastic pollution imposes a lasting burden on the environment and health systems, persisting long after its causes are forgotten.
Plastic-Free Friday offers a culturally grounded and scalable response. Through small but consistent acts of restraint, reflection, and solidarity, communities across the Gulf Coast can reduce plastic exposure, protect public health, and support those most affected by the plastic economy.
As environmental challenges intensify, the path forward may not always begin with a sweeping transformation. Sometimes it begins more simply, with a pause at the end of a season, a shared intention, and a decision to choose differently, together.
Inaction now carries a clearer cost than ever: At UNEA-7 in Nairobi—the environmental capital of the world—the “Nairobi Spirit” can convert shared challenges into shared action.
As geopolitical challenges and tensions escalate globally, one thing is clear: Fragmented politics will not fix a fractured planet.
This is why the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA)—the world’s highest decision-making body on the environment—is so critical to address our shared and emerging environmental threats.
The seventh session of the assembly, taking place at the headquarters of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in Nairobi, Kenya this month, will bring together ministers, intergovernmental organizations, multilateral environmental agreements, the broader UN system, civil society groups, scientists, activists, and the private sector to shape global environmental policy.
Recent UNEP data show emissions continue to rise as the impacts of global environment and climate challenges are accelerating and growing ever more extreme. We see it in record heatwaves; disappearing ecosystems; and toxins in our air, water, and soil. These are global threats that demand global solutions.
To deliver at the speed and scale required, the United Nations system must act together—with the full family of Multilateral Environmental Agreements coming together to support countries.
Even in turbulent times, environmental multilateralism continues to deliver. Since countries met at UNEA last year, this multilateralism has delivered important progress.
Governments agreed to establish the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution—finally completing the “trifecta” of science bodies alongside the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The BBNJ Agreement on the sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction came into force, a major win for the governance of our oceans.
Importantly, during such a challenging political climate, the Paris Agreement is showing that it is working. However, it is clear we need to move much faster with greater determination. But change is afoot: The global shift to low-emission and climate-resilient development is irreversible. Renewable energy is outcompeting fossil fuels pricewise. Climate smart investments are driving tomorrow’s vibrant economies and societies.
While we must recognize that many were hoping COP30 would include explicit reference to phasing out fossil fuels in the decision text, this was not to be. However, the COP president committed to creating two road maps during his one-year tenure, one to halt and reverse deforestation and another to transition away from fossil fuels—a move that was backed by more than 80 countries during the talks.
These are not small steps—nor are they enough to address the threats we face in full. But they do reinforce that multilateralism can still bring science and policy together to address our global challenges.
Of course, progress is not always straight forward. Since UNEA’s historic resolution in 2022 on a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, negotiations have continued to advance. While we do not yet have a full treaty text agreed, the latest talks in Geneva earlier this year made hard fought progress and countries remain at the table, sustaining momentum toward an agreement that ends plastic pollution once and for all.
This year, under the theme “Advancing sustainable solutions for a resilient planet,” UNEA will build on these wins to set the stage for even greater progress.
The seventh edition of UNEP’s flagship report, the Global Environmental Outlook, will be key to informing how we deliver this future. Released during UNEA, the report will help move us beyond diagnoses of our common challenges to identifying real solutions across five interconnected areas: economics and finance; circularity and waste; environment; energy; and food systems. Drawing on contributions from hundreds of experts worldwide, the Outlook will help countries prioritize the most effective solutions to deliver our global goals.
To deliver at the speed and scale required, the United Nations system must act together—with the full family of Multilateral Environmental Agreements coming together to support countries. UNEP is proud to host 17 conventions and panels that span the environmental spectrum, from toxic chemicals to protection of the ozone layer. Bringing this family of agreements closer together offers opportunities to better align priorities.
This is why UNEA will put a central focus on how these agreements can better work together for accelerated, more targeted support to countries as they implement commitments. Because action on climate is action on biodiversity and land; because action on land is action on climate; because action on chemicals, pollution, and waste is action on nature and on climate.
Inaction now carries a clearer cost than ever. At UNEA-7 in Nairobi—the environmental capital of the world—the “Nairobi Spirit” can convert shared challenges into shared action and, ultimately, shared prosperity on a safe, resilient planet that benefits all.
The United Nations Environment Assembly will take place from December 8-12 in Nairobi, Kenya.
The plastics crisis must remain a priority in international negotiations.
Contrary to some reporting, the United Nations Global Plastics Treaty hasn’t failed—but recent talks in Geneva are a blaring wake-up call. If we don’t get this right, human health will suffer for generations, and our climate goals will slip further behind. It is vital that plastics, and the treaty, continue to be a priority in international fora.
Despite 99% of plastics being made from fossil fuel and plastic production projected to triple by 2060, plastics were low on the global agenda at the recently concluded COP30 climate summit. Countries will soon be reconvening at the UN Environmental Assembly (UNEA-7) to confront the world’s biggest environmental problems, presenting another opportunity to restore momentum and align global action on the detrimental environmental, health, and economic impacts of the plastics crisis.
Microplastics are now in even the most remote places on the planet and found throughout human bodies. Thousands of chemicals in plastics have been linked to immune system disorders, hormone imbalances, diabetes, obesity, cancer, and infertility, costing an estimated $1.5 trillion in health-related economic losses every year worldwide.
Despite efforts by countries to delay progress at INC 5.2 in August, high-ambition countries succeeded in rejecting a weak deal that failed to protect people and the planet, recognizing it would do more harm than good and take decades to fix. The talks aren’t over: The chance to deliver a treaty that helps to end the plastic pollution crisis is still on the table. Ambitious countries have yet to use all the tools at their disposal, including voting, to secure real progress.
The treaty talks haven’t failed, but deep flaws in the process remain. Countries with heavy fossil fuel interests, or “petrostates”—and the lobbyists backing them—are deliberately delaying progress to protect profits. An estimated 234 fossil fuel, petrochemical, and plastics industry lobbyists flooded the Geneva talks, with some even embedded in country delegations. Their goal is for a toothless treaty—one primarily focused on waste management, with voluntary commitments—or for the process to collapse entirely to safeguard business as usual.
Ambitious countries pushed back, rejecting two watered-down proposals in Geneva that would have created exactly that kind of weak agreement, instead of scaling down plastic production. Most plastic can’t and won’t ever be recycled, but ends up landfilled, incinerated, and polluting our communities and environment.
If we want meaningful climate action, we can’t ignore plastic production.
Despite most countries supporting an agreement that curbs plastic production, bans toxic chemicals, and protects human health, a handful of petrostates have blocked such commonsense provisions under the guise of reaching consensus. While consensus may seem ideal, it gives single countries the power to veto widely supported texts and stand in the way of progress. Meanwhile, participation for Indigenous Peoples, scientists, and public interest nonprofits has not lived up to the promise of an open and transparent process.
These dynamics mirror the long delays that have plagued climate action under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change for decades. The plastics industry now heats the world four times more than air travel, and serves as a “Plan B” for fossil fuel companies, letting them protect profits, expand markets, and drive more fossil fuel use. If we want meaningful climate action, we can’t ignore plastic production. That makes a strong, legally binding plastics treaty more urgent than ever.
UN member states must act rather than continue negotiating in circles. With the recent resignation of the chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), 166 members of Civil Society have sent a letter to member states calling for the new chair, when elected, to fix the process. The next chair must ensure the voices of those harmed first and the worst by plastics—from fossil fuel extraction and plastic production to incineration, landfills, and pollution—are heard.
Countries still have a chance to get the treaty process back on track. The plastics crisis is an all-hands-on-deck moment, requiring governments all around the world to respond at the local, national, regional, and international levels. We are already making progress at the international level, as demonstrated with a groundbreaking resolution at the recent International Union for Conservation of Nature. We need to see more of these kinds of actions, not less.
After all, it was at UNEA-5.2 in 2022 that countries first agreed to negotiate a global plastics treaty.
We cannot afford a weak deal. Ambitious countries must exercise their power to call for a vote when low-ambition petrostates weaponize consensus.
If world leaders fix the process and keep ambition high, a treaty that puts people and the planet before plastics and profits is within reach.
The latest round of negations show just how difficult it is to enforce humanitarian and ecological objectives which go against the interests of the oil industry and oil-producing countries.
A legally binding Global Plastics Treaty was first proposed in March 2022 when 175 nations signed a resolution at the United Nations Environment Assembly committing to draft the treaty. Negotiations have, however, been stalled by disagreements for years.
This treaty was seen as our greatest chance to address the plastics crisis on a global scale across its entire lifecycle, from production to disposal. In August 2025, at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC)-5.2, 184 countries negotiated the details of the agreement in Geneva, resulting in an outcome that many have labelled a failure.
Plastic was once hailed as a great invention, but is now increasingly seen as a considerable risk to human health, the environment, and the economy. In a 2016 report, the World Economic Forum found that, at current rates, it is predicted that without a solution, "Oceans will contain more plastic than fish by 2050."
Plastics production has increased twentyfold since 1964, and now 360 million metric tons of plastic waste is created every single year. Just 9% of this is recycled effectively. One-third will end up in fragile ecosystems such as the world's oceans. Plastic production is set to triple by 2060.
There are about 16,000 different plastic chemicals, the effects of which are still largely unexplored; this includes per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other forever chemicals. Toxic chemicals now pose one of the greatest threats to humanity, alongside the climate crisis, species extinction, and nuclear weapons.
As with the fossil fuels industry, big tobacco, and the arms trade, profits are privatized, but the burden is carried socially.
There are already five marine regions which are completely contaminated with plastic and can no longer support life. The most infamous is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in the North Pacific, which is twice the size of Texas.
Plastic is now considered a health risk with an estimated cost of up to $1.5 trillion per year. Plastic is inhaled from the air and consumed in food and drinks. Tiny microplastic particles have been found in human blood, brains, intestines, and placentas, which can cause cancer, heart attacks, and strokes. Once they have entered the environment, microplastics cannot ever be removed.
The vast majority of synthetic plastics are derived from crude oil, natural gas, or coal. The transition away from fossil fuels in the energy sector has led many fossil fuel companies to shift their attention to the plastics industry, building new manufacturing sites and ramping up production. Plastics play a significant role in the climate crisis and are responsible for 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions—twice as much as global air traffic.
Mismanagement of plastic waste results in the vast majority of it being discarded, burned, or relocated to poorer regions of the world, where it is released back into the environment and ultimately finds its way into our oceans.

There have so far been six rounds of talks organized by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), none of which have resulted in a consensus. The previous session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.1) in Busan, South Korea was unable to overcome opposition to an international plastics treaty and adjourned until the next year.
The main points of contention were the inclusion of mandatory caps on plastic production and the use of toxic chemicals in processing.
Oil and gas-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Kuwait, and the USA have been stalling progress, as they oppose production targets and prefer to focus on waste management. The UNEP conferences have been swarmed by fossil fuel lobbyists who have been very much part of the pressure groups blocking a strong deal.
The INC-5.2 took place in Geneva from 5-15 August 2025. Representatives from 184 countries and numerous national and international nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) took part under the auspices of the United Nations. It was the largest round of international negotiations since the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 and the UN Biodiversity Summits.

The talks formally closed on August 15 without a deal—a historic opportunity missed. Two days before the decision was made, chairman Luis Vayas Valdivieso presented a proposal that was deemed unsatisfactory by the conference delegates. The draft practically dropped all measures to reduce plastic production and referred mainly to the handling of plastic waste that has already entered the environment.
The conference was extended by one day, which left just hours to find a compromise. A revised draft was submitted by the chair at the last hour. It was also deemed not fit for discussion by high-ambition countries as it omitted the key concepts of reducing plastic production, regulating chemicals of concern, and creating a fund to tackle plastic injustice in the Global South.
Forming a coalition of the willing, which excludes states blocking the deal, will enable countries that want a strong plastics treaty to fulfil their mandate without obstacles and move forward together.
The main obstacle to securing a strong deal was the UN's requirement for consensus in decision-making. For years, delegations have been urging a reform to a democratic voting system, allowing drafts to be approved with a two-thirds majority. Most governments support a strong treaty. The consensus process bows to low-ambition countries, who are backed by powerful corporations intent on blocking real solutions.
Colombia's delegate, Sebastián Rodríguez, blasted the talks, stating that "the negotiations were consistently blocked by a small number of states who simply don't want an agreement." Even French President Emmanuel Macron stepped in to call for a successful conclusion in the interest of future generations.
There is currently no confirmed date or venue for the next round of negotiations.
Co-headed by Norway and Rwanda, a group of like-minded countries have formed The High Ambition Coalition made up of many European countries, including the UK, Germany, and France, many small island nations, Japan, many Latin American countries, and even the UAE.
Their common goal is to end plastic pollution by 2040 and implement a strong plastics treaty which is both legally binding and effectively monitored. In preparation for the INC-5.2, the coalition drafted the Nice Wake-up Call in June 2025.
Their three primary objectives are:
Civil society organizations such as the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastic Treaty, Business Coalition for a Plastics Treaty, Break Free From Plastic, Greenpeace, WWF, IPEN, the Center for International Environmental Law, GAIA, Environmental Justice Foundation, and groups of Indigenous peoples are calling for:
Plastic credits and carbon offset schemes are not a viable solution. They merely enable uninhibited plastic production under the guise of offsetting emissions elsewhere. The incineration of plastic must also be minimized as a method of plastic disposal, as it adds even further carbon to our atmosphere.

Just seven countries are responsible for the production of two-thirds of the four most widely used types of plastic worldwide. China leads by a wide margin, producing as much plastic as the next six largest producers. The USA follows in second place, producing more than the countries in the EU combined. The countries with the highest plastic consumption per capita are the USA, closely followed by South Korea and Australia.
The plastics crisis does not respect geographical boundaries; the whole of humanity must consume and produce less plastic. The technology and materials for replacing plastic with more ecologically compatible materials are already a reality. The plastics industry needs to be refocused and jobs transformed.
As with the fossil fuels industry, big tobacco, and the arms trade, profits are privatized, but the burden is carried socially. This strategy is now an institutionalised playbook. Profits must not take precedence over environmental and health concerns. Lobbyists must be excluded from negotiations.
This conference shows just how difficult it is to enforce humanitarian and ecological objectives which go against the interests of the oil industry and oil-producing countries. The failed deal is a metaphor for global conflicting interests, a lack of ability to compromise, and the shortsighted behavior of profiting states and companies.
An eye-opening meta study from 2024 revealed the following:
We reviewed economic and environmental studies on global plastic pollution and we estimate the global cost of actions toward zero plastic pollution in all countries by 2040 to be US$ 18.3-158.4 trillion (cost of a 47% reduction of plastic production included). If no actions are undertaken, we estimate the cost of damages caused by plastic pollution from 2016 to 2040 to be US$ 13.7–281.8 trillion. These ranges suggest it is possible that the costs of inaction are significantly higher than those of action.
How long does humanity want to go on like this?
The High Ambition Coalition should continue to organize, expand its networking, and initiate the next round of negotiations with a well-prepared draft. Forming a coalition of the willing, which excludes states blocking the deal, will enable countries that want a strong plastics treaty to fulfil their mandate without obstacles and move forward together.
Individually, we can reduce our purchases and consumption of plastic and improve our management of plastic waste. Individuals can seek out alternative products such as those made from natural materials or bioplastics, which are biodegradable.
Environmental education, which informs politicians and citizens about the extent and consequences of plastic waste, is essential. It promotes ecological commitment, civil society engagement, and informed voting behavior.
Environmental protection can be enforced by legal action. The climate ruling by the International Court of Justice on July 23, 2025, initiated by Vanuatu, officially states that the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is protected by law. Legal action can and should also be taken to reduce plastic production and pollution.
The online platform Better World Info has extensively researched and documented the Plastics Crisis and the Global Plastics Treaty. It provides additional resources and proposed solutions.