SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
plastics
The Misleading Allure of Plastic Credits
Government delegates negotiating a plastics treaty should resist the urge to incorporate quick fixes like plastic credits in the text, and instead should set ambitious, non-negotiable targets for plastic reduction and reuse.
Aug 14, 2025
The escalating global plastic pollution crisis demands urgent, decisive action, with plastic threatening ecosystems and human health.
Governments are convening at the second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC 5.2) in Geneva, tasked with forging a historic, legally binding instrument to tackle plastic pollution across its entire life cycle—a mandate enshrined in the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) Resolution 5/14 three years ago.
Plastic credit schemes are increasingly discussed on the sidelines of the ongoing treaty negotiations—often presented under the umbrella of blended and innovative financing. Proponents argue that these schemes can potentially close the gap in countries with inadequate waste management infrastructure. Plastic credits have not explicitly made it in the most recent Chair’s Text at the ongoing INC 5.2 meeting, but they were mentioned in one of the expert group meetings in August 2024, as an innovative financing approach, with the potential to “incentivize companies to shift towards sustainable practices.”
Scientists have estimated that it would cost $18.3-158.4 trillion to support global actions toward zero waste pollution by 2040. According to the World Bank, income generated from plastic credits can potentially help close the funding gap for plastic waste management by 2040, amounting to about $240 billion annually. These benefits may sound enticing particularly with the urgency of securing funding to address plastic pollution, but in fact represent a dangerous distraction, risking greenwashing and diverting critical finance and political action.
The future of our planet depends on preventing plastic pollution at its source, not pursuing plastic credits to offset harm after it is done.
Plastic credits appear to be a win-win solution on paper—companies provide funding for waste collection initiatives to “offset” their plastic footprint. However, this approach mirrors the shortcomings of carbon offsetting, which has faced numerous problems, including “phantom credits,” lack of new emission reductions, and double counting. While a universal definition for plastic credits is still under development, organizations like PCX Solutions, Verra, BVRio, and the World Bank generally agree on this scheme as a results-based financing mechanism, which funds projects designed to tackle plastic pollution, primarily through collection and recycling efforts. Plastic credits have initially been introduced as voluntary schemes, in which businesses may purchase credits to “offset” their plastic footprint, or the amount of plastic they have produced, often done to enhance brand image, meet sustainability commitments, and fulfill corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives.
There are several countries that have incorporated plastic credits into their extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies, as a way for companies to achieve regulatory compliance. The Philippines, for example, mandates large corporations to gradually offset their plastic footprint, aiming for an 80% collection or recovery by 2028. This system permits plastic offsetting as an alternative to EPR fees, which are conceptually intended to fully cover plastic waste management costs—a burden often borne by municipalities. However, it remains uncertain whether existing EPR policies with plastic offsets fully cover the cost of managing plastic waste.
Experts have argued that plastic credit mechanisms lack a standardized accounting system, making it challenging to effectively measure credits from plastic offsetting projects and plastic footprints. They also found that plastic credits face difficulties in meeting critical offset criteria such as additionality, permanence, and the “no-harm” principle. It is difficult to prove that the plastic collected or recycled through a credit scheme would not have been managed anyway. A 2023 investigation into Verra’s databases, for instance, found that more than 80% of listed projects have been operational for more than a year before being listed on the registry platform, contradicting claims that these activities are unviable without funding from plastic credits.
There are also concerns about permanence, largely due to the challenges of achieving genuinely closed-loop recycling for plastic waste. The meager 9% global recycling rate for plastic highlights the challenges posed by its complex compositions and chemical additives, as well as the economic impracticality of such interventions. It is not surprising that many of these plastic credit projects involve burning collected plastic waste in cement kilns.
Experts have warned that current credit prices are too volatile to provide sustainable funding for waste management. SourceMaterial uncovered a significant price disparity within a registry platform: Plastic credits linked to co-processing treatment in cement kilns are available for as little as $115 per credit, whereas credits from community-based collection projects can cost up to $630. Using the Philippines EPR case, the price disparity suggests that companies may opt for the cheapest credits derived from burning for regulatory compliance, rather than pursuing plastic reduction measures.
Plastic credits are fundamentally flawed and risk becoming a costly diversion from meaningful action. Government delegates attending the INC 5.2 meeting should resist the urge to incorporate quick fixes like plastic credits in the treaty text, and instead should set ambitious, non-negotiable targets for plastic reduction and reuse, ensuring accountability across the entire plastic life cycle, as mandated under UNEA Resolution 5/14.
A strong, dedicated financial mechanism is essential for the treaty. Developed member states should fund a substantial portion of the contributions, in line with the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and polluter pays. This will ensure that the health and environmental costs are internalized, and funds are available for remediation to protect human health, biodiversity, and the environment. Likewise, the financial mechanism should also direct investments toward initiatives focusing on plastic production caps and waste prevention, as well as the development and scale-up of safe, non-toxic, and accessible reuse and refill systems, rather than limiting to downstream interventions like recycling and waste management. Furthermore, it should support and facilitate a just transition for workers along the plastics life cycle, including waste pickers and other informal workers and workers in cooperative settings, Indigenous Peoples, and frontline or directly affected communities.
The future of our planet depends on preventing plastic pollution at its source, not pursuing plastic credits to offset harm after it is done. Real solutions begin with reduction, not compensation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Deadline Looms, Advocates Call Plastics Treaty Draft 'Nothing Short of a Betrayal'
"The process has been completely captured by swarms of fossil fuel lobbyists and shamefully weaponized by low-ambition countries," said the CEO of the Environmental Justice Foundation.
Aug 13, 2025
Multiple nations, as well as climate and environmental activists, are expressing dismay at the current state of a potential treaty to curb global plastics pollution.
As The Associated Press reported on Wednesday, negotiators of the treaty are discussing a new draft that would contain no restrictions on plastic production or on the chemicals used in plastics. This draft would adopt the approach favored by many big oil-producing nations who have argued against limits on plastic production and have instead pushed for measures such as better design, recycling, and reuse.
This new draft drew the ire of several nations in Europe, Africa, and Latin America, who all said that it was too weak in addressing the real harms being done by plastic pollution.
"Let me be clear—this is not acceptable for future generations," said Erin Silsbe, the representative for Canada.
According to a report from Health Policy Watch, Panama delegate Juan Carlos Monterrey got a round of applause from several other delegates in the room when he angrily denounced the new draft.
"Our red lines, and the red lines of the majority of countries represented in this room, were not only expunged, they were spat on, and they were burned," he fumed.
Several advocacy organizations were even more scathing in their assessments.
Eirik Lindebjerg, the global plastics policy adviser for WWF, bluntly said that "this is not a treaty" but rather "a devastating blow to everyone here and all those around the world suffering day in and day out as a result of plastic pollution."
"It lacks the bare minimum of measures and accountability to actually be effective, with no binding global bans on harmful products and chemicals and no way for it to be strengthened over time," Lindebjerg continued. "What's more it does nothing to reflect the ambition and demands of the majority of people both within and outside the room. This is not what people came to Geneva for. After three years of negotiations, this is deeply concerning."
Steve Trent, the CEO and founder of the Environmental Justice Foundation, declared the new draft "nothing short of a betrayal" and encouraged delegates from around the world to roundly reject it.
"The process has been completely captured by swarms of fossil fuel lobbyists and shamefully weaponized by low-ambition countries," he said. "The failure now risks being total, with the text actively backsliding rather than improving."
According to the Center for International Environmental Law, at least 234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered for the talks in Switzerland, meaning they "outnumber the combined diplomatic delegations of all 27 European Union nations and the E.U."
Nicholas Mallos, vice president of Ocean Conservancy's ocean plastics program, similarly called the new draft "unacceptable" and singled out that the latest text scrubbed references to abandoned or discarded plastic fishing gear, commonly referred to as "ghost gear," which he described as "the deadliest form of plastic pollution to marine life."
"The science is clear: To reduce plastic pollution, we must make and use less plastic to begin with, so a treaty without reduction is a failed treaty," Mallos emphasized.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Campaigners Confront Plastics Treaty Delegates, Demanding Deal That Stops Pollution 'At Its Source'
"With just days remaining, the dynamic must change," said Break Free From Plastic. "Countries must keep their commitment to end plastic pollution."
Aug 09, 2025
As the final negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty reached the halfway point on Saturday, delegates entering the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland for the day's talks were met by more than 200 campaigners representing civil society groups who stood in silence along the path leading to the United Nations building—but nonetheless sent a clear message.
The civil society observers displayed signs in multiple languages, urging negotiators at the second plenary of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to "fix the process" and keep their promises to drastically reduce plastic waste and toxic chemicals in plastic products.
Achieving goals like banning single-use plastics, capping plastic production, and imposing regulations on harmful additives within the treaty will be impossible, campaigners have warned, if the biggest plastic-producing countries like the United States are permitted to lobby for a weaker treaty and if fossil fuel industry lobbyists continue to overpower anti-pollution advocates at the talks.
"People worldwide have made it clear: They support decisive action to cut plastic production, consumption, and pollution," said the Break Free From Plastic movement in a statement Friday. "A majority of governments have endorsed these demands, yet negotiations are stalling with a small group of petro- and plastic-producing states deploying delay tactics, with no sign that they intend to raise ambition."
"With just days remaining, the dynamic must change," said the group. "Countries must keep their commitment to end plastic pollution. They must use every tool available to deliver a strong treaty—one that includes legally binding rules on production and chemicals, uplifts real solutions, safeguards human rights, and protects frontline communities."
The talks began earlier this week, with negotiators tasked with forging a legally binding treaty to restrict plastic pollution, following a 2022 agreement that was reached as the result of a proposal from Rwandan and Peruvian officials. The first round of talks, which were supposed to end with a treaty, stalled last December after plastic-producing countries refused to cap production. More than 100 countries at the negotiations agreed to a plastic production limit.
As with fossil fuel emissions, many countries in the Global South are not major producers of plastic waste—but the U.S. exports more than 1 billion pounds of plastic waste to low-income countries each year.
The climate action group Greenpeace has warned that fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumber experts on the impact of pollution 4-to-1 at the negotiations in Geneva, and are joining oil- and plastic-producing countries in continuing to push for a treaty that focuses on downstream measures they claim will address pollution, such as improving recycling systems.
As Common Dreams reported Thursday, the Trump administration has called on countries participating in the talks to reject "impractical" terms within the treaty, such as plastic production caps, bans, or restrictions on certain additives to plastic products.
Scientists believe that less than 10% of plastic products ever get recycled, despite the efforts of individuals to recycle their products.
Katie Drews, national director of the U.S.-based Alliance for Mission-Based Recycling (AMBR), said Friday that "recycling is essential, but it cannot solve the plastics crisis," which must be stopped "at its source."
"Without binding caps on plastic production, bans on toxic chemicals, and global mandates to design packaging for safety, reuse, and real recyclability, downstream solutions will continue to be overwhelmed and communities will continue to pay the price," said Drews. "AMBR stands with scientists, health professionals, youth, frontline and fenceline communities, Indigenous peoples, waste pickers, and mission-driven allies worldwide in urging governments to act. We need a treaty that truly protects human and environmental health, one that goes beyond words to bold, enforceable action."
Advocates' concerns are backed up by a study published in The Lancet this week, which said that without far-reaching efforts to stop more plastic from being produced, "production is on track to nearly triple by 2060."
As campaigners and scientists have worked towards a Global Plastics Treaty since 2022, companies like Dow, Shell, and ExxonMobil have only been ramping up their production of plastic, expanding their capacity by 1.4 million tons. Just seven petrochemical giants have sent a combined 70 lobbyists to the talks, which are scheduled to wrap up on August 14.
"The more we produce, the more we pollute," said Jules Vagner, president of the French group Objectif Zéro Plastique. "Opposing binding targets to reduce plastic production is, in practice, choosing to let pollution continue and worse, accelerate. We do not want another treaty that manages waste. We want one that ends pollution at the source."
"If some countries are unwilling to rise to this historic moment, they should step aside," said Vagner. "Not block global progress. We want a world free from plastic pollution, not one that adapts to it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular