This chapter investigates two ambitious scenarios that have global coverage of policies targeting multiple stages of the plastics lifecycle. The results highlight that high policy stringency for all four pillars is essential to eliminate plastic leakage by 2040 and reduce primary plastics use below 2020 levels, which is important to also contain greenhouse gas emissions. The chapter highlights the environmental benefits of global ambition with a horizon to 2040, and the trade-offs associated with slower policy action.
Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040
Abstract
In the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency policy scenario, countries agree on pursuing all three directions of the partial ambition scenarios, but fail to go beyond this. Stringent policy action at upstream and midstream stages of the plastics lifecycle (i.e. the curb production and demand and eco-design pillars) is limited to advanced economies (approximated as OECD and EU countries). Other regions implement upstream and midstream policies with limited stringency, while downstream policies (i.e. the enhance recycling and close leakage pathways pillars) are implemented with high stringency in all countries.1
The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] policy scenario closes the final gaps in policy stringency. This comprehensive and co-ordinated approach goes beyond the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario by implementing the ten policy instruments with high stringency in all regions, reflecting a high level of collaboration to eliminate plastic leakage. This entails a global strengthening of policy action throughout the plastics lifecycle, in view of a shared target to end macroplastic leakage by 2040. This scenario can potentially be used as a strategic guide to chart a path towards the elimination of global plastic pollution before the middle of the century.2
Figure 5.1 presents a visual representation of the two high ambition policy scenarios.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
In both high ambition scenarios, all countries adopt policies to curb production and demand and to improve the design of products for circularity. Thus, these integrated scenarios improve on the partial ambition policy scenarios discussed in Chapter 4. A key difference between the two high ambition scenarios is the level of stringency of the upstream and midstream policies for countries outside the OECD and EU. In the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency policy scenario, the policies implemented in these countries are limited to the lower stringency levels of the Global Lifecycle Low stringency policy scenario, while in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario, all countries implement strict policies for all four policy pillars to ensure a balance between efforts upstream and downstream in the value chain.
Global primary plastics use is projected to roughly stabilise at 2020 levels by 2040 in the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario (Figure 5.2). A significant reduction is projected in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario, with reductions below 2020 levels in most regions: 46 Mt below the 2020 level in OECD countries combined and 14 Mt below the 2020 level in non-OECD countries combined. These reductions lead to environmental benefits from the reduced scale of primary plastics production, including reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.3
Percentage change in primary plastics use in 2040 compared to 2020 levels
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
In the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario, primary plastics use in non-OECD countries would continue to grow, increasing to 286 Mt by 2040 as policy stringency remains limited to the levels of the Global Lifecycle Low stringency scenario. In comparison, primary plastics use in non-OECD countries in the Baseline scenario would grow from 227 Mt in 2020 to 435 Mt in 2040. Significant reductions of primary plastics in OECD countries below Baseline levels (which is very similar in both high ambition scenarios) can to some extent compensate for growth in non-OECD countries and deliver a near stabilisation of global primary plastics use. However, regional shifts in plastics use could worsen plastic pollution if larger shares of plastics end up as waste in countries with less developed waste management systems.
As the policies take time to be fully implemented, total plastics use and plastic waste continue to grow beyond 2020 levels (Figure 5.3). With stringent measures in place to generate scrap for secondary plastics production, the growth of total plastics use is met through growth in secondary plastics, while primary plastics use remains roughly constant (see Figure 5.2). Secondary plastics production increases especially after 2030, once recycling capacity is built up. The increases in plastic waste tend to be a bit larger than in plastics use, driven by the long lifetime of certain plastics applications and thus a delayed effect of policies on waste volumes. In the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario, global plastics use increases from 435 million tonnes (Mt) in 2020 to 626 Mt in 2040 (an increase of 43%). In the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario, plastics use in 2040 is lower, at 508 Mt (17% above 2020 levels). The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario thus avoids 228 Mt of plastics use compared to the Baseline scenario, and a reduction of 31%. Most of the reduction is achieved by 2030, through the early implementation of policies to curb production and demand as well as EPR schemes.
Global plastics use (left-hand panel) and waste (right-hand panel) in million tonnes (Mt)
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
The main reason for the increase in plastics use after 2030 is that the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario does not explicitly target total plastics use. Rather, it aims to reduce plastic pollution by curbing production and demand and increasing the share of secondary plastics (i.e. to reduce pollution associated with primary plastics production), to improve eco-design for circularity and to eliminate mismanaged plastic waste (i.e. to minimise plastic leakage). Further emphasis on policy measures to reduce total plastics use rather than primary plastics production could lead to excessive costs (see Chapter 6). The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario aims to strike a balance between these elements.
Global plastic waste follows total plastics use, with a delay that depends on the lifetime of the associated plastics applications. On the one hand, eco-design policies contribute to lengthening the lifetime of applications, thus further postponing plastic waste generation – and postponing the benefits of curbing plastics production and demand. This is especially visible in Figure 5.3 by comparing the effect of the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] policy scenario on the trend in use with that on the trend in waste, with much stronger reductions in plastics use by 2030 than in plastic waste. On the other hand, a large part of plastics use is associated with applications that are short-lived, such as packaging, and thus the trends in plastic waste are rather similar to those of plastics use (see Chapter 2).
Not all applications grow equally fast over time, and different polymers and applications are affected through their links to economic sectors and the policies imposed (Figure 5.4). The largest reductions plastics use in 2040 in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario (relative to the Baseline scenario) pertain to applications with longer lifetimes, notably Transportation (-46% compared to the Baseline in 2040) and Buildings and Construction (-39% compared to the Baseline). Reductions in packaging are limited to 24%, from 139 Mt in 2020 to 234 Mt in 2040 in the Baseline and 179 Mt in Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition]. For all applications, reductions are somewhat larger in non-OECD countries than in OECD countries.
Plastics production and use by application in million tonnes (Mt), Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Continued economic growth in all scenarios, and significantly lower levels of plastics use relative to Baseline levels imply an improvement in the plastics intensity of the economy (Figure 5.5). Over time, the plastics intensity in the Baseline scenario does not change much, although there is a slight trend towards stronger growth in plastics use than in GDP in OECD countries, and the opposite trend in non-OECD countries. The latter is driven by the rapid expansion of economic sectors that don’t rely heavily on plastics, such as services, whereas the structure of OECD economies is more stable.
Both of the high ambition policy scenarios considered here can reduce plastics intensity between 2020 and 2040, but the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario is more effective than the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario due to the additional efforts undertaken to curb production and demand in non-OECD countries. A more than 30% reduction in plastics intensity relative to 2020 levels (and 2040 Baseline levels) demonstrate that with targeted policies, economic growth can largely be decoupled from an increased reliance on plastics.
Plastics intensity in tonnes of plastics use per unit of sectoral output in USD (t/USD)
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
While most developed countries already have pervasive municipal waste collection and treatment systems, this is not the case in many developing countries. An urgent expansion of waste collection systems is a crucial prerequisite to reduce mismanaged waste, as waste that is not collected is mostly mismanaged and may end up in natural environments or be burned informally, leading to serious adverse consequences for human health and ecosystems. At the same time, a scale-up of waste management infrastructure is required around the world, in OECD and non-OECD countries alike, to support recycling. The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario would achieve an almost total elimination of mismanaged waste by 2040 (see Figure 5.6). Mismanaged waste shares are already steadily reduced in the Baseline, as countries grow richer and can afford better waste management, but this policy package overcomes significant Baseline growth in the amounts of plastics that are mismanaged annually.
The prevention of waste generation by 2040 (relative to Baseline levels) would help to relieve the burden on waste management systems around the globe. In contrast to the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario, the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario cannot eliminate all mismanaged waste (dashed yellow line in Figure 5.6), as the total generation of plastic waste is significantly larger and there are limits to the scaling up of recycling facilities in developing countries. Such challenges also exist in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario (see Chapter 7), but the improved balance between the four policy pillars is essential for the feasibility of the ambitious targets in the high ambition scenarios.
Shares of end-of-life fates for plastic waste, Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition]
Note: The dashed line shows the remaining mismanaged waste in the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario, for comparison. Recycling shares are very similar across both scenarios (and therefore not shown here for the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario).
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Both high ambition policy scenarios lead to a very significant increase in recycling rates, with the share of waste that is recycled climbing to 42% by 2040, a more than quadrupling of 2020 levels (Figure 5.6). Such rapid increases in recycling allow for the generation of scrap that is essential for making the transition from primary to secondary plastics production. Achieving such considerable increases in recycling rates would require overcoming very significant challenges, as recycling rates remain currently low for several polymers and in many low- and middle- income countries. This is further discussed in Chapter 7.
Despite the effectiveness of the high ambition policy packages in reducing plastic waste generation, the resulting levels of plastic waste remain high enough to facilitate the use of scrap in secondary plastics production, provided that international markets for scrap are facilitated and recycling losses are reduced. As a result, while annual plastics production is projected to grow modestly from 2020 levels, both high ambition scenarios ensure that secondary plastics can accommodate the additional demand. As a result, demand for primary plastics would fall in 2040 relative to 2020 in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] and would roughly stabilise over this time period in the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario.
Policies that curb production and demand and foster design for circularity contribute to 27% of the overall reductions in mismanaged waste achieved by 2040 in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario relative to the Baseline scenario (Figure 5.7). Importantly, the combination of extended lifespans for durable products, facilitated by improved eco-design and support for reuse and repair, generate reductions in the demand for (and thus production of) plastics. More specifically, reductions are achieved through a combination of the four policy pillars:
Policies that curb plastics production and demand (pillar I) would deliver a 97 Mt (i.e. 13%) reduction in total plastics use in 2040 compared to Baseline levels, of which 95 Mt are primary plastics (14%). Importantly, addressing this pillar would help to reduce the sharp increase in demand in 2040 for single-use and other short-lived packaging applications projected in the absence of additional policies, which would otherwise contribute to a substantial increase in waste generation. These upstream effects carry over to downstream indicators: total waste is reduced by 8%, and mismanaged waste by 10%.
Strong advancement in design for circularity (pillar II) is essential to enabling circular solutions throughout the plastics lifecycle, such as safe reuse (including repair, refill, refurbishing, etc.) and recycling. In this way, improved design can effectively reduce plastics demand by expanding the useful lifespan of products. Targeted bans or taxes can help shift from avoidable short-lived or problematic plastics to alternatives that are safer and bear lower environmental footprints. Additionally, design criteria can enable substitution with alternative materials, where such shifts can yield environmental and/or health benefits. Together with policies to curb production and demand, this second pillar induces a deceleration in the growth of global plastics production and use. Plastics use would fall below Baseline by 208 Mt (28%) in 2040, compensating two-thirds of the Baseline growth between 2020 and 2040. The second pillar would also add 105 Mt (15%) to the first pillar in avoiding primary plastics use.
The eco-design for circularity also contributes significantly to reducing total waste and mismanaged waste. Total waste is reduced by 94 Mt (15%), substantially more than the contribution of the first pillar to curb production and demand. A key driver of these reductions is the extension of the lifetimes of plastics applications. While this pillar does not directly improve waste management shares, mismanaged waste is reduced by 19 Mt (16%) due to a reduction in the overall generation of plastic waste, globally.
Enhancing recycling (pillar III) has very limited effects on total plastics use (20 Mt or less than 3%), but the impact on primary plastics use is much larger (145 Mt or 21%), as recycling policies induce a shift from primary to secondary plastics use. Similarly, the effect on total waste is small (12 Mt or 2%), but more significant in reducing mismanaged waste (31 Mt or 26%), as a larger share of collected waste is diverted towards recycling, thus reducing mismanaged waste such as open pit burning.
Finally, the policies to close leakage pathways (pillar IV) focus on eliminating mismanaged waste, and are essential in this regard, reducing mismanaged waste by 53 Mt or 44%. However, the effects of such policies on other variables is virtually zero (less than 1 Mt for each). The upstream effects of improved waste management come through the effect of increased waste management costs on national income and thus economic activity. The fact that the effect is very small is therefore positive, highlighting that the macroeconomic consequences of closing leakage pathways are small (see Chapter 6).
Together, policy action in these four pillars facilitate the transition to more circular plastics use, as (upstream) secondary plastics production rises in parallel to the increased availability of scrap from (downstream) recycling efforts. The global implementation of policies across these four pillars with policy stringency aligned with the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario would require overcoming large governance, economic and technical challenges, as further discussed in Chapter 7.
Contribution of each policy pillar to reductions in plastic flows, all expressed in percentage change compared to the Baseline in 2040, Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario projects a peak in global primary plastics use in 2022 (Figure 5.8). The rapid and global implementation of policies to curb production and demand and improve design for circularity lead to a decoupling of economic growth from primary plastics use, resulting in a significant decline in primary and total plastics use by 2030. After 2030, when recycling systems have larger capacity – as indicated by an increasing recycling rate – and when more scrap is available, secondary plastics use continues to grow, more than offsetting the continued shrink of primary plastics use. A corresponding decrease in the use of primary plastics production is expected to lead to environmental benefits, including reduced GHG emissions. This transition to secondary plastics production and use is generally associated with smaller environmental impacts, despite the required increases in recycling activities (OECD, 2022[1]).
Global plastics production and use in million tonnes (Mt) (left axis) and global average recycling rate (right axis), Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition]
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Microplastic (roughly speaking, plastics smaller than 5 mm) pollution is an emerging threat to ecosystem and human health. Owing to their small size, microplastics are particularly likely to be ingested by aquatic species, and they have been found in the digestive tracts of several aquatic and terrestrial species. Growing microplastic pollution constitutes a reason of concern for the environment and human health, including due to the potential for microplastics to act as a carrier of hazardous substances.
Microplastics are generally categorised into three main types (OECD, 2021[2]):
Primary microplastics, which include: i) manufactured microplastics, such as plastic pellets that may enter the environment due to accidental spills occurring during production, transport and storage, and ii) microplastics intentionally added to products, such as microbeads in cosmetics or scrubbing agents.
Use-based secondary microplastics, which originate from the degradation of plastics occurring during use. This includes for instance microplastics from the wear and tear of vehicle tyres on road surfaces, paints, synthetic textiles or shoe soles.
Degradation-based secondary microplastics, which originate from the degradation and fragmentation of larger pieces of plastics, including after leakage to the environment.
Leakage of (primary and use-based secondary) microplastics is projected to worsen in all regions in the Baseline scenario, from 2.7 Mt in 2020 to 4.1 Mt in 2040 (for the categories for which estimations are possible) (OECD, 2022[1]). As discussed in (OECD, 2022[1]), microplastic leakage continues to increase with rising income levels, although some saturation occurs at higher levels of income. In contrast, macroplastic leakage per capita tends to decrease in middle- and high-income countries due to improvements in waste management systems. Interventions to address the emission and leakage of microplastics are generally less advanced, as this form of pollution occurs throughout the product lifecycle and policy action remains limited by a currently limited understanding of the problem and the possible interventions to address it.
While the environmental and human health risks associated with microplastics are still being investigated, extensive documentation of exposure routes and the associated potential for widespread risks and irreversible harm caused call for policy intervention to mitigate pollution levels and risks. It has been argued that microplastics are contaminants for which no safe threshold for emissions can be identified, and that even if a safe threshold exists, it will inevitably be surpassed due to the continued accumulation and persistence of microplastics in the environment (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2022[3]). Mitigation action should be proportional, consistent with existing policy frameworks, based on adequate cost-benefit analysis considerations and sufficiently flexible to encourage scientific research and innovation in mitigation solutions.
Given the potential for widespread ecosystem and human health impacts of microplastics, policies that can specifically mitigate microplastic leakage will need to form an important part of the policy mix, to ensure effective mitigation of microplastic pollution (OECD, 2021[2]). While the reduction of mismanaged waste and hence macroplastic leakage envisioned in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario could mitigate the generation of degradation-based secondary microplastics from additional pollution, leakage of microplastics would persist. In the absence of additional policies to target microplastics, reductions in microplastic leakage would be limited to those stemming from reductions in the plastics intensity of the economy and from expected improvements in end-of-pipe capture (e.g. via wastewater and stormwater collection and treatment).4
Possible approaches and policy measures for the mitigation of microplastic leakage may include:
Bans or restrictions on intentionally added microplastics.
Eco-design criteria to minimise the tendency of products to generate microplastics.
Behavioural change to uptake best practices by consumers (e.g. eco-driving) as well as industry (e.g. in the handling of pre-production pellets).
End-of-pipe approaches, such as improved wastewater, stormwater and road runoff management and treatment to retain emitted microplastics before they enter the environment.
Standards or best-available techniques to advance the implementation of technologies and processes that prevent the release of microplastics to the environment (e.g. industrial, commercial, and domestic filters).
Clean-up of plastic pollution can also contribute to reducing microplastics in the environment, although it is currently unclear how this could be done in a cost-effective manner and at a large scale, as discussed in Section 7.4 in Chapter 7.
The most cost-effective way to tackle microplastics is likely the implementation of a mix of policy tools targeting several mitigation entry points along the product lifecycle. Measures aimed at minimising the emission of microplastics at their source are likely to have the largest mitigation potential. Especially for intentionally added microplastics as well as for diffuse sources of pollution (e.g. tyre wear particles, airborne textile microfibres), prevention is often more cost-effective than treatment options downstream. At the same time, given the variety of entry pathways, interventions upstream cannot entirely alleviate the risk of microplastic pollution of the water cycle. Thus, these will likely need to be supplemented by effective end-of-pipe solutions, such as the improved collection and treatment of stormwater, road runoff and wastewater.
Overall, while there is a need for further research on the cost-effectiveness of the measures identified above and the potential for unintended consequences, the need for further research should not justify delays in action. Select countries have already implemented bans or restrictions on microplastics intentionally added to products, as has been done in the EU for a wide range of products (including granular infill materials in sports turfs, cosmetics, detergents, fertilisers, glitter, etc.). Important gains can also be made with respect to reducing microplastic leakage by exploiting or adapting existing measures in other policy areas. For instance, reductions in passenger vehicle use and shifts towards more sustainable transport modes, generally driven by a need to reduce GHG emissions and air pollution, can contribute significantly to mitigating microplastics emissions from road transport (OECD, 2020[4]). Similarly, certain end-of-pipe mitigation options, such as improved wastewater treatment technologies or nature-based solutions, primarily designed to manage other pollutants or risks of flooding can generate significant co-benefits for microplastic pollution mitigation.
5.6.1. Globally co-ordinated policy action can bring significant environmental benefits by 2040
Plastic pollution represents a multifaceted challenge with a wide range of adverse impacts that go beyond the visible presence of plastics in the environment. Risks for human health may notably arise from exposure to hazardous chemicals or microplastics. Plastics in the environment may disrupt ecosystems, act as vectors for invasive species, and affect fisheries and tourism. The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario illustrates a viable pathway to achieve significant global benefits for present and future generations.
Projections for plastics leakage to the environment in million tonnes and for stocks in aquatic environments (Mt) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the plastics lifecycle in gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e)
Sources: OECD ENV-Linkages model and (Lebreton, 2024[5]), based on OECD ENV-Linkages model projections.
The comprehensive mix of waste prevention measures and improvements in waste collection and management envisioned in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario can achieve a reduction in plastic leakage of more than 95% by 2040 compared to Baseline. The combination of the most ambitious policies in a globally concerted manner would deliver an almost immediate fall in the leakage of macroplastics to the environment, due to the reduction of short-lived plastics applications and improved waste management, especially increased waste collection. The leakage that remains in 2040 mainly comes from uncollected litter, a stream that evades waste management systems. Microplastic leakage also remains largely unaddressed by this policy mix and addressing this type of plastic pollution will require additional, targeted policy interventions. Overall, the total amount of leakage that is avoided between 2020 and 2040 when moving from the Baseline scenario to the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario amounts to 246 Mt. Even with the rapid implementation of this policy package, however, a total of 273 Mt of plastics will still leak to the environment between 2020 and 2040.
Virtually eliminating plastic leakage to the environment by 2040 is a challenging target that requires interventions at all stages of the lifecycle of plastics, globally and achieving it hinges on the assumption that countries are willing and able to co-ordinate their efforts. Co-ordination could include, for example, technology transfer (e.g. advanced recycling technologies), agreeing on the phase out of problematic or avoidable plastic products or harmful chemicals, developing harmonised criteria and guidelines for design for circularity, scaling up international markets for scrap and secondary plastics, and co-ordinating the implementation of reuse systems, for instance via harmonised design standards and certification and labelling requirements. For comparison, in the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario, where limited international co-ordination on upstream interventions hinders the potential of at least some of these interventions, an additional 175 Mt of waste would be generated in 2040 (over 2020 levels) and 49 Mt would be mismanaged. Approximately 12 Mt of plastic leakage would persist in 2040 and a path to near-zero charted only by 2060, amplifying plastic pollution and lifecycle impacts.
The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario achieves very significant reductions of the accumulated stock of plastics in aquatic environments compared to Baseline levels, preventing up to 64 Mt and 11 Mt of plastics from being added to existing stocks in rivers and oceans, respectively. Although all major trajectories of plastics in aquatic environments are significantly reduced in this scenario relative to the Baseline scenario (Figure 5.10), accumulated stocks of macroplastics in rivers and oceans will nevertheless be significantly higher in 2040 than in 2020 (226 Mt of total accumulation between 2020 and 2040 instead of 301 Mt in the Baseline scenario). This is despite the most ambitious global action modelled. By 2040, plastics continue to be transported from rivers to oceans, while leakage to rivers from terrestrial environments is largely eliminated. Thus, some flows, in particular plastics floating in rivers, can become negative, indicating that there are more plastics flowing from rivers into oceans than there are entering rivers.
Plastic leakage to aquatic environments in million tonnes (Mt), in 2020 and in 2040 in the Baseline and Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenarios
Source: (Lebreton, 2024[5]), based on OECD ENV-Linkages model projections.
The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario is also likely to deliver considerable benefits for human health due in large part due to a reduction in improper waste disposal practices, such as air pollution from open pit burning. Chemicals of concern would be phased out to reduce risks for human health and the environment and to facilitate recycling and reuse. Policies to address microplastic leakage will also be essential in mitigating adverse health and environmental outcomes, as already discussed in Section 0.
5.6.2. Globally co-ordinated policy action can stabilise plastic-related GHG emissions
The plastics lifecycle is closely linked to climate change, due to the fossil-based origins of most plastics and the domination of fossil-based primary plastics in current production and use. As discussed in (OECD, 2022[1]), a reduction in GHG emissions related to the lifecycle of plastics is essential for achieving ambitious climate scenarios, including net-zero emissions scenarios. Implementing the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario could achieve a 41% reduction in plastics-related GHG emission levels (1.7 GtCO2e in 2040 versus 2.8 GtCO2e in the Baseline scenario; see Figure 5.11, panel A) and prevent significant increases compared to 2020 levels. This reduction in emissions is the net result of a decrease in emissions associated with the production and conversion of primary plastics and an increase in emissions associated with enhanced recycling (panel B). Changes in emissions associated with mismanaged waste, such as those from open pit burning, could not be quantified, but are expected to be significantly lower in this policy scenario thanks to important reductions in mismanaged waste. Nonetheless, the remaining emissions are not aligned with the ambitions of the Paris Agreement, and thus the plastics policy package should be complemented by dedicated mitigation actions to further reduce GHG emissions associated with plastics.
Note: Changes in emissions from the fourth pillar, associated with changes in mismanaged waste, cannot be quantified and are therefore not included in the figure.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Public policies to mitigate climate change and curb plastic pollution have generally developed independently. However, the links between plastics policies and climate change mitigation policies can be strengthened to more effectively exploit synergies (OECD, 2023[6]). Combining plastics policies with ambitious mitigation policies further incentivises a shift away from primary plastics production and could reduce plastics-related emissions to below 2020 levels. Specifically, mitigation policies can disincentivise the use of fossil fuel energy in plastics production, conversion and waste management towards less carbon-intensive alternatives, including electrification, especially when the power sector is also decarbonised. Combined, these policies offer synergies that can reduce plastics-related GHG emissions; plastics policies can reduce the production of plastics, while mitigation policies can reduce the GHG intensity of the remaining production. At the end-of-life stage for plastic, there is a trade-off, however, in the form of the emissions associated with plastics recycling, which are not negligible.
References
[5] Lebreton, L. (2024), Quantitative analysis of aquatic leakage for multiple scenarios based on ENV-Linkages, unpublished.
[3] Nordic Council of Ministers (2022), Addressing microplastics in a global agreement on plastic pollution, https://pub.norden.org/temanord2022-566.
[6] OECD (2023), Climate change and plastics pollution: synergies between two crucial environmental challenges, https://www.oecd.org/environment/plastics/Policy-Highlights-Climate-change-and-plastics-pollution-Synergies-between-two-crucial-environmental-challenges.pdf.
[1] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aa1edf33-en.
[2] OECD (2021), Policies to Reduce Microplastics Pollution in Water: Focus on Textiles and Tyres, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7ec7e5ef-en.
[4] OECD (2020), Non-exhaust Particulate Emissions from Road Transport: An Ignored Environmental Policy Challenge, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4a4dc6ca-en.
← 1. The details of the numerical implementation of the policy scenarios in the modelling framework are presented in Annex B.
← 2. Fully eliminating plastic pollution would involve additional considerations, including addressing legacy plastics in the environment, emissions beyond greenhouse gases, as well as chemicals and human health concerns.
← 3. As discussed in Section 5.6.2, GHG emissions do not fall below 2020 levels, as the policy packages do not explicitly focus on reducing emissions, suggesting that the inclusion of climate mitigation policies and targets in policy scenarios would be required to further reduce GHG emissions.
← 4. This has not been included in the current modelling analysis, but only in the Global Plastics Outlook (2022[1]). The “Global Ambition” scenario presented in the Global Plastics Outlook also included a set of policies to mitigate microplastic leakage. However, due to data and information limitations, these were mostly limited to bans on microplastics intentionally added to products.