Agreement or no agreement? The third meeting of the year around the fight against plastic pollution ends this Sunday, November 19. Representatives from 175 countries have been meeting since Monday in Nairobi, Kenya, to discuss a draft treaty, published in September, which aims to define for the first time concrete measures in the fight against this scourge which is flooding nature. .
Before this new round of discussions, around sixty nations called for “binding provisions in the treaty to restrict and reduce the consumption and production” of plastic. A position not shared by OPEC member countries, certain producing countries and plastic industry lobbies, in favor of even more thorough recycling. The latter is however “extremely limited”, points out Nathalie Gontard, research director at INRAE. According to this packaging and plastic specialist, it even contributes to “perpetuating” pollution. Interview.
L’Express: Recycling is often highlighted by many entities to fight against the scourge of plastic. Isn’t it illusory to believe that it will be possible to recycle all the plastic produced?
Nathalie Gontard: Obviously. It must be understood that plastic recycling is extremely limited. Besides, what we call recycling is not recycling: it is downcycling. It is important to know the difference. The idea of recycling, and therefore of reducing plastic pollution, comes from this concept of circular economy: when we have a problem with waste and depletion of resources, we will regenerate the waste identically. We took an example of this notion from nature, which does it very well, as with the leaves of trees which fall in the fall and participate in a great cycle (degradation of matter, photosynthesis) to give back other identical ones. in spring. In order to solve the waste problem, we are currently trying to implement this circular economy system as much as possible.
However, with plastic, the best recycling – which we can still call recycling – is that of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles. Because we are able to remanufacture a PET bottle from PET bottles. We collect very strictly, we clean, we decontaminate, we repolymerize the polymer that is damaged, we often mix it with virgin plastic and we end up with another bottle. Except that this process is limited, unlike tree leaves: you can do one or two cycles and there is 30% loss each time. Let’s say that this could still make it possible to halve the consumption of virgin plastic for a given use. And therefore reduce the waste of these PET plastic bottles in half. But this recycling, which only concerns PET bottles, represents less than 1% of our plastic consumption.
Why do certain countries like the Netherlands, Austria or Germany display a high level of recycling?
Because it is in reality, as I mentioned earlier, downcycling. I come back to the PET bottle: we ultimately do not transform it back into a bottle but into fibers to make sweaters. So the loop is not closed: we are not remaking the same object, but another one. We say to ourselves that it’s good, it makes the bottle useful. We communicate about it, we reassure the consumer. However, this sweater purchased in recycled polyester, called ecological, was to the detriment of a wool sweater, a biodegradable element which is currently in free fall. In addition, this sweater, when first washed, will emit plastic microfibers, and therefore pollute. It will also not be recyclable at the end of its life: it will go to landfill and continue to degrade into microplastic.
By making this sweater, we are not making the problem go away. And we have also set up a chain of recycled polyester sweaters that must be supplied with waste. To summarize: we are not contributing in any way to reducing plastic pollution, we are even creating a dependence on waste and this pollution. We are eliminating sectors, we are looking for new waste and we are plasticizing our world. There is no shortage of new outlets and good opportunities to store this recycled plastic. We store waste in another form which will continue to degrade.
In these countries, the high level of recycling has not therefore reduced plastic consumption?
No way. Theoretically, if it is true recycling, consumption should have been halved. But it continues to increase, that makes no sense. Another very concrete illustration: we have accumulated 9 billion tonnes of plastic on Earth, compared to the 2 billion tonnes of total animal biomass. It is enormous. If we knew how to recycle, we would no longer need virgin plastic and we would collect this plastic waste to clean it and make bottles, packaging, etc. But our production of virgin plastic continues to increase…
Does recycling ultimately contribute to the increase in plastic pollution?
To perpetuate it, yes. Because it is not a circular economy but a corkscrew economy: we will continue to pollute, to need virgin plastic, and so on. The petrochemical industries are pushing hard to ensure that we do not differentiate between recycling and downcycling. This can be understood, they defend their interests. But it is even more serious when people who are supposed to make decisions, particularly political ones, are also not capable of making this difference. As do some experts.
Do you regret this lack of knowledge on the part of the political class?
There is difficulties in understanding the foundations of plastic pollution, yes, and therefore the way to remedy it. We arrive at situations where we take a step forward, a step back, falling into very poorly constructed strategies from the start. At the same time, it’s a little hard to blame them because there was a huge amount of communication about small things that caused a lot of confusion. An example: plastic pollution is not the waste we see. This one is ugly but not very dangerous. What is, and which we will find everywhere, are micro and nanoparticles of plastic.
We do not yet feel the effects, but of these 9 billion tonnes of plastic on Earth, there is a very small proportion which is already in the form of microplastic. This is just the beginning of a big wave that will arrive inexorably. Once plastic is reduced to fragments, we can no longer find them in our environment, in our bodies.
Is reducing our consumption, and therefore the production of plastic, the only viable solution?
We, the biggest users, must have the courage to take measures to reduce our consumption. And in saying this, I think that the first actors to target are manufacturers and all sectors of activity which must offer us goods and services with the strict minimum of plastic. I’m not naive: I know that we will never do without plastic. But we must limit its use to that which truly serves our well-being and we must get rid of more than half of the plastic which serves absolutely nothing apart from cluttering our lives, and above all jeopardizing living conditions. future generations. Extremely restrictive targets in terms of reduction must be set for all sectors of activity. We need to open our eyes: recycling will never have an impact on plastic pollution.
What do you expect from this final stretch of international negotiations?
Not a lot. The producing countries are campaigning so that we do not tackle the reduction in primary production. They are not really counterbalanced: users have a lot of difficulty taking their own responsibilities and having clear strategies themselves. Europe must have one concerning plastic pollution, because the one in force is entirely focused on recycling. The EU is funding loads of research projects around the subject while there is almost nothing on reducing use. But this is a huge question.
These negotiations make it possible to become aware of the problem and to talk about it. It’s a first step. But I am not sure that it can lead to effective solutions. Each State must take its responsibilities, and our political authorities in particular. They are the guardians of the temple of our health, our environment and our survival, not just our wallets.
.