资源描述
Plastic Carroll Muffett and Steven Feit at CIEL (Chapter 3); Matt Kelso and Samantha Malone Rubright at FracTracker Alliance (Chapter 4); Courtney Bernhardt and Eric Schaeffer at EIP (Chapter 5); Doun Moon at GAIA and Jeffrey Morris at Sound Resource Management Group (Chapter 6); and Rachel Labb-Bellas at 5Gyres (Chapter 7). It was edited by Amanda Kistler and Carroll Muffett at CIEL. Many people contributed to this report, including Sarah-Jeanne Royer at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (UCSD), University of California, San Diego; Marcus Eriksen; and Monica Wilson, Neil Tangri, and Chris Flood at GAIA. With many thanks to Cameron Aishton and Marie Mekosh at CIEL; Win Cowger at Riverside; Marina Ivlev at 5Gyres; Anna Teiwik and Per Klevnas with Material Economics; Claire Arkin, Sirine Rached, Bushra Malik, Cecilia Allen, and Lea Guerrero at GAIA; Janek Vahk at Zero Waste Europe; Brook Lenker at FracTracker Alliance; Seth Feaster; Victor Carrillo; Jason Gwinn; and Magdalena Albar Daz, Universidad Nacional de Crdoba. This report was made possible through the generous financial support of the Plastic Solutions Fund, with additional support from the 11th Hour Project, Heinrich Bll Stiftung, Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, Marisla Foundation, Threshold Foundation, and Wallace Global Fund. Available online at ciel/plasticandclimate MAY 2019 Plastic fostering the transition to zero-waste communities; implementing extended producer respon- sibility as a critical component of circular economies; and adopting and enforcing ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors, including plastic production. Complementary interventions may reduce plastic-related greenhouse emissions and reduce environmental and/or health-related impacts from plastic, but fall short of the emissions reduc- tions needed to meet climate targets. For example, using renewable energy sources can reduce energy emissions associated with plastic but will not address the significant process emissions from plastic production, nor will it stop the emissions from plastic waste and pollution. Worse, low- ambition strategies and false solutions (such as bio-based and biodegradable plastic) fail to address, or potentially worsen, the lifecycle greenhouse gas impacts of plastic and may exac- erbate other environmental and health impacts. Ultimately, any solution that reduces plastic production and use is a strong strategy for addressing the climate impacts of the plastic lifecycle. These solutions require urgent support by policymakers and philanthropic funders and action by global grassroots movements. Nothing short of stopping the expansion of petrochemical and plastic production and keeping fossil fuels in the ground will create the surest and most effective reductions in the climate impacts from the plastic lifecycle. Nothing short of stopping the expansion of petrochemical and plastic production and keeping fossil fuels in the ground will create the surest and most effective reductions in the climate impacts from the plastic lifecycle. FIGURE 2 Annual Plastic Emissions to 2050 tth .7btt fO fpt pt tPlas TiC accordingly, plastic lifecycle emissions start with the extraction of its fundamental feed- stocks (Chapter 4). This report tracks those feed- stocks through the pipelines to the refineries and crackers where oil, gas, and coal are converted from fossil fuels into fossil plastic. Greenhouse gases are emitted in the production of plastic resins and, although information is limited, in the creation of products from those resins (Chapter 5). The climate impacts of plastic do not stop when plastic is discarded. Indeed, the vast major- ity of plastics lifespan, and a large part of its climate impacts, occur only after its useful life ends. This next stage of life includes the impact of various disposal methods for plastic, including incineration and waste-to-energy processes (Chapter 6). Finally, this report examines what is known about the greenhouse gas impacts of plastic once it leaks into the environment, review- ing early research showing that plastic continues to emit greenhouse gases as it breaks down in the oceans, on shorelines, and on land (Chapter 7). This chapter also examines the potential impacts of microplastics on the oceans ability to absorb carbon dioxide and store it deep in the ocean depths. While much of this report builds on what is already known about plastics climate impacts at disparate moments in the plastic lifecycle, it also highlights the critical gaps and areas where more research is needed to fully understand those impacts. For example, there are substantial gaps in reporting that make estimating the total global emissions associated with specific and important parts of the plastic lifecycle a challenge. Where global figures exist, this report uses them. Despite the limitations in data, this report concludes that the climate impacts of plastic throughout its lifecycle are overwhelming and require urgent, ambitious action. This report focuses particular attention on the greenhouse gas emissions associated with plastic production and the petrochemical infrastructure Soojung Do/GreenpeacePlas TiC the transportation, storage, and refining of natural gas liquids; the manufacturing of plas- tic; waste management; and plastic in the envi- ronment. The report does not estimate emissions released in the use of plastic products nor does it estimate the full emissions profile of every type of plastic produced. To emphasize the impacts of the plastic lifecycle on climate change, the report high- lights the largest sources of atmospheric greenhouse gases emitted to the exclusion of non-greenhouse gas air and water emissions and pollutants. CO 2 and water vapor are the most abundant greenhouse gases, though there is a wide array of other gases, like methane, and processes that also contribute to atmospheric warming and climate change. To allow greenhouse gases and other climate-forcing agents with dissimilar char- acteristics to be represented on a comparable footing, climate scientists calculate their impact relative to a common baseline: the CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e). 3 Water vapor is excluded and considered a feedback for purposes of climate models. This report adopts the methodology for measur- ing and collecting estimates of greenhouse gases as set forth by the IPCCs 2013 Fifth AssessmentPlas TiC and polyester, polyamide, and acrylic (PP medical applications include surgical sutures, implants, and fracture fixation; other commercial applications include fabrics. Bioplastic includes polylactic acid (PLA), plant-derived PET, and poly- hydroxyalkanoate (PHA) and can be mixtures of biopolymers, petrochemical-derived plastic, and fibers. Bioplastic is not inherently biodegradable. The material used in plant-based PET is indistinguishable from its petrochemical equivalent. Plant-based PET, like petrochemical PET, will not decompose, but it can be recycled withconventional PET. Plant- derived PET thus has the same environmental impact as conven- tional plastic through its use and end of life. PLA is not suitable for home composting; biodegradation requires an industrial composting process that uses high temperatures (over 58C) and 50 percent relative humidity (most home composters operate at less than 60C and only rarely reach temperatures greater than this). Pure bioplastic will release carbon dioxide (or methane) and water when it breaks down. However, if additives or toxins have been added during the manufacturing process, as is generally the case, these may be released during degradation. As with fossil-fuel-based plastic, chemicals may be added to a bioplas- tic to add strength, prevent wrinkling, or confer breathability. Further research and lifecycle analyses will help to understand the role and impacts of different bioplastics. If growth trends continue, plastic will account for 20 percent of global oil consumption by 2050. These projections not only forecast an impending acceleration of plastic production and waste, but also underscore the importance of growing plastic production as a driver of increased fossil fuel demand. According to WEF, plastic production accounts for 48 percent of global oil consump- tion annually, with roughly half used for materialPlas TiC to the contrary, the actual number may be considerably larger. Additional emissions from natural gas extraction and transformation in the Middle East, which primarily uses ethane for plastic production, are omitted from this analysis due to the inacces- sibility of adequate data. Nonetheless, those emissions are not insignificant and should be understood as an additional element of the greenhouse gas impact of plastic production. The next several sections identify and quantify the various sources of emissions from the natural gas production and transportation process in the United States and apportion those emissions to plastic production. n aTural gas in The uni Ted sTaTes Plastic can be made from a variety of hydro- carbon feedstocks, 54 but one of the principal raw materials begins with ethane gas that produces ethylene through steam cracking. 55 After methane, ethane is usually the most common component of natural gas. It is considered a natural gas liquid; natural gas high in NGLs is called “wet gas.” According to IEA, natural gas in the US accounts for around 40 percent of global capacity toPlas TiC creating policies that reduce CO 2 emissions; setting stringent air quality standards; and struc- turing fuel and feedstock subsidies so that they do not inhibit the use of more sustainable alter- natives to fossil fuels and feedstocks. Under the best-case scenario outlined by the IEA, reducing greenhouse gases in the long term will also in- volve increased recycling rates to reduce demand for primary chemicals and feedstocks. Companies will also have to shift to lighter feedstocks and improve energy efficiency by using new technologies52 Cha PTer five REFINING AND MANUFACTURE like naphtha catalytic cracking, which requires less naphtha than steam cracking. 209 IEA also suggests that further integration of petrochemical and plastic manufacturing within existing natural gas, oil, and fossil fuel industries would improve efficiency and allow expanded use of carbon capture, usage, and storage (CCUS) technologies. 210 However, CCUS technologies impose significant energy penalties that limit the emissions reduction benefits. Moreover, the most economic uses of carbon capture are likely to result in increased production of oil or combus- tible fuels that exacerbate emissions. 211 Finally, developing and deploying CCUS projects at scale will require significant new investments in long-lived fossil fuel infrastructure, which is incompatible with the rapid phaseout of fossil fuels required to keep climate change to below 1.5C of temperature rise. 212 Plas TiC Produ CT manufa CTuring The plastic manufacturing process is the stage in the lifecycle in which a thermoplastic or resin in pellet form undergoes a series of molding processes to create final products, like single- use containers for fast-moving, consumer-facing brands. For the key plastic manufacturing pro- cesses, emissions are released as part of the di- rect emissions from processing, as well as the in- direct emissions from processes that contribute to finished polymers, including PE, PP, and PS. Plastic packaging represents 40 percent of total production of plastic products. 213 Plastic packaging is typically single-use, ubiquitous, and extremely difficult to recycle. Bottles, bags, wraps, and films comprise the largest packaging segments by revenue. 214 According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the negative impacts of plastic packaging are estimated at $40 billion and expected to increase with signifi- cantly expanded production under a business- as-usual scenario. 215 Recommendations for Reducing Emissions in Plastic Manufacturing Proponents of the circular economy advocate for developing business models and industry structures to greatly increase the usable lifespan of products and materials, dramatically reduce material production and the consumption of raw materials, and reduce the greenhouse gas emis- sions that arise from unnecessary production, consumption, and waste disposal. 216 For the manufacturing of plastic, this includes policies and initiatives that address: Materials Reduction: Curtail and reduce the unnecessary or excessive use of materials, through changes in processes, products, or behaviors. In the plastic context, this would include initiatives to ban or curtail the use of non-essential plastic, including single-use disposable plastic commonly found in packaging, food and beverage service, and fast-moving consumer goods. Materials Recirculation: Develop the policies, technologies, and systems necessary to reduce waste and decrease reliance on virgin materials by ensuring products are designed and managed throughout their lifecycles for reuse and continual recycling (rather than downcycling). These pro- cesses include setting and reinforcing standards to regulate waste and improving the design and end-of-life handling of products. At present, strategies for materials recirculation face signifi- cant systemic challenges, which are discussed in Chapter 6. Accordingly, simple pledges to increase recycling rates, even dramatically, are unlikely to address either the material or the climate impacts of growing plastic production. Product Material Efficiencies: Ensure greater use for materials and incentivize reuse and recycling through target initiatives intended to improve product materials through greater transparency, technology, and information. Carroll Muffett/CIELPlas TiC PP, 1.55 Mt; PET, 2.275 Mt; PVC, 2.095 Mt; and PS, 3.2 Mt. also ostensibly embracing the circular economy approach by making statements that resin pro- ducers aim to recycle or recover 100 percent of plastic packaging by 2040. 218 Such statements obscure the fact that the intended path towards achieving such goals include accelerating plastic production that would be “balanced out” by dramatically increasing incineration, as a form of plastic “recovery.” Ted Auch/FracTracker AlliancePlas TiC thus, it reflects only 25 percent of all plastic waste. For a broader plastic waste stream, including plastic packaging and non- packaging plastic waste, USEPA reported that waste incineration released 11 million Mt CO 2 e in the US, more than half of which came from plastic waste (5.9 million Mt) in 2015. 233 The climate impact of plastic waste incineration in the US is equivalent to 1.26 million passenger vehicles driven for one year, or more than half a billion gallons of gasoline consumed. 234 When plastic packaging waste commingled in MSW is burned in a WTE incinerator, the generated electricity replaces power generated from otherPlas TiC PlasticsEurope effective- ness as a lifecycle approach
展开阅读全文