Plastic credits: A ‘false solution' or the answer to global plastic waste?
Just 9 percent of it is recycled, and one study predicts that global emissions from plastic production could triple by 2050.
Since 2022, the United Nations has been trying to broker a global treaty to deal with plastic waste. But talks keep collapsing, particularly on the issue of introducing a cap on plastic production.
Campaigners blame petrostates whose economies depend on oil – the raw ingredient for plastics – for blocking the treaty negotiations.
This week, the UN is meeting in Switzerland in the latest attempt to reach an agreement. But, even if the delegates find a way to cut the amount of plastic the world makes, it could take years to have a meaningful effect.
In the meantime, institutions like the World Bank are turning to the markets for alternative solutions. One of these is plastic offsetting.
So what is plastic offsetting? Does it work? And what do programmes like this mean for vulnerable communities who depend on plastic waste to make a living?
What is plastic offsetting, and how do credits work?
Plastic credits are based on a similar idea to carbon credits.
With carbon credits, companies that emit greenhouse gases can pay a carbon credit company to have their emissions 'cancelled out' by funding reforestation programmes or other projects to help 'sink' their carbon output.
For each tonne of CO2 they cancel out, the company gets a carbon credit. This is how an airline can tell customers that their flight is 'carbon neutral'.
Plastic credits work on a similar model. The world's biggest plastic polluters can pay a plastic credit company to collect and re-purpose plastic.
If a polluter pays for one tonne of plastic to be collected, it gets one plastic credit.
If the polluter buys the number of plastic credits equivalent to its annual plastic output, it might be awarded 'plastic neutral' or 'plastic net zero' status.
Does plastic offsetting work?
Like carbon credits, plastic credits are controversial.
Carbon markets are already worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually, with their value set to grow to billions.
But in 2023, SourceMaterial, a nonprofit newsroom, revealed that only a fraction of nearly 100 million carbon credits result in real emissions reductions.
'Companies are making false claims and then they're convincing customers that they can fly guilt-free or buy carbon-neutral products when they aren't in any way carbon-neutral,' Barbara Haya, a US carbon trading expert, said at the time.
The same thing could happen with plastics. Analysis by SourceMaterial of the world's first plastic credit registry, Plastic Credit Exchange (PCX) in the Philippines, found that only 14 percent of PCX credits went towards recycling.
While companies that had bought credits with PCX were getting 'plastic neutral' status, most of the plastic was burned as fuel in cement factories, in a method known as 'co-processing' that releases thousands of tonnes of CO2 and toxins linked to cancer.
A spokesperson for PCX said at the time that co-processing 'reduces reliance on fossil fuels, and is conducted under controlled conditions to minimise emissions'.
Now, the World Bank is also pointing to plastic credits as a solution.
In January last year, the World Bank launched a $100m bond that 'provides investors with a financial return' linked to the plastic credits projects backed by the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, an industry initiative that supports plastic credit projects, in Ghana and Indonesia.
At the UN talks in December last year, a senior environmental specialist from the World Bank said plastic credits were an 'emerging result-based financing tool' which can fund projects that 'reduce plastic pollution'.
What do companies think of plastic credits?
Manufacturers, petrostates and the operators of credit projects have all lobbied for market solutions, including plastic credits, at the UN.
Oil giant ExxonMobil and petrochemicals companies LyondellBasell and Dow Chemical are all members of the Alliance to End Plastic Waste in Ghana and Indonesia – both epicentres of plastic pollution that produce plastic domestically and import waste from overseas.
But those companies are also members of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a lobby group that has warned the UN it does 'not support production caps or bans', given the 'benefits of plastics'.
What do critics and affected local communities say?
Critics like Anil Verma, a professor of human resource management at the University of Toronto who has studied waste pickers in Brazil, call plastic offsetting a 'game of greenwashing'.
Verma argues that offsetting lets polluters claim they are tackling the waste problem without having to cut production – or profit.
Patrick O'Hare, an academic at St Andrews University in Scotland, who has attended all rounds of the UN plastic treaty negotiations, said he has 'noticed with concern the increasing prominence given to plastics credits'.
Plastic credits are being promoted in some quarters 'despite the lack of proven success stories to date' and 'the evident problems with the carbon credit model on which it is based', he added.
Even some of the world's biggest companies have distanced themselves from plastic credits.
Nestle, which had previously bought plastic credits, said last year that it does not believe in their effectiveness in their current form.
Coca-Cola and Unilever are also 'not convinced', according to reports, and like Nestle, they back government-mandated 'extended producer responsibility' schemes.
Yet the World Bank has plans to expand its support for plastic offsetting, calling it a 'win-win with the local communities and ecosystems that benefit from less pollution'.
Some of the poorest people in Ghana eke out a living by collecting plastic waste for recycling.
Johnson Doe, head of a refuse collectors' group in the capital, Accra, says funds for offsetting would be better spent supporting local waste pickers.
Doe wants his association to be officially recognised and funded, instead of watching investment flow into plastic credits. They're a 'false solution', he says.
This story was produced in partnership with SourceMaterial
READ MORE: Ghana's waste pickers brave mountains of plastic – and big industry
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Qatar Tribune
4 days ago
- Qatar Tribune
US tariff ‘unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable': India
Agencies India faces an ultimatum from the United States with major political and economic ramifications both at home and abroad: end purchases of Russian oil or face painful tariffs. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leader of the world's most populous nation and its fifth-biggest economy, must make some difficult decisions. US President Donald Trump has given longstanding ally India, one of the world's largest crude oil importers, three weeks to find alternative suppliers. Levies of 25 percent already in place will double to 50 percent if India doesn't strike a deal. For Trump, the August 27 deadline is a bid to strip Moscow of a key source of revenue for its military offensive in Ukraine. 'It is a geopolitical ambush with a 21-day fuse,' said Syed Akbaruddin, a former Indian diplomat to the United Nations, writing in the Times of India newspaper. New Delhi called Washington's move 'unfair, unjustified and unreasonable'. Modi has appeared defiant. He has not spoken directly about Trump but said on Thursday 'India will never compromise' on the interests of its farmers. Agriculture employs vast numbers of people in India and has been a key sticking point in trade negotiations. It all seems a far cry from India's early hopes for special tariff treatment after Trump said in February he had found a 'special bond' with Modi. 'The resilience of US-India relations... is now being tested more than at any other time over the last 20 years,' said Michael Kugelman, from the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. Russia accounted for nearly 36 percent of India's total crude oil imports in 2024, snapping up approximately 1.8 million barrels of cut-price Russian crude per day. Buying Russian oil saved India billions of dollars on import costs, keeping domestic fuel prices relatively stable. Switching suppliers will likely threaten price rises, but not doing so will hit India's exports. The Federation of Indian Export Organizations warned that the cost of additional US tariffs risked making many businesses 'not viable'. Urjit Patel, a former central bank governor, said Trump's threats were India's 'worst fears'. Without a deal, 'a needless trade war' would likely ensue and 'welfare loss is certain', he said in a post on social media. Modi has sought to bolster ties with other allies. That includes calling Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who said they had agreed on the need 'to defend multilateralism'. Ashok Malik, of business consultancy The Asia Group, told AFP: 'There is a signal there, no question.' India's national security adviser Ajit Doval met with Vladimir Putin in Moscow, saying the dates of a visit to India by the Russian president were 'almost finalized'. Modi, according to Indian media, might also visit China in late August. It would be Modi's first visit since 2018, although it has not been confirmed officially. Beijing's foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said in response to an AFP question on Friday that 'China welcomes Prime Minister Modi' for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit. India and neighboring China have long competed for strategic influence across South Asia. Successive US administrations have seen India as a key partner with like-minded interests when it comes to China. 'All those investments, all that painstaking work done by many US presidents and Indian prime ministers, is being put at risk,' Malik said. 'I have not seen the relationship so troubled since the early 1990s, to be honest. I'm not saying it's all over, not in the least, but it is at risk.' Modi faces a potential domestic backlash if he is seen to bow to Washington. 'India must stand firm, put its national interest first,' the Indian Express newspaper wrote in an editorial. Opposition politicians are watching keenly. Mallikarjun Kharge, president of the key opposition Congress party, warned the government was 'disastrously dithering'. He also pointed to India's longstanding policy of 'non-alignment'. 'Any nation that arbitrarily penalizes India for our time-tested policy of strategic autonomy... doesn't understand the steel frame India is made of,' Kharge said in a statement. However, retired diplomat Akbaruddin said there is still hope. New Delhi can be 'smartly flexible', Akbaruddin said, suggesting that could mean 'buying more US oil if it's priced competitively, or engaging Russia on the ceasefire issue'.
Al Jazeera
6 days ago
- Al Jazeera
Why the Global South needs a ‘Borrower's Club'
The United States did it again. Just a week before the United Nations Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville, the Trump administration walked out, pulling out of negotiations and refusing to attend the world's most important conference for coordinating how countries finance sustainable development. It was a dramatic, if familiar, abdication of responsibility. And although the rest of the world adopted the Seville Commitment (Compromiso de Sevilla) outcome document by consensus, the result was far from bold. Wealthy creditor nations pushed back against a proposal to establish a meaningful UN-led process for addressing debt distress among lower-income countries. The document's most ambitious provisions on debt triggered formal objections from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and others. Their resistance made it painfully clear that transformational change in the global financial system will not come with wealthy countries in charge. If low and middle-income countries are to secure the resources and policies they need to invest in their futures, they should take a page from rich countries' playbook: organise into a club to protect their own interests. The global economy is held back by a destabilising disconnect between creditor-led promises and borrower realities. The poorest and most vulnerable countries paid a record $96.2bn to service their external debt in 2023, according to the World Bank, with interest costs surging to $34.6bn. More than half of low-income countries are in or near debt distress. Governments are being forced to shift limited public resources away from health, education, infrastructure and climate adaptation to repay debt taken on during periods of low interest rates and looser global financing. These countries may not yet be defaulting on their debt obligations, but they are defaulting on development. The question now is not whether the system must change, but who will lead that change. As UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed put it, it is time to 'flip the orthodoxy'. By pooling resources, sharing data and coordinating strategies, debtor countries could begin to shift the balance of power and negotiate from a position of collective strength. A Borrower's Club offers a path towards a more equitable and strategic approach to debt and development. Without it, governments will remain constrained by a system that drains public resources, weakens institutions, and limits progress on everything from healthcare to climate resilience. The mounting debt pressures facing the Global South reflect a financial system that consistently disadvantages borrower countries. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), at least half of low- and middle-income countries spend more than 10 percent of their tax revenues on interest payments alone. More than 3.3 billion people live in countries where debt service outpaces health spending, and more than two billion people live in countries where education receives less funding than creditors. These pressures are worsening. Loans taken out during the era of ultra-low interest rates are now being refinanced at far higher costs, even as global growth slows and government revenues stagnate. With development assistance falling and financing conditions tightening, public budgets across the Global South are stretched to breaking point. This is not the first time the world has faced a debt crisis. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) spearheaded the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI), securing debt write-offs for dozens of low-income countries and enabling increased investment in poverty reduction. But those programmes were narrow in scope, slow to implement and left many struggling countries behind. More recently, the G20 introduced the Common Framework for Debt Treatments, intended to offer a coordinated process for restructuring debt. Yet only a few countries have used it, and none have completed it with a durable solution. The process remains opaque, creditor-dominated, and too sluggish to meet the urgency of the current crisis. In a recent report, economists Joseph Stiglitz and Martin Guzman outlined one of the most credible reform agendas yet proposed: a detailed framework for restructuring sovereign debt that includes longer loan maturities, lower interest rates, and, when necessary, reductions in principal. Their approach is designed for today's more complex creditor landscape, where commercial lenders and non-traditional actors like China play a major role. But even the best technical proposals need political backing. A Borrower's Club could help consolidate and amplify these ideas, enabling debtor countries to move in concert rather than in isolation. By aligning strategies, sharing information, and speaking with one voice, such a club could help shift the balance of power and turn sound reform proposals into actionable policies. It would mirror tactics long employed by wealthy creditors, who have historically coordinated through clubs of their own: the Paris Club, the G7, the G20. Even private lenders have the Institute of International Finance (IIF) to safeguard their interests. Borrowers rarely have comparable collective leverage. A club could begin to change that. To work, a Borrower's Club will need political champions, a shared strategy and a clear mandate. It must also confront real challenges. Some governments may hesitate to publicly align themselves with a coalition of heavily indebted countries, fearing market or political backlash. Finance ministers in distress may worry about signalling weakness. There are also complex questions about how to involve major creditors, including private bondholders and lenders such as China. Chinese loan contracts often include confidentiality clauses that prevent borrowers from disclosing their existence or terms, complicating transparency and coordination. What incentives could joint repayment arrangements offer? How would the club interact with the International Monetary Fund or World Bank, whose cooperation is helpful but never guaranteed? Answering these questions will take coordination and creativity. One option could be to establish a standing borrower-led secretariat to provide technical assistance, legal support and shared data infrastructure for joint negotiations. Participation in the club could be conditional on adopting a transparency commitment, long demanded by civil society. To bring in new lenders, the club could offer pooled repayment mechanisms or third-party trustees, reducing risk for creditors while protecting the fiscal space of borrower nations. Multilateral institutions may not welcome a shift in bargaining power, but they cannot afford to ignore it either. The idea is not new. In the 1980s, Latin American countries launched an early initiative to coordinate as debtors and increase their collective bargaining power. That effort quickly fell apart as creditors isolated key countries and weakened their unity. Today, however, the context is different. Borrowing countries face shared global shocks, more diffuse creditors, and a fractured international financial order. Efforts by Global South coalitions such as the Organisation of Southern Cooperation and economists like Grieve Chelwa show that momentum is building for borrower coordination. With more data, more cooperation, and more experience, a Borrower's Club formed today could avoid past missteps and build real influence. Coordination is never easy, and some governments will be cautious. But with debt burdens rising, budgets under pressure and global financial governance stuck in gridlock, the greater risk is doing nothing. Creditors have had their clubs for decades. It is time borrowers had one, too. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Qatar Tribune
07-08-2025
- Qatar Tribune
Bangladesh brick industry tries to clean up its act
Agencies Across Bangladesh, clay-fired kilns for brick making send filth into the air, spew toxic gasses and use up topsoil that could be producing food. To clean the air and meet environmental goals, the government has been closing the polluting kilns, but the adoption of cleaner alternatives is badly lagging, industry insiders say. Cleaner alternatives include automated, energy-efficient brick-making technology or the production of concrete blocks, increasingly being adopted by other Asian countries like China and Vietnam. The government environment agency in Bangladesh has shut more than 600 kilns, while 3,500 of the country's 8,000 kilns are designated for closure, according to official figures. The shutdowns began with kilns that lacked proper documents to operate. Many were set up near villages, schools or forests in violation of government rules, said Syeda Rizwana Hasan, the country's environment adviser. 'This is about switching to alternative materials that other countries have already adopted,' Hasan said. Manufacturing clay bricks mostly runs on burning coal, generating greenhouse gases and particulate matter that harm human health, and uses topsoil that is critically needed for growing crops in the densely populated country. Over the last 15 years, Bangladesh has attempted to move to cleaner alternatives such as less-polluting kilns, but the effort is held up by cost considerations. With government encouragement, brick kiln owners converted many long-necked fixed-chimney kilns to zigzag kilns that make better use of energy and emit fewer toxic gases. Development organizations have been pushing for more energy-efficient technologies as well such as hybrid Hoffman kilns (HHK), which capture and use their own waste heat to halve energy usage. The large initial investment costs of $2 million for each HHK kiln, however, is about 15 times the cost of making a zigzag kiln, slowing their large-scale adoption, according to the World Bank.
