The lifecycle of plastics, a modern wonder that is choking the planet
There's growing international recognition that we can't recycle our way out of this mess.
Global negotiations in Geneva, which failed to reach consensus on Friday, were seen as the last chance to convince UN member states to sign up to legally binding measures to limit plastic production to address waste at its source.
Negotiator Kate Lynch said Australia was 'very disappointed' the session adjourned without resolution for an ambitious global plastics treaty, which aimed to reduce pollution through the lengthy life cycle of plastic products.
'This isn't an ambit claim or rhetoric for us,' she told the session. 'We know that it is an important issue for the global community, particularly the Pacific, where an outsized impact of plastic pollution is felt.'
As plastic ages, it degrades. Most of us have heard of microplastics; the small pieces of plastic smaller than 5mm. Less well-known are nanoplastics, which are invisible to the naked eye but enter the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat; in ever-increasing amounts.
'Plastic is toxic, whether it's virgin or recycled,' says Dunlop, the head of plastics and human health at Minderoo Foundation.
'It has toxic chemicals in it, and it will break up into micro and nanoplastics which are like a massive army of mini-Trojan horses carrying toxic chemicals into us. It's a flawed material.'
Chemicals added to polymers in the process of creating different types of plastic cause disruption to human endocrine systems and may be carcinogenic.
The Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), representing the packaging industry, estimates Australians used 1.26 million tonnes of plastic packaging in 2022-23 – equivalent to 47 kg of plastic packaging for every person.
Packaging fuels the climate crisis
The overwhelming majority of soft plastic we in use in Australia (more than 90 per cent) is constructed from virgin fossil fuels, rather than recycled plastic polymers.
Global petrochemical companies like ExxonMobil and Dow, and the Chinese state-owned Sinopec, have a massive stake in our dependence on single-use plastic.
According to research by Minderoo Foundation, in 2021 (the most recent figures available) ExxonMobil was the world's biggest creator of polymers used in single-use plastics.
From 55 of Exxon's facilities came 11.2 million metric tonnes of polymer plastics that year, which ultimately produced about 5.9 million metric tonnes of plastic waste.
(Asked about the findings, and why the company doesn't rely more heavily on recycled polymers, a spokeswoman for ExxonMobil said she had 'nothing to share on the results of Minderoo's study'.)
Global plastics leader China manufactured an estimated 80 million metric tonnes of plastic in 2021. The UN reports the world produces about 400 million metric tonnes of plastic waste each year.
Not only is single-use plastic creating a pollution nightmare, it is fuelling the climate crisis.
Minderoo, and energy transition experts Wood Mackenzie, estimate the global 'cradle to grave' greenhouse gas emissions from single-use plastics in 2021 was 460 million tonnes – equivalent to the total emissions output of the United Kingdom.
From factories here and overseas, single-use plastics now enters our lives in a dizzying and growing number of ways.
Adding insult to injury, we're paying for the stuff. Research conducted by the Australian Marine Conservation Society showed the cost of pre-packaged fruit and vegetables was often higher than loose produce.
A study by CSIRO and University of Toronto, released in April, estimated some 11 million tonnes of plastic now sits on ocean floors around the globe.
At the current trajectory, plastic pollution will double by 2040, and the rate of plastics entering the world's oceans would triple in that time. Within 30 years it could surpass the biomass of the world's fish.
Industry body APCO says 19 per cent of plastic packaging was recovered in 2022-23, while the Environment Department calculates only 13 per cent of single-use plastic is recycled. The rest goes into landfill or waterways.
'As people, as responsible citizens trying desperately to look after our common home, the planet, we must always think: where does something come from, and where does it go? It comes from fossil fuel, and it goes to waste,' says Dunlop.
'Because at the moment, we are wedded to the convenience. It's this death by a thousand conveniences.'
The Minderoo Foundation argues that nothing less than internationally binding instruments – a Paris Agreement for plastic pollution, if you will – will stem this toxic tide.
'We can't recycle our way out of this'
In 2010, the REDcycle scheme was launched with great fanfare, giving consumers a sense of power over the sheer volume of plastic that enters our homes as packaging.
But the soft plastics captured by the REDcycle scheme weren't recycled into new plastics packaging; they were transformed into ingredients used in concrete, asphalt, street furniture, bollards and shopping trolleys.
Australian Marine Conservation Society plastics campaigner Cip Hamilton describes plastics recycling as a hollow victory.
'Recycling [plastic] really delays our disposal of products – we need to look at the root of the issue, which is how we can reduce the amount of plastic that we're using.'
In a factory in Melbourne's industrial west, the air is acrid with the stench of chemicals. Every hour this factory's machines thunder along, another tonne of single-use plastic is diverted from landfill.
Much of the degraded plastic being processed here was stockpiled by the ill-fated REDcycle scheme, which collapsed in 2022, all-but wiping out the already-inadequate soft plastics recycling initiatives in Australia.
Australian Food and Grocery Council chief executive Tanya Barden last year told a Senate inquiry that, even at its peak, REDcycle was only collecting 2-4 per cent of soft plastics on the market.
'One of the problems with the REDcycle system was the lack of processing capacity [and] that is still a significant issue,' she said.
'There isn't infrastructure in Australia that can process soft plastic back into food-grade quality [plastic]; existing mechanical recycling can't do that. So at the moment, you can only put it back into road bases and bollards.'
Tangaroa Blue Foundation chief executive Heidi Tait told the same inquiry that while soft plastics can be transformed into materials like decking and bollards, it doesn't mean they should.
'Those products that are meant to be the solution to our soft plastics [problem] are just degrading into microplastics in the environment,' she said.
'They start to look ugly, they get pulled out, and they go to landfill ... we're not actually diverting from landfill, we're actually delaying landfill, and we're giving these products opportunity to pollute again in process [by] extending their life.'
This is an inconvenient truth. Another inconvenient truth is that in Australia currently, there are four options: use less plastic, send it to landfill, let it wind up in the natural environment, or repurpose it into other single-use products.
Back in the factory in Melbourne's west, CRDC Australia managing director Shane Ramsey strides between giant bales of tattered soft plastics.
Ramsey heads the Australian arm of a company that began as a beach clean-up enterprise in Costa Rica. Now, the company has factories in four countries, including a fledgling factory in Melbourne that can repurpose one tonne of plastic an hour.
CRDC transforms soft and hard plastics, and aluminised plastics like chip packets, into an aggregate used in building materials called Resin8. It's lighter and holds more heat than regular building materials, making it an attractive prospect for industry.
Ramsay estimates the factory has processed hundreds of tonnes of stockpiled plastic from REDcycle.
'High-value plastic should stay in the loop as long as it can,' he says.
'But ultimately, it gets to the point where it can't continue in the life it was in, and we need to have an alternative for it.'
Where do we go from here?
Australia has set a national target for 70 per cent of plastic packaging to be recycled or composted by this year. We're well behind on the goal – according to the latest figures available, in 2022-23 we managed to repurpose just 19 per cent (down 1 per cent on the previous year).
Before the election, former environment minister Tanya Plibersek said the federal government, states and territories and business were investing $1 billion to recycle an extra 1.3 million tonnes per year.
Loading
'Australians know how important it is to reduce our plastic waste. That's why so many are doing their bit to reduce their consumption, reusing where they can and recycling as much as possible,' she told this masthead.
'Having individuals keen to do their bit is fantastic – but it's not enough. More than 70 per cent of a product's environmental impact is locked in at the design stage, before a customer ever looks at it.'
A departmental spokeswoman said the government remained committed to reform.
Australia has long pushed for a strong new international treaty on plastic pollution, and the government has been promising since 2023 to introduce mandatory packaging design standards and targets.
In February, the federal Environment Department published the results of a government consultation that showed a clear majority of respondents supported Commonwealth regulation of packaging.
Dunlop says to reduce our reliance on plastic we should start being more frugal and thinking more like our great-grandparents who didn't live with single-use plastic. We also urgently need safe and sustainable alternative materials that don't contain toxic chemicals, she said.
'The problem is very serious and accelerating.' she says. 'And we can act now.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

News.com.au
17 hours ago
- News.com.au
‘Dramatic spike' in Aussies installing infrared saunas at home
A new wellness trend is sweeping Australia, with data showing a 'record number' of people installing an expensive item at home to avoid paying costly gym fees. Infrared saunas have been gaining popularity in recent years, largely due a stream of celebrity endorsements and potential health benefits such as improved muscle recovery, reduced pain, and enhanced relaxation. With gyms and health centres generally charging between $20 to $50 per session, it has sparked an uptick in Aussies installing the large device at home. Data shows demand for the hottest 'must-have' property feature has increased among those buying homes, with searches for the keyword up by more than a third on in the past year. It's a boom also being experienced on Airtasker, where there has been a 'dramatic spike' in the number of people seeking help installing saunas as the trend takes off. 'We're seeing a major spike in sauna-related tasks as Australians embrace the health and wellness trend in their own backyard,' Tim Fung, the job-posting platform's CEO, told The company's data showed that tasks for saunas have been consistently on the rise over the last 4 years, with 2025 seeing the most consistent demand at a very high volume. Tasks related to the sweat-boosting habit peaked during July, with the platform stating it had the most tasks involving a sauna shared in Airtasker history. 'What's really exciting is that saunas are no longer just a luxury as they are more accessible and easy to get installed,' Mr Fung added. 'It's wellness with a social twist, as people can invite a friend over for a sauna, just like people do for a swim in the pool.' Prices for one of these trendy new saunas, which use infrared lamps to heat the body directly, rather than the traditional sauna method of heating the air, can vary. Bunnings currently has one on sale for $2499, while some brands charge as much as $15,000 to take one home. Sydney woman, Layla Kalachm, 42, said it was a 'no-brainer' to splurge on the device, stating she was spending between $100 and $150 a week just using infrared saunas at local gyms and bathhouses. 'It really started to add up,' she told 'With winter setting in, having young kids, and a hectic schedule, it also just wasn't practical anymore. 'I needed something that fit into my life, and having a sauna at home means I can jump in whenever I have a spare moment, without having to book in advance or worry about running late. The flexibility and convenience is a game-changer.' In total, Ms Kalachm spent $8000 on a three-person sauna with a light therapy panel, and a further $400 for it to be installed in her backyard using Airtasker. Valentino Sia, 37, also spent a 'significant amount' setting up his infrared sauna inside his Sydney home – but said 'in the long run, around two to three years, it will definitely pay for itself'. 'Owning a sauna feels like a real luxury – it's almost like living the millionaire lifestyle,' he joked. 'It's fast become a core part of my relaxation routine as I find it helps manage my chronic lower back pain. The relief is temporary, but it really makes a difference.' For Mr Sia, he finds the ambient lighting 'very calming,' stating that he likes to sync music up to its Bluetooth speakers to get the full experience. 'It's like a mini meditation retreat right at home,' he explained. Sales of sauna and wellness products are rising by around 7 per cent annually, two per cent faster than the growth for the home improvement category, which is increasing by 5 per cent, according to Luxo Living. While scientific evidence around the health benefits of infrared saunas is still its infancy, it has shown promise in a number of different ways, including boosting heart health and reducing blood pressure, according to Cleveland Clinic. Researchers in a two-year study have also found that infrared sauna therapy 'may be a promising method for treatment of chronic pain'. It has also been linked to better sleep, with studies estimating that a 30-minute sauna session can burn approximately 100 to 300 calories, depending on factors like heat intensity and session duration.


Perth Now
18 hours ago
- Perth Now
HK democrat Jimmy Lai's final stretch of marathon trial
Hong Kong pro-democracy businessman Jimmy Lai was provided with medication and a heart monitor for the start of his final submissions in a landmark national security trial, following health concerns over heart palpitations. Lai, 77, who founded the Apple Daily newspaper that was forced to close after a police raid and asset freeze in June 2021, has pleaded not guilty to two charges of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces, and a charge of conspiracy to publish seditious material. Lai's lawyer Robert Pang told the court last Friday that Lai had some episodes where he felt that he was collapsing and had heart "palpitations", prompting the court to adjourn proceedings and order that he be provided with a heart monitor and medication. Prosecutor Anthony Chau confirmed that Lai had been provided with these items on Friday and that he was fit for court on Monday. Lai, noticeably thinner than when the trial began in late 2023, was dressed in a white jacket in the glass dock and pressed his palms together in a prayer gesture several times to his family and supporters. One of the judges, Esther Toh, said additional breaks could be provided for Lai if need be, while also acknowledging the opinion of a medical expert who examined Lai that he was "physically and mentally fit for court". "I'm worried for him. He's already in his 70s and has diabetes, and now palpitations," said Lucille, a supporter who queued for hours to get into the packed courtroom. Lai, a British citizen, has been held in solitary confinement for around 1700 days. His son Sebastien Lai and some rights groups have expressed fear over his deteriorating health on X. Some Western governments have called for Lai's immediate release and raised concerns about the erosion of fundamental rights in the financial hub under China-imposed national security laws. Hong Kong and Chinese authorities have said Lai is being given a fair trial and have warned against such interference in the city's internal affairs. US President Donald Trump said last week that he would "do everything I can to save him". An Australian foreign affairs spokesperson told Reuters on Monday that Canberra was "deeply concerned by Hong Kong's widespread application of national security laws to repress civil society and prosecute pro-democracy advocates ... such as Jimmy Lai". The trial's final days come just days after Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Ted Hui was granted asylum in Australia, more than four years after he left Hong Kong where he faces criminal charges over the 2019 pro-democracy protests. with AP

ABC News
a day ago
- ABC News
PFAS experts answer common questions about 'forever chemicals' and the risks to human health
PFAS, it seems, are everywhere. From farmers in Queensland managing contaminated land, to residents north of Perth fighting for tainted pipework to be replaced, Australians are grappling with how to live with so-called "forever chemicals". Last week, a New South Wales Health expert advisory panel delivered its report on the health impacts of PFAS, on the same day researchers confirmed 21 new PFAS chemicals had been detected in Sydney's tap water. With a Senate inquiry into the extent, regulation and management of PFAS looming, some academics are encouraging a rethink on the essential use of these substances. To better understand how "forever chemicals" work, what the risks are, and what's being done to address the problems, we sat down with three leading PFAS experts: These researchers, who have a combined six decades of experience in the fields of environmental science, engineering and molecular toxicology, are urging caution around what they've called a growing problem. Have you got a question about PFAS? Dr O'Carroll will join us live from 11am to answer the common questions about forever chemicals. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) refers to a group of over 14,000 synthetic chemicals used in all sorts of industrial and domestic products since the 1950s. They're often used in firefighting foams, pesticides, building materials and electronics, as well as household products such as stain-resistant upholstery, waterproof clothing, cleaning products, cosmetics, food packaging and non-stick cookware. Dr O'Carrol explains that the chemical properties of PFAS make them very effective at repelling water, oil and dirt. "It's a chemical that likes to be at interfaces … it doesn't let water through jackets, doesn't allow wine to stain our carpets," he says. Dr Clarke adds "anything that is advertised as oil- or water-repellent is likely to have a PFAS in it". "It has a carbon-fluorine bond, which is very strong, and it doesn't degrade easily in the environment … they get the term 'forever chemicals' because they don't really degrade," he says. The durability of PFAS means they can persist in the environment — and in the bodies of humans and animals — for a long time, and this presents significant concerns. According to the latest National Health Measures survey, most Australians have detectable levels of PFAS in our blood. The most common types detected are perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), found in more than 85 per cent of the population. The Australian government's PFAS taskforce notes these chemicals aren't directly manufactured in Australia, but we do know they are found in products we use and traces have been found in the environment. Dr DeWitt says most people are exposed to PFAS through ingestion — the water they drink or the food they eat. Pioneering research by Dr O'Carroll, in collaboration with international scientists, tested 45,000 soil and groundwater samples from around the world, and found "a substantial fraction" had PFAS levels exceeding safe drinking water guidelines. The highest PFAS levels tended to be around known exposure sites, including training areas where firefighting foam had been in high use, or around landfills. Levels of PFAS have also been detected in water filtration plants in Sydney, in compost being sold to the public in Western Australia, and in the nesting soils of little penguins around Tasmania. Last year, Australia updated its guidelines around safe drinking water to reduce the accepted levels of several PFAS chemicals. Dr DeWitt says less is known about other routes of exposure, such as skin absorption or inhalation. "But we know that when PFAS are [ingested in food or drink] the bulk of what you take into the body can get absorbed across your intestines and get into your blood," she says. Dr DeWitt says once PFAS are distributed throughout the body, they can cross cell membranes and interact with proteins that affect various bodily functions. "Some of these proteins can affect vitally important processes in our bodies, such as the production and action of hormones, the production of cholesterol. So they can interact with these physiological proteins in the body to produce toxicity," she says. Researchers say one of the biggest concerns with PFAS is their persistence — that is, how long they hang around in our bodies. "Many PFAS get excreted in the urine, so they travel from the blood to the kidneys, where they can get pushed out of the body whenever somebody urinates," Dr DeWitt says. But this can take a long time. For some PFAS, the half-life — that is, the time it takes for half of the amount ingested to be excreted — is a matter of hours or days, but for most, it's years. "The problem is, even if you have low levels of exposure, you can still build up amounts in your body if what you rake in is greater than what you put out," Dr DeWitt says. The science on PFAS and the potential impact on human health has been the subject of much public debate in the past few years. Not all of these 14,000 chemicals have been closely studied. Most research has focused on the effects of well-known PFAS, often in populations who have been exposed to high doses. From that research, PFAS exposure has been associated with increased levels of cholesterol and uric acid in the blood, reduced kidney function, altered immune function and levels of thyroid hormones, delayed menstruation, earlier menopause and lower birth weight. The Australian Health Department's PFAS guidelines note these differences have generally been small and unlikely to cause significant negative health outcomes. And less is known about the toxicity of these chemicals at low doses over time. However, Dr DeWitt notes several large-scale epidemiological studies of people who have been highly exposed to PFAS have led to some concerning findings. "Right now, PFOA has the strongest evidence of links to cancer, followed by PFOS. For the others, there haven't been enough studies to understand if they are linked to cancer," Dr DeWitt says. "But we also have evidence from experimental studies with animals like mice and rats to support what we observe in exposed people, which gives biological plausibility or credibility to those findings in people." The NSW Health advisory panel's report on PFAS, published last week, concluded that "health effects of PFAS appear to be small", and cautioned authorities to "avoid using currently available epidemiological studies to derive threshold levels due to the higher risk of bias". Dr Clarke warns that while more research is needed, there are potential risks we should be mindful of. "We know that there's a lot of harm from particular types of pollutants, so I'm talking about cancers, reproductive health problems, impaired immune systems, and neurological damage. "We've seen a 50 per cent decline in male fertility over the last century, which many researchers believe is associated with exposure to chemicals." In a group of more than 14,000 chemicals, not all PFAS are the same. Researchers use several criteria to evaluate the harm of different PFAS chemicals, including how persistent they are in the environment, whether they accumulate in the bodies of humans or animals, and whether they produce toxicity. The bulk of the research to this point has focused on the impact of what are known as longer-chain PFAS, including PFOA, PFOS and PFHxS. The structure of these long-chain PFAS is understood to play a significant role in toxicity, and they are generally highly mobile in water, which means they can travel long distances in the environment. Certain long-chain PFAS, such as those used in firefighting foams, have been phased out around the world and Australia introduced a ban on PFOA, PFHxS and PFOS in July. But Dr DeWitt warns that PFAS with shorter carbon chains may still be harmful. "A short-chain PFAS is as equally persistent in the environment as a longer-chain PFAS. So whether a PFAS has eight carbons or four carbons, it doesn't break down," she says. "The difference is that the shorter-chain PFAS tend to get excreted more rapidly from the bodies of living organisms … that does mean that they have a lesser opportunity to interact with molecules in our bodies to produce toxicity, but they can still produce toxicity." Dr Clarke says there's still a lot we don't know about newer PFAS, including their effects on our bodies or the environment. "But we can reasonably predict that they will be persistent [in the environment] because of that perfluoro–carbon bond, which is very strong," he says. "So [while] we don't have full scientific evidence to demonstrate that it causes an environmental harm, we can reasonably predict that it will, because it has similar properties to things that we've already banned or phased out." Dr DeWitt wants the conversation to focus on what we really need PFAS for, and to consider limiting our use to chemicals that are "essential for the health, safety and functioning of society, and for which there are no alternatives". "So, do you have to have a sofa in your house that has a stain-resistant coating? Is it really that difficult to remove stains with soap and water?" she says. "Do you have to have PFAS in your dental floss so that it glides perfectly between your teeth? "I think we need to think about the essentiality of chemicals before we put them in products." The experts say, while products like non-stick cookware and cosmetics are not thought to be a major pathway for PFAS to get into the body, there are still choices you can make to reduce exposure. "The teflon pan isn't really thought to be an exposure source to people … be mindful about how you use it, though. If you're burning it, and you see smoke coming off it, that's a sign that you shouldn't be using it at that temperature," Dr Clarke says. As for cosmetics and personal care products, if you want to avoid PFAS, check ingredients lists for any chemical with "perfluoro" in the name.