An estimated 8 million metric tons (MMT) of plastic waste enters the world’s ocean each year—the equivalent of dumping a garbage truck of plastic waste into the ocean every minute (Jambeck et al. 2015). If current practices continue, the amount of plastic discharged into the ocean could reach up to 53 MMT per year by 2030, roughly half of the total weight of fish caught from the ocean annually (Borrelle et al. 2020, Jambeck and Johnsen 2015, Pauly and Zeller 2016).
Society is grappling with the massive scale of the challenge of plastic waste with responses ranging from beach cleanups and local bans to producer responsibility schemes and calls for country-level commitments and a global treaty. The bipartisan Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, passed into law in December 2020, called for this report on the U.S. contribution to global ocean plastic waste and its role in addressing plastic waste.
The U.S. contribution to global ocean plastic waste begins with the plastics produced and used in this country or exported to other nations, as well as imported plastics. Over a 50-year period, global plastic production increased nearly 20-fold, from 20 MMT in 1966 to 381 MMT in 2015 (Geyer, Jambeck, and Law 2017). In 2019, a total of 70 MMT of plastic resin was produced in North America, compared to a global production of 368 MMT (Plastics Europe 2020). The U.S. trend of both plastic exports and imports has been increasing over the last three decades.
The plastics industry expects growing populations and rising household incomes to create new markets and increase global plastics production, which will ultimately result in increased plastic waste.
In 2016, the United States generated more plastic waste than any country in the world, with a total of 42 MMT (Law et al. 2020). However, the United States only has 4.3% of the world’s population (World Bank 2021). U.S. per capita plastic waste generation is 130 kg/year, which is about 2-8 times higher than many other countries (Law et al. 2020).
Determining the amount of U.S. plastic waste leakage into the environment is difficult to assess because of the lack of data. A number of researchers have estimated the amounts for the United States and these estimates are illustrated in the table below.
Estimates of global input of plastic waste to the environment vary by orders of magnitude, although few are directly comparable because of differences in modeling approaches, and none is grounded in extensive empirical measurements of plastic waste abundance or transport into the environment. However, these estimates do convey the scale of the problem. In the U.S., despite a well-developed formal waste management system, approximately 1 to 2 MMT of plastic waste generated domestically was estimated to enter the environment at home and abroad (after export for recycling) in 2016 (Law et al. 2020).
Study |
Estimate of plastic entering environment (land, aquatic ecosystems, coastline, ocean) |
Receiving environment |
USA |
Global |
Year of estimate |
MSW not collected in formal infrastructure |
Illegal dumping (USA only) |
Littering |
Microplastics input |
Informal sector |
Export of waste |
Entire population |
Population in inland watersheds (via rivers) |
Coastal population (50 km buffer) |
Primary data source for plastic waste (MSW) estimation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jambeck et al. 2015 |
0.04 - 0.11 MMT |
Ocean |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
World Bank |
0.28 MMT |
Coastline (50 km buffer) |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Lebreton & Andrady 2019 |
0.0029 - 0.29 MMT |
Land |
|
|
2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waste Atlas 2016 |
Borrelle et al. 2020 |
0.20 – 0.24 MMT |
Aquatic ecosystems |
|
|
2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
World Bank (Kaza et al. 2018); Also (Jambeck et al. 2015, Lebreton and Andrady 2019) |
Law et al. 2020 |
1.13 - 2.24 MMT |
Land |
|
|
2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
World Bank (Kaza et al. 2018); Also USA- specific data |
0.51 - 1.45 MMT |
Coastline (50 km buffer) |
|
|
2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Meijer et al 2021 |
0.0024 MMT |
Ocean |
|
|
2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Lebreton and Andrady 2019) |
|
0.27 MMT |
Land |
|
|
2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ocean is the Earth’s ultimate sink, the downstream recipient of human activities. Almost any plastic waste on land has the potential to eventually reach the ocean. Major paths of plastics to the ocean include urban, coastal, and inland stormwater; treated wastewater discharges; atmospheric deposition; direct deposits from boats and ships; beach and shoreline wastes; and transport from inland areas by rivers and streams.
CLICK ON A TERM BELOW TO VIEW DEFINITION
Data from U.S. Beaches
In 2019, more than 32 million individual items were collected and categorized from more than 24,000 miles of beaches around the globe in the International Coastal Cleanup (Ocean Conservancy). The Top 10 list (highest number of items collected) has included the same consumer products year after year, including cigarette filters, food wrappers, beverage bottles and cans, bags, bottle caps and straws.
Plastic waste has two especially well-studied impacts on marine and freshwater life: entanglement in plastic waste, and ingestion of plastic waste. One review by Kuhn and van Franeker (2020) found documented cases of entanglement or ingestion by marine biota in 914 species from 747 studies—701 species having experienced ingestion and 354 species having experienced entanglement. Microplastics ingested by marine biota may move through the food web, ultimately to humans, but there is limited knowledge of effects throughout the food web and to humans specifically.
Characteristics of a tracking and monitoring system that would be most effective in ultimately reducing plastic waste in aquatic systems include:
The United States should substantially reduce solid waste generation (absolute and per person) to reduce plastic in the environment and the environmental, economic, aesthetic, and health costs of managing waste and litter. There is no single solution to reducing the flow of plastic waste to the ocean. However, a suite of actions (or “interventions”) taken across all stages of the path from source to ocean could reduce ocean plastic waste and achieve parallel environmental and social benefits.
Intervention by category |
Types of interventions |
Actors |
Specific Examples |
|
Production or manufacturing restrictions and limits |
National goals and strategies to cap or reduce virgin plastic production Reductions in plastic production (as carbon equivalents) as part of global, U.S., and state greenhouse gas emissions goals Moratorium on new petrochemical plants and capacity to reduce production from fossil feedstocks |
National, state, and tribal governments and industry standards |
European Union (EU) Circular Economy Action Plan, March 11, 2020, and EU Directives 2018/850 and 2018/851 (landfill limits and recycling targets) |
Intervention by category |
Types of interventions |
Actors |
Specific Examples |
|
Enforceable product standards for manufacturers |
Timebound targets and limits on plastic content of specific products and packaging
End-of-life material and design specifications (simplification) for some products, packaging to facilitate reuse, recycling |
National and state governments, standards organizations Industry (standards and systems) |
Minimum recycled content requirements EU Directive 2018/852 (minimum 55% recycled content in plastic packaging by 2030)
Prohibitions on sale of packaging with some plastics, such as polystyrene (e.g., Washington State SB5022, enacted 2021 [Quinn 2021])
|
|
Voluntary commitments and collaborations for innovative material and product design |
Government-sponsored research and development collaborations, incentives, and roadmaps (see also “Other Activities” below) Promote industry-wide innovation, standards, collaboration, and regulation by constraining the types of resins used in some applications to maximize value and recyclability Streamline and standardize design to limit variability in packaging End-of-life material and design specifications (simplification) for some products, packaging to facilitate reuse, recycling Encourage following the Principles of Green Engineering and Green Chemistry |
Industry, government, academia, nongovernmental (scientific, funding, environmental) organizations, global standards organizations |
U.S. Plastics Pact
Precompetitive and open innovation collaborations within and across industry sectors (e.g., Ellen MacArthur Circular Economy 100 Group [Kleine Jäger and Piscicelli 2021])
SOS 2.0 Genius Prize for Save our Seas Innovations (Department of Commerce and new Marine Debris Foundation) |
|
Standards for labeling and marketing |
Restrict use of chasing arrows symbol on products which lack broad, functional recycling infrastructure (e.g., can be collected, sorted, cleaned, and economically reprocessed) in place in the United States Restrict chasing arrows symbol to items following material standards for that product or material
Create enforceable feedstock, performance, and labeling standards for “biodegradable,” “compostable,” “biobased” products, to prevent consumer confusion and potential “greenwashing” Publicly available assessments of and reports on recycling efficacy (markets for recycled materials and fate of items collected in recycling process) |
National, state, and tribal governments; consumers and civil society |
U.S. Federal Trade Commission Green Guides for Environmental Marketing Claims
CA SB 343 (restricts use of the chasing arrows symbol to only those plastic products that are truly recyclable in California); Nongovernmental and governmental reports (e.g., Greenpeace 2020, U.S GAO 2020)
|
Intervention by category |
Types of interventions |
Actors |
Specific Examples |
|
Plastic product bans (and substitutes) |
Ban specific products based upon criteria such as potential for loss to the environment, toxicity, and necessity of use
|
National, state, local, and tribal governments |
EU Directive 2019/904 (Single-Use Product Ban), effective 2021 Various U.S. state and local bans on single-use products (bags, straws, food service items); See Box 7.1 and Appendix C |
|
Mandatory procurement rules favoring reusable products |
Procurement rules to replace single-use items with reusable goods
|
National, state, and tribal governments Private-sector companies, nongovernmental institutions |
Canada 2018 Strategy: Zero plastic waste (Government of Canada 2021)
|
|
Reduce loss of pre-production pellets that become waste |
Reduce pellet losses and wastes |
National and state governments; industry |
2007 California law (AB 258) on pre-production plastic source controla |
|
Fiscal tools (fees, taxes, incentives) |
Fee on purchase of specific items at point-of-sale to disincentivize their use (e.g., thin film shopping bags)
|
National, state, municipal, and tribal governments, and consumers |
U.S. state and municipal plastic bag laws
|
|
Deposit return systems |
Systems that use a deposit to incentivize return or reuse of the packaging or product |
|
U.S. state bottle return laws (see Appendix C) Norway tax on plastic producers, forgiven if recycling tops 95% (now 97% bottles are recycled; 92% can be reused) (Steffen 2020) |
|
Extended producer requirements (EPR) (end-of-life management) |
Place legal or fiscal responsibility on producers for management and disposal of plastic waste. EPR campaigns often rely on government to set and enforce standards even though responsibility is placed upon companies. Laws and policies that enable life-cycle management such as EPR, take back schemes that meet specific targets for waste diversion and recycling Require recycling rates for products (e.g., beverage bottles). If rates are not met, then fees are charged. |
National, state and local, and tribal governments Industry funded/ |
Maine and Oregon packaging EPR laws (2021) and other state EPR laws British Columbia EPR law (85% recovery rate; Paben 2021)
Many plastic and non-plastic examples in states (e.g., paint, mattresses)b U.S. EPR requirements for e-waste and pharmaceuticals
EU and Norway EPR legislation |
|
Reusable and refillable systems |
Investment in affordable and convenient reuse/refill systems to reduce single-use packaging Fund programs to promote reuse/refill systems |
National, state, and tribal governments Investment through Small Business Innovation Research, government funding, private funders |
CA laws: (1) AB 962 allows beverage producers to sanitize and refill intact glass bottles; (2) CA AB 619c—amends health laws to allow consumers to bring containers for restaurants to fill for to-go. Business examples: Algramo, |
Intervention by category |
Types of interventions |
Actors |
Specific Examples |
|
Disposal, collection, and recycling improvements |
Infrastructure for source separation, industrial composting, recycling (including beyond mechanical) Recycling collection and reuse targets and incentives (e.g., bottle bills, deposit/refund schemes) Place and maintain receptacles in plastic “hotspot” or high traffic areas Research and development investment in new methods of depolymerizing plastic waste to promote material/chemical recovery |
National, state, tribal, and local governments |
Infrastructure grants under Save Our Seas 2.0 Act and related legislation (Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act; see Appendix C)
State bottle bills (e.g., CA AB 962d requires the creation of a returnable bottle system in California by January 1, 2024) Cigarette butt bins Lidded trash cans U.S. Department of Energy investments (e.g., Energy.gov 2020); Industry initiatives and multiparty alliances; See also research and development below. |
|
Plastic waste export/ import controls |
Limit, ban, or voluntarily eliminate plastic waste exports and imports to incentivize waste reduction |
National, state, and tribal governments; private sector |
None at federal level (not signatory to Basel Convention) China 2018 Import Ban Basel Convention 2019 amendments (require prior informed consent for exports of hazardous plastic waste and most non-hazardous plastic waste) |
|
Treatment improvements to remove plastic waste from discharges |
Wastewater treatment standards to remove microplastics and microfibers Products to prevent microfiber releases of from equipment (e.g., washing and industrial machines) |
Government, private sector |
California requires plastic waste removal from industrial and municipal discharge |
|
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, stormwater limits and treatment |
Stormwater discharge regulations for plastics Green infrastructure to filter stormwater |
National, state, and tribal governments |
California, Hawaii Trash total maximum daily loads to address plastic waste in stormwater Nonpoint source permit requirements (facility specific, per U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance) |
|
Ocean/river discharge limits |
Establish regulatory limits on macroplastic or microplastic waste in ocean and river discharges |
National, state, and tribal governments |
California zero discharge goal for trash (including plastics) by 2030 |
Intervention by category |
Types of interventions |
Actors |
Specific Examples |
|
Remove wastes from waterways |
Beach, river, and inland waterway cleanups Trash capture devices in waterways |
Municipal governments, community groups |
International Coastal Cleanup/Ocean Conservancy Mr. Trash Wheel, trash booms, |
|
Remove wastes from ocean wildlife and habitats |
Ghost net removal; fishing gear return incentives; animal and coral disentanglement |
National, state, local, and tribal governments; local, industry, and nonprofit groups |
Derelict crab pot removal Global Ghost Gear Initiative/Ocean Conservancy Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii/State of Hawaii Marine Debris Rapid Response Ghost Net Removal Program and marine litter removal U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Pacific Islands Fishery Science Center ghost net removal, protected species disentanglement U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program funded community-based marine debris removal projects Hawaii Pacific University Center for Marine Debris Research ghost net removal in state of Hawaii The Northwest Straits Foundation ghost net and derelict crab pot removal in Puget Sound
|
|
Remove plastic waste from localized hotspots |
Tire wear particle capture device for roadways Land-based cleanups Research to identify plastic waste hotspots |
State, local, and tribal governments Academia, nongovernmental organizations, agencies |
Cleanup efforts |
Intervention by category |
Types of interventions |
Actors |
Specific Examples |
|
Increase enforcement for at-sea disposal Reduce at-sea abandonment or discard of fishing gear |
Increase enforcement of dumping and disposal of trash Establish solid waste disposal infrastructure for end-of-life fishing nets and gear Create incentives for land-based, e.g., dockside, disposal of end-of-life fishing nets, gear, and trash Establish identification/tagging for deployed active and passive fishing nets and pots |
Global treaty organizations; national, state, local, and tribal governments |
MARPOL VI; Ocean Dumping Act implementation measures/ EU Directive 2019/904 provides for EPR and proper disposal of fishing gear made of plastics Various national and state fishing gear marking requirements (e.g., Marine Management Organisation 2016, Ocean Outcomes 2020) |
Intervention by category |
Types of interventions |
Actors |
Specific Examples |
|
Information/data collection |
Coordinated tracking and monitoring systems Community-based monitoring National and state economic data, field data and studies Mandatory annual reports on plastic use inventories of public companies and government institutions Require plastic producers to report plastic production on carbon equivalents |
National, state, local, and tribal governments; industry |
Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project, U.S. National Water Quality Monitoring Council,e Marine Debris Tracker, International Coastal Cleanup/CleanSwell, Regional and local activities Transparency reporting: (1) Shareholder and investor initiatives (e.g., “As You Sow”), (2) Public reporting (e.g., “Plastic Waste Makers Index,” Minderoo Foundation) |
|
Research and development |
Methods to deliver products without packaging Industrially compostable and home compostable polymers, films, and adhesives Product design that maximizes circularity and recyclability Circular materials management and leakage characterization to inform upstream interventions Intersectional and interdisciplinary research to prevent litter and illegal dumping |
|
REMADE Institute U.S. Department of Energy Plastic Innovation Roadmap National Science Foundation (NSF) Convergent Accelerator program and NSF Grand Challenges grants Ellen MacArthur Foundation Plastics Pacts; American Chemistry Council Roadmap to Reuse Trash Free Seas Alliance; Global Plastics Alliance and related industry investments and partnerships
New Materials Institute |
|
Education and outreach |
Professional outreach, co-production of knowledge to inform solutions at local and regional scales Outreach on efficacy of plastic recycling, labeling, and engage public in solutions Media, school materials, aquaria, and museums including information on ocean plastics Public behavior-change campaigns Community outreach to identify and address local barriers to prevent litter, illegal dumping |
All |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Sea Grant College Program
Nongovernmental organization and governmental reports, data, outreach
U.S. coastal and inland aquarium (Aquarium Conservation Partnership) outreach campaigns on single-use plastics: “In Our Hands” (2017)f and (2) “First Step” on straws (2018)
Trash Shouldn't Splashg Space Apps Challenge, e.g., 2021 Challenge–Leveraging AI/ML for Plastic Marine Debris |