Plastics provide undeniable benefits to society through their versatility, durability, light weight, and low cost. However, these same properties have also caused widespread and irreversible impacts to health and ecosystems that are not reflected in the price of the materials. An aim of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by all United Nations member states is to “protect the planet from degradation . . . so that it can support the needs of the present and future generations.” To meet this goal, we must internalize the negative impacts of plastics into their costs so that they may provide essential services to well-being in a sustainable manner.

During plastic’s inception, environmental considerations were paramount. The first synthetic polymer was invented to replace ivory in 1869, largely eliminating the need to slaughter wild elephants to make products such as billiard balls. Yet in 2021, weathering plastics were identified as a planetary boundary threat due to their contamination of the globe, permanent nature, and disruptive impacts on Earth system processes, as described by Arp et al. in Environmental Science & Technology.

Plastic’s transformation from miracle to menace can be explained in part by a colonialist strategy—out-of-sight, out-of-mind. For decades, the “take-make-waste” approach to single-use plastics carried on with minimal public concern from middle- and upper-class consumers, who were largely unaware of the pollution generated by plastic. Disturbing images of both plastic’s accumulation in watersheds (and even in human placenta in the form of microplastics), as well as pollution burdens on low-income residents and communities of color from manufacturing plants (e.g., “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana), raised alarm bells. Then in 2017, China banned the import of low-quality, mixed plastics, and waste started piling up across Europe and North America. While many countries (including the United States) decided to simply send their waste to lower-income nations in the Global South, China’s policy revealed to the world that the existence of single-use plastic under the current business model is dependent on the availability of land to assimilate pollution.

If the environmental impacts of single-use plastics were included in their cost, the feedstock extraction and manufacturing required for plastics would not be economically viable. Technical and economic barriers are responsible for plastic’s abominable 9 percent global recycling rate, despite industry deferring blame to consumers. Because most plastic products are designed for functionality instead of recyclability, they are often too complex to be separated and recycled (such as multilayer packaging), can only be down-cycled into less valuable products like polyester, or contain hazardous chemicals that would contaminate new products (e.g., phthalates in children’s toys). The industry promises to reduce some technical barriers through a process called “chemical recycling”; however, implementation may be minimal without economic incentives to use recycled plastic over cheaper virgin feedstocks.

A thriving and regenerative economy is possible without the impacts that fossil fuel-derived plastics and other chemicals incur. The European Union’s Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability aims to ensure “chemicals are produced and used in a way that maximizes their contribution to society . . . while avoiding harm to the planet and to current and future generations.” This “safer by design” strategy requires green chemistry innovation by the industry and rapid, effective policies.

Sustainable chemical strategies require reliable metrics for measuring all impacts of a chemical to avoid shifting the burden of harm from one planetary-scale issue, sector, or population to another. A clear understanding of the complex interconnectedness of environmental issues will be necessary. For example, replacing fossil fuel-based plastics with bio-based materials may increase agriculture’s competition for space with natural ecosystems and result in biodiversity loss, or deplete nutrients and cause food insecurity.

Plastics, whether fossil fuel- or bio-based, generate hazardous microplastics, so limiting production will be necessary to preserve ecosystem functioning and human health. Before conducting lengthy impact evaluations, the first question to ask of any chemical is, “Is this necessary?” In other words, is it possible to achieve the function provided in another way, including by redesigning the entire system? For example, the University of California determined that single-use plastics are nonessential for dining. Instead, the schools will provide reusable food service items in all 10 campuses starting in 2022.

Plastic pollution is a rapidly increasing planetary threat, and incremental, piecemeal changes such as improvements in efficiency will be insufficient to stem the tide. A global, measurable, and binding treaty with actionable targets and equitable resource allocation is necessary to address the multiple interrelated planetary health crises, and sustainably transition our consumption patterns, chemical feedstocks, and materials economy. There is still time to decide if society will make these changes voluntarily or out of necessity due to environmental collapse and public health crises. To achieve a sustainable circular economy, we need a range of policy tools—and we need to start accounting for all the costs of plastic.