Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Plastic futures and their CO2 emissions

Nature volume 612, pages 272–276 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Plastics show the strongest production growth of all bulk materials and are already responsible for 4.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions1,2. If no new policies are implemented, we project a doubling of global plastic demand by 2050 and more than a tripling by 2100, with an almost equivalent increase in CO2 emissions. Here we analyse three alternative CO2 emission-mitigation pathways for the global plastics sector until 2100, covering the entire life cycle from production to waste management. Our results show that, through bio-based carbon sequestration in plastic products, a combination of biomass use and landfilling can achieve negative emissions in the long term; however, this involves continued reliance on primary feedstock. A circular economy approach without an additional bioeconomy push reduces resource consumption by 30% and achieves 10% greater emission reductions before 2050 while reducing the potential of negative emissions in the long term. A circular bioeconomy approach combining recycling with higher biomass use could ultimately turn the sector into a net carbon sink, while at the same time phasing out landfilling and reducing resource consumption. Our work improves the representation of material flows and the circular economy in global energy and emission models, and provides insight into long-term dynamics in the plastics sector.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Projections of global plastic production, waste generation and plastic stocks in use, by sector.
Fig. 2: Global plastic flows and stocks for the SSP2 baseline scenario in the year 2050.
Fig. 3: Global carbon balance of the plastics sector over the entire life cycle.
Fig. 4: Global final energy use in the plastics sector over the entire life cycle.

Data availability

Model documentation and data of the IMAGE model can be found online33. A detailed description of the PLAIA model and its data sources is published13.

Code availability

The code of the PLAIA model is published31.

References

  1. Cabernard, L., Pfister, S., Oberschelp, C. & Hellweg, S. Growing environmental footprint of plastics driven by coal combustion. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00807-2 (2021).

  2. IEA. The future of petrochemicals. https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-petrochemicals (2018).

  3. Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. & Law, K. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 3, 25–29 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Andrady, A. L. & Neal, M. A. Applications and societal benefits of plastics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364, 1977–1984 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Zheng, J. & Suh, S. Strategies to reduce the global carbon footprint of plastics. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 374–378 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lau, W. W. Y. et al. Evaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollution. Science 369, 1455–1461 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bazzanella, A. M. & Ausfelder, F. Low carbon energy and feedstock for the European chemical industry. https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2019/01/Low-carbon-energy-and-feedstock-for-the-chemical-industry-DECHEMA_Report-energy_climate.pdf (2017).

  8. Carus, M., Dammer, L., Raschka, A. & Skoczinski, P. Renewable carbon: key to a sustainable and future-oriented chemical and plastic industry: definition, strategy, measures and potential. Greenhouse Gases Sci. Tech. 10, 488–505 (2020).

  9. Meys, R. et al. Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emission plastics by a circular carbon economy. Science 374, 71–76 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Stegmann, P., Londo, M. & Junginger, M. The circular bioeconomy: its elements and role in European bioeconomy clusters. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 6, 100029 (2020).

  11. de Oliveira, C. C. N., Zotin, M. Z., Rochedo, P. R. R. & Szklo, A. Achieving negative emissions in plastics life cycles through the conversion of biomass feedstock. Biofuel. Bioprod. Biorefin. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2165 (2020).

  12. IAMCwiki. The common Integrated Assessment Model (IAM) documentation. https://www.iamcdocumentation.eu/index.php/IAMC_wiki (2021).

  13. Stegmann, P., Daioglou, V., Londo, M. & Junginger, M. The plastics integrated assessment model (PLAIA): assessing emission mitigation pathways and circular economy strategies for the plastics sector. MethodsX 9, 101666 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Stehfest, E. et al. Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0 – model description and policy applications. https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/integrated-assessment-of-global-environmental-change-with-IMAGE-3.0 (2014).

  15. O’Neill, B. C. et al. The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 169–180 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. IEA. Global Energy Review 2021 – assessing the effects of economic recoveries on global energy demand and CO2 emissions in 2021. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021 (2021).

  17. Yang, Y. et al. Progress in coal chemical technologies of China. Rev. Chem. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1515/revce-2017-0026 (2019).

  18. Zhang, Y. et al. Intensive carbon dioxide emission of coal chemical industry in China. Appl. Energy 236, 540–550 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks (2021).

  20. Levi, P. G. & Cullen, J. M. Mapping global flows of chemicals: from fossil fuel feedstocks to chemical products. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 1725–1734 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Chamas, A. et al. Degradation rates of plastics in the environment.ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8, 3494–3511 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Silpa, K., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P. & Woerden, F. V. What a Waste 2.0 – a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/30317 (2018).

  23. Eggleston H. S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe, K. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html (2006).

  24. IPCC. Global warming of 1.5 °C. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ (2018).

  25. Silva, A. L. P. et al. Microplastics in landfill leachates: the need for reconnaissance studies and remediation technologies. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 3, 100072 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. The new plastics economy: catalysing action. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/the-new-plastics-economy-catalysing-action (2017).

  27. Qureshi, M. S. et al. Pyrolysis of plastic waste: opportunities and challenges. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 152, 104804 (2020).

  28. UN Environment Programme. Renewables 2021 Global Status Report. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/renewables-2021-global-status-report (2021).

  29. Wienchol, P., Szlęk, A. & Ditaranto, M. Waste-to-energy technology integrated with carbon capture – challenges and opportunities. Energy 198, 117352 (2020).

  30. Simon, J. M. & Martin, S. El Dorado of chemical recycling – state of play and policy challenges. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2019/08/press-release-el-dorado-of-chemical-recycling (2019).

  31. Stegmann, P. & Daioglou, V. The Plastics Integrated Assessment Model (PLAIA) (version 1.0). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7022953 (2022).

  32. Daioglou, V., Wicke, B., Faaij, A. P. C. & van Vuuren, D. P. Competing uses of biomass for energy and chemicals: implications for long-term global CO2 mitigation potential. GCB Bioenergy 7, 1321–1334 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. PBL. IMAGE – integrated Model to Assess the Global Environment. https://www.pbl.nl/en/image/home (2020).

  34. van Vuuren, D. et al. The 2021 SSP scenarios of the IMAGE 3.2 model. https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/the-2021-ssp-scenarios-of-the-image-32-model (2021).

  35. Daioglou, V., Doelman, J., Wicke, B., Faaij, A. & van Vuuren, D. P. Integrated assessment of biomass supply and demand in climate change mitigation scenarios. Glob. Environ. Change 54, 88–101 (2019).

  36. Daioglou, V. et al. Energy demand and emissions of the non-energy sector. Energy Environ. Sci. 7, 482–498 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Oil & Gas Journal. Worldwide refining survey. https://www.ogj.com/ogj-survey-downloads/worldwide-refining (1996–2010).

  38. Oil & Gas Journal. International Survey of Ethylene from steam crackers. https://www.ogj.com/ogj-survey-downloads/ethylene-report (1997–2012).

  39. Methanol Institute. Global methanol capacity. https://www.methanol.org/methanol-price-supply-demand/ (2013).

  40. CPME. An eco-profile and environmental product declaration of the PET manufacturers in Europe: polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (bottle grade). https://legacy.plasticseurope.org/application/files/4915/2050/2706/CPME_Eco-profile_PET_bottle_grade.zip (2017).

  41. PlasticsEurope. Vinyl chloride (VCM) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Eco-profiles and environmental product declarations of the European plastics manufacturers. https://legacy.plasticseurope.org/application/files/1015/1783/7791/20170515170642-plasticseurope_epd_vcm_2015-update_water_2016.zip (2016).

  42. PlasticsEurope. High-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE). Eco-profiles and environmental product declarations of the European plastics manufacturers. https://legacy.plasticseurope.org/application/files/3915/1783/7782/20170515174444-plasticseurope_eco-profile_pe_2014-update_water_2016.zip (2016).

  43. PlasticsEurope. Polypropylene (PP). Eco-profiles and environmental product declarations of the European plastics manufacturers. https://legacy.plasticseurope.org/application/files/1015/1783/7790/20170515174825-plasticseurope_eco-profile_pp_2014-update_water_2016.zip (2016).

  44. Keoleian, G., Miller, S., Kleine, R. D., Fang, A. & Mosley, J. Life cycle material data update for GREET model. https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/greet2-lca-update (2012).

  45. Hestin, M., Faninger, T. & Milios, L. Increased EU plastics recycling targets: environmental, economic and social impact assessment. https://www.plasticsrecyclers.eu/_files/ugd/0af79c_d3c616e926e24896a8b82b833332242e.pdf (2015).

  46. Wong, S. L., Ngadi, N., Abdullah, T. A. T. & Inuwa, I. M. Current state and future prospects of plastic waste as source of fuel: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 1167–1180 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Rigamonti, L. et al. Environmental evaluation of plastic waste management scenarios. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 85, 42–53 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. European Commission. Environmental impact assessments of innovative bio-based product. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/15bb40e3-3979-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1 (2018)

  49. Royer, S.-J., Ferron, S., Wilson, S. T. & Karl, D. M. Production of methane and ethylene from plastic in the environment. PLoS ONE 13, e0200574 (2018).

  50. Fricko, O. et al. The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: a middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 251–267 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 237–250 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The funding of this research is supported by the Topconsortia voor Kennis en Innovatie programme BioBased Economy and awarded by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (Project TKI-BBE-1601 Impact assessment BBE economy). The project partners include Utrecht University, Netherlands Organization for applied scientific research (ECN division), Nouryon, Avantium, RWE and Staatsbosbeheer. The contributions of D.P.v.V. and V.D. have been partially funded through the project SHAPE, funded through AXIS/JPI Climate and by FORMAS (SE), FFG/BMWFW (AT), DLR/BMBF and NWO (NL) and with co-funding by the European Union (grant no. 776608). The contribution of D.P.v.V. also benefited from funding from the European Research Council under grant no. ERC-CG 819566 (PICASSO). We thank F. Teunissen for improving the quality of English language and T. Markus for supporting completion of the figures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Paul Stegmann, Vassilis Daioglou, Marc Londo, Detlef P. van Vuuren & Martin Junginger

  2. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Den Haag, The Netherlands

    Paul Stegmann, Vassilis Daioglou & Detlef P. van Vuuren

  3. TNO, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Paul Stegmann

  4. Netherlands Association for Renewable Energy, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Marc Londo

Authors
  1. Paul Stegmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vassilis Daioglou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marc Londo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Detlef P. van Vuuren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin Junginger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.J. and M.L. developed the idea. P.S. and V.D. developed the method. P.S. calculated and compiled the results and wrote the article, with inputs from M.J., M.L., V.D. and D.P.v.V. P.S., M.L., M.J., V.D. and D.P.v.V. discussed the results and contributed to the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Paul Stegmann or Vassilis Daioglou.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks Stephan Pfister and Sangwon Suh for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 The global shares of waste treatment technologies.

These graphs represent the fate of collected plastic waste; sorting and recycling losses of mechanical recycling were allocated to the remaining waste treatment options; the chemical recycling share represents the plastic waste sent to pyrolysis.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Resource shares in annual global plastic production.

This figure shows the final shares of resources in the annually produced plastic products (not the primary resource use for plastics).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Comparing the net CO2-emissions of the four scenarios for the global plastic sector.

These emission lines are the same as the solid net emission lines of Fig. 3; biogenic emissions are assumed to be renewable and therefore have no net contribution to climate change.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Global plastic flows and stocks for the 2 °C scenario (SSP2-2.6) in the year 2050.

The numbers represent the plastic flows and stocks in million metric tonnes (Mt). Processing losses in sorting and mechanical recycling are allocated to other waste treatment options. Chemical recycling refers to pyrolysis and its processing losses are assumed to be emitted.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Global plastic flows and stocks for the 2 °C-CE scenario in the year 2050.

The numbers represent the plastic flows and stocks in million metric tonnes (Mt). Processing losses in sorting and mechanical recycling are allocated to other waste treatment options. Chemical recycling refers to pyrolysis and its processing losses are assumed to be emitted.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Global plastic flows and stocks for the 2 °C-CBE scenario in the year 2050.

The numbers represent the plastic flows and stocks in million metric tonnes (Mt). Processing losses in sorting and mechanical recycling are allocated to other waste treatment options. Chemical recycling refers to pyrolysis and its processing losses are assumed to be emitted.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Overview of the PLAIA model.

Adapted from ref. 13; the green boxes describe the inputs into PLAIA coming from other modules of the IMAGE model (e.g., availability and costs of resources) or exogenously set inputs (e.g., carbon price, economic & population development).

Extended Data Fig. 8 Sensitivity analysis of the global plastic sector’s cumulative net CO2-emissions (2020–2100).

This figure shows how changes in model variables affect the cumulative net CO2-emissions (2020–2100) of the global plastic sector over its entire life cycle.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Net CO2 emissions of the global plastic sector over the entire life cycle with different shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP).

Biogenic emissions are assumed to be renewable and therefore have no net contribution to climate change. The narratives behind the shared socioeconomic pathways are described in ref. 15.

Extended Data Fig. 10 Global annual plastic production with different shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP).

The narratives behind the shared socioeconomic pathways are described in ref. 15.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Additional results and key input variables for this article. The results are provided by scenario, region and year for the period 2005–2100.

Peer Review File

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stegmann, P., Daioglou, V., Londo, M. et al. Plastic futures and their CO2 emissions. Nature 612, 272–276 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05422-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05422-5

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing