Valle de Chalco, Mexico. Fire at a PET recycler outside of Mexico City on January 30, 2024. The US exports huge amounts of plastic waste to Mexico every day, including contaminated PET bottles with PET thermoforms, which cannot be recycled, in violation of the Basel Convention. Fire risk is only part of the problem. Water consumption, residual dumping, and occupational health are all issues that to date have been swept under the carpet.  (Photo Credit: Bomberos Ciudad de México Oficial)

Record high plastic exports to Asia from EU, UK, and Australia

Key Messages: The EU and UK should undertake rapid enforcement of Y48 plastics exports and consider an immediate ban on plastic waste exports.

EU plastic waste exports to Asia increased 45% from 2022. Total EU exports to non-OECD countries rose to 750 million kg/yr in 2023 from 517 million kg/yr in 2022. This is the highest level of plastic waste exports to Asia since China implemented the National Sword in 2018.

EU exports to non-OECD countries:

• Germany: 13 million kg/month (December 2023)
• Netherlands: 22 million kg/month (November 2023)
• Belgium: 8.2 million kg/month (October 2023)
• Spain: 13.8 million kg/month (September 2023)
• Italy: 6.9 million kg/month (October 2023)

EU floods Turkey and Egypt with plastic waste.

• To Turkey: EU exported 29 million kg/month in December 2023 to Turkey. This is equal to 176 trucks of plastic waste per day.
• To Egypt: EU exported 3.6 million kg/month in December 2023 to Egypt. This is a new market for EU plastic waste. Egypt has negligible plastic recycling capacity, and this waste is likely to be burned or dumped into the environment.

UK plastic waste exports to Turkey increased 60% from 2022.

• To Turkey: UK exported 141 million kg/yr in 2023, up from 88 million kg/yr.
• To Non-OECD Countries: UK exported 77 million kg/yr in 2023, up from 47 million kg/yr in 2022.

Japan continues to flood other parts of Asia with plastic waste. Japan exported 55.5 million kg/month in November 2023 to non-OECD countries. This is equal to 348 shipping containers of plastic waste per day.

Australia’s plastic waste exports to non-OECD countries increased 13% from 2022. Australia exported 64 million kg/yr in 2023 up from 57 million kg/yr in 2022 to non-OECD countries.

US plastic waste exports slightly decreased from 2022.

• To Mexico: US exported 76 million kg/yr in 2023 compared to 86 million kg/yr in 2022.
• To Non-OECD Countries: US exported 268 million kg/yr in 2023 compared to 275 million kg/yr in 2022.

Check here for these annual summaries and the latest monthly data. Full-year data for 2023 is beginning to be published by government agencies.

Check here for annual summaries and the latest monthly data. 

“SB343 and CalRecycle is not concerned with whether any particular movement of materials exports are illegal under any other law. It’s only concerned with the legality of actual labeling. Whether or not things are being exported illegally, I understand that word has been used, but that’s just not part of SB343.”

-- Daniel Zlatnick, CalRecycle attorney, during a CalRecycle hearing on February 13, 2024, in response to comments following the release of a report by BAN and The Last Beach Cleanup, which, using the agency’s own data, found high levels of mixing in contamination in plastic waste bales in California, violating state law and the Basel Convention’s Plastic Amendments.

“CalRecycle’s mission to achieve high waste diversion has pushed harmful plastic waste exports to developing countries for years under the pretense of recycling. With the passage of SB343 and AB881, this was supposed to stop. It’s unacceptable for the agency to now make a mockery of these laws by refusing to enforce them.”

-- Jan Dell, founder of The Last Beach Cleanup, on the use of diversion credits for exports of highly contaminated and mixed plastic waste bales, which is prohibited under AB881. Despite this, CalRecycle claims diversion rates (waste not sent to landfill or incineration) as high as 40%, though findings in BAN and The Last Beach Cleanup’s report cast doubt on that figure. Even when exported to recycling operations, much of the shipments are fractions which can be higher than 50% that are not economically recyclable and end up being dumped or burned. 

The oil and petrochemical industries have a long history of defending false solutions to the environmental issues their business creates, despite knowing that plastics recycling wouldn’t work, according to a new report by the Center for Climate Integrity. Continuing, a CIEL analysis of the United Nations Environment Programme’s provisional list of participants in the third session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to advance a global plastics treaty in November 2023 showed that 143 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered to attend the meeting, outnumbering the 70 smallest Member States. (Graphic Source: #BreakFreeFromPlastic)

The direction of imported plastic waste – by VTV

California plastic waste exports illegal, violate state laws

Basel Action Network (BAN) and The Last Beach Cleanup, two waste watchdog groups, published a Fact Briefing that details how two recent California waste laws have been consistently violated. Using CalRecycle's data and an understanding of the Basel Convention's new rules, the groups were able to demonstrate that the shipments were not compliant with the Basel Convention's new plastics amendments and thus in violation of the California laws that require conformity with Basel. The groups found levels of contamination and mixing in plastic waste bales that were too high to be exported under Basel Convention rules from the United States to Basel Parties such as Mexico or Malaysia, where the waste routinely goes.

The two laws, SB343 and AB881, both established criteria related to the Basel Convention, requiring plastic waste streams to be consistent with its definitions. SB343, the “Truth-in-Labeling Law,” refers to Basel in its definition of recyclability, requiring that plastic waste bales created at materials recovery facilities (MRFs) be “defined streams … consistent with the requirements of the Basel Convention.” AB881 requires that exported waste must be legal in all jurisdictions in order to be claimed for diversion credits. Through analysis of the SB343 Material Categorization Study, the groups found that all plastic waste bales in California were too mixed and contaminated to be legally exported from California (except to Canada), with seven out of eight plastic waste categories considered mixed and all containing 6-17% contamination. According to the groups, due to these levels of mixing and contamination, all California plastic waste bales must be classified as Y48 under the Basel Convention, which bans trade of these materials between Basel Parties and the United States, as the US is not a Basel Party. The groups are calling on the CA State Attorney General to investigate violations of these two laws and on CalRecycle to acknowledge that because none of the eight categories of plastic waste are consistent with the Basel Convention’s trade rules, no type of consumer plastic material meets the “recyclable” requirements of SB343. In a written response, CalRecycle stated that it was reviewing the groups’ report but dismissed the claims during a scheduled hearing the day following the release of the paper, suggesting the question of illegal export is beyond the scope of SB343 or their agency.

Plastics industry pushed recycling, despite its shortcomings

The oil and petrochemical industries have perpetuated the global plastic waste crisis through a decades-long campaign of fraud and deception about the recyclability of plastics, according to a new report by the Center for Climate Integrity. Starting in the 1980s, the industries touted plastics recycling as a solution for the growing plastic waste problem, despite knowledge that it was neither technically nor economically viable. Preceding this idea, companies had launched campaigns with a contrary message, championing the disposability of plastics. On its face, this message was motivated by public safety (around 80 children suffocated on plastic dry cleaner bags in 1959), but the industry emphasized the “expendability” of the material internally, as it would allow it to be endlessly purchased and produced. By the 1980s, as the public became less convinced by the solutions of landfilling and incineration, the oil and petrochemical companies began to trot out recycling as a solution for the growing calls for bans on single-use plastics (SUPs). The industry knew as early as 1969 that recycling plastics at a profit “does not seem likely to happen soon on a broad basis” and reaffirmed that conclusion in the 1980s, with multiple sources citing issues with the purity and quality of recyclate, the inherent nature of the process as “downcycling,” and a lack of market for any material even if it was technically viable. Facing this existential crisis, the industry began a coordinated campaign, creating several new trade associations and front groups and ultimately winning several victories with long-lasting consequences. Most notorious of these was the creation of the highly misleading Resin Identification Codes (the chasing arrows symbol on all plastics), encouraging consumers to believe that plastic recycling works. The report goes on to cite the newest iteration of the plastics industry’s disinformation campaign: chemical or advanced recycling, which continues to be debated despite all evidence showing that it is technically unfeasible, dangerous to the environment and workers, and economically unviable. In a press release, the American Chemical Council, a plastics lobbying group, dismissed the report, stating that it cites decades-old technologies and mischaracterizes the industry, despite continued evidence that plastic recycling is and always has been a failed concept.  

European Parliament agrees to ban export of plastic wastes

With overwhelming support in the European Parliament, MEPs, officially approved the revised Waste Shipment Regulation negotiated and approved in November of last year (see November issue of PWTW) which updated EU procedures and control measures for waste shipments. The revised Waste Shipment Regulation will greatly limit the movement of plastic waste outside of and within the EU. All plastic waste exports from the EU to non-OECD countries will be banned 2.5 years after the regulations enter into force, which will now include even those plastics in the non-hazardous B3011 category under the Basel Convention. Five years after it enters into force, it will allow one narrow exception for non-OECD countries that can meet stringent waste management standards, which is unlikely to be possible for most non-OECD countries. For OECD countries, all exports of plastic waste will be subject to the prior-informed consent procedures, and non-recyclable contamination beyond 2% of the total load for those shipments is not permitted. Within the EU, the shipping of waste for disposal will only be allowed exceptionally. Exports of plastic waste from the EU increased by 26% from 2023 from 2022 to 1.32 billion kg, with over 57% of shipments going to non-OECD countries. The text now must be officially approved by the European Council, before its publication in the EU Official Journal.

In Our Opinion: Industry must commit to Basel e-plastics compliance – by Corey Dehmey and Jim Puckett

Contamination Levels

The Basel Convention's 2019 Plastic Waste Amendments utilize the term "almost free from contamination" as one criterion for whether the plastic waste shipment will be uncontrolled. This term has not been given an international quantitative value, leaving the Parties to define it on a national basis. Enclosed are the known levels adopted by certain countries to date. If readers know of other country interpretations, please let us know.

-- Fact Briefing: California State's Own Data Reveals Consumer Plastics are not Recyclable and are Being Exported Illegally – Report by Basel Action Network and The Last Beach Cleanup

-- The Fraud of Plastic Recycling: How Big Oil and the plastics industry deceived the public for decades and caused the plastic waste crisis – Report by Center for Climate Integrity

-- Source-specific probabilistic risk assessment of microplastics in soils applying quality criteria and data alignment methods – Report by Paula E. Redondo-Hasselerharm, Andreu Rico, Esperanza Huerta Lwanga, Cornelis A.M. van Gestel, Albert A. Koelmans

-- Community identified characteristics related to illegal dumping; a mixed methods study to inform prevention – Report by Bernadette C Hohl, Michelle C Kondo, Laney A Rupp, Richard C Sadler, Catherine H Gong, Kai Le, Melissa Hertlein, Christina Kelly, Marc A Zimmerman

-- Quantitation and identification of microplastics accumulation in human placental specimens using pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry – Report by Marcus A Garcia, Rui Liu, Alex Nihart, Eliane El Hayek, Eliseo Castillo, Enrico R Barrozo, Melissa A Suter, Barry Bleske, Justin Scott, Kyle Forsythe, Jorge Gonzalez-Estrella, Kjersti M Aagaard, Matthew J Campen