Both anthropogenic climate change and plastic waste are considered to be significant threats to the global environment, which have arisen largely since the beginning of the twentieth century, and which are driven by the consumption of fossil fuels. Rising global temperatures are already having a profound affect on life across the globe, leading to intense droughts, wildfires, rising sea levels, melting polar ice and catastrophic storms that are causing widespread ecological and socioeconomic harm and impacting Human health. The plastics industry generates large amounts of highly persistent waste, which is accumulating in both managed and natural environments, and which place significant stresses on both ecosystems and individual organisms. These have generally been treated as separate problems, but are clearly linked in many ways, sharing a common origin and because the negative outputs they generate are likely to amplify one-another, and because the magnitude of problems they cause has the potential to push the Earth over the boundaries described in the Planetary Boundaries Framework.
Previous research on the relationship between plastics and climate change has largely concentrated on how plastics contribute to climate change. More than 98% of plastics are made from fossil hydrocarbons, and the plastics industry represents about 12% of global oil consumption. Every stage of the plastics cycle causes emissions of greenhouse gasses, from the extraction of oil and transportation process, through the manufacturing process, to the production of breakdown products from discarded plastics. About 90% of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with plastics come from the production phases (which include the extraction and 'cracking' of oil), with about 10% coming from the end of life processes (70% of this from the incineration of plastics, the remainder from its breakdown in landfill sites and the environment). The plastics industry is thought to be responsible for about 3.7% of greenhouse gas emissions, more than many countries.
Polyethylene is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses, producing methane and ethylene as it weathers and breaks down. Unfortunately, it is also the most widely produced and discarded synthetic polymer.
A limited amount of research has been carried out into the climatic impact of airborne microplastic particles. This can be complicated for particulate matter; particles such as rock dust and sulphates are known to have a localised cooling effect, whereas black carbon particles contribute to atmospheric warming. So far, it appears that small fragments and fibres of undyed plastics at a concentration of about one particle per cubic metre have a slight cooling effect, but these are very preliminary results, and may vary at other geographical locations, or when the particles are at different altitudes in the atmosphere, as well as the addition of pigments or other additives to the plastic. Since microplastic particles are present at levels of hundreds or even thousands of particles per square metre in the atmosphere in some urban environments, airborne microplastics may already be influencing the local climate in some areas.
How a warming climate is likely to impact plastic waste is less clear, although some research is starting to be done in this area. In a paper published in the journal Frontiers in Science on 27 November 2025, Frank Kelly and Stephanie Wright of the Environmental Research Group at the Medical Research Council, Guy Woodward of the Georgina Mace Centre for the Living Planet at Imperial College London, and Julia Fussell, also of the Environmental Research Group at the Medical Research Council, present a review of research ti date on how a warming climate is likely to impact plastic waste.
Comparison of global mean temperature (orange), carbon dioxide emissions (blue) and plastic production (turquoise). Kelly et al. (2025).
Plastics are complex heterogeneous synthetic materials built around carbon polymer backbones. These typically comprise large numbers of a carbon monomer molecule stitched together with covalent bonds, and often with the addition of other elements, which give them colour, flexibility, stability, water repellence, flame retardation, and ultraviolet resistance. Many of these additives are highly toxic, often being carcinogens, neurotoxicants and endocrine disruptors. However, plastics are remarkably versatile substances, being strong, light, easily mouldable, resistant to water, and, above all, cheap, making them potentially the most widely used materials in the modern world. Plastics can be substituted for a wide range of other materials, including glass, wood, metals, and a variety of natural fibres, which has enabled significant technical advances in areas such as construction, vehicle parts, electronics, aerospace, and medicine. Consequently, plastics have become a ubiquitous part of modern lives, and an essential component of both our technology and our economy. Notably, the lightweight nature of plastics and their usefulness in making air tight packaging which prevents the spoiling of foods and medicines, have made them an important part of our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Total global annual production of plastics in 1950 was below two million tons. By 2023, the world was producing more than 400 million tons of plastic each year. More than half of the plastics ever produced have been manufactured since 2002. About 35% of plastics produced are single use, with single use plastics being the most rapidly growing portion of the plastics manufacturing sector. Part of the reason so much plastic is produced is because plastic is not a single substance, but a group of highly versatile artificial polymers. The most commonly produced plastic is polypropylene, but this only accounts for about 16% of the total, with fibres such as polyester and nylon forming another 13%, high density polythene 12%, low density polythene another 12%. Global plastic production is predicted to triple by 2060, with annual production reaching 1231 million tons per year.
Methods of disposing of plastic include controlled and uncontrolled landfill sites, burning, thermal conversion into new plastics, fuels, or lubricants, and, in the case of high-income countries, exporting it to lower income countries. A 'reduce, reuse, recycle' approach to waste management has proven highly effective for substances such as aluminium, glass, and paper, where respective recycling rates of 76%, 68%, and 32% have been achieved. The recycling of aluminium and glass results in no loss of quality, meaning that these materials can effectively be recycled indefinitely, while paper can be recycled 5-7 times. In all these cases, recycling requires less energy than new production. Plastics, however, are difficult to recycle, they tend to degrade in quality rapidly, and recycling processes tend to require more energy than simply making new plastics. This has resulted in plastic recycling rates as low as 9%, with about 22 million tons of waste plastic being produced annually, much of it single-use plastic. Furthermore, plastics tend to accumulate within the environment, with about 6 billion tons of plastic waste thought to have built up within the global environment since 1950. This environmental waste is broken down over time into progressively smaller particles, which become more mobile and potentially more biologically harmful.
Plastic waste at the Thilafushi Waste Disposal site in the Maldives. Mohamed Abdulraheem/The World Bank. Plastic pollution can arise from litter deposited into urban and natural environments, much of which could potentially be recycled if it could be removed quickly, or not dropped in the first place. Similarly, much of the plastic entering landfill sites has at least a theoretical potential to be recycled. Even where recycling does not occur, landfill sites vary in the quality of their management, and plastic waste has less chance of entering the environment if it is buried at depth and sites are sealed properly after use. However, once plastic has entered the environment and begun to degrade, it becomes much more problematic, breaking down into ever smaller particles which are increasingly hard to remove, and which have increasing potential to cause harm.
Plastics can be weathered by both biotic and abiotic chemical processes, both of which accelerate at higher temperatures, as well as mechanical degradation, which increases during extreme weather events such as storms. Plastic waste has the potential to remain in the environment for long periods of time, with its persistence determined by factors such as the chemistry of the base polymer, the size of the particles, and the presence of stabilisers, as well as the local environmental conditions. Physical weathering of plastics typically results in cracking and flaking, resulting in smaller pieces with larger relative surface areas. Chemical weathering tends to break the long polymer chains of the plastic by hydrolysis or oxidation, resulting in the formation of shorter polymers with more polar functional groups, such as carboxyls and carbonyls, leading to decreased resilience to water penetration. Thus each weathering process increases the vulnerability of the plastic to further weathering. These processes not only produce products from the breakdown of the base polymer, but also release any additives used during the chemical manufacturing process.
Many plastic products begin to fragment while still in use, particularly fibre products used in clothing, and car tyres. Recycling processes typically involve mechanical breaking up of the plastic waste, which can lead to fragments escaping into the environment, as can the degradation of plastics within landfill sites. These processes produce microplastics, particles smaller than 5 mm, which over time degrade into nanoplastics, particles smaller than 1 μm. In addition, there are primary micro- and nanoplastics, which are intentionally manufactured at these scales. These small particles are notoriously hard to remove from the environment, and often form mixed assemblages, comprising particles with many different morphologies and compositions. These particles are often invisible to the Human eye, but can be harmful to a range of organisms, and are a significant pollutant in many environments.
About 2.7 million tons of microplastics are thought to enter the environment every year. This derives from a range of sources, including road transportation, about 700 000 tons per year from tyre fragments,100 000 tons per year from break pads, and 200 000 per year from wear to road markings, about 800 000 tons of dust from the abrasion of shoe soles, paint wear, construction and demolition activities, and household textiles, and a further 800 000 derived from wastewater sludge, including particles from products such as cosmetic exfoliants and liquid detergents. The small size of such particles makes it very easy for them to become mobilised within the environment, and easily carried for long distances by rivers, ocean currents, winds, and even sea spray.
The variable nature of microplasics makes it hard to understand their environmental impact. It is known that their small size makes it easy for many organisms to ingest, and that having entered the food chain they can leach a range of toxins, such as monomers, plasticisers, flame retardants, and UV stabilisers. However, to what extent these are bioavailable in the environment is unclear, as most laboratory studies are based upon laboratory-grade pristine, homogeneous particles, quite unlike the waste-derived particles found in the environment.
Studies in the environment have shown that microplastics can alter soil composition and plant ecology, and that animals which ingest microplastics can suffer physical injuries, compromised immune responses, impaired physiologies, stunted growth, and trouble feeding and reproducing.
As with climate change, there are concerns that the impacts of plastic pollution will persist for a long time, even should the cause of the problem be eliminated. This is particularly concerning as we do not really yet know what the long term results of plastic pollution are likely to be, nor how they are likely to interact with the effects of global warming.
The presence of large amounts of plastic in the environment creates a 'global toxicity debt', as plastic becomes more toxic over time as it fragments and chemically degrades, likely producing health and environmental outcomes which we do not yet foresee.
Workers at a plastic recycling plant near Bangkok, Thailand. Diego Azubel/EPA. Like climate change is a global environmental problem present across all environmental systems. Its effects experienced as both incremental change (i.e. rising global temperatures, ocean acidification) and pulsed effects, such as wildfires, droughts, floods, and storms. There is significant opportunity for interactions between plastic pollution and climate change, not just because of the greenhouse gasses generated by the plastics industry, but because global warming will inevitably influence the way in which plastics in the environment break down, and how the breakdown chemicals produced will interact with biological systems.
Climate change is leading not just to increased temperatures, but also increased atmospheric moisture, and higher levels of ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface. All of which are known to accelerate the degradation of plastic polymers, leading to a faster breakdown of plastics, and the creation of more microplastics. A 10°C increase in temperatures is known to double the rate at which most plastics break down, even without the added effects of moisture and ultraviolet radiation.
Droughts and heatwaves are predicted to become much more frequent and longer lasting with rising global temperatures, and are also likely to increase the release of toxic compounds from plastic waste. This is likely to be more severe in urban areas, where plastic waste tends to be concentrated. Urban centres are also often located on floodplains, increasing the opportunity for plastic waste and toxic breakdown products to enter rivers and thence the ocean.
Storms and floods can dramatically increase the rate at which plastics and plastic-derived pollutants are redistributed, generally into the oceans and aquatic ecosystems. They also increase the rate at which plastic waste is broken into smaller particles by mechanical wear. More extreme storm events have a greater capacity to do all these things, and are becoming more common as a result of global warming. For example, beach sediments in Hong Kong have been shown to suffer almost fortyfold increases in their plastic concentrations after typhoons.
Flood events also have the ability to remobilise plastics trapped in coastal sediments, as potentially does long term sealevel rise. The majority of used plastics end up in landfill sites and open dumps, where there is also potential for them to be re-exposed by extreme floods or storm events, particularly as site sites tend to be located in low value, low lying areas, close to urban centres (often areas which have probably been spared urban development because they are vulnerable to floods or other problems). It has been estimated in the UK that the failure of one landfill waste cell could release up to 3860 tons of plastic waste into the Themes Estuary.
Global warming is also predicted to lead to consistently stronger ocean winds, as well as profound changes in marine currents, altering the way in which microplastic particles are moved within the oceans. Higher winds lead to greater wave action, increasing the mixing of plastics within the water column, and increasing the likelihood of buried plastics in coastal sediments being remobilised.
Sea ice is known to scavenge plastics from the ocean, creating a significant marine plastic sink. With the loss of sea ice due to global warming, it is likely that these environments will become net producers of plastic waste, as previously frozen waste is released, although the potential scale of this is far from clear.
The likely impacts of an increased amount of plastics in the oceans is unclear, but there is a clear potential for this to interfere with biological and ecological processes. Should this include in any way inhibiting the ability of marine phytoplankton to lock away atmospheric carbon through photosynthesis, then it could seriously hamper efforts to bring global warming under control. Worryingly, there is already evidence that leachates from plastic waste can impair photosynthesis by some marine micoalgae. Plastic waste in the oceans can also potentially interfere with carbon cycling in other ways, such as interacting with microbes in the lipid-rich uppermost layer of the sea in ways which reduce the ability of the sea to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or by making Fish faecal pellets more buoyant, thereby reducing the rate at which carbon is moved from the surface waters into the ocean depths. Since all of these effects are dependent on the concentration of plastics in the water, it is likely that these problems will get worse, or manifest in different and unexpected ways, in the future.
Global warming has the potential to place a great deal of stress on living organisms, potentially in a lot of ways in which we do not understand. A considerable amount of research has been done on the potential impacts of higher temperatures on individual organisms, and one trend which has consistently emerged from this is that larger organisms, and those which live in aquatic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to rising temperatures. Unfortunately, these are also the organisms thought to be most at risk from the hazards associated with plastic waste.
How the effects of global warming and plastic pollution will interact are not well understood. The outcomes of interactions between different phenomena are seldom as simple as adding the outcomes of each on their own together. Global warming is likely to effect the way in which plastics weather, bioaccumulate, leach breakdown products, and move through the environment.
Both heat stress and the presence of microplastics are known to inhibit nitrogen cycling and therefore impact crop yields. The heatwaves combined with the presence of microplastics in the soil have been shown to reduce both the quantity and quality of rice yields, while rice plants have also been shown to lose their ability to absorb nitrogen when raised carbon dioxide levels were combined with the presence of microplastics. The presence of microplastics in soils has also been shown to reduce the ability of a variety of Fungal strains to produce water-stable aggregates at higher temperatures, thus inhibiting growth under conditions which would otherwise lead to growth acceleration. Microplastics have also been shown to affect the health of Maize plants, although increasing the temperature did not seem to increase this. The presence of microplastics appear to influence the ability of temperate grasslands to cope with droughts, nor the above ground biomass of Onions.
Freshwater ecosystems are thought to be particularly vulnerable to the combined impact of plastic pollution and global warming. Both warmer temperatures and leachates from tyres have been demonstrated to enhance the growth of Duckweeds, Lemnoidea, and their associated microbes, both on their own and in combination. However, at the same time they disrupt the mutualistic relationship between these organisms. The presence of nanoplastics has been shown to inhibit the growth of the common freshwater Algae Scenedesmus obliquus, with this becoming worse at higher temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations. Conversely, the marine diatom, Phaeodactylum tricornutum, shows enhanced growth and nitrogen uptake when exposed to both increased temperatures and microplastic pollution.
The effect of microplastics on zooplankton were more distinct, with the combination of increased heat and plastic pollution proving toxic to Water Flees, Daphnia magna, and other studies showing that this combination had an adverse impact on Midge larvae and Freshwater Mussels. Since the negative impacts of both microplastics and raised temperatures are known to be more harmful to larger organisms, it is predicted that these negative impacts will increase further up the food chain. The Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, has been shown both to ingest more microplastics at higher temperatures, and to be more adversely impacted by their toxicity.
Marine ecosystems resemble freshwater ecosystems in many ways, but also have some important differences, largely due to the size of the oceans. This size means that the oceans have far greater thermal inertia than any freshwater system (i.e. it takes a lot more energy to warm the oceans), and that both nutrients, and pollutants become much more diluted. Marine environments also tend to have much longer food chains, with the largest organisms being much larger. Oceans also have major current systems unlike anything present in freshwater systems, and contain a much wider range of ecosystems, from the highly productive biodiverse shallow marine environments such as Coral reefs to the 'marine deserts' of the deep ocean floors.
Again, the combination of increased heat and microplastic pollution appears to be harmful to many marine organisms, particularly those towards the top of the food chain, although this is not a simple or predictable relationship, with closely related and apparently similar species often reacting quite differently to these stressors. For example, some species of Coral found it harder to eject ingested microplastics under warmer conditions, particularly following bleaching events (the loss of symbiotic Algae), but other species seemed unaffected. Some species of Sea Anemones appeared to suffer similar a similar inability to eject ingested plastics at higher temperatures, but again not all. Populations of marine Fish living around Coral reefs have been shown to suffer population declines in response to both bleaching events and the presence of microplastics, but do not appear to be affected more adversely when these are combined.
In cooler waters, Pteropod Sea Snails have been shown to be more vulnerable to the effects of ocean acidification when microplastics are present. Sea Urchins exposed to warmer conditions and more acidic seawater were more prone to buildups of microplastics within their bodies, leading in turn to suppressed growth.
Mussels are reef building Bivalves found in estuaries and nearshore environments in temperate seas. They are extremely efficient at filtering particulate matter from the water column, making them significant environmental regulators in these environments. The combination of microplastics and ocean acidification has been shown to inhibit the production of digestive enzymes by Mussels, leading to their digestive tracts becoming clogged, slowing their metabolic rates, and suppressing their immune systems.
Gobies have been shown to suffer mortality events when exposed to microplastics, with increasing heat making this worse. A 5°C increase in temperature has been shown to quadruple the rate at which Gobies died when exposed to microplasrics. Predatory Cod, which typically feed on small Fish such as Gobies, reacted to reduced marine oxygen levels (an outcome of warming, as warmer water is not able to retain as much dissolved oxygen) by switching to feeding on benthic invertebrates, which in turn lead to the amounts of microplastics in their guts more than doubling, showing that plastics were being passed up the food chain, and biomagnification (increasing concentrations of a substance at higher trophic levels) was occurring.
Thus estuarine and marine ecosystems, which play a significant role in the cycling of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other key nutrients, can be severely disrupted by the presence of plastic pollution. The presence of plastics has also been shown to slow the decomposition of coastal Kelp and Eelgrass detritus, although this effect disappeared at higher temperatures.
Plastic waste on a beach in the Thames Estuary in Kent, England. Getty Images/BBC. While research to date on the interaction potential interactions between plastic waste and global warming has been limited, it is clear that in at least some ecosystems, and for at least some organisms, the two have the potential to exacerbate one-another. This appears to be particularly true for larger, long-lived organisms at the top of aquatic food chains, which are vulnerable to the bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification of toxins, as well as extreme weather events caused by global warming.
Feeding in aquatic environments is often determined by the gape-size of organisms, but this evolutionary advantage places organisms at greater risk of ingesting micro- and nanoplastics. Filter feeding organisms such as Bivalves are good at concentrating toxins, and then passing them up the food chain. Furthermore, Bivalves, like top predators, tend to be ecosystem engineers, which shape their habitats, and therefore the way other species interact with one-another, even if those species do not directly interact with Bivalves. This means that threats to Bivalves have the potential to affect marine ecosystems in unpredictable ways. At the other end of the food chain, the largest marine predators, such as Whales and Sharks, which may be the most vulnerable organisms on the planet to the combination of global warming and plastic pollution, are wide ranging animals, interacting with many different marine environments, with the upshot that their loss could have consequences in many different and apparently unrelated ecosystems.
The effects of plastic pollution and global warming on the microbial activity that drives most ecosystems is less clear. On the whole, warmer temperatures tend to increase the metabolic and growth rates of microbial organisms, whereas chemicals leached from plastics have the potential to suppress them. This could lead to a masking effect, whereby no change is perceived.
The majority of studies into the potential effects of plastic pollution carried out to date have concentrated on aquatic ecosystems, as these were where the problem was first identified. Plastic waste has often undergone significant breaking down by the time it reaches these environments, increasing the speed with which plastic-derived toxins enter the food chain. However, plastics originate in terrestrial environments, and over time are both accumulating and breaking down into smaller particles on land, where the potential long term consequences of their presence are still less well understood.
Because terrestrial ecosystems are typically more complex than aquatic ones, the long-term outcomes of the both climate change and plastic pollution are far harder to predict, particularly in modified environments such as urban centres and agricultural land.
Anthropogenic global warming and plastic pollution are potentially the largest of the many stressors to which Humans are currently subjecting the natural environment. Because these phenomena have the ability to interact and in some cases amplify one-another, their potential impacts on both geophysical and biological systems probably go far beyond those we have seen to date. While we do not yet fully understand these processes, studies to date have given us some insight into the potential effects of these hazards acting in concert.
The logical response to the potential hazards presented by widespread plastic pollution would be to rapidly reduce production. However, this would require some significant changes in the way many social, economic, and commercial systems are organised. There is widespread consensus that plastic pollution is both a serious problem, and an avoidable one; at least with regard to the accumulation of waste plastics. Reducing plastic waste would require a coordinated international effort, involving manufacturers, consumers, waste management services, environmental organisations, activists, regulatory authorities, governments, world leaders, investors, and the research community. There is already significant action being taken towards this goal, including grass roots organisations in many parts of the world, multinational environmental organisations, national legislatures, and waste processing organisations. However, effective action to bring plastic waste under control will almost certainly involve a global treaty, and negotiations in Geneva in August 2025 failed to produce such a treaty, following disagreements about capping plastic production and regulating toxic additives.
Key stakeholders in the transformation of the way plastics are produced, consumed and disposed of. Kelly et al. (2025).
Reducing the amount of plastic waste being produced is likely to require a similar level of enthusiasm and commitment to that which has gone into creating the problem in the first place. In particular, this will require the more-or-less total elimination of single use plastics, as well as setting strict limits on total plastic production. However, such efforts are unlikely to be achieved without overcoming significant opposition, particularly as the world's major oil companies have been shifting investment towards greater production of plastic base polymers in response to the falling demand for petrochemicals caused by the transition to green energy.
Given the deep political commitment to protecting the petrochemical industry, which may stymie efforts to prevent or reduce plastic production, efforts should also be made to eliminate hazardous additives from the plastic production process, and to ensure that plastic products are genuinely recyclable, and to prevent plastic waste from entering the environment. However, any major shift in the way plastic is produced, used, and processed at the end of its life should be based upon vigorous scientific research, in order to evaluate any negative impact they may have on economies, social justice, the environment and human health. For example, burning of waste plastics to produce energy, despite reducing the amount of plastic waste in the environment, produces greenhouse gasses, and can produce toxic emissions with direct adverse effects on Human health. Any new materials introduced as an alternative to plastics would need to be evaluated for their contribution to greenhouse gas production, and how they can be disposed of at the end of their lives.
The widespread awareness of the problems associated with plastics in the environment has led to the development of a range of technologies which aim to either recover environmental plastics or prevent plastics from entering the environment at all. These include household wastewater filters and laundry balls, large-scale booms, receptacles, and watercraft vehicles. However, efforts to remove or contain environmental plastics tend to be concentrated around pollution hotspots such as harbours and beaches, and questions have been raised about the environmental impact of such collection efforts, as well as the ultimate fate of the plastics collected. There is no evidence that cleaning up plastic is more beneficial than curtailing the amount of plastic entering the environment, something which has led some to view such efforts as a form of greenwashing.
Bioremediation, the use of microbes such as Bacteria or Fungi to break down plastic waste, is another solution which has been suggested as a way to tackle the situation. Typically, such microbes break down the long chain base molecules in plastics to form monomers that can be further metabolised or mineralised into carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, water molecules, or other compounds. A variety of bioremediation methods have been developed, however, none is currently practical as a process which could be scaled up to significantly reduce the plastic pollution problem, as such processes are typically slow, and will only work on specific base polymers, which are often hard to identify in large volumes of mixed plastic waste.
The ability of natural environments to cope with the presence of large volumes of microplastics is unclear, but it is possible that in some sensitive environments they are already starting to exceed natural tolerances. Our understanding of the impacts of microplastics on the environment is hampered by the variable chemical nature of these pollutants, and a limited understanding of how they interact with other phenomena. Because microplastics are largely produced by the breakdown of larger plastic items, which are also a significant presence in many environments, it is likely that even were all plastic production to stop immediately, microplastics would continue to build up in the environment for some time.
Some degree of climate change due to the build up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is now likewise inevitable. This makes it imperative to understand how microplastics are likely to behave in a warming climate. Some research has already been done into this topic, but this is limited in scope, with most laboratory work involving pristine beads made from a single form of plastic. It is far from clear how closely results obtained with such materials reflect potential outcomes in the natural world where microplastics comprise a mixture of particle compositions and shapes. Laboratory-based experiments are also naturally short term in nature, and cannot reproduce the long term effects of plastic particles breaking down over many years in a changing natural environment.
Increasing public understanding of the problem presented by plastic waste is a key part of preventing plastic waste from entering the environment. Studies of public attitudes have suggested that most people would like to reduce the amount of plastic being used, and have some idea that plastic waste is harmful to the environment. Unlike global warming, plastic waste is immediately identifiable as of Human origin, and is both clearly visible and considered by most people to be unsightly. Thus plastic waste is viewed as detracting from people's quality of life, and tends to heighten concerns about potential exposure to harmful chemicals. Hence nobody really denies the existence of plastic pollution in the way that people deny anthropogenic climate change is real.
Despite this, the general public is probably less aware of the hazards associated with effects of a warming climate on the abundance, distribution, exposure, or the hazards of plastics in the environment, along with the potential for delayed ecotoxicological effects due to weathering-related degradation.
Kelly et al.'s review aims to provoke a wider understanding of these issues, although the authors do not claim an understanding alone will enable the public to resolve these problems. They do, however, believe that citizen science activities, combined with outreach and education projects will make people better equipped to deal with the long term consequences of plastic pollution, and that public participation can greatly improve the collection of data on microplastics.
See also...
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)