I would like to thank Lena Lundberg from the plastics industry for her reply to my debate article on different strategies for achieving zero greenhouse gas emissions. It provides an opportunity to develop the discussion on various measures to radically reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the plastic life cycle.

Plastic includes a variety of materials that provide fantastic opportunities to produce products with different properties and qualities. It is also quite clear that plastic in many applications can replace other materials and result in lower greenhouse gas emissions.

But an important insight is that reduced emissions compared to other materials are not enough. Globally, society needs to halve emissions this decade and come down to zero emissions by the middle of this century to achieve climate goals. The plastics industry also needs to be part of that journey.

Today, the production, use and waste management of plastics account for about 4 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. This is a figure that could increase if measures are not introduced, as plastic use is expected to rise. There are a wide range of measures to reduce emissions from the plastic life cycle:

• Increased use of bio-based raw materials. Today, plastics are mainly based on fossil fuels. A transition to bio-based raw materials can reduce emissions, but also increase them depending on the raw material used. However, the amount of biomass that can be used is limited because it is also needed for much else.
• Increased use of renewable energy. This is a key strategy for the entire society’s climate change, but also essential for plastic production’s climate emissions.
• Capture and geological storage of carbon dioxide (CCS technology). This can be used in connection with plastic production and waste incineration. This technology is used today only to a limited extent and needs to be scaled up sharply.
• Increased recycling. Today, it is mainly done with mechanical recycling. The quantities currently recycled are limited and need to be increased. Chemical recycling is highlighted as an alternative. However, it is relatively inefficient and involves losses of plastic that is converted to carbon dioxide. It must therefore be combined with CCS technology in order to be able to reach close to zero emissions.
• Lena Lundberg highlights CCU technology where you capture and use carbon dioxide as a raw material. This technology is interesting and further development should be supported. But it is energy-intensive and requires climate-neutral electricity production on a large scale.

Common to these measures is that they require technological development and investments before they can be implemented on a large scale. It is therefore important that the plastics industry makes the necessary investments now.

But it is also clear that it will still take time before these measures can take effect. It is therefore essential that work is also done to increase material efficiency and take measures that can reduce the use of plastic.

A study published in Nature Climate Change points to the fact that no measure in itself is sufficient to radically reduce emissions. An overall strategy is needed that also includes measures to reduce the demand for plastic.

Increased material efficiency is an essential strategy for achieving a more circular economy and a climate-neutral society. This is not specific to plastic but applies to many other materials such as steel and biomass as well.

Society can not only invest in promising technical solutions that first need to be developed and then perhaps implemented in the future. We also need to work on limiting the demand for unsustainable materials and products.

Göran Finnveden, Vice-Chancellor for Sustainable Development and Professor of Environmental Strategic Analysis, KTH