Plastic pollution in a warming world: a multi-level approach to addressing twin crises

Tackling plastic pollution through coordinated action across global, national, and local levels is both an environmental imperative and a climate solution, essential to safeguarding ocean and planetary health, argues Anja Brandon, Director of Plastic Policy for the Ocean Conservancy.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25453/plabs.30731294

Published on November 27th, 2025

Plastic pollution is one of the defining environmental challenges of our time, with far-reaching impacts on ecosystems, communities, and economies. As described by Kelly et al. in their Frontiers in Science lead article, climate change magnifies these impacts by accelerating plastic degradation, transport, and exposure (1). Both crises share a common root cause —the overuse of fossil fuels —and their effects are often first observed in ocean ecosystems before emerging elsewhere, making the ocean a key bioindicator for planetary health.  

As fossil fuel industries pivot from energy production to petrochemicals, plastic production is expected to triple by 2060 (2). Reducing plastic production is therefore essential not only to limit pollution but also to curb climate pressures associated with fossil fuel consumption. Thus, addressing the plastic pollution crisis is both an environmental necessity and a climate solution. Meeting this dual challenge requires urgent, coordinated policy interventions that prevent new pollution and mitigate the harm caused by plastics already in the environment. 

The warning call from the ocean 

The ocean has long served as the planet’s early warning system. It has absorbed excess heat and carbon dioxide from climate change while also accumulating plastic waste (3). Marine ecosystems and wildlife reveal how these stresses converge and compound: species from plankton to whales are affected by plastic ingestion and entanglement alongside rising temperatures and acidification. Both plastic pollution and climate change leave behind lasting damage. Even if new plastic production ceased today, the pollution already in the environment would continue to fragment into micro- and nanoplastics, releasing chemical additives and disrupting ecosystems for decades to come.  

Mounting evidence from marine ecosystems underscores that the ocean’s resilience, and, by extension, that of the planet, is not limitless. Urgent and decisive policy action is needed before these early impacts become irreversible. 

Building a comprehensive strategy for systemic change 

Aligning interventions across scales 

There is no single solution to the plastic pollution crisis. Evidence shows that effective action requires simultaneously reducing plastic use, improving material recovery, and cleaning up existing pollution (4, 5). Each measure targets a different point in the plastics lifecycle and operates on distinct timescales, so progress depends on pursuing them in parallel across the policy landscape (Figure 1).  

Systemic, upstream solutions are essential but often slow to implement and to produce measurable results. This reality underscores the importance of immediate interventions such as cleanups, which remove pollution before it can cause more harm, and the phase-out of highly polluting single-use plastics (e.g., items most commonly collected in cleanups). These measures can deliver tangible benefits while larger-scale policy measures take effect. 

Addressing plastic pollution or climate change in isolation can lead to unintended consequences. For instance, end-of-life options such as waste-to-energy or conversion chemical recycling technologies can increase greenhouse gas emissions without recovering plastic material for reuse, reinforcing dependence on petrochemical infrastructure to supply new virgin plastics (6). The climate impacts of these technologies underscore the need for coordinated policies to avoid these trade-offs. The most effective approaches prioritize interventions that deliver dual benefits, such as reducing plastic production, expanding reuse, and promoting circular redesign.  

Global governance 

Global agreements have proven to be powerful tools for motivating coordinated and ambitious action on shared environmental challenges (7). Effective global frameworks include science-based targets and regular reporting to support progress monitoring. The international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution currently under negotiation (the global plastics treaty), could establish similar science-based reduction targets and global standards, for example, on product design and phase-out criteria) (8). Such a treaty could harmonize national and regional efforts while standardizing reporting to enable better monitoring. 

There are other opportunities to align plastic pollution efforts with existing global climate frameworks, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. For example, the inclusion of plastic reduction measures within nationally determined contributions (NDCs) can both demonstrate political will and drive downward pressure on plastics demand, highlighting the dual benefits of addressing these issues comprehensively (9). 

State, national, and regional policy  

State, national, and regional governments occupy a pivotal lever in the plastics intervention landscape. They hold the authority to implement tried-and-tested policy tools that span the entire plastics lifecycle while tailoring policy interventions unique to local challenges or impacts.  

At these levels of government, policy tools such as extended producer responsibility (EPR), deposit-return systems, and postconsumer recycled content requirements can be powerful drivers of systemic change. These policies influence design and production decisions while also shaping downstream collection and recycling. Traditionally, EPR policies relied on economic incentives and accountability measures to encourage product redesign and shift recycling costs from taxpayers to producers. More recently, they have expanded to include reduction and reuse requirements, as seen in the European Union’s revised Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation and California’s SB 54, signaling a shift toward a more holistic approach that reshapes the economics of plastic use and applies durable pressure to reduce virgin material demand (10,11). 

At the same time, state and national governments are uniquely positioned to implement targeted, high-impact policies that address immediate local concerns. Bans or fees on single-use plastic bags, expanded polystyrene foodware, and other highly polluting materials can quickly reduce local pollution and risks to wildlife while galvanizing public support for broader change (12). 

When layered together, upstream phase-outs, economic accountability, and reduction requirements create an effective policy mix that delivers sustained benefits. 

Local and community action 

Local and community-level action are essential to deliver immediate environmental and social benefits. Local governments share the ability of state and national governments to enact targeted policies fit for addressing local pollution concerns (12).  

Moreover, local cleanups, such as beach and shoreline cleanups and trash traps, are an essential line of defense against the ongoing fragmentation and spread of existing plastic pollution. By removing pollution before it breaks down into microplastics or releases chemical additives, cleanups help limit future harm to both ecosystems and people while mitigating ongoing risks to wildlife from ingestion and entanglement. They also generate valuable data and public engagement, which can help shape larger-scale policy and build public support for systemic change (13).  

As detailed by Kelly et al, plastic pollution and climate impacts often converge in the same vulnerable ecosystems (e.g., coral reefs, estuaries) and among certain trophic levels (e.g., long-lived organisms, keystone species) (1). Thus, targeting cleanup efforts around these ecological hotspots can help protect sensitive ecosystems and species from the compounded stresses of plastic pollution and climate change. 

Conclusion 

Plastic pollution is accelerating in a warming, changing world. Meeting this challenge demands urgency, coordination, and accountability across all levels of governance. Upstream policy reform and local mitigation must progress together to address both near-term and lasting impacts as long-term reductions in production and emissions are achieved. The compounding impacts of climate change provide additional urgency for addressing plastic pollution, but the reverse is also true—reducing plastic production and pollution advances global climate goals. The path forward lies in urgent action globally, nationally, and locally to reduce reliance on plastics, prevent new pollution, and clean up existing waste before it causes further harm. 

The health of our ocean—and, by extension, our planet—depends on it. 

Copyright statement 

Copyright: © 2025 [author(s)]. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in Frontiers Policy Labs is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.      

Generative AI statement 

The author declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.  

References

1. Kelly FJ, Wright SL, Woodward G, and Fussel JC. Plastic pollution under the influence of climate change: implications for the abundance, distribution, and hazards in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Front Sci (2025) 3:1636665. doi: 10.3389/fsci.2025.1636665 

2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Global plastics outlook: policy scenarios to 2060. Paris: OECD (2022). doi: 10.1787/aa1edf33-en 

3. Blunden J, Boyer T, Bartow-Gillies E, editors. State of the Climate in 2022. Bull Amer Meteor Soc (2023) 104(9):1–516. doi: 10.1175/2023BAMSStateoftheClimate.1  

4. Borrelle SB, Ringma J, Law KL, Monnahan CC, Lebreton L, McGivern A, et al. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science (2020) 369(6510):1515–8. doi: 10.1126/science.aba3656 

5. Pottinger AS, Geyer R, Biyani N, Martinez CC, Nathan N, Morse MR, et al. Pathways to reduce global plastic waste mismanagement and greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Science (2024) 386(6726):1168–73. doi: 10.1126/science.adr3837 

6. Uekert T, Singh A, DesVeaux JS, Ghosh T, Bhatt A, Yadav G, et al. Technical, economic, and environmental comparison of closed-loop recycling technologies for common plastics. ACS Sustain Chem Eng (2023) 11(3):965–78. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c05497 

7. Young OR. Effectiveness of international environmental regimes: existing knowledge, cutting-edge themes, and research strategies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2011) 108(50):19853–60. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1111690108 

8. United Nations Environment Programme. End plastic pollution – towards an international legally binding instrument [resolution EA.5/Res.14]. Fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (2022). Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3999257?ln=en&v=pdf  

9. Ananthanarayanan A. Closing the ‘plastics gap’ to fight climate change. Ocean Conservancy (2025). Available at: https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Plastics-in-NDC-final.pdf  

10. European Parliament, European Council. Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC [document 32025R0040]. Official Journal of the European Union (2024). Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/40/oj  

11. California State Senate. SB-54 Solid waste: reporting, packaging, and plastic food service ware [Senate bill no. 54; version 06/30/22 - Chaptered]. California Legislative Information (2022). Available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB54  

12. Papp A, Oremus KL. Plastic bag bans and fees reduce harmful bag litter on shorelines. Science (2025) 388(6753):eadp9274. doi: 10.1126/science.adp9274 

13. Nelms SE, Easman E, Anderson N, Berg M, Coates S, Crosby A, et al. The role of citizen science in addressing plastic pollution: challenges and opportunities. Environ Sci Policy (2022) 128:14–23. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.11.002 

Tables / Figures

Figure 1. The plastics pollution intervention landscape. Interventions vary across three dimensions: geographic scale of impact, time until impact, and impact on the plastics lifecycle. Local actions such as beach cleanups deliver immediate results but act late in the lifecycle, while global measures like a reduction target in a global treaty operate upstream and take longer to deliver an impact. Solving the plastic pollution crisis requires coordinated action across all three dimensions.