Making Plastic Polluters Pay

The report details the systemic impacts of plastic pollution on municipal infrastructure, public health, and ecosystems, asserting that a small number of petrochemical and FMCG companies knowingly exacerbated the crisis by promoting inadequate recycling solutions. It provides a guide for government attorneys to use nuisance, products liability, and consumer protection laws to hold these polluters accountable, drawing parallels to successful litigation against the tobacco and PCB industries.

• Plastic production is rapidly expanding, with the International Energy Agency (IEA) projecting that petrochemicals may be the only source of growth in oil demand over the next few decades.
• Subnational governments bear disproportionate financial burdens from plastic pollution, including waste management, water treatment, and cleanup costs. For example, Louisiana state entities spent over USD $91.4 million annually on litter cleanup and prevention as of 2023, a 65% increase since 2010.
• Plastic pollution has severe human health implications, with an estimated disease burden and healthcare cost of USD $249 billion in the United States in 2018 alone.
• The plastics industry has known for decades that plastic does not biodegrade and that recycling is largely infeasible, yet it promoted recycling as a solution to avoid regulation and maintain market access.
• The report identifies resin producers (such as ExxonMobil, Dow Chemicals, and LyondellBasell) and FMCG companies (such as Coca-Cola, Nestle, and PepsiCo) as the primary drivers of the crisis.
• The plastics industry uses 'advanced recycling' or 'chemical recycling' as a modern rebranding of failed solutions to mislead the public, despite these processes being energy-intensive and often infeasible.
• Public nuisance law is a versatile tool for government plaintiffs to seek remedy for the 'unreasonable interference' of public rights, such as the contamination of municipal water supplies and the clogging of drainage systems.
• Products liability claims, specifically design defects and failure-to-warn, can be used to hold companies accountable for the inherent dangers of plastics and the failure to communicate those risks to the public.
• Consumer protection laws can be leveraged to address 'greenwashing' and deceptive marketing regarding the recyclability and safety of plastic products.
• State and city attorneys can use civil investigative demands (CIDs) to acquire internal corporate evidence of wrongdoing before formal litigation begins, as seen in California's investigation into ExxonMobil.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (2024). Making Plastic Polluters Pay. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/make_polluters_pay_cities_states_recoup_costs_plastic_pollution_report.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. Making Plastic Polluters Pay. 2024. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/make_polluters_pay_cities_states_recoup_costs_plastic_pollution_report.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=Making Plastic Polluters Pay |date=June 2024 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/make_polluters_pay_cities_states_recoup_costs_plastic_pollution_report.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallaw2024making, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{Making Plastic Polluters Pay}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2024}, month = jun, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/make_polluters_pay_cities_states_recoup_costs_plastic_pollution_report.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }