Land use mediated GHG emissions and spillovers from increased consumption of bioplastics

Abstract

Bioplastic production is a small but fast growing sector in the global bioeconomy, which may benefit from public support measures in the future as governments seek to promote more sustainable consumption patterns. Here we assess the potential net economy-wide impacts of a 5% bioplastic target relative to current plastic consumption in the main producing regions. We compare two alternative policy strategies to achieve the target in a general equilibrium framework that allows for substitution between conventional and bio-based plastics: a subsidy on bioplastics versus a tax on fossil-based plastic consumption. Our study is the first to quantify global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from an increased demand for bioplastics on a global scale, produced from arable crops, considering both direct and indirect land use change (LUC). The tax provokes a contraction of all sectors that employ plastics, which leads to a drop of 0.07% in global real GDP, whereas the subsidy has no significant effect on the global economy. Both tax and subsidy reduce world demand for petroleum products, by 0.37% and 0.07%, respectively, boosting demand for sugar-and starch-based feedstock in the bioplastic industry. This leads to emissions from LUC globally, which correspond to a carbon payback time of 22 years on average, with the associated annual abatement costs of over US$2000 per tonne of CO 2 -eq. The tax has greater GHG reduction potential in bioplastic producing regions but generates greater economic and environmental spillover effects in countries that do not enforce the target. Results show that promoting bioplastic consumption is not a cost-effective strategy for climate change mitigation if based on conventional feedstock, due to market-mediated GHG emissions from LUC. Bioplastics are not necessarily more sustainable than conventional polymers just because they are biobased, although further assessment of potential environmental gains associated with biodegradability and recyclability is desirable.

Time to Say ‘Good Buy’ to the Passive Consumer? A Conceptual Review of the Consumer in the Bioeconomy

“…Finally, the domain of responsible disposal (B5) is the least addressed, with only one publication giving this aspect a high weight, and six publications giving it some weight, which means that less than 10% of the publications address this domain at all. Issues addressed are, for example, new forms of consumption such as collaborative consumption, which can have positive effects on the amount of waste produced (Barčić et al, 2019;Imbert, 2017), or disposal as the least preferred end-of-life option consumers should choose, yet acknowledging technical and other barriers to re-use and re-cycle activities (Escobar et al, 2018;Korhonen et al, 2020).…”

Preventing Petrochemical Plastics Pollution: Sustainable Material Alternatives

“…The input energy in the form of fossil fuel, the inputs of fertilizers, and water (in the form of irrigation) are the primary sources of GHG emissions, eutrophication, acidification of soil, and stratospheric ozone depletion [89,90]. In addition, most of the commercial production of bio-based plastics feedstocks require significant agricultural land to grow, which is also an issue for the environment [91,92]. However, the current production of bioplastics is estimated to translate to approximately 0.82 million ha of land, equivalent to nearly 0.07% of arable land.…”

Bioeconomy futures: Expectation patterns of scientists and practitioners on the sustainability of bio‐based transformation

“…They argue that bioeconomy or eco‐industrial development has the potential to provide solutions for some of the most pressing sustainability challenges including combating hunger (SDG 2), providing clean and affordable energy (SDG 7) and the fight against climate change (SDG 13) (El‐Chichakli, von Braun, Lang, Barben, & Philp, 2016). Critics of the bioeconomy approach, for example, argue that an increasing reliance on biomass—for example, to substitute fossil fuel resources—has the potential to exacerbate pressures on natural resources while also accelerating biodiversity loss and land degradation in biomass supplier countries (Biber‐Freudenberger et al, 2018; Escobar, Haddad, Börner, & Britz, 2018; Rajeswar, 2010). Furthermore, it is pointed out that bioeconomic growth might not be able to solve or will not even contribute to alleviate classical development challenges related, for example, to unequal societal distribution of benefits from economic activities as long as these concerns are not being properly targeted by appropriate policies (Förster et al, 2020; Kleinschmit et al, 2017).…”

“…They argue that bioeconomy or eco-industrial development has the potential to provide solutions for some of the most pressing sustainability challenges including combating hunger (SDG 2), providing clean and affordable energy (SDG 7) and the fight against climate change (SDG 13) (El-Chichakli, von Braun, Lang, Barben, & Philp, 2016). Critics of the bioeconomy approach, for example, argue that an increasing reliance on biomass-for example, to substitute fossil fuel resources-has the potential to exacerbate pressures on natural resources while also accelerating biodiversity loss and land degradation in biomass supplier countries (Biber-Freudenberger et al, 2018;Escobar, Haddad, Börner, & Britz, 2018;Rajeswar, 2010).…”