Bold warning: the plastic waste crisis could be drastically reduced within 15 years, but only if reuse and return systems are widely adopted. This is the core finding of a major new study that analyzes the global plastic system in depth. Researchers from the Pew Charitable Trusts, with collaboration from Imperial College London and the University of Oxford, warn that plastic—once celebrated as modern and revolutionary—now threatens public health, economies, and the planet’s future.
If no action is taken, annual plastic pollution could more than double by 2040, reaching about 280 million metric tonnes. That figure translates to roughly one trash truck’s worth of plastic every second, with the majority coming from packaging.
The report, Breaking the Plastic Wave 2025, emphasizes that such growth would affect every facet of life—economic stability, health outcomes, and climate resilience. The authors describe a scenario in which pollution intensifies land, air, and water contamination, increases exposure to toxic chemicals, and leads to higher rates of disease. This would also mean more animals suffer from ingestion, entanglement, and injury.
Current plastic production—driven by fossil fuels—is projected to rise by 52%, from 450 million tonnes this year to 680 million tonnes by 2040. This growth would outpace the capacity of waste management systems worldwide, which are already stretched thin.
Packaging is the main driver of this rise. The sector, which makes products such as soft films, bags, bottles, and rigid containers for foods and beverages, accounts for more plastic production than any other industry now and is expected to remain the largest contributor through 2040.
Packaging remains the single biggest source of plastic waste globally because it is typically single-use and many types are not recyclable. In 2025, packaging waste represented about 33% of the world’s plastic waste, contributing about 66 million tonnes of pollution annually.
However, the researchers found that packaging pollution could be dramatically reduced—by up to 97% over the next 15 years—through targeted actions like deposit-return programs and reuse schemes. When combined with bans on certain polymers and substituting plastics with alternatives such as paper, glass, or metal, the pollution reduction becomes even more achievable.
Two principal strategies drive this potential: extensive reuse and return systems (which could remove roughly two-thirds of total packaging pollution) and a substantial cut in plastic production for packaging, paired with shifts to alternative materials. These measures together could slash pollution, emissions, and health risks significantly.
The study highlights tangible health concerns linked to plastic exposure. Children’s toys, communities near petrochemical facilities, and even consumers can encounter more than 16,000 intentionally added chemicals in plastic products, plus a host of unintentional contaminants. Research associates these substances with hormone disruption, reduced fertility, low birth weights, cognitive and developmental effects, and heightened risks for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.
Greenhouse gas emissions from the global plastic system are also on track to rise—from about 2.7 gigatonnes CO2e in 2025 to roughly 4.2 gigatonnes CO2e in 2040, a 58% increase. If plastic production were a country, its emissions would rank as the third-largest in the world by 2040—behind only China and the United States.
Yet transformation is possible. With reforms in waste management, production reductions, and a strong push toward reuse and return systems, the study estimates an 83% reduction in plastic pollution, a 38% cut in greenhouse gas emissions, and a 54% decrease in health impacts. In economic terms, these changes could save governments around $19 billion (£14 billion) per year in future costs for plastic collection and disposal by 2040.
There is a clear path forward: reform the plastic system today to protect people and the planet tomorrow. The authors emphasize that progress hinges on decision-makers prioritizing public health and environmental wellbeing and embracing scalable reuse and material-shift strategies.
Would this shift toward reuse and material substitution be feasible on a global scale, given the diverse regulatory, economic, and cultural landscapes? What counterarguments or challenges do you foresee, and how might policymakers address them in different regions?
