Over the past 75 years, plastics have infiltrated daily life largely without question. Production skyrocketed from an estimated 2 million tons in 1950 to more than 470 million tons in 2019.¹ And without intervention, plastic use is projected to surge in the decades to come.

Plastic’s ubiquity isn’t accidental. It has revolutionized modern life through life-saving medical devices, lightweight materials that improve fuel efficiency, and countless innovations. Despite their benefits, plastics are also one of our most pressing environmental and health challenges. They are made from fossil fuels and contribute to climate change. The chemicals used to make plastics have been linked to cancer, reproductive dysfunction, and other health harms. They pollute the air, water, soil, and our bodies, and create massive amounts of waste at the end of their—often too short—useful lives.

The good news? Change is happening. Across sectors and industries, sustainability professionals are reducing plastic use, municipalities are implementing plastic reduction policies, and innovative alternatives are reaching the market. We have unprecedented opportunities to drive meaningful change in reducing plastics’ impacts. Here we’ll provide facts you need to understand plastics’ impact and pathways forward.

• What are plastics?
• How are plastic products made?
• How do plastics drive fossil fuel demand?
• How much plastic is made and thrown away?
• Why aren’t plastics as cheap as they seem?
• What is plastic pollution?
• How does plastic pollution harm everyone?
  • Climate change
  • Microplastics
  • Toxic Chemicals
• Who is disproportionately harmed by plastics?
• What can you do to fight against plastic pollution?

Plastics are synthetic or semi-synthetic materials made of polymers and chemical additives. Modern synthetic plastics came on the scene about 100 years ago.² Almost all plastics (99%) are made from fossil fuels: oil, natural gas, or coal.³

Plastic production begins with fossil fuel extraction; these fossil fuels are then refined and processed into petrochemicals. Petrochemicals are used to create different types of plastics with specific properties. Manufacturers shape these plastics into everyday products, often adding other chemicals to make them stronger, more flexible, or colorful.

As the energy sector shifts to renewables, the fossil fuel industry has turned toward plastics as a way of maintaining demand for their planet-harming products.^4,5 The International Energy Agency has predicted that petrochemicals, which are used to make plastics, will soon become the largest driver of global oil demand.⁶

Global plastic production was over 470 million tons in 2019.¹ This is more than the weight of all the humans alive today.⁸ And annual production is projected to double by 2050.¹ Industry is on track to create more plastics in the next 25 years than have been produced in the history of the world so far.^1,a

When they think of plastics, people often think of packaging—and, indeed, packaging makes up a significant 31% of all plastics’ use. But the building and construction sector is the second-biggest contributor, responsible for 17% of global plastics production. From PVC pipes to nylon carpet and vinyl siding, tens of millions of tons of plastics are used in construction each year.¹⁰ Other major uses include transportation, textiles, consumer and institutional products, and electrical/electronic equipment and devices.

Plastics last a long time and do not biodegrade, which translates to a lot of plastic waste.¹¹ Humankind generated about 390 million tons of plastic waste in 2019,¹ and this amount is projected to almost triple by 2060, reaching over 1.1 billion tons per year.⁹ The vast majority of plastic waste is landfilled, incinerated, or mismanaged (disposed of in uncontrolled dump sites, burned in open uncontrolled fires, or leaked to the environment where it builds up in ecosystems on land and in waterways).^1,12 For example, international estimates project that by 2060, there could be a staggering 543 million tons of plastic accumulated in aquatic environments, including 160 million tons in the ocean.⁹

While many plastic materials appear inexpensive, the price tag excludes substantial societal costs of harm to human health and the environment.¹³

Annually, production of plastics causes an estimated $592 billion in health harms globally.^14,b A small subset of plastic-related chemicals generates an estimated $249 billion in medical and associated social costs every year in the U.S. alone.¹⁵ Plastic pollution is estimated to result in $100 billion of environmental damage every year.¹³ And these are conservative estimates.^c Reducing plastics use can lead to major health and economic benefits.

The costs of climate change, too, are immense. Global warming increases the frequency of extreme weather events, each causing billions in damage. The U.S. faced 27 separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in 2024 alone—nearly matching the record-setting 28 events in 2023. These disasters resulted in over $182 billion in damages that year.¹⁶ Plastic production contributes to these mounting costs.

Government subsidies hide the real cost of plastics, with annual global subsidies totaling $7 trillion for fossil fuels and on the order of $30 billion for plastic production in the top 15 producing countries.^17,18 A similar pattern exists at the local level. The Environmental Integrity Project reviewed 50 plastic plants built or expanded in the U.S. since 2012 and found that 32 of these plants received almost $9 billion in state and local tax breaks and taxpayer subsidies. Two-thirds of the more than 591,000 people living within three miles of the 50 new or expanded plants are people of color, revealing how environmental burdens often fall disproportionately on communities of color.¹⁹

These costs are paid by individuals and governments, not fossil fuel or plastic companies.¹⁴

The United Nations defines plastic pollution as “the negative effects and emissions resulting from the production and consumption of plastic materials and products across their entire life cycle.”¹³ Plastics generate pollution at every stage of their life, from fossil fuel extraction, through manufacturing, use, and disposal. This pollution—including greenhouse gases, microplastics, and toxic chemicals—harms everyone.

Widespread pollution generated across the plastic life cycle is harming people and Earth’s ecosystems.^12,20 Sometimes this pollution is readily apparent: smoke plumes or smells from a factory or plastic bottles in the gutter. Whether we can see or smell it or not, plastic pollution affects all of us—through greenhouse gas emissions; through the microplastic particles and toxic chemicals that make their way into our bodies from air, water, and food; and through impacts on the health of people and our planet. For example:

Climate change

Plastics contribute to climate change at every stage of their life cycle. Greenhouse gases are released during fossil fuel extraction, refining, and transportation. Plastic manufacturing processes emit additional climate pollutants. Even after use, plastic products continue damaging the climate as they degrade or burn in incinerators.²¹ Plastic production alone is responsible for over 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and continues to grow.²²

Microplastics

While plastics don’t biodegrade, they do break down into small and tiny particles known as micro- and nanoplastics. These particles range from about the size of an orange seed to the width of a strand of DNA, and they are everywhere.²³ We are exposed to them through the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe. Microplastics have been found throughout human bodies, including our blood, kidneys, hearts, brains, and more, and there is evidence they build up over time.^24–27 Project TENDR, an alliance of experts on toxic chemicals and brain development, notes that, “[b]abies today are born with their brains and bodies already contaminated with plastics. Micro- and nano-plastic particles have been found in the placenta and newborns’ first stool, with exposures continuing through breastmilk and infant formula.”²⁸ Scientists are only just starting to learn how microplastics harm the health of children and adults, but research suggests they contribute to a range of adverse outcomes, such as cancer and infertility.²⁹

Toxic Chemicals

In addition to plastics themselves being a health concern as described above, plastics also use and release toxic chemicals throughout their life cycle. These chemicals are used throughout plastics production—extraction and refining of fossil fuels and production of chemicals, plastics, and products. In addition to “regular” releases of toxic chemicals that occur during production, each life cycle step and transportation of chemicals for each process also creates risk of fires, explosions, spills, and leaks.³¹ More than 16,000 different chemicals may be used to make, or are present in, plastics. Over 25% of these are known to be hazardous to human health or the environment, and most others lack information on their safety. This includes thousands of chemicals that are intentionally added to plastics to impart particular properties, such as making them more flexible, durable, or colorful.³² Chemicals used to create plastics pollute our air, water, soil, and bodies and have been linked to cancer, reproductive issues, children’s developmental harm, asthma, obesity, and many more health impacts.^14,33–36

Human Health Impacts

Workers, communities, and users of plastic products face direct exposure to these harmful substances. Additionally, chemical wastes from plastic production and most plastic products themselves are landfilled or incinerated, burdening communities with additional pollution.^1,14,34,37 Even recycling can release microplastics and toxic chemicals that affect human health.^38,39

Environmental Impacts

Beyond local contamination, many plastic chemicals as well as microplastics spread globally through air and water, disrupting ecosystems and contaminating environments worldwide.^1,32,36 Landfilling and incineration of plastic waste further burdens the environment with persistent pollution, while recycling processes can also release environmental contaminants.^14,32,38,39

While we are all harmed by plastic pollution, some of us are harmed more than others.

Children are especially vulnerable to chemical exposures. Beginning in the womb and continuing into adolescence, their cells and bodies are in a dynamic state of growth.⁴⁰ Chemical exposures have many damaging effects. They can interrupt hormone systems and inhibit healthy brain development. Scientists suspect chemical exposures have contributed to the increased rates of childhood cancers like leukemia and neurodevelopmental disorders like ADHD present today.^28,40,41 Exposure to toxic chemicals early in life can continue to harm health years later through effects such as reduced fertility and increased risk of obesity, asthma, and cancer.⁴¹

Communities near polluting facilities (chemical plants, landfills, incinerators, etc.) are directly affected by noise, odors, chemical emissions, and heavy duty diesel emissions.^42–44 Such “fenceline” communities are disproportionately communities of color, Indigenous communities, and low-wealth communities.^14,42,45 Often, industrial facilities are concentrated in “sacrifice zones” such as Louisiana’s Cancer Alley. This 85-mile stretch of communities along the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge is home to about 200 fossil fuel and petrochemical facilities. Residents of the area suffer from elevated rates and risks of reproductive, maternal, and newborn health harms; cancer; and respiratory ailments such as asthma.⁴⁶ Hear directly from Cancer Alley residents in this video from Human Rights Watch.

Plastic chemicals and microplastics travel through air and ocean currents, concentrating in the Arctic and disproportionately affecting the land, water, and traditional foods of Arctic Indigenous communities.^36,47 Climate change is also greater in Arctic regions which are warming almost four times faster than the planet as a whole. The health of these communities is threatened by the toxic impacts of the fossil fuel and plastics industry in addition to climate-induced threats to food security and community displacement.³⁶

From the vinyl flooring under our feet to the polyester in our clothing, plastics surround us in ways we’re only beginning to fully understand. The evidence is clear: these ubiquitous materials are driving climate change, contaminating our bodies with chemicals and microplastics, and releasing toxic chemicals that disproportionately harm children, communities of color, Indigenous communities, and low-wealth communities. The hidden costs reveal the true price of our plastic dependency. 

Here are four concrete steps you can take right now to meaningfully reduce plastic use while protecting people and the environment:

• Minimize new material use and reuse existing products when possible
• Choose healthier materials when new products are necessary
• Choose long-lived, timeless materials that remain in place for their full service life
• Evaluate recycling claims critically, as recycling often perpetuates rather than reduces plastics’ harmful life cycle impacts

The same innovation that created this challenge can solve it. As sustainability professionals, we have the knowledge, networks, and influence to accelerate the transition already underway.

I’ve spent the last two decades working on climate impact and waste assessment for companies and governments across the United States, and have watched as local sustainability efforts have flourished while the global environmental picture becomes more and more grim. One of the biggest challenges I’ve seen is that the traditional metrics of sustainability–carbon footprints, waste reduction targets, efficiency gains–are designed to drive localized, regional progress. These measures of ‘success’ overlook a crucial reality: when we cut costs and resource use in one place, consumption often increases somewhere else in the world. As sustainability professionals leading the charge for a more just and regenerative future, our biggest challenge today is not merely advancing existing measures of ‘success.’ Instead, we must fundamentally reimagine our relationship with an economic system that prioritizes growth above all else and shift toward one that values health through balance and harmony with nature. When the planet is healthy, we are healthy.

This reality is pushing sustainability leaders to ask harder questions: How can we create genuine prosperity while respecting Earth’s ecological limits? What would it look like to build a materials economy that serves both people and planet? The answers require us to examine not just how we manage materials, but how we think about growth itself.

The Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy recently showed that the world’s seven largest economies have enshrined “economic growth” as a goal in and of itself, detached from any kind of social or well-being metrics.⁵ But economic growth doesn’t happen in a vacuum: our environment, people, and communities are all impacted by macroeconomic decisions. Considering this, three key issues emerge that challenge our perception of growth’s ‘success’:

• First, there are ecological constraints. The global economy must operate within Earth’s ecological limits – thresholds for resource extraction, land use, and pollution that we are currently exceeding. We simply cannot sustain current levels of ecological demand. 
• Second, there are efficiency limitations. Our current materials economy is deeply interconnected: when one company reduces its material use, the saved resources are typically invested into other parts of the economy, driving further growth and consumption. Time and experience have proven that efficiency gains do not actually reduce resource use, unless they are paired with a commitment to limit demand.⁶
• Finally, there are equity concerns. The benefits and burdens of our materials economy are not shared equally. While ~10% of global society controls 90% of the wealth,⁷ billions still lack access to basic resources for a dignified life.,^8,9 Shifting our economy towards alternative and more efficient technologies alone will not address this fundamental imbalance.

Humans’ fossil-fueled economy has pushed the global climate past its natural limits: recent highly visible weather events related to our changing climate are symptomatic of pushing past ecological constraints. This isn’t unique to climate–all natural systems have boundaries and it is now time for us to work within the boundaries of a healthy, thriving planet. 

The factors that drive ecological change on planet earth are connected to commodity flows that operate across political boundaries, meaning reduced demand in one part of the economy is easily offset by increased consumption in another. For example, the U.S. has reduced its fossil fuel demand over the past two decades, but the global economy has easily reallocated those savings in the planetary push for economic growth. In practice, efficiency gains are often redirected into making more products, feeding a cycle of continuous growth that ultimately leads to more extraction, more waste, and more strain on our planet’s systems. 

Illustration by John Mulrow, PhD

In his book Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World, Jason Hickel presents data showing that while global GDP per capita increased fivefold between 1980-2016, this growth was highly unequal, with only the wealthiest 10% of people seeing their incomes grow at or above this rate. The richest 1% gained disproportionately more, while the vast majority of people experienced minimal economic benefits despite overall growth.¹¹ This pattern repeats even within high-income countries, as Matt Orsagh, a post-growth finance advocate, has pointed out. In the US, it is also the wealthiest 10% of people that have accumulated the majority of economic growth for themselves in recent decades.¹² Clearly, there is a need to rebalance and redefine economic flows so that when and where growth happens it benefits those truly in need. 

The reality is that social foundation metrics are not being met for many across the world and yet we are exceeding planetary boundaries, atmospheric CO2 levels being just one of several ecological emergencies. Raworth’s work has been effective at helping sustainability professionals break from efficiency as a marker of environmental impact reduction, instead pairing planetary-scale impact metrics with socioeconomic ones like equity and access. 

Here are some steps to begin:

1. Foster Dialogue: Sometimes asking questions like “How much is enough?” or “How can we use less?” are enough to spark a conversation that questions the growth paradigm in a constructive way. You can share and build on writings that critique growth–influential works like Doughnut Economics by Kate Raworth, Less is More by Jason Hickel, and Braiding Sweetgrass and The Serviceberry by Robin Wall Kimmerer provide valuable perspectives. The Degrowth Institute’s discussion toolkit also offers practical resources for sparking conversations. 
2. Integrate Global Contexts: Add a global economic perspective to your projects. For example, consider what happens to financial and resource savings enabled by efficiency measures. Can these savings be reinvested in ways that increase equity or protect the environment, instead of prompting more consumption? What are the risks that resource demand resurfaces elsewhere in the economy? Asking such questions can shift the focus toward systemic change.
3. Stay Motivated: Breaking from growth-centric paradigms is crucial for self-regulating our economy within planetary boundaries. Although unprecedented in modern times, this shift promises significant social and environmental benefits and recent summaries in Ecological Economics offer concrete policy proposals.

For those based in the U.S., various organizations—including the Post Growth Institute, CASSE, Arketa Institute, and DegrowNYC—are advancing the movement through discussion, debate, and action. 

About the Author

John Mulrow, PhD

John Mulrow is Executive Director of the Degrowth Institute and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Environmental and Ecological Engineering at Purdue University. His work is focused on improving environmental assessment methodology through perspectives that prioritize social equity and limits to growth. He holds a PhD in Civil Engineering from University of Illinois Chicago and a BS in Earth Systems from Stanford University. 

Beth’s piece focuses on the need for greater regulation to require the use of green building strategies, and I argue that the same is true for healthy building materials. When designers, builders, and developers choose toxic materials, they risk liability for the harm they cause to the users of their spaces as well as those involved along the supply chain.  

As architects and designers, we bear a profound responsibility to shape the world around us, not just aesthetically, but also ethically and responsibly. Our designs don’t exist in isolation; they interact intimately with the lives of individuals, communities, and the environment. In this regard, the materials we specify play a pivotal role in shaping the health and safety of the spaces we create.

Cost & Performance:
From a material cost point of view, healthier materials can often be comparable to the price points of more toxic materials. However, the time and labor hours spent researching, validating, and tracking healthier material selections and certifications can significantly add to total project costs, and this is often a barrier to designers’ selection process. The reality is, it takes less time to select finishes when we’re only focused on performance and aesthetics, without the added layer of validating and certifying material health properties too. 

There’s little motivation for clients to choose healthy materials:
Clients are faced with a variety of pressures and priorities, like staying within budget and getting the project done on schedule. They also might assume that the government is regulating and eliminating toxic products from the market – which is not the case. Without awareness and the drive from company values, regulatory requirements, or consumer demand, there may be little motivation for clients to choose healthier materials, especially in any case where there is a cost premium. As much as designers can advocate for healthier materials on our projects, we are often limited by project priorities and available project fee hours.

Navigating the complexities of certifications–information overload:
With all of the project responsibilities designers must juggle, and a vast landscape of material certifications with different levels of rigor and limited considerations beyond the use phase, it can be overwhelming and burdensome to understand and navigate healthier material product selection. After all, we are not scientists!

For example, it’s common for housing developers to opt for Luxury Vinyl Tile (LVT) due to its durability, easy installation, and low first cost. However, we can see by looking at the Informed Product Guidance that LVT is in the red category. Phthalates, chemicals known to disrupt the hormonal system, were once commonly found in LVT. While in recent years we’ve seen more and more phthalate-free LVT products become available, even “better” vinyl is still not a preferred material! This is because of the toxic processes required to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and the toxic pollution created when it’s disposed of. And let’s not forget, vinyl is a form of plastic derived from fossil fuels, so its use continues our reliance on the polluting fossil fuel industry at a time when we are electrifying our buildings to decrease fossil fuel use.

What does that all really mean? Not only can building products have negative health impacts on the daily occupants of a space, they often impact installers, factory workers handling the material production, and the communities living near those processes. And unfortunately in the case of housing, renters are likely unaware of any of this when selecting a place to live. Which brings us back to the dilemma for designers: is it really ethical to specify a material when we know its negative health impacts? And if we make the decision to take care in our specifications, how can we encourage our clients to approve healthier alternatives?

Watch Habitable’s special Earth Month webinar featuring leading global voices, including:

• Dr. Bethanie Carney-Almroth
• Dr. Veena Singla
• Martha Lewis

Moderated by Gina Ciganik, CEO of Habitable