0
Article ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 2 ? Original research — experimental, observational, or case-control study. Direct primary evidence. Environmental Sources Sign in to save

Decision: Reducing plastic production: Economic loss or environmental gain? — R2/PR12

2024 Score: 35 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Mateo Cordier, Mateo Cordier, Bethany Jorgensen, Takuro Uehara, Juan Baztan Takuro Uehara, Takuro Uehara, Juan Baztan Juan Baztan Takuro Uehara, Mateo Cordier, Mateo Cordier, Juan Baztan Mateo Cordier, Takuro Uehara, Takuro Uehara, Takuro Uehara, Juan Baztan Juan Baztan Bethany Jorgensen, Takuro Uehara, Juan Baztan Juan Baztan Bethany Jorgensen, Juan Baztan Bethany Jorgensen, Bethany Jorgensen, Bethany Jorgensen, Juan Baztan Juan Baztan Bethany Jorgensen, Juan Baztan

Summary

Researchers reviewed global economic and environmental studies on plastic pollution, estimating that the net cost of inaction on plastic pollution by 2040 ranges from US $-243.8 to $24.3 trillion compared to action costs, suggesting that while high-estimate scenarios favor action, low-estimate scenarios indicate inaction could generate societal net costs twice those of acting.

We reviewed economic and environmental studies on global plastic pollution and we estimate the global cost of actions toward zero plastic pollution in all countries by 2040 to be US −243.8 to 24.3 trillion in case of inaction. Net benefit ranges suggest action and inaction will both be beneficial when considering the high estimates. However, the low estimates show net benefits might be negative, which suggests inaction might generate a net cost for society that will be twice the cost of action. Our estimates are preliminary (several cost and benefit data are lacking).

Sign in to start a discussion.

Share this paper