ChinaReplas T&P 2025

The 3rd Plastic Pollution Prevention and Control Theory and Practice Forum

Theme: Philosophy of Plastics

— 1 —

“Prohibition, restriction, substitution” is systematic

A symbol of human behavior modification and civilization transformation

1. "Prohibition" : Emergency brakes on out-of-control industrial civilization

• Metaphor: The ban on the use of certain plastic products (such as disposable straws and plastic bags) symbolizes humanity's denial of the uncontrolled expansion of production and consumption patterns. Industrial civilization once regarded "convenience" and "economic growth" as its norms, but the rampant plastic pollution has exposed the cost of this model - the collapse of the ecosystem and the threat to human health. 
• Deeper meaning: Through the ban, society conveys a clear rejection of "unsustainable development", which metaphorically represents the shift in values from "conquering nature" to "reconciling with nature".

2. "Restriction" : Rational constraints on consumerism

• Metaphor: Restricting the scope and scale of plastic use (such as packaging reduction and recycling requirements) implies a criticism of consumerist culture. The essence of plastic pollution is the product of a one-way linear economy (production-consumption-waste) of "use it and throw it away".
• Deeper meaning: Through restrictions, society attempts to reconstruct an ethical view of "moderation", emphasizing the return from "unlimited desires" to "limited needs", which is a metaphor for reflection on materialistic lifestyles.

3. "Alternative" : The double-edged sword of technology and innovation

• Metaphor: Promoting degradable materials or recycling technology symbolizes human dependence on technological salvationism. Alternative solutions attempt to solve pollution problems through innovation, but they may also fall into the trap of "covering old problems with new problems" (such as the environmental impact of degradable plastics has not yet been fully clarified).
• Deeper meaning: Alternative strategies are both hope and warning - technological progress must be combined with systematic thinking, otherwise it may repeat the mistake of "solving problems but creating new problems".

4. Overall metaphor: the civilization transformation from "linear thinking" to "circular symbiosis"

• The combination of the three constitutes a progressive framework: "prohibition" is to cut off the old model, "restriction" is a transition buffer, and "replacement" is to build a new system. This strategic chain metaphorically represents the human attempt to shift from "linear economy" (mining-manufacturing-waste) to "circular economy" (design-use-regeneration), behind which is a fundamental revision of the "growth first" logic of industrial civilization.
• The deeper metaphor is: plastic pollution is not only an environmental problem, but also a crisis in the relationship between human civilization and the earth's ecology. The governance plan reflects the society's pursuit of "sustainable development" and implies the awakening of responsibility in the "Anthropocene" era.

5. Metaphorical contradictions and challenges

• The tension between power and freedom: the ban may be interpreted as "government intervention in personal choice", which is a metaphor for the game between environmental protection and personal rights in modern society.
• The risk of symbolic action: if it only stays on the surface of "banning plastic bags", it may become "greenwashing", which is a metaphor for the gap between formalism and substantive change in policy implementation.

Summary: From "Governance Tool" to "Civilization Fable"

The metaphor of the "prohibition-restriction-substitution" strategy is essentially a modern fable about whether humans can achieve redemption through self-restraint and collective action. It is both an emergency response to the ecological crisis and a critical reconstruction of anthropocentrism - trying to find a new balance between "development" and "survival" by restricting one's own desires and reconstructing the production system.

The ultimate challenge of this metaphor is: Are humans really willing to give up short-term convenience and pay the price for long-term ecological ethics? The plastic pollution control solution with "prohibition, restriction, and substitution" as the core , as the current global mainstream response strategy, has both positive significance and significant limitations in its actual effect. Whether this solution can truly solve the problem of plastic pollution depends on the depth of systemic change, the thoroughness of policy implementation, and the coordinated adjustment of social culture.

The following will analyze from multiple dimensions:

— 2 —

The positive significance of the program: initial breakthrough from source to system

1. Significant short-term reduction effect - banning single-use plastics (such as straws and plastic bags) can directly reduce the generation of plastic waste. For example, after China’s “plastic ban” in 2020, the use of plastic bags in supermarkets in major cities decreased by about 70%; Kenya’s plastic waste decreased by 80% after the plastic ban. - Limiting excessive packaging forces companies to optimize design and reduce plastic consumption (such as the EU’s requirement that all packaging be reusable or recyclable by 2030).
2. Promote technological innovation and industrial transformation  - The development of alternative materials has given rise to emerging markets such as biodegradable plastics and paper-based materials, forcing the traditional plastics industry to upgrade. For example, global bioplastics production capacity is expected to increase from 2.2 million tons in 2023 to 6.3 million tons in 2028.

• The circular economy model is incorporated into policies (e.g. the EU Plastics Strategy requires a 90% recycling rate for plastic bottles by 2025), promoting innovation in recycling technologies (e.g. chemical recycling) and business models (e.g. shared packaging).

3. Awakening of public awareness - Policies reshape society’s perception of plastic pollution through mandatory signals of “prohibition-restriction”.

— 3 —

Limitations of the solution: treating symptoms but not the root cause of the problem

1. The "green paradox" of alternative materials - Degradable plastics are not omnipotent: most require industrial composting conditions (temperature 50-60 ℃ ), are difficult to decompose in the natural environment, and even release microplastics. For example, a 2021 Nature study pointed out that some "degradable" plastics degrade in the ocean at the same rate as traditional plastics. - Alternatives may cause new problems: paper products require a lot of wood and water resources, and their carbon footprint may be higher than traditional plastics; bio-based plastics compete with food for land (such as the cultivation of corn, the raw material for PLA, which increases land pressure).

2. "Loopholes" in policy implementation

• High regulatory costs: Due to insufficient law enforcement capabilities in developing countries, plastic bans often become "paper bans" (such as India's repeated failed plastic bans).

1. Inertial resistance to consumer culture - Convenience dependence is difficult to break: The demand for plastics in industries such as takeout and express delivery continues to grow. China's use of plastic for express packaging will exceed 1 million tons in 2022, and alternative materials account for less than 10%. - "Rebound Effect": Some restrictions will stimulate other polluting behaviors (such as a surge in household garbage bag use after plastic restrictions, and disposable plastic shopping bags have become disposable non-woven bags). 4. "Hidden pollution" at the micro level has not been resolved  - Microplastics and nanoplastics have penetrated the atmosphere, soil and human blood, and existing policies lack effective control measures for this type of "invisible pollution". - Plastic pollution throughout its life cycle: from petrochemical mining to incineration and landfill, carbon emissions and toxic substance releases are not fully covered by policies.

— 4 —

Key challenges: resistance and conditions for system transformation

1. Deep binding of economic interests  - The global plastics industry has an annual output value of over $600 billion, involving multiple interest groups such as petrochemicals, manufacturing, and retail. For example, the American Plastics Industry Association has repeatedly lobbied against bills to manage plastics.
2. Fragmentation of global governance  - There is a lack of binding international treaties (e.g. the Global Plastics Convention has not yet been implemented), and different countries have different standards and means.
3. The synergy of technology, system and culture is lagging behind  

• Due to the limitations of the technical backend and the defects in the system design, consumer habits and awareness of consumer waste are difficult to change in the short term.

— 5 —

Deepening the solution path: systemic change beyond the "three policies"

1. From "alternative materials" to "alternative systems" - Establish an institutional system for the efficient use of plastic resources - Promote the reuse system (such as the German deposit system for recycling bottles with a reuse rate of 98%), rather than relying solely on material substitution.

• Establish an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system to force companies to bear the cost of recycling (e.g. France requires packaging companies to pay 90% of recycling costs).

2. From "end-of-pipe governance" to "source design" - Promote eco-design (such as packaging-free stores, modular products), and enforce product reusability or recyclability through policies (EU Ecodesign Directive). - Develop plastic taxes to internalize environmental costs (such as the UK's £200 per ton tax on plastic packaging in 2022).
3. From "single policy" to "full-chain co-governance" - Clarify the responsibilities of enterprises in the industrial chain: All types of enterprises in the industrial chain must make systematic changes for recycling. - Public participation mechanism: Consumers link production and waste, which is an important part of system change. Only by transforming from obligations to responsibilities can the problem be fundamentally solved.

— 6 —

Conclusion: The balance between limited instruments and unlimited liability

"ban-restrict-substitution" approach is a necessary starting point for dealing with plastic pollution, but it is not the ultimate answer. Its effectiveness depends on whether it can be embedded in a larger system change: - Short-term: Through policies to force reduction, buy time for technological and social transformation! - Long-term: The relationship between "human-plastic-nature" must be reconstructed, and a linear economy must be transformed into a truly circular civilization!

— 7 —

ChinaReplas T&P 2025

The 3rd Plastic Pollution Prevention and Control Theory and Practice Forum

Conference theme: Philosophy of plastics

Sponsor: China Synthetic Resin Association

March 18, 2025 , 19:00-23:00 , Suzhou

Conference language: Chinese and English simultaneous interpretation