The plastic age sounds apocalyptic. How bad is it really?

People often believe synthetic plastics are the villains. But I think they’re amazing materials – with excellent properties, scalable production, and low cost. In terms of materials science, plastics are one of humanity’s greatest discoveries. The plastic age doesn’t have to be a pejorative term. The bad reputation of plastics is our own doing. We’re the villains here because we don’t use them responsibly. Our management of plastics is poor, and for a long time we didn’t care what happens when they reach the end of their life cycle.

Is plastic production growing or slowing down?

When I finished my PhD 14 years ago, global plastic production was around 300 million tonnes per year. Now it’s about 400 million. That’s a 25% increase in just a few years, and it’s still rising. Biodegradable materials are also being developed, but their production is under a million tonnes annually. Some forecasts suggest faster growth, which would be a good thing – they could help diversify the material market and serve as alternatives to fossil-based plastics in certain applications.

Are microplastics more dangerous than macroplastic pollution?

Microplastics are a big topic lately. We keep seeing articles about them being found in human placentas or blood. That’s concerning and needs attention. On the other hand, if we looked for wood or cellulose in our bodies, we’d probably find them too. The discussion around microplastics is often emotional. We need to calm down – we won’t die in ten years from microplastic contamination. Their toxicity comes from their small size or harmful additives, but the particles themselves are probably not highly toxic. We’ve been exposed to various microparticles since the beginning of time.

Maybe the fear stems from the fact that plastics take centuries to degrade?

We’re also exposed to resistant ceramic microparticles and other inorganic substances that don’t break down during a human lifetime. People tend to fear man-made chemicals more than natural ones – which makes sense, as they’re new and unfamiliar. But sometimes the debate becomes overly emotional. Chemophobia is a real social issue today.

So the problem is not the material itself, but how we handle it. What are the solutions?

Many smart people are looking for solutions – and a significant part of society truly wants to solve this. The issue is that many of the proposed solutions come from groups with their own economic interests, which slows progress.

When we started working on biodegradable plastics, there was a wave of excitement. People thought we’d just replace conventional plastics with biodegradable ones, and that would solve everything. But it’s not that simple. These materials have their own limitations, and the biodegradation process isn’t magic—it has its own environmental impact.

The solution isn’t simple or one-size-fits-all. We can’t replace one group of materials entirely with another. It’s going to be complex, and we’ll need to find a compromise among many competing social, economic, and political interests.

But where to start? Who should lead the change?

Experts and scientists can’t do it alone – politicians must get involved, and society as a whole must recognize the issue as real and urgent. The road ahead is long and difficult. We’ll need to make synthetic plastics more expensive to increase their perceived value and reduce wastefulness.

We’ll have to rethink our entire material management system. Someone will have to pay the price – if not us, then our children or grandchildren. One way or another, a future generation will have to bear the cost.

How can we reform material policy?

In my opinion, the price of conventional plastics should increase. Their cost should reflect the environmental footprint and disposal costs. These are excellent materials, but their low price leads to overuse and quick disposal. A plastic bag costs just a few cents, and if we lose it, no one really cares.

Packaging is another example. It often serves a marketing purpose more than a protective one. Take potato chips or a box of chocolates—more than 50% of the packaging is air, just to create a sense of greater value. Packaging is cheaper than the product itself. Manufacturers and consumers would need to give up this perceived added value and shift toward rational production.

Many manufacturers use biodegradable plastics, but they’re much more expensive.

Yes, production costs are higher. But disposal may be cheaper. There are scenarios for easier biodegradation—but the entire system must be prepared for it. If we included the environmental cost in conventional plastic prices, the production costs of both materials would even out. That might open the door for more diversified material policy. Eco-friendlier materials could then receive more support.

Where does the Czech Republic stand in plastic policy – especially within Europe?

In terms of collection and sorting, we’re among the most responsible EU nations. But what happens with plastics after that is another matter. For example, PET bottle recycling lines are well set up – they shred, wash, and reuse the material. But this can’t be done indefinitely. With every recycling cycle, the plastic loses some of its properties and may eventually become unstable or even toxic. It’s not true recycling – it’s more like downcycling.

The EU has mandated that new products must contain 30% recycled plastic, which is great – it reduces demand for new plastic. But sooner or later, recycled materials will become low-quality, and the risk of toxic products will rise. Eventually, we’ll have to face the same issue again.

And plastic production in the Czech Republic?

We’ve long had a strong chemical industry, and plastic production is very high. This industry has legitimate interests and employs many people. If we were to suddenly ban synthetic plastics, we wouldn’t survive as a society – we simply don’t have the means to replace them yet. The transition must be gradual.

You’ve been working with biodegradable plastics for 15 years and give public lectures beyond the faculty. Do you see outreach as your responsibility?

I’ve always enjoyed talking about this with people. There are always those who are fine with the current state and others who want change. That’s the heart of the matter. Change is hard to push through because many people immediately look for reasons why it won’t work. New technologies often lack financial support, whereas established ones already have it. I think it’s important for people to understand and reflect on this. Only then can the issue become a social topic – and only then can we make real progress.

Stanislav Obruča delivered his lecture A Way Out of the Plastic Age? as part of the Meltingpot forum during the July Colours of Ostrava music festival. Experts from BUT gave five lectures at the event, each focused on highly relevant topics.

The Meltingpot discussion forum was part of the accompanying program celebrating the 125th anniversary of Brno University of Technology.

(mar)