Plastics and polymers are indispensable to modern life – but their fossil-based origins have placed them at the center of the global climate debate. We spoke with Dr. Olena Vozniuk-Losch, a Senior Development Scientist and Sustainability Leader at DuPont (Luxembourg), about how polymers could evolve from a climate problem into a tool for carbon storage and sustainable innovation.
Plastics are essential to everyday life. Why are they now considered a major climate issue?
I guess the majority of us would agree that in the modern world, plastics have become inseparable from our present-day way of living – starting from food and goods packaging, textiles, sportswear, toys, other consumer commodities to transportation and construction, and so on. It is also well known that their production is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels such as crude oil and natural gas. This makes them a significant contributor to climate change. Today, plastics account for roughly 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and this figure is expected to grow as consumption rises.
The issue has become global and requires urgent actions from all nations across the globe. Recently, the United Nations were negotiating an international plastics treaty to address not only waste and related plastic pollution, but also the broader environmental and health impacts of plastics. Unfortunately, no final agreement was reached, and negotiations will have to continue to come to a final agreement.
Indeed plastics are everywhere, and how did polymers earn their reputation as “miracle materials”?
Plastics and polymers, hailed as miracle materials since their rise in the 1950s and 1960s, revolutionized modern life with their malleability, flexibility, and ease of shaping. Initially embraced by their lightness and durability, they quickly found applications in every corner of daily life. From car tires to water bottles, shopping bags to synthetic clothing, polymers became indispensable. Personally, I have my own reason to be grateful – during recent heart surgeries, several of my implants are made from well-known plastics like ePTFE, Dacron, and Prolene. These materials are now literally part of me, and they’ve helped save my life.
If plastics are so useful, where does the climate problem come from?
The main issue lies in how they are made and disposed of. Most conventional plastics are produced from petrochemicals (fossil resources), and their extraction, refining, and polymerization release large amounts of CO₂ (carbon dioxide) and other greenhouse gases like CH4 (methane), N2O (nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas), and some others.
Moreover, at the end of their life cycle, many plastics are either incinerated – mainly without carbon capture technology – or discarded improperly, creating both emissions and plastic waste pollution. It’s a system that urgently needs rethinking.
So you propose seeing polymers in the future as an opportunity for carbon storage. What does that mean?
That’s right. There are several ways to answer this question. One vision is to see polymers directly as carbon storage materials – especially if a polymer is made from CO₂ that has been taken out of the atmosphere or captured directly from industrial processes. In this case, we are either removing CO₂ from the air or preventing its release by capturing and transforming it into CO₂-based plastics. This can happen through synthetic industrial processes, or even through photosynthesis when a polymer is made from biogenic raw materials that captured CO₂ during their growth.
Alternatively, we can look at this question through the lens of post-consumer recycled, or PCR, plastics. If we valorize post-consumer waste – whether by making equivalent products, containing PCR feedstock, or by upgrading or downgrading materials – we are extending the life of the carbon already embedded in those plastics or to say simply giving them another life. When the final product made from recycled material is designed for a long-term use or with a circularity in mind, we effectively avoid CO₂ emissions that would otherwise come from the end-of-life. In that sense, we’re offsetting those emissions and keeping the carbon locked within the material for years to come or we are closing the loop by recycling the product again and again. The latter circular pathway would be possible through chemical recycling or physical (dissolution) recycling.
At the same time, by reusing existing plastics to produce equivalent products made with PCR, we reduce the need for new raw materials – which, as I mentioned earlier, are still largely fossil-based.
Regardless of which pathway one focuses on – CO₂-based polymers or post-consumer recycled plastics – the key idea is the same: we need to move away from short-lived, disposable products that are incinerated at the end of life and shift toward circular and durable applications. These include areas such as construction, transportation, and renewable-energy infrastructure, where materials remain in service for decades. For example, polymers used in buildings, road materials, wind-turbine blades, or solar-panel housings can remain in use for many years, effectively locking in carbon while replacing more energy- and emission-intensive materials like steel or concrete.
Equally important, however, are circular products that may be single-use yet circulate within a closed-loop system – such as packaging, hygiene materials, medical disposables, or technical textiles – where the material is efficiently recovered and reprocessed to create new products of equal quality.
With that in mind, let’s look across the full innovation landscape… Are there promising innovations emerging in the form of CO₂-derived polymers?
Exciting innovations are emerging in the form of (sustainable) CO₂-derived polymers, which utilize captured carbon from the atmosphere or industrial processes. These potentially carbon-neutral or in the best case carbon-negative materials, if converted via low carbon routes, can be turned into useful products like polycarbonates and polyurethanes, which are already widely used in construction as thermal insulation, glazing and roofing panels, safety and security windows. By chemically locking CO₂ into solid, stable structures for decades, these applications hold the promise of net negative greenhouse gas emissions. Certainly, only as long as CO₂ is sourced sustainably and the processes for making these polymers are low-carbon or zero-carbon ones.
To give a sense of scale, the global plastics market is currently around 450 to 500 million tonnes per year. Assuming that population growth may push demand up, while recycling efforts and circular systems could offset this by reducing the need for newly produced plastics made from new raw feedstocks. As a result, the total market volume might remain roughly stable. Now, if we consider that about 80 to 90 percent of CO₂ emissions, which is roughly 32 to 36 billion tonnes per year out of the current total estimated at around 40 billion – could be avoided through electrification and hydrogen, the idea of turning the plastics value chain into a CO₂ use and storage pathway becomes really interesting. If all polymers were made from captured CO₂, that could store somewhere around 1.4 to 1.6 billion tonnes of CO₂ each year. This comes from the fact that typical polymers are about 85 percent carbon by weight, and one tonne of carbon corresponds to roughly 3.67 tonnes of CO₂. Compared to the 4 to 8 billion tonnes of emissions we probably can’t avoid, this shows that plastics could play a meaningful role as a carbon sink while still providing the materials we need.
As one may ask, what if we cannot make certain polymers directly from CO₂?
From my perspective as a scientist, that’s a fair question, especially for such common polymers as polyolefins (e.g. polypropylene and polyethylene), but I believe technology evolves faster than we often expect. What feels out of reach today can become a breakthrough tomorrow. I already see promising possibilities: producing common fossil-based polymers from recycled materials, from biomass, and perhaps even directly from CO₂ eventually allowing for materials with net negative GHG emissions. Potential pathways include CO₂-to-feedstock converting CO₂ into chemicals like methanol, syngas, or low-carbon naphtha, then using standard processes to make polyolefins which could open the door to sustainable polymer production without relying on fossil feedstocks.
Of course, for any of these ideas to succeed, they must make economic sense and offer clear value to industry – because innovation only truly matters when it can be adopted at scale and keep businesses profitable.
What role can post-consumer recycled plastics play in this vision?
That’s a very important question – and one that should sit right at the center of the conversation. Post-consumer recycled plastics represent a second wave of opportunity. Instead of depending only on new, fossil-based, or even CO₂-derived polymers, we can take the plastics already in circulation and give them a new life – one that’s built around long-term use.
Mechanical recycling often gets dismissed as being too limited or too low quality, but that’s not necessarily true. Yes, it can be challenging to get consistent quality, especially when the waste stream is mixed or contaminated. But when sorting and collection are done well – and when products are designed with recycling in mind, using fewer material types, simplifying structures, and thinking about how things can be taken apart and reused – mechanical recycling can deliver very good materials. These can then be used again as raw materials to make durable or circular products, giving clear end-of-life pathways, like long-use applications or closing the loop rather than simply shifting the burden. Every time we do that, we keep carbon locked away in useful forms and reduce the need for energy-intense alternatives or for extracting new raw materials to make these types of products.
Of course, chemical and physical (dissolution) recycling both have an important role too. They can handle the mixed or degraded waste that mechanical recycling can’t. In addition, this gives an opportunity to create ever-recycled products that could circulate in the closed loop for very long time. But rather than seeing one approach as better than the other, it’s about the balance – using mechanical recycling as far as it can go and then bringing in physical (dissolution) and/or chemical recycling where it makes sense.
In the end, it’s about changing how we see waste. Post-consumer plastics aren’t just a problem to solve – they’re a resource we already have in our hands. If we treat them that way, design better, and build systems that keep in mind circularity and durability, we take a real step toward a resource-efficient and lower-carbon future.
What are the main barriers to scaling up post-consumer recycled plastics, and how can they be overcome?
There are several significant challenges. One of the main ones is feedstock contamination. Another is the difference in plastic types and the variety of additives used to stabilize plastics during processing and use-phase. Product design also matters a lot – mono-material plastics are simpler and much better for recycling because they make sorting easier and lead to higher-quality recycled materials.
Recycling complex or mixed waste streams also takes a lot of energy, which adds to the cost and environmental footprint. On top of that, there’s still a lack of updated standards and not enough acceptance for products made with post-consumer recycled materials in certain applications.
To overcome these challenges, we really need to start from the bottom-up approach. Better sorting and collection infrastructure is essential. It would also help if we could standardize additives for specific plastics – so they still deliver the required performance but reduce the huge variety that different manufacturers use today. Whenever possible, products should be designed in a simpler way to make recycling easier. Using low-carbon energy in recycling plants is another step in the right direction.
We also need clear standards for durability and safety, and stronger procurement incentives that favor verified recycled and low-carbon materials. Right now, sustainable materials often cost more than virgin (non-recycled) ones, which makes it harder to convince customers, especially in a difficult market environment.
It’s also important to acknowledge that some application areas – like medical and food packaging – are very challenging. In those cases, regulations around material purity are strict, and it’s definitely for some very good reasons. This means that using post-consumer recycled plastics in such areas will take more time, more research, and a careful and innovative approach.
If you could summarize one key message for the future of polymers, what would it be?
Decarbonizing the polymer industry is essential. That means developing low-carbon production methods, improving recycling technologies, and prioritizing long-lasting, high-value applications.
Polymers are not inherently the enemy of the climate. When designed thoughtfully and sourced responsibly, they can become powerful allies – transforming from a source of emissions into a means of carbon storage.
With innovation, we can make polymers part of a climate-positive and resource-efficient future.