plastic pollution
Where fast fashion’s cast-offs really end up
Think your old clothes find a new home after you drop them in a donation bin? Think again. An investigation tracking 15 geolocated garments reveals a global trade that buries the Global South in textile waste, feeding pollution, exploitation, and an unsustainable fashion industry.
Ana Carbajosa, Patricia R. Blanco, and Beatriz Lecumberri report for El País.
In short:
- Clothing discarded in Europe and the U.S. often ends up in African and Asian nations, where much of it is unsellable and dumped in massive landfills or burned, releasing toxic chemicals.
- A tracking experiment found that seven out of 15 donated garments traveled over 65,000 km, passing through warehouses, resale markets, and waste sites, leaving behind a significant carbon footprint.
- Despite rising textile waste, recycling options are limited, and fast fashion continues churning out low-quality clothing that degrades too quickly to be reused or repurposed.
Key quote:
“The common public perception of used clothing donations as generous gifts to people in need does not fully match reality.”
— European Environment Agency
Why this matters:
Cheap, disposable clothing is fueling an environmental and public health disaster, particularly in countries that lack the infrastructure to manage the waste. While donation bins may feel like a responsible choice, they often sustain a system of overproduction, pollution, and exploitation. Without major reforms, the cycle will only worsen.
Read more: I tried to sew a compostable stuffed animal for my friend’s newborn. It did not go well.
The rain is cleaner, but now it’s full of plastic and forever chemicals
A generation after acid rain was largely eliminated, scientists say rainfall is now carrying something even more insidious — microplastics and forever chemicals that are nearly impossible to remove.
In short:
- Decades of environmental policy cleaned up acid rain, but modern pollutants like microplastics and PFAS (forever chemicals) have taken its place, contaminating rainfall worldwide.
- Microplastics from roads, clothing, and oceans get swept into the atmosphere and fall with the rain, while PFAS, used in nonstick cookware and water-resistant fabrics, persist in the environment for centuries.
- These pollutants seep into drinking water sources, and while treatment plants can remove some, a significant amount remains, exposing people and wildlife to chemicals linked to cancer, kidney disease, and immune disorders.
Key quote:
"It’s much worse than the acid rain problem. With acid rain, we could stop emitting acid precursors and then acid rain would stop falling. But we can’t stop the microplastic cycle anymore. It’s there and it’s not going away."
— Janice Brahney, biogeochemist at Utah State University
Why this matters:
Even if you don’t drink untreated rainwater, these pollutants are making their way into tap water, food, and even human brains. Water treatment plants can catch some of it, but not enough. And with microplastics now found in human lungs, blood, and even placentas, the long-term health consequences are still unfolding.
Read more: Toxic PFAS pollution is likely at more than 57,000 US locations.
Microplastics infiltrate human organs, raising health concerns
Recent research reveals that microplastics have permeated human organs, including the brain, liver, and kidneys, with potential health implications.
In short:
- In 2024, toxicologist Matthew Campen discovered that the adult human brain contains about a disposable spoon's worth of plastic, a 50% increase from eight years prior.
- Studies have found microplastics in human tissues such as placentas, breast milk, and semen, suggesting widespread infiltration of our bodies.
- Research indicates potential links between microplastic exposure and health issues like cardiovascular disease, reduced sperm count, and certain cancers.
Key quote:
"I can say, with a high degree of confidence, that microplastic particles are in the bodies of virtually every American today."
— Philip Landrigan, pediatrician and epidemiologist at Boston College
Why this matters:
The pervasive presence of microplastics in human organs raises serious health concerns. Reducing personal exposure to microplastics can be challenging, but opting for glass or metal food containers, using natural fiber clothing, and installing high-quality water filters are practical steps. Experts however, emphasize that individual actions, while beneficial, are not sufficient. As research continues to uncover the extent of this issue, it becomes increasingly clear that collective action is necessary to mitigate the impact of microplastics on both our planet and our health.
Read more:
How supermarkets turned home goods into the new fast fashion
In the UK, supermarkets have transformed shopping habits by offering trendy, affordable homeware alongside groceries, but this convenience comes with hidden ethical and environmental costs.
In short:
- Major UK supermarkets like Asda, Sainsbury's and Tesco now feature aisles filled with stylish, low-cost homeware items, making it easy for shoppers to purchase home goods during routine grocery trips.
- This surge in accessible homeware has led to increased consumerism, with many buying items on impulse without considering the environmental impact or the working conditions of factory employees producing these goods.
- Industry insiders reveal that the fast homeware trend often involves mass production in factories where workers face challenging conditions and independent designers frequently find their creations replicated without consent.
Key quote:
"Somehow we need to slow down. We need to start thinking...thinking about why you're buying something, where it has come from and who has made it."
— Helen Gordon, co-founder of Nested Living and member of the British Institute of Interior Design's sustainability committee.
Why this matters:
The rise of fast homeware mirrors the fast fashion industry's issues, contributing to toxic pollution, environmental degradation and unethical labor practices. Opting for ethically produced, durable items not only supports fair labor practices but also promotes environmental sustainability.
Read more:
Consumer culture fuels chemical pollution and slows climate progress
The growing demand for fossil fuel-based chemicals in everyday products is undermining climate goals, increasing pollution and threatening biodiversity, scientists warn.
In short:
- Scientists argue that climate strategies often ignore the fossil fuel industry's shift from energy production to chemical and plastic manufacturing.
- Petrochemicals are used in everything from clothing to medical devices, contributing to chronic diseases, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Experts say reducing consumption, prioritizing essential uses and designing sustainable materials are critical for meaningful change.
Key quote:
“The root of all of our problems that we have as humanity right now is overconsumption.”
— Jane Muncke, Food Packaging Forum
Why this matters:
Fossil fuel companies, facing declining demand for oil and gas in a world shifting toward renewable energy, are ramping up petrochemical production — a move that could cement pollution and emissions for decades to come. Petrochemicals, derived from fossil fuels, are used to produce plastics, fertilizers and synthetic materials that saturate modern life. As countries adopt cleaner energy policies, the industry is leaning into this sector to sustain profits, despite its heavy environmental toll.
Related EHN coverage: Enduring the “endless” expansion of the nation’s petrochemical corridor
Shell’s petrochemical plant in Pennsylvania still hasn’t spurred economic development: Report
The county that’s home to the plant continues to fall behind the rest of the state and the nation in key measures of economic activity, according to a new analysis.
PITTSBURGH — After more than two years in operation, Shell’s petrochemical plant in Pennsylvania has failed to deliver economic growth to the surrounding region, according to a new report.
Western Pennsylvania’s Beaver County, which is home to the plant, is worse off than it was before the Shell plant was announced in terms of jobs, businesses and GDP, according to the report, which was authored by the Ohio River Valley Institute, a progressive nonprofit.
When Shell first proposed its Pennsylvania plastics plant in 2012, state lawmakers gave the company a $1.7 billion subsidy — the largest ever offered by the state at the time — to bring the plant to Beaver County. Lawmakers who supported the subsidy pointed to studies commissioned by Shell that claimed the plant would provide significant economic revitalization to the region.
“If you're a taxpayer in Pennsylvania, you should be asking for a refund right about now because you got robbed,” study co-author Eric de Place said during a press call. “There are hardworking people in that county who deserve better. They deserve better from their elected officials, they deserve better from their business community and they deserve better from the state of Pennsylvania and the legislature that's made these decisions on their behalf.”
This report updates two similar analyses published by the same group in 2021 and 2023, with all three reports relying on data from government agencies including the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The new report includes data for the time period after the Shell plant became operational in late 2022.
According to the report, Beaver County’s GDP has shrunk by more than 12% since 2012, despite double-digit growth in Pennsylvania and the nation, adjusting for inflation.
Credit: Ohio River Valley Institute
The report also found that:
- Beaver County’s population has fallen by nearly 3% despite population growth nationally and statewide.
- Beaver County’s employment has dropped by more than 13%, according to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, while the number of employed people grew in Pennsylvania and the U.S.
- Beaver County has lost business firms and establishments despite business growth nationally and statewide.
In contrast, a 2021 study commissioned by Shell projected that the Shell ethane cracker would bring $260 million to $846 million in annual economic activity in Beaver County, that the plant and the indirect jobs it would create would add between between 777 and 1,444 new jobs for Beaver County residents, and that labor income increases in Beaver County would be between $73 and $120 million, resulting in the addition of $10.3 to $16.7 billion to Beaver County’s economy over 40 years.
Public health costs and advice for lawmakersCredit: Ohio River Valley Institute
Public health costs and advice for lawmakers
Shell’s plant takes fracked ethane gas and turns it into tiny plastic pellets that are ultimately used to make plastic products like bags and packaging. This process emits large volumes of air and water pollutants including volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides. These pollutants are linked to health effects including asthma, heart disease, mental health symptoms, poor birth outcomes, endocrine disruption and cancer.
Residents of Beaver County are bearing the public health costs associated with these emissions. Within six months of starting operations, the plant had exceeded its 12-month emission limit for numerous pollutants. Shell has been fined $10 million dollars by state regulators, about half of which is going toward impacted communities, and is being sued by advocacy groups representing local residents.
Plants like the Shell ethane cracker in Pennsylvania have been proposed throughout the U.S., as fossil fuel companies turn toward plastics production to keep their products in demand amid global decarbonization and the transportation sector’s shift toward renewables.
For example, ExxonMobil is currently seeking tax breaks to construct a similar ethane cracker in Calhoun County, Texas, about two and a half hours southwest of Houston.
“I would urge [Texas lawmakers] to take a hard look at actual economic performance, not marketing hype,” de Place said. “And I would urge them to include ‘clawback’ provisions if the promised results don't materialize.”
Plastics: a health and environmental emergency
Nate Hagens, Leo Trasande, Linda Birnbaum and Christina Dixon take on the plastic pollution crisis: We cannot recycle our way out of this problem.
We toss aside 5.7 million toothpaste tubes, 570,000 cell phones, and 2.3 million pairs of sneakers every hour around the globe. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Plastics production is unsustainable, unhealthy and growing exponentially. Podcaster Nate Hagens brings experts Dr. Leo Trasande, Linda Birnbaum and Christina Dixon together to discuss the impact to our health and environment.
Watch: The Great Simplification video
In short:
- Recycling is "at best, an energy intensive delay" of plastics disposal in the environment.
- Plastics contain thousands of largely untested but likely toxic chemicals
- Those that we know about are associated with nearly all major health problems, from autism and ADHD to infertility and diabetes.