Global plastic pollution, sustainable development, and plastic justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Plastic pollution (including macro, micro, and nanoplastic) is deleterious to sustainable development and the achievement of the SDGs, though there are few observed indicators that can help us monitor progress. • There are shifting contours in the global plastic waste trade industry that are changing the main actors and increasing the need for regulatory oversight; North-South dynamics are instrumental but local policy development is important. • A global and holistic approach to the entire lifecycle of plastics is needed in support of the sustainable development agenda; however, many research gaps need filling. • Plastic pollution is a human rights and environmental justice issue; “plastic justice” can serve as a normative framework to help us understand the issue. This review article examines the current state of plastic waste and pollution, in particular in the form of marine litter, as it affects the goal of sustainable development and is affected by global North-South dynamics. The rise in plastic waste has had a deleterious effect on local populations and ecosystems, and remains a problem with numerous governance challenges, posing constraints to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This crisis is analyzed under the lens of global North-South dynamics, as the consequences for different nations differ in regard to their capacity to cope with waste, and other inequality issues. China’s decision to stop serving as the world’s central recycling location has pushed plastic waste exports into other Asian countries, and COVID-19 responses have utilized large quantities of plastic products. However, localized initiatives that involve non-governmental actors are making some headway in countries such as Brazil. This review article introduces the problem, examines extant literature linking plastic pollution with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, offers a brief Brazilian case study of a coordinated response, outlines key research gaps and needs, and articulates the concept of plastic justice as a progressive normative design and framework for further analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".