MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409274871 · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2025.1563488

The knowns and unknowns in our understanding of how plastics impact climate change: a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4409274871 on OpenAlex
Xia Zhu, Justin Konik, Holly Kaufman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Environmental Science · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeEnvironmental scienceBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plastic pollution and climate change are two major environmental issues of this century, with implications for ecosystem health, the economy, and humankind. Plastics have the potential to affect the climate in multiple ways, yet we lack a thorough understanding of what data we have on this phenomenon and where the knowledge gaps are. Here, we conducted a systematic review to assemble knowledge and answer the question: How do plastics impact climate through three major mechanisms–emissions of greenhouse gases across the plastics lifecycle, interference with Earth’s carbon sinks, and interference with Earth’s radiation budget? We searched through all 14 databases in Web of Science for relevant articles, and amended this pool with articles from manual reference searching and expert elicitations. Using rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, including the exclusion of non-peer reviewed studies to minimize risk of bias, we ultimately selected 143 articles for our review - 36 lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions papers, 83 carbon sink papers, and 24 radiation budget papers. Based on current available data, we found that the plastics lifecycle can emit up to two gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per year, with the most emissions being produced at the primary production and product manufacture stages. From existing carbon sink studies, we identified more instances of plastics negatively affecting carbon sequestration than vice versa . From the radiation budget papers, we found that radiative impacts are predominantly cooling in nature. The body of evidence is incomplete and more research is needed to confirm these findings and fill in existing knowledge gaps. Future work should prioritize quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation, consumption, and unmanaged waste stages of the plastics lifecycle. We need more studies that examine the impact of plastics on coastal blue carbon ecosystems and marine carbon sequestration endpoints, and more studies examining the impact of plastics on direct radiative forcing via aerosols, cloud properties, and the albedo/melting rate of surfaces and ice/snow. Immediate action is required to decarbonize the plastics lifecycle, and full accounting of the climate impact of plastics is needed in emissions scenarios, inventories, and climate models across geographies and sectors.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it