Ed Cook

Research Fellow at the University of Leeds

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@tennesstralia @Cyclical_invest Not quite - about 1.7 million tonnes of plastic collected for recycling in the global north is exported for recycling in the global south. Our modelling suggests that, approximately 300,000 tonnes ends up in the environment .

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@Cyclical_invest Macroplastic emissions take place in the Global South, but #PlasticPollution is a global challenge which we all, have to take responsibility for.
#PlasticsTreaty

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@SDGscameroon I think we agree - d’you think you can take down the inaccurate and misleading post about me please?

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@SDGscameroon We fully agree that we should address the root causes of plastic pollution and reduce damaging exports @SDGscameroon. But to be clear, waste exports represent a very small amount of waste in comparison to uncollected waste which is most of the problem.

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@AzulDotOrg @UniversityLeeds @NatureComms @brkfreeplastic @apover Hello @AzulDotOrg - Our study does not blame anyone as you will see. We are explicit about what is include and what is not and have clearly explained any limitations in our study. We invite you to discuss the findings and offer us a right of reply.
https://t.co/juGOYFqfoM

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@ByNewsIndia Hi there - sorry our study doesn't say that - we do not report on consumption - India has the second highest plastic waste generation in the world, China has the highest. India has the highest macroplastic emissions. Please correct. Best wishes https://t.co/juGOYFqfoM

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@cimidyue Hello @cimidyue - We would urge you to engage in constructive dialogue. If you take some time to read our paper you will see that we have not blamed anyone. https://t.co/juGOYFqfoM - let us know if you have any questions.

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

Hello @scarabtrust - I see that you have posted negative content about our paper whilst blocking comments and preventing a right of reply - You can see in our paper https://t.co/juGOYFqfoM, we have not attributed blame as you suggest.

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

Hello @scarabtrust . We did not deliberately exclude upstream, our model simply doesn't look at it. We're explicit about what's included & urge others to investigate other sub-systems. https://t.co/juGOYFqfoM

https://t.co/zkUHw3yvUf

[THE SCARAB TRUST @scarabtrust]

Study by European University blames Global South for plastic pollution, overlooks the role of plastic industry and waste trade | Break Free From Plastic https://t.co/ZyFBGw95tA

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@therese_my Dunno - last two top-down global models we worked on included MPs - P2O (Lau et al) & OECD plastics outlook - both good but because they tried to incorporate a lot, they have low resolution and accuracy - we use bottom up - more detail, tighter scope, focus on main mass loads. .

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@therese_my Nothing to do with that - this is an MSW model using bottom up data - it is a tremendous effort to make something like this - we have worked on most of the big models - we wanted this one to be more accurate and include more processes so the scope had to be limited somehow.

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@therese_my Yes open burning is counted as an emission - meaning the material mass that is burned, not the emissions from the burning - there is a whole section later about where we got the data from

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@therese_my It is reasonable yes - agree is unethical - we don’t support waste exports at all, - @CostasVelis broke this story years ago with his report about China - still on Greenpeace website.

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@therese_my We didn’t exclude for those reasons - it’s because the model is municipal scale & export data are national - we would have had to ‘allocate’ mass exported to municipalities but we don’t know where it goes - as the mass is small we left it out to avoid more error.

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@therese_my Take a look at SI. 2 paragraphs which explain our rationale. Of 1.7 Mt which we estimate to move from GN to GS, we think 0.3 Mt is ‘emitted’, meaning beyond human controlled systems. Maybe underestimated but even if 3 times as much, it’s small compared to 52Mt emitted worldwide.

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@therese_my Good point - some is industrial but my experience of materials marketing tells me that much is MSW - in our scope it would make it less.

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@therese_my But you have missed the peak @therese_my - since 2017, the trade has reduced substantially, first because of the Chinese import ban, then becasue of the Basel Convention changes and associated reductions in the EU.

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@therese_my Thanks @therese_my - I think we can all agree with this comment. Best wishes and I hope we can try to have a constructive dialogue.

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@therese_my Yup these are all important and thanks for highlighting - we focussed on the main constituents of municipal solid waste. Our previous work with the OECD plastics outlook included all those other categories - interestingly the emissions were less! That's modelling.

[Ed Cook @edrcook]

@therese_my There is connection , but its not about exports. China radically changed its waste policies in years preceding the 2018 import ban. They invested heavily in incineration & waste collection. Imported plastic mass was only ever 8 Mt - not much in context of 250-500 Mt generated