Plastic pollution is more than an environmental crisis—it’s an economic burden that cities, counties and states are forced to bear. Local governments spend millions annually managing plastic waste, dealing with landfill overflow and addressing the environmental and public health consequences of microplastics. Yet, for decades, the plastics industry has promoted the illusion of recycling, shifting responsibility away from the manufacturers and onto municipalities. Now, public entities are pushing back.
The Recycling Myth: Why It’s Failing Public Entities
Despite decades of public awareness campaigns and recycling initiatives, only 5-6% of plastic in the U.S. is actually recycled. The reason? Plastic recycling is largely economically and logistically unfeasible:
- Incompatibility: Most plastics cannot be recycled together due to differences in chemical composition and color, requiring costly sorting processes.
- Degradation: Unlike glass or metal, plastic degrades each time it is recycled, limiting its market viability.
- Economic Disincentives: Virgin plastic is cheaper to produce than recycled plastic, making true recycling financially unviable.
As a result, 91% of plastic waste is either landfilled, incinerated, or pollutes ecosystems. Meanwhile, public entities are left footing the bill. Imagine a garbage truck unloading plastic into our oceans every minute—sounds like a bad joke, but it’s our reality.
The Financial Impact on Cities, Counties and States
Plastic waste is not just an environmental issue—it’s a budgetary crisis for local governments. Managing plastic waste imposes direct and indirect financial burdens:
- Direct Costs: Plastic makes up 7-12% of municipal solid waste, requiring extensive spending on waste collection, landfill space, litter cleanup and recycling facility maintenance.
- Indirect Costs: Plastic pollution diminishes property values, harms tourism revenue and contributes to urban blight.
- Global Context: Municipalities worldwide spend over $32 billion annually on plastic waste management, with rising costs due to international restrictions on plastic waste exports.
Deceptive Practices: How the Plastics Industry Misled the Public
For decades, the plastics industry promoted recycling as the solution to plastic waste—despite knowing it was never viable. According to the Center for Climate Integrity, internal industry documents reveal that manufacturers were aware of recycling’s limitations but deliberately misled the public to avoid regulation and liability.
We’ve all heard ‘Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,’ but it turns out the plastics industry might have been more into catchy slogans than actual solutions. Now, the industry is shifting its messaging to so-called “advanced recycling,” which is often just incineration rebranded, emitting harmful pollutants and exacerbating climate change. The latest buzzword is ‘advanced recycling,’ which sounds impressive until you realize it’s often just greenwashing in disguise.
Legal Accountability: A Path Forward for Public Entities
Much like litigation against Big Tobacco and opioid manufacturers, public entities are now pursuing legal action against the plastic industry. Lawsuits are being filed based on various legal theories, including:
- Public Nuisance: Holding manufacturers accountable for the widespread environmental and economic damage caused by plastic pollution.
- Product Liability: Arguing that plastics were knowingly marketed as recyclable when they are not.
- Consumer Fraud: Challenging deceptive marketing practices that misled the public and policymakers.
- Anti-Littering & Environmental Laws: Enforcing existing regulations to recover cleanup and mitigation costs.
Several high-profile cases are already in progress:
- City of Baltimore v. Pepsico, et al. (seeking compensation for plastic waste management costs)
- New York v. Pepsico, et al. (targeting plastic pollution in waterways)
- California v. ExxonMobil (holding petrochemical producers accountable for the myth of plastic recycling)
What This Means for Public Entities
Engaging in plastic litigation is about more than financial recovery—it’s about shifting responsibility back to those who created the crisis. By taking legal action, public entities can:
- Recover funds spent on plastic waste management.
- Hold major polluters accountable for deceptive practices.
- Promote long-term environmental and public health benefits for communities.
Many cities lack the in-house resources to manage complex litigation. In cases like plastic pollution lawsuits, partnering with specialized counsel allows City Attorneys’ offices to pursue legal action effectively without overburdening their existing staff.
Conclusion: The Time to Act is Now
Public entities are at a crossroads. With mounting costs, growing environmental risks and clear evidence of industry deception, litigation offers a powerful tool for change. By joining this legal effort, cities, counties and states can help turn the tide on plastic pollution—ensuring that the true cost of plastic waste is paid by those who profit from it, not the taxpayers who bear the burden.
For more insights, you can refer to the original blog post here: The Case for Plastics Litigation: Why Local Jurisdictions Must Take Action.
Authors:
-
Britt Strottman, Partner at Singleton Schreiber
-
Megan Stedtfeld, Counsel at Singleton Schreiber
For more information on how your city or county can get involved in plastics litigation, contact Singleton Schreiber LLP or Kanner & Whiteley, L.L.C.