Breaking the Plastic Wave, the most detailed global model of plastic pollution, found that reducing plastic is the most attractive option economically, often a net saving, while substituting other materials costs the most.
- Authors / organisation
- Pew Charitable Trusts and Systemiq
- Year
- 2020
- Journal or publisher
- Pew Charitable Trusts and Systemiq (report); companion paper in Science
- Study type
- Model / projection
- Evidence strength
- Evidence: High
- Sample / scope
- Global plastic system model, 2021–2040, with uncertainty ranges
- Key finding
- Reduction levers are the most economically attractive, often a net saving; substitution is the most expensive option. System Change saves governments US$70 billion in waste-management costs versus business as usual.
- Headline number
- Reducing plastic is often a net saving; substitution costs the most
- Caveats / how it is misquoted
- Modelled. The US$70 billion saving is to governments' waste-management budgets, not to businesses, and middle- and low-income countries pay more under the scenario.
- Open access
- Yes
- Verified on
- 23 September 2026
Pew Charitable Trusts and Systemiq modelled plastic flows and costs worldwide from 2021 to 2040, with a peer-reviewed companion paper in Science (Lau and colleagues, 2020).
Their conclusion on money: measures that reduce plastic use, such as eliminating unnecessary packaging and switching to reuse, are the most attractive from an economic perspective and often a net saving. Substituting paper or compostable materials for plastic is the most expensive option. Across the whole system, their ‘System Change’ scenario cost governments US$70 billion less in waste management than business as usual (US$600 billion against US$670 billion over 2021–2040, in today’s money), with capital investment falling from US$2.5 trillion to US$1.2 trillion.
Why it matters for organisations: the cheapest plastic is the plastic you never buy. Start by removing and reusing; treat material swaps as the last step, not the first.
