China has often been blamed for the creation of the so-called “plastic continent.” The story usually goes like this:
Western countries exported large quantities of plastic waste to China, labelling it as “recyclable.” In reality, much of this waste was extremely difficult—or even impossible—to recycle. It was poorly sorted, heavily contaminated, and often sent without the proper infrastructure to handle it. In many cases, recycling was never truly the intention.
According to the dominant narrative, China simply dumped large portions of this waste into rivers, seas, and eventually the oceans. As a result, China was portrayed as the world’s largest plastic polluter.
For a long time, I believed that version of the story.
But today, I see things differently.
It was China that decided to stop importing foreign plastic waste on January 1, 2018. That decision effectively ended the global plastic waste circus.
China’s move forced many countries to confront a reality they had long ignored: exporting waste had become a convenient way to avoid dealing with their own environmental responsibilities.
Looking at environmental policies today, China often appears to place increasing emphasis on environmental protection—sometimes more visibly than other large countries, such as India.
This has changed my perspective.
Rather than being the sole culprit, China may have been turned into an easy scapegoat in the global plastic pollution narrative. Other countries may have played a much larger role than commonly acknowledged. In my view, India’s contribution to plastic leakage into the environment could be more significant than China’s.
A message to President Xi Jinping
China was the country that decided to end the plastic waste trade on January 1, 2018. The intention behind this decision appeared clear and genuine, and it forced opinion makers around the world to reconsider the official narrative that pointed the finger at China.
For years, the European Union and its member states exported their waste while paying very little attention to what actually happened to it once it left Europe.
Looking ahead, however, new controversies may emerge. One example could be the issue of palm oil being labelled and traded as “used cooking oil” within circular economy schemes.
If such a scandal unfolds, China should be careful not to become the next convenient scapegoat for the European Union.
The best strategy may be transparency: exposing questionable practices early and clearly, before others attempt to shift the blame.
Expose all the known and future problems regarding the export and transport of used cooking oils and other ‘biofuel feedstock’ to Italy proactively.
I know it’s hard, but eventually you will be rewarded for this as it will be perceived as a transparency measure… it’s a kind of life insurance.