Accumulation of plastic waste is a global issue, and plastic particles are detected in different environments. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has been attributed to significant piling up of plastic waste and debris (including micro- and nano-sized plastic particles), yet the manufacturing of plastic products is still expected to grow. With the continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, the use and disposal of plastics has resulted in increasing plastic pollution. There has been a lack of research into the effects of climate change on microplastics and, likewise, the effects of microplastics on climate change. This article aims to examine the pros and cons of sustainable alternatives to plastics in addressing the climate change issue. Special attention is devoted to the correlation between climate change and microplastic pollution. This perspective also serves to spawn ideas for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions caused by plastics by identifying the life cycle stages of plastic production.

We reviewed economic and environmental studies on global plastic pollution and we estimate the global cost of actions toward zero plastic pollution in all countries by 2040 to be US$ 18.3–158.4 trillion (cost of a 47% reduction of plastic production included). If no actions are undertaken, we estimate the cost of damages caused by plastic pollution from 2016 to 2040 to be US$ 13.7–281.8 trillion. These ranges suggest it is possible that the costs of inaction are significantly higher than those of action. Plastic product sales will also generate a global benefit in the form of incomes (salaries, dividends etc.) estimated to be US$ 38.0 trillion over 2016–2040 in the case of inaction, and US$ 32.7–33.1 trillion in case of action. Calculating benefit minus costs provides the net benefits: US$ −120.4 to 19.7 trillion in case of action and US$ −243.8 to 24.3 trillion in case of inaction. Net benefit ranges suggest action and inaction will both be beneficial when considering the high estimates. However, the low estimates show net benefits might be negative, which suggests inaction might generate a net cost for society that will be twice the cost of action. Our estimates are preliminary (several cost and benefit data are lacking).

Waste generation and subsequent plastic pollution pose a major threat to both human and environmental health. Furthering our understanding of waste at individual levels can inform future waste reduction strategies, education and policies. This study explores the components and perceptions among individuals using survey data combined with a mini-review. An online Qualtrics survey was distributed pre-COVID-19 following a global social media challenge, Futuristic February, which directed participants to collect their nonperishable waste during February 2020. Participants were asked about their waste generation, perceptions toward waste and plastic pollution issues, and environmental worldview using the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale (n = 50). We also conducted a mini-review of eight waste and plastic pollution statements from our survey in both popular media and scientific journal articles. Survey results indicated participants had an overall pro-ecological worldview (M = 4.32, SD = 0.88) and reported cardboard and paper (66%) as the most commonly occurring nonperishable waste category. Across categories, food packaging was the most common waste type. Participants were most uncertain about statements focusing on bioplastic or biodegradable plastic, respectively (44% and 30%), while the statement on microplastic toxicity obtained 100% mild or strong agreement among participants. Uncertainty for reviewed statements varied depending on the topic and group. Popular media and scholarly articles did not always agree, possibly due to differences in communication of uncertainty or terminology definitions. These results can inform future policy and educational campaigns around topics of misinformation.

Mitochondria are unique organelles to perform critical functions such as energy production, lipid oxidation, calcium homeostasis, and steroid hormone synthesis in eukaryotic cells. The proper functioning of mitochondria is crucial for cellular survival, homeostasis, and bioenergetics. Mitochondrial structure and function are maintained by the mitochondrial quality control system, which consists of the processes of mitochondrial biogenesis, mitochondrial dynamics (fusion/fission), mitophagy, and mitochondrial unfolded protein response UPRMT. Mitochondrial dysfunction and/or damage is associated with the initiation and progression of several human diseases, including neurodegenerative, cardiovascular, age-related diseases, diabetes, and cancer. Environmental stress and contaminants may exacerbate the sensitivity of mitochondria to damage which causes mitochondrial dysfunction. There is growing evidence about the impact of nanoplastics (NPs) and microplastics (MPs) on mitochondrial health and function. MPs/NPs were reported to trigger oxidative stress and reactive oxygen species production, which eventually change mitochondrial membrane potential. MPs/NPs can cross through the biological barriers in the human body and be internalized by the cells, potentially altering mitochondrial dynamics, bioenergetics, and signaling pathways, thus impacting cellular metabolism and function. This review states the effects of MPs/NPs on mitochondrial homeostasis and function as well as on mitochondrial membrane dynamics, mitophagy, and mitochondrial apoptosis are discussed.