HEADLINE: “Mouthpiece for Green Billionaires: Washington Post Fibs about Microplastics”
“There was a time when environmental journalists at least made an effort to present their coverage in a balanced manner.”
There was a time when environmental journalists at least made an effort to present their coverage in a balanced manner. But that era is a distant memory. Today, ideological reporters at major newspapers often serve as middlemen for activist propaganda, repeating the ominous warnings and speculation of billionaire-funded NGOs without so much as asking a critical question.
The Washington Post provided a textbook example of this agitprop-as-journalism last month, declaring that “Plastic Could Be Warming the Planet More Than We Thought.” The story was based on a report from the Plastics & Climate Project claiming microplastics may exacerbate global warming by disrupting natural carbon cycles.
While the Post article raised a number of alarming concerns about plastics’ environmental impact, it leaned heavily on speculative claims and unproven assumptions. It also overlooked some critical context: global carbon emissions have slowed in recent years, cutting the potential risk posed by microplastics.
Simply put, massive conflicts of interest and the Post’s slanted reporting seriously undercut the allegation that microplastics are accelerating global warming.
Billionaire-funded propaganda
The Post presented the Plastics & Climate Project as an even-handed research organization and its report as a science-based analysis. Neither claim is factual. As the report itself discloses on page 2, “The Plastics & Climate Project is grateful for financial support from the ClimateWorks Foundation.”
ClimateWorks is one of the many fiscal sponsors Firebreak has previously identified. This self-described “pass-through” group helps billionaire foundations quietly funnel cash to NGOs that engage in extreme environmental activism. “Since 2008, ClimateWorks has granted over $2 billion to more than 850 grantees in over 50 countries,” the organization’s website boasts.
ClimateWorks was established in 2007 by six foundations, including the Packard Foundation. Packard has contributed vast sums to activist campaigns and biased journalism commissioned to exaggerate the impacts of climate change. This includes the more than $30 million Packard has donated to ClimateWorks since 2022.
The Plastics & Climate Project report also lists Packard grantee Monterey Bay Aquarium as an advisor. The Aquarium is run by Julie Packard and has received over $100 million from her family’s foundation since 2022. Judith Enck, president of the Michael Bloomberg-funded Beyond Plastics, is likewise listed as an advisor in the report. Meanwhile, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), a legal outfit that sues energy companies and trains judges who preside over the litigation, co-authored the report.
To make matters worse, Post reporter Nicolás Rivero was a fellow of the Knight Foundation, yet another wealthy philanthropy that has spent some $8 million to help translate “research into resiliency storytelling” about climate change. Put another way, the Post is part of the well-funded climate activism operation its covering as a news outlet.
These financial conflicts demonstrate that the Plastics & Climate Project is hardly an objective group of scientists reporting the facts about microplastics. They exist to advance the policy goals of ideological billionaires who pay their salaries, with a helping hand from The Washington Post.
Shaky assumptions
Financial conflicts are just the beginning of the problems with this report. The Plastics & Climate Project’s analysis speculates that microplastics in oceans and soil could disrupt carbon sequestration processes, such as the ocean’s biological carbon pump. The report argues that microplastics may interfere with phytoplankton and zooplankton, reducing their ability to lock carbon in “marine snow” that sinks to the seafloor. It also speculates that microplastics in air and clouds could alter reflectivity or cloud formation, potentially affecting climate.
However, the Post admits these claims are based on essentially no evidence. “Only five studies have scientifically tested this idea” the paper acknowledges, “and they’ve reached conflicting conclusions,” with “not enough evidence to say whether the overall effect would warm or cool the planet.” This concession undermines the report’s central thesis.
The report’s curious assumptions are further highlighted by its discussion of methane emissions from degrading plastics. The Post cites studies suggesting plastics release methane under sunlight but acknowledges these emissions are “negligible.” Despite this limitation, the report calls for more research, implying a larger impact without substantiating the risk in the first place.
Balance, what balance?
The Post’s framing also largely ignores the plastics industry’s perspective, which it briefly mentions but quickly dismisses. Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers, argues that plastics reduce emissions in applications like lightweight vehicles, renewable energy components, and food preservation. Of course, the Post has been a vocal champion of “renewable energy.” We’re not sure how the paper justifies its loud complaints about plastics and advocates for solar and wind applications that require extensive plastic use.
The report likewise sidesteps studies showing plastics can have lower lifecycle emissions than alternatives like glass or metal, which require more energy to produce and transport. Indeed, a 2024 study, almost entirely neglected by the press, shows that plastics’ CO2 emissions are up to 90 percent lower than other materials in 15 out of 16 applications. Surely this staggering finding alters the climate impact of plastics, but the Post is unlikely to explain that awkward detail to its readers.
Carbon emissions slowing
Crucially, the Post article fails to contextualize microplastics’ climate impact against the backdrop of moderating global carbon emissions. “...[E]missions are seeing a structural slowdown,” the International Energy Agency (IEA) observes. “In the decade to 2023, global emissions grew slightly more than 0.5% per year, the slowest rate since the Great Depression.” Globally, CO2 crept back up in 2024; however, “total CO2 emissions have largely plateaued over the past decade,” climate scientists Zeke Hausfather and Pierre Friedlingstein concluded in a recent Carbon Brief report.
This slowdown– driven by improved energy efficiency and America’s natural gas boom – shrinks the “carbon budget” microplastics might consume, making their speculative impact less significant. The Post claims that plastic production accounts for five percent of global CO2 emissions, but this figure is less notable with overall emissions slowing. Plastics’ share is likely smaller today as a result.
In any case, microplastics’ incremental effect – based on the report’s own admission of “negligible” methane and unproven carbon cycle disruption – is marginal. The “evidence for the impacts of plastics on carbon cycle endpoints or processes is not always clear,” the Plastics & Climate Project concedes on page 21 of its report.
Data changes, Activist conclusions never do
Two things are clear at this point. First, the evidence in no way supports the Plastics & Climate Project’s fantastical claims about global warming. The research that does exist is limited and contradictory, undermining any radical proposals to restrict plastic use because of microplastics.
More importantly, the foundations and activists behind this report don’t care. They manipulate scientific evidence until it conforms to their ideological goals. The Washington Post, which should be exposing this misbehavior, is actively facilitating it. Dare we say the real crisis isn’t trace amounts of plastics in the environment, but reporters who’ve forgotten how to do their jobs.
BOTTOMLINE: “More importantly, the foundations and activists behind this report don’t care. They manipulate scientific evidence until it conforms to their ideological goals. The Washington Post, which should be exposing this misbehavior, is actively facilitating it. Dare we say the real crisis isn’t trace amounts of plastics in the environment, but reporters who’ve forgotten how to do their jobs.”