What does plastic pollution look like in Danish nature? 30.000 children and young people in Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands have given us a rare detailed picture of what is actually out there. And something is striking: We hardly find any plastic lids anymore. On the other hand, there are still cigarette butts everywhere. Both products have otherwise been the target of environmental regulation in recent years, so why this difference?

The mass experiment was carried out by Astra in collaboration with the University of Southern Denmark, Roskilde University and the Royal Danish Academy, and is the starting point for the research project Change4Circularity – a sub-project of TRACE, the national partnership for circular economy. In both 2019 and 2024, plastic waste in nature has been mapped as part of the large citizen science project. At the same time, a number of different types of environmental regulation have been implemented in these years with a focus on plastic. By comparing the results, it becomes clear which type of legislation actually has an effect and meets the purpose of avoiding plastic waste in nature.

Cigarette butts took clear first place in the mass experiment as the most found type of waste in both years. In both experiments, cigarette butts thus accounted for approximately one third of all collected plastic pieces. We see the opposite trend for a number of other products, of which significantly more were collected in 2019 compared to 2024. This applies, among others, to plastic straws, plastic lids for drinking bottles and large carrier bags with handles.

It's about proper regulation

The difference is not about coincidences, or that we have started to throw selected plastic products in the trash. It is about how these products are regulated. There is now a legal requirement that plastic lids on drinking bottles must be attached. This means that the lid is no longer dropped or thrown away, but is physically attached to the bottle. Straws have been completely removed from the market, while a minimum price has been introduced for large carrier bags, so that they can no longer be given out for free in stores. The measures mentioned, which include mandatory design requirements, outright bans and financial incentives, therefore appear to be effective in reducing the amount of plastic waste in nature.

When it comes to cigarette butts, however, a completely different path has been chosen. Instead of requiring prevention, the tobacco industry has simply been imposed with a so-called clean-up responsibility. This means that the producers have to pay for the municipalities to collect the butts. Not a word about preventing the butts from ending up in nature in the first place. Not a single incentive to change product design or behavior. The result? Butts and nicotine pouches are still everywhere – from schoolyards and beaches to city squares and parks.

Producer responsibility is an extremely soft form of regulation, and with it we effectively accept that millions of cigarette butts are thrown into the environment every single day as long as someone pays to pick them up afterwards. It is neither effective nor sustainable.

Cigarette butts are among the most widespread forms of waste globally. They contain plastics and chemicals that harm animals, soil and aquatic environments. The fact that they are still everywhere is not due to a lack of attention. It is due to a conscious political decision not to impose requirements for design and prevention, but only 'cleaning up' in the form of an economic desk exercise.

We can do better. The data from the mass experiment shows that targeted regulation works. When we set requirements for product design, use financial incentives and bans, it makes a difference. Therefore, we urge that it is these types of 'tougher' legislation that politicians incorporate into future environmental legislation.

It's time we brought regulation into the 21st century. The environment can't just be vacuumed after the party. We need to prevent the waste from ending up there in the first place.

This debate post was published in Naturmonitor on 30/10 2025.

Senders: 

Lone Hjorth Mikkelsen, Green Transition Denmark,

Malene Høj Mortensen, Plastic Change,

Mette Hoffgaard Ranfelt, Danish Nature Conservation Society

Niels Toftegaard, Circular Industry Association