While diffusion patterns are quite well understood in the context of the Global North, diffusion research has only been applied to a limited extent to investigate how policies spread across developing countries. In this article, we therefore analyze the diffusion patterns of plastic bag bans and plastic bag taxes in the Global South and Global North to contribute to the further refinement of diffusion theory by specifically addressing the under-researched Global South. Moreover, with an in-depth investigation of plastic bag policies through the lens of diffusion research, the article provides insights in the rather new and still underexplored policy field of plastic pollution. We find that industrialized countries have mostly adopted plastic bag taxes, while developing countries have mainly introduced plastic bag bans and thus more stringent legislation than countries in the Global North. So far, the key driving force for the diffusion of plastic bag policies in the Global North has been the global public pressure. In the Global South, where plastic bag litter is much more visible and harmful due to limited waste collection and recycling rates, national problem pressure has been much more influential.

To address environmental pollution by plastic litter, the European Union adopted EU Directive 2019/904, the so called "Single-Use Plastics Directive" (SUPD), which bans several single-use plastic products and addresses additional items with measures such as extended producer responsibility and obligatory requirements for product redesign. This study assessed the potential of the SUPD to reduce litter pollution in the environment with three scenarios. The "best case" scenario assumed that all measures of the SUPD completely prevent targeted items from getting into the environment. Another scenario assumed that no measures besides bans were effective. An intermediate scenario assumed partial effectiveness of measures. Data of almost 5,000 sampling events from citizen science protocols (Plastic Pirates, International Coastal Cleanup, Marine Litter Watch) and the OSPAR protocol were used to analyse litter at riversides and coastlines in Germany and the European Union. 44 to 68% of litter items in citizen science protocols consisted of single-use plastics (cigarette butts were the most prominent items). At coastlines sampled by the OSPAR protocol, fishing gear and undefined plastics prevailed. The scenario analysis revealed that substantial litter reductions could be achieved in the "best case" scenario (upwards of 40%), while the intermediate scenario resulted in litter reductions of 13 to 25%. The marginal effect of the "only bans" scenario achieved a reduction of 2-6% in Germany and the European Union, respectively. Thus, depending on implementation and enforcement, the current SUPD can be an important first step, yet further legislative actions are needed to effectively prevent plastic waste pollution.

In March 2019, German-speaking scientists and scholars calling themselvesScientists for Future, published a statement in support of the youth protesters in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland(Fridays for Future, Klimastreik/Climate Strike), verifying the scientific evidence that the youth protestors refer to. In this article, they provide the full text of the statement, including the list of supporting facts (in both English and German) as well as an analysis of the results and impacts of the statement. Furthermore, they reflect on the challenges for scientists and scholars who feel a dual responsibility: on the one hand, to remain independent and politically neutral, and, on the other hand, to inform and warn societies of the dangers that lie ahead.

Few other environmental problems have received as much public attention and criticism in recent years as plastic pollution. Accordingly, in recent years, a number of plastic policies have been adopted at the national and supranational level in the EU and worldwide. In the U.S., health risks were repeatedly raised in the decision-making process of these policies and scholars have pointed out the crucial role of these arguments for the adoption of plastic policies. Hence, this article uses a structuring qualitative content analysis to investigate the parliamentary debates of two recently adopted plastic policies in the EU—namely the EU Plastics Strategy and the Single-Use Plastics Directive—and to assess the relevance of public health and environmental arguments for the EU debate. The analysis reveals broad support for plastics regulation among Members of the European Parliament, who most often use environmental arguments to corroborate their support for the policies in question. In contrast, health concerns do not seem to be crucial for the adoption of plastic policies in the EU.

Innovative climate governance in small-to-medium-sized structurally disadvantaged cities (SDCs) are assessed. Considering their deeply ingrained severe economic and social problems it would be reasonable to assume that SDCs act primarily as climate laggards or at best as followers. However, novel empirical findings show that SDCs are capable of acting as climate pioneers. Different types and styles of climate leadership and pioneership and how they operate within multi-level and polycentric governance structures are identified and assessed. SDCs seem relatively readily willing to adopt transformational climate pioneership styles to create ‘green’ jobs, for example, in the offshore wind energy sector and with the aim of improving their poor external image. However, in order to sustain transformational climate pioneership they often have to rely on support from ‘higher’ levels of governance. For SDCs, there is a tension between learning from each other’s best practice and fierce economic competition in climate innovation.