Will Countries Finally Agree to an Effective Treaty to Tackle Plastic Pollution?
Swarms of petrochemical industry lobbyists, and some major oil producing nations, refuse to accept limits on plastic production.
As world governments meet in Geneva for the Global Plastic Treaty talks, Greenpeace activists create a symbolic trail of black oil and hang massive banners on the entrance of the Palais des Nations to call out the undue influence of the fossil fuel industry in the negotiations. The action highlights attempts by fossil fuel lobbyists and oil producing states to prevent countries agreeing to cut plastic production as a core part of the new treaty. Credit: © Samuel Schalch / Greenpeace
This week national delegates are supposed to finalize and wrap up negotiations on a legally binding global instrument to combat plastic pollution, also known as a Global Plastics Treaty. The second round of the fifth negotiating session is currently taking place in Geneva, Switzerland and is scheduled to conclude on August 14. Whether the end result will produce an ambitious agreement that addresses the serious human health, environmental justice, and climate impacts of the full plastics life cycle and includes restrictions on plastic production, however, remains an open question.
Development of an international framework to tackle the global plastics crisis has been underway for years, with formal negotiations involving UN member states commencing in 2022. Inger Andersen, head of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), has described the plastics treaty as the most important multilateral environmental agreement since the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015. And while often siloed as separate issues, the climate crisis and the plastics crisis are actually interconnected, with fossil fuels as their common root cause.
Just as coal, oil, and gas are fueling what scientists say is now a climate emergency, they also are driving a proliferation of plastic that inevitably pollutes the environment and our bodies since plastic waste mostly cannot be recovered or recycled. Plastics are fossil fuels in another form. The material is derived from petroleum feedstocks, and it contains thousands of other additives and chemicals, many of which pose hazards to our health. These chemicals are also a main reason why plastic cannot be readily recycled. Despite promises from the plastics industry that recycling is the only viable solution to the plastic pollution problem, evidence suggests that it cannot address this problem at scale – the recycling rate is less than 10 percent.
Still, petrochemical industry lobbyists and some countries, particularly petrostates, insist that any global plastics solution must prioritize recycling and waste management – not cuts to production.
“The plastics industry has been engaged from the start of these negotiations, and our companies are investing billions in sustainability, recycling infrastructure, advanced technologies, and circular design to keep materials in use and out of the environment,” Matt Seaholm, president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association, said in a statement. “The path forward must focus on scaling modern recycling systems, accelerating new technologies, and supporting private-sector solutions.”
The inclusion of language around caps on production and restrictions on single-use plastics has become a key sticking point in the treaty negotiations. Over 100 countries have backed production curbs, but major fossil fuel and plastic-producing countries have refused to accept measures addressing the upstream plastics supply.
The United States under the previous (Biden) administration did support addressing plastics supply, but now it has reversed its position and is not willing to accept limits on production. The US is still participating in the negotiations under the Trump administration, though it appears to be playing an obstructionist role in urging countries to reject any text that includes production caps.
Industry Lobbyists Infiltrate in Record Numbers
The treaty negotiations are also facing intense pressure from industry lobbyists, which have infiltrated the latest intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) session in record numbers. According to an analysis from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), at least 234 fossil fuel and chemical industry representatives have registered for the session in Geneva, outnumbering all delegates from the EU and outnumbering scientists that are part of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastic Treaty by nearly four to one.
Civil society advocates say the swarm of industry lobbyists is particularly problematic because their job is to throw up roadblocks and ensure that the final agreement that gets adopted does not address the source of the plastic pollution problem, which is rampant plastic production.
“Many of these companies are facing legal scrutiny over their role in the climate crisis. After decades of obstruction in the climate negotiations, why would anyone think that they would suddenly show up in good faith in the Plastics Treaty talks? Involving the very corporations that profit from harm in shaping the path forward guarantees one thing: a treaty that protects their bottom line, not the public or the planet,” said Ximena Banegas, Global Plastics and Petrochemicals Campaigner with CIEL.
“Each round of negotiations brings more oil and gas lobbyists into the room. Fossil fuel and petrochemical giants are polluting the negotiations from the inside, and we’re calling on the UN to kick them out,” said Graham Forbes, global plastics campaign lead at Greenpeace USA. “Governments must not let a handful of backwards looking fossil fuel companies override the clear call from all of civil society – including Indigenous Peoples, frontline communities, youth activists and many responsible businesses – demanding a strong agreement that cuts plastic production.”
The head of the UN – Secretary General António Guterres – also has called for an ambitious agreement that gets at the very root of the plastics crisis. “We need a fair deal that tackles the full life-cycle of plastics, reflects the [ICJ] Advisory Opinion on Climate Change & supports a shift away from fossil fuels,” he wrote in a recent social media post.
The ICJ climate change advisory opinion confirmed that countries have legal obligations to prevent significant harm to the climate system and suggested that supporting continued fossil fuel activities could be unlawful under international law. And since plastics are made from fossil fuels, ramping up plastics production could potentially be considered to conflict with countries’ legal obligations on climate.
Plastics contribute to greenhouse gas emissions at every stage of their lifecycle, and their full impact on climate may be underestimated as they also may impact carbon sequestration and Earth’s radiation budget. Plastics are projected to surpass coal plants in the US in terms of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and if it were a country the plastics industry would be the world’s fifth biggest emitter of climate pollution.
Yet the plastics treaty text is currently silent when it comes to the climate impact of plastics. “Despite plastics' significant climate impacts, climate is not mentioned in the draft plastics treaty text. This oversight must be rectified,” said Holly Kaufman, co-founder and director of the Plastics & Climate Project and a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute.
But if the fossil fuel lobbyists have their way, the treaty likely will not speak to plastics’ massive climate impact nor will it include caps on production, just as the Paris Climate Agreement failed to even mention fossil fuels despite the fact that they are the core driver of the climate change problem.
“Plastics are now the focus of attention for the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries,” said Kim Pratt with Friends of the Earth El Salvador. “These transnational corporations don't care about sacrificing public health, communities, the environment and climate stability for the sake of economic profit. Their lobbyists are approaching the Plastics Treaty negotiations with the same determination they bring to UN climate negotiations, determined to push false solutions and continue their role as the architects of multiple crises.”