

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"With just days remaining, the dynamic must change," said Break Free From Plastic. "Countries must keep their commitment to end plastic pollution."
As the final negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty reached the halfway point on Saturday, delegates entering the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland for the day's talks were met by more than 200 campaigners representing civil society groups who stood in silence along the path leading to the United Nations building—but nonetheless sent a clear message.
The civil society observers displayed signs in multiple languages, urging negotiators at the second plenary of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to "fix the process" and keep their promises to drastically reduce plastic waste and toxic chemicals in plastic products.
Achieving goals like banning single-use plastics, capping plastic production, and imposing regulations on harmful additives within the treaty will be impossible, campaigners have warned, if the biggest plastic-producing countries like the United States are permitted to lobby for a weaker treaty and if fossil fuel industry lobbyists continue to overpower anti-pollution advocates at the talks.
"People worldwide have made it clear: They support decisive action to cut plastic production, consumption, and pollution," said the Break Free From Plastic movement in a statement Friday. "A majority of governments have endorsed these demands, yet negotiations are stalling with a small group of petro- and plastic-producing states deploying delay tactics, with no sign that they intend to raise ambition."
"With just days remaining, the dynamic must change," said the group. "Countries must keep their commitment to end plastic pollution. They must use every tool available to deliver a strong treaty—one that includes legally binding rules on production and chemicals, uplifts real solutions, safeguards human rights, and protects frontline communities."
The talks began earlier this week, with negotiators tasked with forging a legally binding treaty to restrict plastic pollution, following a 2022 agreement that was reached as the result of a proposal from Rwandan and Peruvian officials. The first round of talks, which were supposed to end with a treaty, stalled last December after plastic-producing countries refused to cap production. More than 100 countries at the negotiations agreed to a plastic production limit.
As with fossil fuel emissions, many countries in the Global South are not major producers of plastic waste—but the U.S. exports more than 1 billion pounds of plastic waste to low-income countries each year.
The climate action group Greenpeace has warned that fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumber experts on the impact of pollution 4-to-1 at the negotiations in Geneva, and are joining oil- and plastic-producing countries in continuing to push for a treaty that focuses on downstream measures they claim will address pollution, such as improving recycling systems.
As Common Dreams reported Thursday, the Trump administration has called on countries participating in the talks to reject "impractical" terms within the treaty, such as plastic production caps, bans, or restrictions on certain additives to plastic products.
Scientists believe that less than 10% of plastic products ever get recycled, despite the efforts of individuals to recycle their products.
Katie Drews, national director of the U.S.-based Alliance for Mission-Based Recycling (AMBR), said Friday that "recycling is essential, but it cannot solve the plastics crisis," which must be stopped "at its source."
"Without binding caps on plastic production, bans on toxic chemicals, and global mandates to design packaging for safety, reuse, and real recyclability, downstream solutions will continue to be overwhelmed and communities will continue to pay the price," said Drews. "AMBR stands with scientists, health professionals, youth, frontline and fenceline communities, Indigenous peoples, waste pickers, and mission-driven allies worldwide in urging governments to act. We need a treaty that truly protects human and environmental health, one that goes beyond words to bold, enforceable action."
Advocates' concerns are backed up by a study published in The Lancet this week, which said that without far-reaching efforts to stop more plastic from being produced, "production is on track to nearly triple by 2060."
As campaigners and scientists have worked towards a Global Plastics Treaty since 2022, companies like Dow, Shell, and ExxonMobil have only been ramping up their production of plastic, expanding their capacity by 1.4 million tons. Just seven petrochemical giants have sent a combined 70 lobbyists to the talks, which are scheduled to wrap up on August 14.
"The more we produce, the more we pollute," said Jules Vagner, president of the French group Objectif Zéro Plastique. "Opposing binding targets to reduce plastic production is, in practice, choosing to let pollution continue and worse, accelerate. We do not want another treaty that manages waste. We want one that ends pollution at the source."
"If some countries are unwilling to rise to this historic moment, they should step aside," said Vagner. "Not block global progress. We want a world free from plastic pollution, not one that adapts to it."
"Despite the majority support of promising proposals for global product and chemical bans, the latest draft treaty text offers nothing of use," one advocate said.
As negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty enter their final stretch in Busan, South Korea, environmental and human rights advocates warned Friday that national delegates are "sleepwalking into a treaty that will not be worth the paper it will be written on."
The current treaty draft text, shared with delegates on Friday, excludes key civil society demands, such as a clear and binding limit on plastic production and a ban or phaseout of the most dangerous plastics and chemicals.
"Despite the majority support of promising proposals for a strong and binding treaty on plastic pollution, what we have currently in this text is far from what we need," Erin Simon, WWF vice president and head of plastic waste and business, said in a statement.
"A weak treaty based on voluntary measures will break under the weight of the plastic crisis and will lock us into an endless cycle of unnecessary harm."
A majority of the countries gathered for the fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to advance a plastics treaty supports bans on the most dangerous plastics and chemicals, binding rules on production design to ease a transition toward a circular economy, sufficient financial support to make the treaty a reality, and a robust mechanism to strengthen the treaty over time. They are backed by nearly 3 million people in more than 182 countries who signed a petition ahead of the last round of negotiations calling for an ambitious treaty.
Since negotiations began on November 25, however, progress has been stymied by oil-and-gas-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia, which called capping plastic production a red line, according to The Associated Press. At the same time, plastics industry lobbyists together make up the largest single delegation at the talks.
"It's very simple: To end plastic pollution we need to reduce plastic production," Simon said. "To do that we need binding global bans on specific harmful plastic products and chemicals. Despite the majority support of promising proposals for global product and chemical bans, the latest draft treaty text offers nothing of use."
In order to bridge the gap on limiting plastics production before negotiations conclude on Sunday or Monday, Panama put forward a proposal on Thursday that would not set a numerical plastics production limit at this time, but would entrust signatories to do so at a later meeting. This proposal was backed by over 100 countries and was included in the draft text shared on Friday, alongside an option to eliminate the article on production.
Juan Carlos Monterrey, the head of Panama's delegation, saw the inclusion of the country's proposal as a step in the right direction.
"This is great! This is great," Monterrey told the AP. "It is a big show of force, of muscle, for those countries that are ambitious. And also this shows that consensus is still possible."
However, Monterey acknowledged to Reuters that his offering was a compromise.
"Most of the countries... came here with the idea of including a numeric target (of plastic reduction), but... we have put forth a proposal that not only crosses but stomped our own red lines... So we're seeking all the other delegations that have not moved a centimeter to... meet us halfway."
Environmental advocates and civil society groups warn that delegates should not chase consensus at the expense of ambition.
Graham Forbes, who leads Greenpeace's delegation, told the AP that the draft was a "weak attempt to force us to reach a conclusion and get a treaty for treaty's sake," though he considered the inclusion of Panama's proposal the one bright spot in the text.
In addition to the question of binding production limits, another sticking point is a ban on particularly harmful plastics and additives, which currently has not made it into the treaty language.
"What we have right now isn't a treaty with common rules at all. It's a list of measures so broad that they're effectively meaningless," WWF's Simon explained. "For example, we don't have bans, we have suggestions. We have lists of products and chemicals but no one is compelled to do anything of substance with them. Without political will to bind those articles, we would have zero chance of ending the plastic crisis, which is what we came to Busan to do."
Some countries as well as plastics industry representatives argue that the treaty is not the proper vehicle to regulate chemicals.
"At this point the progressive majority has a decision to be made," Simon argued. "Agree to a treaty among the willing even if that means leaving some countries that don't want a strong treaty or concede to countries that will likely never join the treaty anyway, failing the planet in the process."
WWF's global plastics policy lead Eirik Lindebjerg added: "We are calling on countries to not accept the low level of ambition reflected in this draft as it does not contain any specific upstream measures such as global bans on high risk plastic products and chemicals of concern supported by the majority of countries. Without these measures the treaty will fail to meaningfully address plastic pollution. High ambition countries must ensure that these measures are part of the final treaty text or develop an ambitious treaty among the willing."
On Friday, a coalition of observing civil society groups held a press conference in which they issued a statement making a final call for an ambitious treaty.
"Contrary to their excuses, ambitious countries have the power and the pathways to forge a treaty to end the global plastic crisis," the statement, signed by groups including WWF, Greenpeace, Break Free From Plastic, and Friends of the Earth, said. "What we are severely lacking right now, however, is the determination of our leaders to do what is right and to fight for the treaty they promised the world two years ago."
It continued: "A weak treaty based on voluntary measures will break under the weight of the plastic crisis and will lock us into an endless cycle of unnecessary harm. The clear demand from impacted communities and the overwhelming majority of citizens, scientists, and businesses for binding global rules across the entire lifecycle is irrefutable."
The signatories also said that ambitious nations should be willing to walk away and craft their own, stronger treaty rather than compromise on a weak document.
"In these final throes of negotiations, we need governments to show courage. They must not compromise under pressure exerted by a small group of low-ambition states and hinge the life of our planet on unachievable consensus," they concluded. "We demand a strong treaty that protects our health and the health of future generations."
"This plastic crisis is rooted in the overproduction of single-use plastics, building for us and future generations a very toxic legacy," said one Indonesian youth activist.
With the fifth and final round of global plastics treaty negotiations set to begin Monday in Busan, South Korea, an estimated 1,500 people took to the city's streets and nearly 3 million more signed a petition calling for a legally binding pact "to drastically reduce production and use, and protect human health and the environment."
The Saturday march at the Busan Exhibition and Convention Center was led by the global Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) movement and local allies from the Uproot Plastics Coalition. They want the treaty to include targets to slash production.
"Mandatory targets to reduce plastic production are essential to combat the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and toxic pollution," BFFP's Semee Rhee said in a statement. "Failure to check the untrammeled production of primary plastic polymers would mean allowing the plastic pollution crisis to persist and perpetuate social and environmental injustices for generations to come."
Indonesia youth activist Aeshnina Azzahra Aqilani stressed that "this plastic crisis is rooted in the overproduction of single-use plastics, building for us and future generations a very toxic legacy. Waste created today will poison all children and the planet through toxic plastic emission and microplastic exposure along the plastic life cycle."
"Safeguard the health and survival of future generations by advocating for a legally binding global plastic treaty—a treaty that encompasses ambitious goals for a reduction in plastic production, with accountability placed on corporations for reuse and refill solutions in its place," the campaigner urged. "The world is watching. The future is waiting. Make the right decision."
The first session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) was held two years ago in Uruguay. Since then, there have been meetings in France, Kenya, and Canada. The latest lobbyist-dominated round of talks concluded in April with no clear path to curbing production, which civil society and frontline groups have argued is a "nonnegotiable" component of the treaty.
The Busan meeting is scheduled to run from Monday through next weekend, on the heels of the United Nations climate summit that just wrapped up after running into overtime in Baku, Azerbaijan. Plastic production is not only a waste problem but also a contributor to the climate emergency, because 99% of it is made from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels.
"As the host country of INC-5 and the world's fourth-largest producer of plastic raw materials, the South Korean government bears a significant responsibility in addressing plastic pollution," said Sammy Yu of Green Korea United. "Despite its passive stance during INC-4, the Korean government must take a decisive position on 'reducing production' at the fifth round of negotiations and advocate for it strongly."
"Moreover, negotiations are not confined to the conference room," Yu asserted. "To effectively push for a production reduction stance in these discussions, the government must first restore its domestic resource circulation policies, which have regressed over the past two years, and align them with its negotiation position."
Sunryul Kim of Greenpeace Seoul office said that "the people are speaking with one voice, demanding that the negotiators ensure that the plastics treaty will ensure cuts in production and end single-use plastic."
"We are at the most critical part of creating this agreement and what will come out of this negotiation will affect our future for generations to come," Kim continued. "As the host country and a member of High Ambition Coalition (HAC), the South Korean government must listen to its citizens and lead the way for strong production reduction targets at the negotiating table."
Greenpeace, BFFP, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) collected 2,899,202 petition signatures, which were delivered during a Sunday event in Busan to U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), sponsor of the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, and Rwanda Environment Management Authority Director General Juliet Kabera, whose country co-chairs the HAC with Norway.

"These signatures reinforce what is already commonly known—that a legally binding global treaty that regulates plastics across the entire life cycle and eliminates harmful plastic products and chemicals is the only way our leaders can deliver on their promise to end plastic pollution," said Eirik Lindebjerg, WWF global plastics policy lead and head of delegation to INC-5.
"We simply cannot achieve this goal through fragmented and voluntary actions which have dominated our collective response for so many years," Lindebjerg added. "At INC-5, governments can and must create the treaty people are demanding, one which decisively and definitely protects people and nature now and for generations to come."
Also on Sunday, hundreds of activists with Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) and its South Korean arm made a human sign spelling out "End Plastic" on a beach near where over 175 governments are set to meet for the final round of negotiations.
"We are united in our call for a strong treaty that tackles the plastic pollution crisis head-on, demanding action that cuts plastic production at its very source," said FOEI chair Hemantha Withanage. "The urgency of the plastic issue can no longer be understated. Every day, the equivalent of 2,000 garbage trucks full of plastic are dumped into the world's oceans, rivers, and lakes, choking ecosystems and communities."

Speaking with The Guardian ahead of the talks, Norwegian Minister of International Development Anne Beathe Tvinnereim warned that the world will be "unable to cope" with plastic waste a decade from now unless there is a deal reached to cut production.
"We are not going to land a perfect treaty. But we need to get further. And I think we will. I choose to be hopeful," Tvinnereim said. "With High Ambition Coalition countries, we will continue to demonstrate that there is a big group of countries that sticks to its ambitions. The world desperately needs some leadership now, and some good news."
"The petrochemical industry and its toxic products pose an urgent threat to human health and the global climate," a campaigner said.
Environmental and policy groups on Tuesday called for financial institutions to stop funding the U.S. petrochemical industry.
Break Free from Plastic, Friends of the Earth, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), and the Texas Campaign for the Environment issued a 39-page report, Exiting Petrochemicals, that they called a "guide" for financial institutions to divest from the industry.
Petrochemicals are made from fossil fuels and are the basis for a wide array of industrial feedstocks and end products, mostly in plastics or fertilizers. The products drive climate change and harm public health throughout their life cycle, from the frontline communities—disproportionately marginalized and low-income—where fuels are extracted to the oceans and human bodies where microplastics, for example, end up.
The report calls for financial institutions—banks, investment firms, and insurance companies—to stop funding fracking, rapidly phase out all fossil fuel financing, and require petrochemical clients to publicly release transition plans. It also calls for an immediate halt on the financing of new petrochemical projects, about 120 of which are currently planned in the U.S., mostly in the Gulf and the Ohio River Valley.
"The communities most impacted by these developments, often low-income and communities of color, bear the brunt of pollution and health risks," Sharon Lavigne, executive director of RISE St. James, a campaign group in Louisiana, said in a statement.
"We must hold financial institutions accountable for their role in financing these harmful projects," Lavigne added. "It's time to stop funding environmental racism and start investing in a cleaner, safer future for everyone."
Diane Wilson, the executive director of the San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper and a fourth-generation fisher, said the industry had already had a negative impact on her area.
"Given the terrible damage that I have seen corporations like Formosa Plastics do to communities, workers, fisheries, bays, and fishermen, the line has to be drawn: No more funding for plastics and petrochemicals!" she said.
Brandon Marks, a CIEL campaigner, summarized the problems the report seeks to address: "The petrochemical industry and its toxic products pose an urgent threat to human health and the global climate."

Primary plastics production accounted for 5.3% of global greenhouse gas emissions as of 2019—more than commercial aviation and international shipping combined, according to the report.
Fertilizers are also a major emissions source, especially those used in cornfields. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers derived from fossil fuels account for an estimated 2-5% of total global emissions.
In total, the U.S. petrochemical industry alone releases roughly the emissions equivalent of 40 coal-fired power plants every year, the report says.
The climate impact, however, is only part of the problem, as the report details.
"Petrochemical production releases carcinogenic and other highly toxic substances into the air, exposing fenceline communities to higher risks of cancer, leukemia, reproductive and developmental problems, nervous system impairment, and genetic impacts," the authors wrote in the executive summary.
"Petrochemical production also pollutes waterways with contaminated wastewater," they continued. "In fact, Formosa Plastics was fined $50 million in 2019 for illegally discharging plastic pollution into Texas waterways and another $19.2 million as of June 2024 for continuing violations."
Fossil fertilizers also pose major risks, endangering farmworkers, polluting drinking water, and causing dead zones in marine environments like the Gulf of Mexico, the report says.
Two-thirds of the people living on the fenceline of petrochemical projects are from marginalized racial backgrounds, making these groups disproportionately represented—they make up only 39% of the U.S. population, according to the report.
The authors also put forth the business case against financing the petrochemical industry, arguing that new regulations and decreased demand will make petrochemical plants stranded assets.
"Choosing to finance and insure these projects is not just irresponsible; it's a poor investment," Marks of CIEL said. "Banks, insurers, and investors must stop financing petrochemicals now."
"Plastic pollution is a global crisis, fueled by our addiction to single-use plastics," said one organizer.
Amid concerns over the exclusion of Indigenous leaders, environmental advocates, and scientists from a four-day summit beginning Saturday in Bangkok to help advance a global plastics treaty, campaigners on Friday called on the political leaders and experts who will be in attendance to develop "robust criteria" to eliminate single-use plastics by drastically cutting down on their production.
Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) led a call for delegates, who will represent United Nations member states, to focus the talks on single-use plastics like sachets—small, sealed pouches and packets that have flooded markets in Asia and much of the Global South as businesses see them as affordable and convenient.
"Plastic pollution is a global crisis, fueled by our addiction to single-use plastics," said Von Hernandez, global coordinator of BFFP. "The solution is clear: Eliminate these nonessential products and reinstate reuse and refill systems which have been in place before our markets were overwhelmed with sachets and other disposable plastics."
A 2020 report by GAIA found that sachets account for an estimated 52% of the residual plastic waste stream and increasingly "defile the natural landscape, choke waterways, harm wildlife, and threaten livelihoods like tourism and fisheries."
Multinational corporations that sell fast-moving consumer goods like soda, chewing gum, and over-the-counter medications are major contributors to what GAIA called the "sachet economy," which has led to one of the most common types of plastic pollution in Africa and Southeast Asia.
"It is essential to reject the empty promises of petrochemical and fossil fuel industries who pursue profit over our collective welfare and avoid ineffective technologies like plastic credits and chemical recycling."
Tara Buakamsri, country director for Greenpeace Thailand, expressed hope that the Thai government will use the upcoming meeting as a "once-in-a-generation opportunity to end the plastic crisis by championing a global plastics treaty that limits production and bans single-use plastics."
"It is essential to reject the empty promises of petrochemical and fossil fuel industries who pursue profit over our collective welfare and avoid ineffective technologies like plastic credits and chemical recycling," said Buakamsri.
The meeting is the latest step in a treaty process that began in 2022, when countries agreed to hold talks hammering out the first legally binding treaty to stop plastic pollution.
The final treaty negotiations are set for November 25-December 1 in Busan, South Korea.
At the meeting in Bangkok, policymakers aim to "identify criteria for plastic products, chemicals, and product design, as well as potential sources and means of implementation for a plastics treaty, including financial mechanisms," according to BFFP.
But civil society groups have denounced the U.N. for including in the talks only two dozen invited technical experts and members of national delegations—who include plastic and oil industry representatives, in the case of countries such as China and Iran.
Jyoti Mathur-Filipp, executive secretary for the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), told campaigners in a letter last month that countries had not agreed to allow observers to participate in the talks.
"Civil society and rights holders, including Indigenous peoples, must be recognized as essential stakeholders," said Dharmesh Shah of the Civil Society and Rights Holder Coalition on Plastics Treaty. "We are deeply disappointed that the INC Secretariat and [U.N. Environment Program] have not shifted their stance on observer participation despite multiple representations from the civil society and rights holders groups."
"The exclusion of these constituencies," added Shah, "disregards the fundamental human right to participation in environmental decision-making, a right that is vital for ensuring that the voices of all stakeholders, especially those most affected, are heard and respected."
"Despite mounting proof of plastics' enormous harm to people and the planet, the petrochemical industry and the countries that put them first are ramping up efforts to water down this treaty," one campaigner said.
The fourth and second-to-last round of negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty concluded Tuesday with what campaigners called a "weak" and "disappointing" compromise, as countries did not agree to discuss curbing primary plastic production before the final session later this year.
The "underwhelming" result came at the close of talks in Ottawa, Canada, at which 196 fossil fuel or chemical industry lobbyists attended, a 37% increase from the third round of negotiations and more than the entire delegation of the European Union.
"People are being harmed by plastic production every day, but states are listening more closely to petrochemical lobbyists than health scientists," Graham Forbes, Greenpeace's head of delegation to the negotiations and Greenpeace USA's global plastics campaign lead, said in a statement. "Any child can see that we cannot solve the plastic crisis unless we stop making so much plastic."
"The Global South countries who are fighting tooth and nail for a strong plastics treaty have been steamrolled by the will of wealthy nations."
Civil society and frontline groups called reducing plastics production a "nonnegotiable" component of the treaty heading into the fourth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee to advance a plastics treaty (INC-4), the continuation of a process launched at a United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in Nairobi in 2022. However, when delegates agreed at the end of the latest negotiations to continue discussions of certain issues in "intersessional" work, this did not include a discussion of primary plastic polymers.
"From the beginning of negotiations, we have known that we need to cut plastic production to adopt a treaty that lives up to the promise envisioned at UNEA two years ago," said David Azoulay, the director of environmental health at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). "In Ottawa, we saw many countries rightly assert that it is important for the treaty to address production of primary plastic polymers. But when the time came to go beyond issuing empty declarations and fight for work to support the development of an effective intersessional program, we saw the same developed member states who claim to be leading the world toward a world free from plastic pollution, abandon all pretense as soon as the biggest polluters look sideways at them."
The negotiations, which began April 23, were pulled between more ambitious countries—particularly Global South countries in Africa, Latin American, and the Pacific Islands—and the so-called "Like-Minded Group" of fossil fuel and polymer producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Kuwait, Qatar, and India. On the more ambitious side of the spectrum, Rwanda and Peru spearheaded a call for intersessional work on a plan to cut production of primary polymers by 40% of 2025 levels by 2040, which was backed by Malawi, the Philippines, and Fiji.
"While not high enough to avoid breaching the 1.5°C climate target, Rwanda and Peru's proposal is the first time a group of countries have put forward a specific target for plastic production cuts," environmental coalition GAIA said in a statement.
Another promising development was the Bridge to Busan Declaration on Primary Plastic Polymers, in which signatories promised to work toward maintaining a plastic production reduction commitment in line with the Paris agreement in the final treaty text, to be set in Busan, South Korea, at the end of 2024.
On the other hand, Break Free From Plastics said that some countries had obstructed the process by pressuring negotiators to agree to consensus, even though the procedure allows for voting when consensus cannot be reached. They also interfered with the drafting of the treaty itself.
"A small number of countries continued their obstructionist and low-ambition tactics—watering down, adding countless brackets, and shamelessly twisting the language across the different provisions in an attempt to narrow the scope and lower the ambitions of the treaty," the group said.
However, GAIA said that negotiations did make progress on a draft treaty text that included a reduction of plastic production, the banning of toxic chemical additives, a financial mechanism to help countries meet targets, and a commitment to a just transition. After this progress, the chair's proposal that intersession work would not consider polymers came as a surprise.
"Tonight's upsets show that historical injustices have made their way into the halls of the plastics treaty negotiations," Camila Aguilera, communications officer for GAIA Latin America and the Caribbean, said in a statement. "The Global South countries who are fighting tooth and nail for a strong plastics treaty have been steamrolled by the will of wealthy nations. The debate over intersessional work is a proxy for these geopolitical divides between the Global North and the Global South."
CIEL said that several countries in the self-described "High Ambition Coalition," (HAC) including the European Union, had not pushed back sufficiently on attempts to weaken the treaty and the process. It, along with many other environmental groups, also criticized the United States, which is not an HAC member, for failing to stand up for an ambitious treaty.
"Negotiating with the U.S. and other oil states has felt like trying to negotiate with industry, always prioritizing profit over the well-being of people and the planet."
"The United States needs to stop pretending to be a leader and own the failure it has created here," said CIEL President Carroll Muffett. "When the world's biggest exporter of oil and gas, and one of the biggest architects of the plastic expansion, says that it will ignore plastic production at the expense of the health, rights, and lives of its own people, the world listens. Even as the U.S. signaled to the G7 that it would commit to reduce plastic production, it intentionally blocked efforts to do that in the global talks most relevant to the issue. It's time to ask whether the U.S. delegation to the plastics treaty simply missed the memo on protecting health and human rights from the plastic threat, or whether the Biden administration forgot to send it."
Center for Biological Diversity senior attorney Julie Teel Simmonds said that "rather than showing leadership, the United States has remained disappointedly in the middle."
"The U.S. proposals lack binding targets and focus on cutting demand for plastic rather than production itself," Simmonds continued. "And they don't go beyond existing U.S. policy, which has failed to curb plastic production or protect frontline communities and the environment from harm."
Frankie Orona, the executive director of the Society of Native Nations, recounted that "negotiating with the U.S. and other oil states has felt like trying to negotiate with industry, always prioritizing profit over the well-being of people and the planet."
On the final day of negotiations, Break Free From Plastics published a statement calling out the U.S. for not committing to legally binding plastic production cut targets, underselling its own regulatory apparatus, and overemphasizing recycling.
"As the world's largest consumer and exporter of plastic waste, purporting to recognize the severity of the crisis, the U.S. must act decisively on these imperatives rather than negotiating an ineffective treaty that will sacrifice the public health and human rights of all to the interests of the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries," the group said.
It demanded that the U.S. delegation support a legally binding treaty that includes set global targets; production caps, phaseouts, and phasedowns for plastic polymers; the health-based control of toxic chemicals in production; a just transition for all communites impacted by the plastics lifecycle; and waste management that protects health and the environment and rejects false solutions.
Civil society groups also argued that negotiators should heed the demands of Indigenous peoples, and that they should be given more resources and support to participate. However, CIEL found that plastics lobbyists outnumbered the 28 representatives of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus by a rate of seven to one.
"We need intersessional work with the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples—who are rights holders with traditional knowledge and a deep understanding of sustainable resource management—as well as frontline and fenceline communities—who, for generations, have borne the brunt of environmental damage from fossil fuels and petrochemical production," Orona said. "By including these often-marginalized groups, we can move beyond 'business as usual' to achieve an ambitious treaty that protects our environment, respects human rights, and fosters a more equitable and sustainable future for all of us and Mother Earth."
Green groups also called for conflict-of-interest policies to reduce the role of industry lobbyists.
"Despite mounting proof of plastics' enormous harm to people and the planet, the petrochemical industry and the countries that put them first are ramping up efforts to water down this treaty," Teel Simmonds said. "We'll keep fighting their deception and obstruction because the world desperately needs a treaty that protects us from plastic production and pollution. And we'll keep pushing the United States to lead."
The next and last round of negotiations is set to begin on November 25. In the meantime, intersessional work will move forward on a financial mechanism, plastic products, chemicals of concern in plastic products, product design, reusability, and recyclability. Observers will be able to contribute to these sessions, while another group conducts a legal review of the treaty.
"The success of the International Plastics Treaty depends on the reduction of primary plastic polymers," said Yu Hyein from the Korea Federation for Environmental Movements and Friends of the Earth, South Korea. "There was not enough discussion on this at INC-4, and it is likely that this will continue at INC-5. As a host country and a member of the High Ambition Coalition, the Korean government should make an ambitious declaration on reducing primary plastic polymers."
Greenpeace's Forbes added, "The entire world is watching, and if countries, particularly in the so-called 'High Ambition Coalition,' don't act between now and INC-5 in Busan, the treaty they are likely to get is one that could have been written by ExxonMobil and their acolytes."
No one is immune to the impacts of plastic pollution, and we are running out of time.
To the Biden Administration,
Wrapping up the penultimate round of negotiations for a global plastics treaty, the United States Delegation has so far refused to commit to the essential solution to tackle the plastic pollution crisis: global, legally binding, and timebound commitments to reduce plastic production. While the U.S. has now acknowledged that the “lifecycle” of plastic begins with fossil fuel extraction, it has offered no clear plan to address the accumulation of plastics in human bodies and in our shared environment. It has also failed to confront the acute, sustained, and systemic upstream impacts to communities who are overburdened by extraction and the toxic production of plastic precursors and feedstocks.
Further, despite a broad array of existing U.S. laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act that empower U.S. negotiators to take a truly ambitious stance, the U.S. Delegation continues to downplay the regulatory authorities of relevant agencies in order to push for an ambitious treaty. So far, the U.S. positions resort to the lowest-common-denominator — an approach that bears far more in common with that of high-powered petrostates like Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia than of the larger international community of which the U.S. claims to be a leader.
Every day, frontline communities across the U.S. suffer the impacts of plastic pollution at every stage of the plastic “lifecycle,” and every human in the country and around the world faces mounting exposures to plastic threats. Moral, legal, and scientific obligations demand this problem be tackled at the source. Yet U.S. negotiators continue over-emphasizing failed waste management and recycling schemes, peddling a so-called “circular economy of plastics.” This approach will only accelerate the circulation of thousands of harmful, toxic chemicals in plastics, and continue polluting the environment and our bodies. Only promoting demand-side measures is absurd when it is abundantly clear that the only way to address the plastics crisis is through production reduction.
Meanwhile, scientific reports continue to pile up, bearing evidence that these chemicals leach from microplastics, now found in human blood, lungs, stool, placentas, semen, and breast milk, and most recently and troublingly, in human cancer cells. Nor is the threat from plastics limited to human health, human rights, or biodiversity. A recent report from DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory demonstrates yet again the critical need to reduce plastic production to meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius climate change imperative.
It is extremely disappointing to see the U.S. Delegation to these vital talks continue to push a position that undermines this administration’s commitments and goals on climate and environmental justice. The current negotiating position of the U.S. would enable the plastics industry to keep expanding production capacity—often incentivized by federal subsidies and tax breaks. This would deepen environmental injustice for communities living on the frontline, and accelerate the climate crisis, extinguishing any hope of remaining beneath 1.5 degrees Celsius or stopping the proliferation of toxic chemicals in our air, water, and soil.
As the world’s largest consumer and exporter of plastic waste, purporting to recognize the severity of the crisis, the U.S. must act decisively on these imperatives rather than negotiating an ineffective treaty that will sacrifice the public health and human rights of all to the interests of the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries. At the very least, it is imperative that the U.S. Delegation to the Global Plastic Treaty:
Frontline groups have repeatedly invited the U.S. State Department and relevant federal agency representatives to travel to communities to witness firsthand the devastating impacts of plastic producing petrochemical plants and the environmental injustice they represent. We invite the President and other senior administration officials to visit, as well. Community leaders are subject matter experts in petrochemical and plastics production and expansion effects, and their lived experiences must be centered in these negotiations.
These treaty negotiations represent a monumental opportunity for the world and the administration. Over 80% of Americans understand that plastic pollution is a major crisis and overwhelmingly support measures to reduce plastic production. But at this stage, the Biden Administration and the U.S. Delegation that implements its orders are failing to provide the leadership necessary to confront the greatest public health crises of our time. If the Biden Administration is serious about leading on climate and environmental justice, then it must prioritize public health and human rights over the interests of the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries.
No one is immune to the impacts of plastic pollution, and we are running out of time.
Break Free From Plastic US
"Whether the treaty includes plastic production cuts is not just a policy debate," said one expert. "It's a matter of survival."
As worldwide government officials, civil society groups, and activists prepare to head to Ottawa, Canada for the fourth session of global plastics treaty negotiations, climate advocates urged attendees to keep in mind the new findings of scientists who showed Thursday that plastic production—not waste—is the main driver of the synthetic substances' planet-heating emissions.
The federally funded Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California released a paper showing that the greenhouse gas emissions of the plastics industry are equivalent to those of about 600 coal-fired power plants and are four times higher than those of the airline sector.
Lobbyists for the plastics industry, along with countries that are home to the world's biggest fossil fuel polluters, have pushed for a plastics treaty that centers waste management and a "circular economy" in which waste plastic is used indefinitely to produce new synthetic products.
But the Lawrence Berkeley scientists found that 75% of the greenhouse gas emissions caused by plastics are released before the plastic compounds are even created by the polymerization process.
"Plastics' impact on the climate starts with extraction," said the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) in a policy brief on the lab's findings. "To fully capture, measure, evaluate, and address the impacts of plastic pollution, assessment, and regulatory controls must consider the complete lifecycle, beginning with extraction."
According to Lawrence Berkeley's research, if plastic production remains at its current level, it could burn through roughly one-fifth the planet's remaining carbon budget, pushing the Earth closer to planetary heating that exceeds 1.5°C.
"To avoid breaching the 1.5°C limit set by the Paris [climate] agreement," said GAIA, "primary plastic production must decrease by at least 12% to 17% per year, starting in 2024."
To achieve that goal, said the Center for Financial Accountability on Thursday, fossil fuel-producing countries must stop treating the global plastics treaty "as a waste management treaty."
"While global leaders are trying to negotiate a solution to the plastic crisis, the petrochemical industry is investing billions of dollars in making the problem rapidly worse," said GAIA science and policy director Neil Tangri, a senior fellow at University of California, Berkeley. "We need a global agreement to stop this cancerous growth, bring down plastic production, and usher in a world with less plastic and less pollution."
At the third session of the the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-3) last year, 143 plastics industry lobbyists registered to attend, prompting advocates to call for their exclusion from future summits.
On Sunday, ahead of the meetings set to take place from April 23-29, the Break Free From Plastic movement is planning to march through Ottawa, to demand "strong conflict of interest policies that protect the treaty negotiations and its implementation from the vested interests of industries that are profiting" from the growing plastic pollution crisis.
The campaigners will also demand a negotiation process that respects the rights of Indigenous people, a treaty that supports "non-toxic reuse systems" and rejects a "circular economy" model, and limiting and reducing plastic production a "non-negotiable requirement to end plastic pollution."
Dr. Jorge Emmanuel, a co-author of GAIA's policy brief and a research fellow at Siliman University in the Philippines, said the climate impacts that have already hit his country illustrate the need for a strong global plastics treaty.
"The Philippines is on the frontlines of both climate change and plastic pollution," said Emmanuel. "Heatwaves, powerful typhoons, and flooding are getting worse, and the petrochemical industry has displaced our traditional systems with mountains of plastic that poison our communities."
"Whether the treaty includes plastic production cuts is not just a policy debate," he added. "It's a matter of survival."
"The fossil fuel and petrochemical industries are heavily resisting people- and planet-saving measures in the global plastics treaty. Their growing presence in the negotiations is very telling," said a Greenpeace campaigner.
Three days into the third round of negotiations for a global plastics treaty, an analysis revealed Wednesday that 143 fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists registered to attend the talks—heightening green groups' fears about nefarious industry influence over the final deal.
The third session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-3) is scheduled to run through Sunday at the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) headquarters in Kenya. Building on previous meetings in Uruguay and France, this event is focused on "the so-called zero draft of the international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, released earlier this year, with the goal of concluding negotiations by the end of 2024," according to U.N. News.
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), which is behind the new lobbyist analysis, noted Wednesday that over the past year of talks, "civil society organizations and scientists have petitioned UNEP and the INC Secretariat to safeguard the negotiating process from industry influence and to implement strong conflict of interest policies."
Despite such demands, polluters' presence at the talks is increasing. Based on the UNEP's provisional list of INC-3 participants, CIEL found that there was a 36% rise in registered fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists from INC-2. Additionally, industry representatives outnumber the 70 smallest member state delegations at the Kenya meeting.
The group pointed out that its "estimate is likely to be conservative, as our methodology relies on delegates to the talks disclosing their own connections to fossil fuel or chemical industry interests, and many lobbyists may choose to obscure that link."
CIEL global petrochemicals campaign manager Delphine Lévi Alvarès compared polluters targeting the plastics treaty talks to similar behavior at annual U.N. climate summits—the next of which, COP28, kicks off in the United Arab Emirates this month.
"Time and time again, we have seen how industry influence has blocked substantive progress in environmental treaty negotiations, including in spaces like the climate COP," she said. "At INC-2, the Secretariat stated that there were 'not a lot of fossil fuel companies in the venue.' Our analysis shows that is simply not true—their presence is only increasing. We must course-correct immediately to ensure that the plastics treaty is grounded in science and does not become a fossil-fueled treaty."
The CIEL analysis is supported by groups including Greenpeace, whose head of delegation to the talks, Graham Forbes, said Wednesday that "the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries are heavily resisting people- and planet-saving measures in the global plastics treaty. Their growing presence in the negotiations is very telling."
"We urge U.N. member states to listen to the millions of people around the world who want an end to plastic pollution, rather than the fossil fuel lobby," declared Forbes, whose group has issued five detailed demands for the final agreement.
Greenpeace argues that the treaty must:
Other organizations supporting CIEL's analysis include Beyond Petrochemicals, Break Free from Plastic, and the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN). Representatives from those groups also called for swift action to curb industry influence.
"Fossil fuel, chemicals, and plastics corporations are here en masse to ensure that they can exponentially increase toxic plastics production at the expense of our health and that of future generations," warned IPEN co-chair Pamela Miller. "We must have a strong, health-protective treaty that is based on independent science and free of these conflicts of interests."
Like Lévi Alvarès, Break Free from Plastic global coordinator Von Hernandez stressed that "this is not the first time that fossil fuel interests have tried to influence a process intended to check and curtail the pollution they have spawned and created."
"That they have descended in great numbers in Nairobi shows what and how much is at stake here," he added. "People and planet must come first—they cannot be left hostage to these predatory interests."
"Ramping up reuse systems is the most sensible approach to replacing single-use plastics and dramatically cut plastic production," said one advocate. "The plastics treaty discussions this week must lay the groundwork for this transformation."
As world leaders convened in Paris on Tuesday for negotiations regarding a global plastics treaty that the United States and plastic producers are hoping will take a limited approach and center recycling, a new study showed how investing in the "mass adoption of reuse systems" would make a far bigger impact in cutting plastic pollution and reducing carbon emissions that are derived from the making of plastic.
The Break Free From Plastic movement commissioned the study, Making Reuse a Reality, by the Global Plastics Policy Center at the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom. Researchers drew from 320 articles and papers as well as dozens of new interviews with experts on reuse systems.
The researchers found that shifting to reuse systems on a mass scale would require a phasing-in process but could ultimately cut plastic pollution by 30% by 2040.
"The scourge of single-use packaging continues to grow at a pace beyond the capacities of existing waste management systems," said Von Hernandez, global coordinator for Break Free From Plastic. "Prevention is key; ramping up reuse systems is the most sensible approach to replacing single-use plastics and dramatically cut plastic production. The plastics treaty discussions this week must lay the groundwork for this transformation."
As Tiza Mafira, executive director of Plastic Bag Diet in Indonesia, explained in a video released by the research team, people around the world have for years turned to reusable materials to replace single-use plastic packaging in their own homes.
A mass transition would require similar efforts by businesses around the world, Mafira said.
"We are drowning in plastic pollution, and almost half of it is just packaging," she said. "Instead of delivering products in disposable plastic, [in a reuse system] businesses create durable and reusable packaging that gets returned to them and used over and over. Instead of throwing away bottles, they get refilled. Instead of trashing food takeaway containers, they get washed and reused."
Making Reuse a Reality - Explainer
Seventy-seven percent of the reuse experts interviewed for the study said standardizing packaging and developing tracking methods would be "key enablers" to shift to a reuse system on a large scale.
The experts suggested using tagging systems including QR codes, Radio Frequency Identification Device tags, or Near Field Communication chips, as well as methods to make returning reusable packaging as easy as possible for consumers.
"Interviewees emphasized the need for easily accessible drop-off points that are relevant to where End-of-Use occurs. The system should acknowledge the return, which can be efficiently done through code or tag readers or by staff," reads the report. "The return points should be clearly identifiable with a reuse logo and instructions and should be located in highly accessible areas."
After consumers return their packaging, it would be cleaned and pooled at central "hubs" before being delivered back to stores and factories.The coalition says a legally binding instrument is needed to end plastic pollution by 2040, but countries including the U.S., China, and Saudi Arabia are joining many plastics and chemical companies in supporting voluntary "national action plans" that would allow individual countries to decide how to reduce their plastic production and use.
The U.S. produces more plastic waste per person than any other country, according to a study published in Science Advances in 2020.
"If we're serious as a global community about averting climate change and about addressing the three planetary crises of biodiversity loss, pollution and climate change, we have to be thinking about reducing plastic production," Jane Patton, campaign manager for plastics and petrochemicals at the Center for International Environmental Law, told The Washington Post on Tuesday.
Critics including several members of Congress have warned the Biden administration that its focus on reducing plastic pollution is too narrow, with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) telling President Joe Biden in a letter last week that he should recognize the threats to "public health, ecosystems, and our global climate" that are posed by plastic production.
"As one of the leading drivers of this crisis, the United States has a leadership opportunity and an obligation to help move the world responsibly in the right direction," wrote Merkley and Huffman. "The international legally binding instrument is an unprecedented opportunity to address our plastic pollution crisis and our climate crisis in tandem. We urge you to stop thinking of this as just as a pollution problem and to recognize it as the public health, justice, and climate crisis that it poses."
The University of Portsmouth study, said Global Plastics Policy Center director Steve Fletcher, shows that a scaled-up reuse system "has huge untapped potential to end plastic pollution."
"What we need now," he said, "is a clear vision for reuse and the right support to mainstream it."