Negotiators from dozens of countries are in Busan, South Korea, trying to hammer out a global treaty to cut down on plastic pollution. It’s their last chance before an end-of-year deadline to agree on a plan to stem a crisis that threatens the environment and human health.
The world produces about 400 million metric tons of plastic waste every year, according to the United Nations Environment Programme. That’s about the sum total of how much every human on the planet weighs. Most plastic ends up in places like oceans, shorelines and landfills, where it breaks down into tiny pieces called microplastics that have been found in every corner of the environment and inside human bodies. The problem is getting worse, with plastic pollution expected to soar in the coming decades. So in 2022, U.N. member states said they’d write a legally binding agreement to keep plastic waste out of the environment.
But for months, the talks have been deadlocked. Plastic is made from fossil fuels. Environmental groups, scientists and human rights activists say the oil and gas industry, along with major producers like Russia and Saudi Arabia, have delayed progress and blocked measures that could hurt demand for their products.
However, some observers of the negotiations now see a path for countries to broker a deal. That’s due in part to signals from the Biden administration in recent months that the U.S. might support more aggressive actions to reduce plastic pollution.
“We have all the right conditions at play,” says Erin Simon, head of plastic waste and business at the World Wildlife Fund. “Can the chair [of the U.N. negotiating committee] finish the job? And will these countries stand up and speak for what they have been saying they are committed to doing when the time is right? Will they drown out the few and speak for the majority?”
Talks open in the shadow of a U.S. election
The final round of talks is getting underway weeks after U.S. voters reelected Donald Trump as president. For years, Trump has cast doubt on the scientific consensus that the Earth is getting hotter mainly because of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, which come primarily from burning fossil fuels. And Trump has promised to pursue policies in his second term that support the United States’ oil and gas industry.
Trump’s transition team did not respond to messages seeking comment about the incoming administration’s stance on plastic pollution.
Simon says U.S. politics could have some impact on the plastic negotiations, but she says the goal isn’t to set U.S. policy or design a treaty that can be ratified immediately by the United States.
“The target is, how do we mobilize globally,” Simon says. “And how do we make sure that no matter what [happens] in the U.S., we’re taking action?”
Even before Trump’s reelection, observers of the negotiations were reluctant to count on U.S. leadership. The Biden administration faced sharp criticism for backing policies that aligned with the interests of the plastics industry. And the U.S. historically has been a laggard in global environmental initiatives, says Carroll Muffett, executive director of the Foundation for International Law for the Environment.
There’s a pattern of the U.S. “advocating for very weak agreements that it then ends up not participating in anyway,” Muffett said ahead of a prior round of plastic negotiations in Canada this spring.
Scientists say the solutions to plastic waste are clear
A major sticking point in these negotiations has been a measure to limit the production of new plastic. Scientists and environmental advocates, along with attorneys general from New York, California and eight other states, say that the world manufactures too much plastic to manage effectively and that countries need to cap production to have any hope of making a dent in pollution.
Plastic-makers see that sort of regulation as a threat to their business. The industry wants negotiators to focus on creating what’s called a circular economy, where plastic is recycled and reused to prevent waste.
But investigations, including by NPR, have found that the plastics industry promoted recycling for decades even though officials long knew that it probably wouldn’t work on a large scale. Former industry officials have said the goal was to avoid regulation and ensure demand for plastics kept growing.
Current officials have said those investigations don’t accurately portray today’s industry.
Matt Seaholm, chief executive of the Plastics Industry Association, a trade group, said in a statement that his organization supports an “ambitious” treaty but warned against policies like production caps that he said would hurt plastic manufacturers “without reaching our shared sustainability goals.”
Countries are also debating whether to regulate the chemicals that go into plastics. A study this year found that plastics contain more than 4,200 hazardous chemicals, the vast majority of which aren’t regulated globally, according to the researchers. The plastics industry argues that chemicals should be regulated by national governments, not by a global treaty on plastic pollution. But scientists and environmentalists calling for global chemical regulations note that plastic waste — as well as the chemicals the plastic is made from — doesn’t stay in the country where it’s produced. It travels around the world in rivers and oceans.
Other issues under consideration include setting design standards to ensure plastic is safe to reuse and recycle, requiring companies to use some recycled material in their plastic products and raising money to help pay for waste management infrastructure, especially in developing countries.
“From the vantage point of science, it’s very clear what actions we need. So, there’s no ambiguity there. It’s just a matter of political will,” says Douglas McCauley, a professor of environmental science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who has studied ways to cut plastic pollution.
And McCauley says world leaders have plenty of reasons to act. “If you care about fighting cancer, well, there’s a win here. If you care about environmental justice, there’s a win here. If you care about the environment — oceans, rivers, all the rest — there’s a win. If you care about climate change, there’s a win,” McCauley says.
A spokesperson for the White House Council on Environmental Quality said in a statement that the U.S. supports measures that address plastic supplies and the chemicals the industry uses. “Global plastic production is projected to triple by 2060, overwhelming solid waste management systems and contributing to pollution,” the statement said. “An outsized proportion of that increase will be in the growth of single-use plastic products that will ultimately lead to more plastic pollution.”
Time is of the essence
Observers of the negotiations say countries could produce a strong treaty in South Korea even if they leave some details to be worked out later.
“You can’t get everything concluded in Busan,” says Magnus Løvold, a project manager at the Norwegian Academy of International Law. “But you can set a starting point that is credible for [the] governance of plastics internationally” in the coming years.
But time appears to be running short to lay that groundwork. When countries agreed to write a treaty to end plastic pollution, they set a goal to finish this year. Negotiators often extend talks when they run into gridlock. However, McCauley says participants in these deliberations seem committed to sticking to the original timeline.
For developing nations especially, letting the talks drag out could sink their efforts to get a strong treaty, Simon says. The negotiations are scheduled to conclude Dec. 1.
“Those countries will run out of resources to be a major player in negotiations,” Simon says. “The political pressure, the public pressure will wane as other things come into the picture.”