Just a day after the closing of the United Nations annual climate conference in Azerbaijandiplomats began gathering in Busan, South Korea, for a separate round of discussions – this time about plastics.
The fifth and potentially final round of negotiations on a global plastics treaty began on Monday, with hopes high that countries will be able to strike a deal to tackle plastic pollution by December 1. During an opening ceremony, speakers from the UN urged delegates. to the “brave political will” to address plastic’s harm to human health and the environment. South Korea’s Environment Minister Kim Wan Sup said that “we must end plastic pollution before plastic pollution ends us.”
Specifically at stake at INC-5, the official name for this round of negotiations, is what many participants see as the treaty’s defining question: Will the world directly limit the amount of plastic that manufacturers can produce? Dozens of countries argued that a production cap was the only way to achieve the treaty’s goal of “ending plastic pollution”, although they had a difficult time convincing oil-producing countries to agree. Virtually all plastics are made from fossil fuels.
Proponents of a production cap, which includes environmental groups and a coalition of scientistssometimes compare the plastic pollution crisis to an overflowing bathtub. Instead of mopping the floor – cleaning up existing plastic waste as industry plans to produce more and more – they want to turn off the metaphorical faucet. Reducing plastic production will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce people’s exposure to the 16,000 chemicals used in plastic products, of which at least 4,200 have dangerous properties.
There is also a financial argument for hard limits on plastic production: The Institute for Environmental Economics and Financial Analysis, a think tank, recently argued that a limit on the production of primary plastic polymers, combined with other supply and demand initiatives, could smooth volatility and price instability currently affecting producers.
“World leaders gathering here in Busan must deliver an agreement that progressively reduces the unfettered production of plastic,” Von Hernandez, the global coordinator for the anti-plastic coalition Break Free From Plastic, said in a statement. Together with the non-profit organizations Greenpeace and WWF, Break Free From Plastic delivered a 3 million-signature petition to government officials the day before discussions began, asking them to “drastically reduce” the production of plastic.
Anthony Wallace/AFP via Getty Images
Much has changed since countries first agreed to negotiate a plastics treaty in 2022and even since the last meeting in April. This summer, the United States has indicated that it will support production limits as part of the treatyjust on flip flop the week after the re-election of former President Donald Trump. Chris Dixon, an ocean campaign leader for the non-profit Environmental Investigations Agency who is attending the talks, said any hope that the US would eventually ratify the treaty has “completely evaporated” as Republicans soon take control of the Senate.
There are other signs that nations may not agree to a production cap at INC-5. In the run-up to the conference, Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, appeared to put her thumb on the scale by making several speeches and media appearances in which she emphasized plastic’s utility to societya common talking point in the industry. In an interview with the international news agency AFP, she described the production cap debate as “not an intelligent conversation.”
“These comments are part of a worrying pattern of statements that could harm the outcome of the negotiations,” more than 130 environmental organizations wrote in a letter sent to UN Secretary-General António Guterres in October.
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chairman of INC-5, also probed the way he consolidated the previous meeting’s text – a bloated document filled with almost everyone’s desired language – into a more manageable basis for negotiations. For unclear reasons, he deleted the article titled “primary plastic production”, which would presumably have been about a potential cap, and replaced it with a vague article about “provision,” focus mostly on voluntary national commitments.
Instead of production limits, some countries, including the US, say they support so-called market mechanisms to indirectly reduce demand for plastic production. This could involve anything from a plastic tax to banning specific plastic products. They want the treaty to focus on promoting plastic recycling above the abysmal current rate of 9 percent and cleaning up existing plastic pollution.
The American Chemistry Council, or ACC, a US trade group, says a plastic production cap will scale down work and a “increased environmental footprint,” as alternative materials weigh more and therefore cause more greenhouse gas emissions during transport.
The ACC did not directly respond to Grist’s request for comment on the financial case for a production cap, but the president of the group’s division that represents plastics manufacturers, Ross Eisenberg, implied that demand for plastic products will increase as the world’s population grows richer. become He cited a 2024 report commissioned by the International Council of Chemical Associations, of which the American Chemistry Council is a member, which found that a plastic production cap could increase the cost of many goods and services and that it would “those who can least afford it will affect it.
“The most effective way to balance supply and demand is through natural market forces, rather than arbitrary production limits,” Eisenberg said.
Anthony Wallace/AFP via Getty Images
Benny Mermans, chairman of the World Plastics Council, in s statement before INC-5 that “we have the power to shape a future where society continues to reap the immense benefits of plastic without it becoming pollution.” He called for an agreement that treats plastics “as valuable resources rather than waste.”
According to a analysis of the non-profit Center for International Environmental Law, 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists have registered to attend INC-5, more than the entire European Union and its member states combined.
It is too early to know what will come of the INC-5 discussions, but the first days of the meeting suggest that the week will be deeply divisive. At two events last Sunday and Monday, Andersen came under scrutiny again environmental groups and the media because she apparently tried to influence the negotiations – this time by allegedly holding closed-door meetings with national delegations in which she exercised them to drop production limits from their priorities. Green groups also expressed concern that the decision to base negotiations on Valdivieso’s streamlined text was being “largely ignored”, with some countries allegedly trying to overload the document with new proposals.
By Wednesday, some delegates expressed frustration at the slow pace of the negotiations, saying that “the end seems far in sight.”
Among the other issues to be resolved during INC-5 – or not – are whether the treaty will ban or limit lists of toxic chemicals used in plastics, how to pay for the treaty’s provisions, and how the agreement will be structured. Many countries, supported by environmental groups, prefer a top-down format with legally binding global provisions; others, including the United States, favor a voluntary approach where countries are free to set their own targets, whether on plastic production and use or pollution management.
Lennox Yearwood Jr, president and CEO of the social justice organization Hip Hop Caucus, told Grist of Busan that countries should conclude a treaty that protects frontline communities who are likely to live near petrochemical plants and landfills. “Negotiators at INC-5 must prioritize binding measures that limit plastic production, outline our commitment to address the current damage caused by the fossil fuel industry and address plastic waste,” he said.
“Without bold action, the treaty negotiations could become another missed opportunity to tackle environmental racism on a global scale.”
