International delegates meeting in Busan, South Korea on December 2 failed to agree upon a global treaty to curb plastic pollution. The fifth UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) meeting intended to produce a legally binding global treaty on the production and disposal of plastic that requires consensus among all constituents. An option proposed by Panama and backed by more than 100 countries supported curbing plastic production. However, this option was strongly opposed by a handful of oil-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran, who were prepared to exclusively target plastic waste. The end result was a postponement of talks and key decisions, while countries remained far apart on the basic scope of the treaty.
This outcome is disappointing, to say the least. This INC-5 treaty would have been one of the most instrumental deals related to environmental protection since the 2015 Paris Agreement, where a binding international treaty on emissions was signed. It follows just days after a similarly depressing conclusion to the 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) summit in Azerbaijan, where a measly 300 billion dollar annual global target was set to combat climate change, a value nowhere near the full amount of 1.3 trillion dollars requested by developing countries.
Plastic pollution is a critical issue that must be addressed in the fight against climate change. According to the United Nations, the equivalent of 2,000 garbage trucks worth of plastic is dumped into the world’s aquatic systems daily, amounting to around 19-23 million tonnes of plastic waste each year. The pollution is so extensive that tiny plastic particles from the waste known as microplastics have been found everywhere, from deep ocean trenches and mountain peaks to even within our own bloodstreams.
What I find deeply troubling is the fact that the negative impacts of plastic pollution are very well known. Even primary school students worldwide are taught of its consequences. These impacts can be generally classified into three categories:
First are the impacts on human health. Scientists in 2023 found that plastics cause a wide range of illnesses, from cancer and congenital disabilities to lung and heart disease. Various chemicals used in plastic that contribute to its flexibility and color are highly toxic. These chemicals include carcinogens, neurotoxins, and hormone disruptors, an example being Bisphenol A (BPA) which affects brain development, elevates blood pressure, and increases cardiovascular disease risks. The entire plastic life cycle, from oil extraction to production and disposal, emits toxic chemicals into the air, water, and soil. Such chemicals do not degrade for centuries after disposal, causing long-term health-related risks for generations to come. Health problems linked to such harmful plastic chemicals contribute 250 billion dollars yearly in health care costs in the United States alone. Compare that to the 300 billion dollars agreed upon at COP 29.
Then there are the effects on wildlife. Less than ten percent of plastic is recycled, while many countries lack proper waste management systems, causing much of the world’s plastic waste to end up in the sea. Sea creatures often mistake plastic for food, affecting animals from sea turtles to seabirds. Concurrently, abandoned fishing nets and plastic bags among other discarded plastics ensnare whales, sea lions, seals, and dolphins among others, often leading to death by starvation or asphyxiation. Microplastics less than five millimeters in size are regularly found in the feces, blood, and lungs of animals (including humans). These tiny particles, containing the aforementioned toxic chemicals, can be deadly if accumulated and they are passed along from prey to predator in the food web.
Last but not least, there are its climatic impacts. Roughly 98 percent of plastic is made from petrochemicals derived from fossil fuels oil and gas. The extraction and transport of these fossil fuels and the manufacturing and disposal of plastic all create carbon emissions responsible for global warming. Worldwide plastic production alone generates around 1.96 gigatons of carbon dioxide annually — around four percent of all global emissions. Certain petrochemical-producing states, however, rely on profits made from oil profits to fund their own projects, whether it be the purchase of soccer superstars or funding military efforts. All important causes that are much more significant than the future of the planet. As a result, they have tried to use procedural tactics designed to reach consensus to delay negotiations instead.
The delay in policy enforcement marks an enormous setback in the fight against climate change. As the 712 billion dollar plastic industry is set to triple production by 2050, the necessity to act with urgency is rapidly increasing. If plastic production stays on track, it will account for more than 31 percent of the remaining global carbon budget for staying below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, the UN’s target for 2050. “Every piece [of plastic] that we allow to produce without limits is a direct assault on our health, our nature, and our children,” said Panama’s delegation head Juan Gomez, “for those blocking progress, you are allowing this crisis to fester, and it will kill us.” There is little assurance that the next postponed conference, dubbed INC 5.2, will succeed where this one failed.
“Every day of delay is a day against humanity,” concluded Gomez, “Postponing negotiations does not postpone the crisis. When we reconvene, the stakes will be higher.”
