Global Negotiations on Plastic Pollution Fail Amidst Oil State Defiance

Over 200 nations were unable to finalize a treaty aimed at addressing plastic pollution after significant disagreements emerged between countries advocating for an end to plastic production and those prioritizing economic development tied to fossil fuels.

In a disappointing turn of events, over 200 nations failed to reach a comprehensive agreement on plastic pollution during a crucial five-day meeting in Busan, South Korea. This gathering, which was anticipated to set a groundbreaking global treaty after two years of discussions, highlighted deeply entrenched rivalries between two factions of nations: nearly 100 “high ambition” countries advocating for a phase-out of plastic, and oil-producing nations expressing concerns regarding development impacts.

The context behind these negotiations is pressing. As the United Nations reports, since the onset of plastic production in the 1950s, over nine billion tonnes of plastic have been generated globally, with less than 10% recycled. This results in millions of tonnes flooding into oceans, endangering marine life through ingestion and entanglement, while also contributing significantly to global emissions.

The discussions had initially emerged from a 2022 agreement by world nations to create a global treaty, aiming to mitigate the effects of plastic pollution, particularly on marine environments. However, as the final day of negotiations unfolded, it became apparent that key disagreements over Article 6 — which pertains to commitments on limiting plastic production — stood in the way of progress.

A bloc of 95 countries, which included the European Union, the UK, and several South American countries, called for binding commitments to reduce plastic outputs. Mexico’s lead negotiator, Camila Zepeda, underscored the need for decisive action, displaying a strong sense of urgency that resonated with many delegates. Yet, resistance arose from wealthier oil-exporting nations such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, who warned that limiting production could exacerbate global economic inequalities and hinder development.

Compounding the tension, India raised objections to potential production cut commitments, citing fears it could compromise its development rights. Environmental advocates expressed dismay at the collapse, critical of the fossil fuel sector’s extensive lobbying efforts, as evidenced by studies indicating that 93% of interventions from the petrochemical industry opposed reductions in plastic production.

Despite the failure to secure an agreement, there remains an argument for optimism, as many nations are supportive of stricter regulations. Jodie Roussell from Nestlé remarked on the urgency for cohesive global leadership on plastic regulation. Eirik Lindebjerg from the World Wide Fund for Nature suggested countries aligned with ambitious climate goals should pursue a standalone treaty, underscoring that the desire for action against plastic pollution is palpable among various nations.

Looking ahead, nations are expected to reconvene next year, reigniting discussions on how to effectively tackle one of the world’s most entrenched environmental challenges. The climate imperative will likely continue to guide the dialogue, amplifying the urgency with which participants approach future negotiations.