Just hours after the chaotic end to the COP29 climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, a final round of talks on a treaty to end plastic pollution opened in Busan, South Korea, with nations urged to engage in difficult negotiations to “meet an existential challenge.”
Plastic pollution is so ubiquitous it has been found in clouds, the deepest ocean trenches, and even in human breastmilk. However, while everyone agrees that it is a problem, there is less consensus on how to solve it.
Among the most contentious issues are whether the treaty should cap plastic production, a possible ban on chemicals feared toxic to human health, and how to pay for implementation.
In 2019, the world produced around 460 million tons of plastic, a figure that has doubled since 2000, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Plastic production is expected to triple by 2060.
More than 90 percent of plastic is not recycled, with over 20 million tons leaking into the environment, often just after a few minutes of use. Plastic also accounts for around 3 percent of global emissions, mostly linked to its production from fossil fuels.
Some countries, including the so-called High Ambition Coalition (HAC), that includes many African, Asian and European nations, want to discuss the entire lifecycle of plastics, which means limiting production, redesigning products for reuse and recycling, and addressing waste.
On the other side of the talks are the oil producing nations like Saudi Arabia and Russia, who want a downstream focus on waste alone.
The HAC wants binding global targets on reducing plastic production and warned ahead of the Busan talks that vested interests should not be allowed to hamper a deal as the divisions have stymied four previous rounds of talks.
In this clash between differing interests as far as plastics and the potential pollution that goes with its production and use are concerned, we hope that the negotiations can be fruitful and result in a treaty that will benefit the greater good rather than the vested interests.
As it is a negotiation, compromises will certainly be necessary, but the net benefit of any treaty that will be necessary to meet an ‘existential challenge’ is hopefully for the common good. We may not be able to get what we want or need, but at least there should be a start and an end in mind.*
