The world seeks an end to plastic pollution at talks in South Korea

On the heels of contentious climate talks in Azerbaijan, negotiators from around the world are descending on Busan, South Korea, this week with another formidable goal: to hammer out the world’s first treaty designed to tackle plastic pollution’s explosive growth.

On the table is a proposal that seeks to cut down on the millions of tons of plastic waste discarded each year. And a broad coalition of nations is seeking to go a step further and rein in plastic production, with a focus on restricting single-use plastic.

That notion had gained traction leading up to the final round of talks in Busan, with even the United States, a major plastics producer, tentatively backing the United Nations-led effort.

Then came the election of Donald Trump.

Now, few expect the United States to sign on to an eventual treaty at all. And with deep-seated opposition from oil and gas nations such as Saudi Arabia and Russia — which, like the United States, produce the fossil fuels used to make plastic — some delegates are wondering whether any agreement is possible by the scheduled end of the talks Sunday.

“The U.S. really engaged on this, but if they step back, it’s a big disappointment,” said Ndiaye Cheikh Sella, a delegate for Senegal and chief of staff of the country’s environmental ministry.

There is one consensus among most delegates: The world has a colossal plastic waste problem.

The world produces nearly half a billion tons of plastic each year, more than double the amount from two decades ago, and much of that turns up on coastlines and river banks, as well as in whales, birds and other animals that ingest them. Researchers have estimated that one garbage truck’s worth of plastic enters the ocean every minute.

Scientists have also sounded the alarm on microplastics in the environment and in the human body, as well as the thousands of chemicals in plastic that can leach into food, water and the environment. Producing and transporting plastic releases planet-warming gases — if plastics comprised a country, it would be the world’s fifth-highest emitter of greenhouse gases. Recycling isn’t keeping up; scientists estimate that only 9% of plastic waste generated globally is recycled.

Some powerful nations, and industries, are opposed.

Stewart Harris, a spokesperson for the International Council of Chemical Associations, which represents the global chemical and plastics companies, said the group did not support measures to restrict plastic production, instead favoring an agreement centered on reuse, recycling and other ways to “give value to plastic at the end of its life.”

Harris, who also directs global plastics policy at the American Chemistry Council, pointed to the unintended consequences of curbing plastic production, including higher prices that could burden low-income households. (Plastic pollution also disproportionately burdens poor people.)

The chemicals industry is likely to find an ally in Trump, who previously tapped an ACC executive to lead the toxic chemical unit at the Environmental Protection Agency. However, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick for health secretary, supported action on plastic production during his presidential bid. In September 2023, Kennedy posted a 10-point plan on the social platform X to “fix the plastics pollution crisis,” starting with supporting “an ambitious international plastics treaty.”

There has also been heavy pushback from a handful of nations that favor a nonbinding agreement without restrictions on plastic production. Major gas exporters, including Russia, Qatar and Iran, held a meeting this month in preparation for the Busan negotiations, with a focus on “ensuring that the role of natural gas is duly considered.”

Still, consumer giants including Mars and Unilever have thrown their weight behind a stronger agreement, calling on nations to draw up a treaty “that addresses the full life cycle of plastics.” On Saturday, hundreds of people marched in Busan urging nations to agree to a robust plastics treaty.

Scientists say a solution is possible. A recent paper in the journal Science estimated that just four of the policies that have been discussed so far at the plastic treaty talks could reduce mismanaged plastic waste by more than 90%, and plastic-related greenhouse gas emissions by one-third. Those policies include capping new plastic production at 2020 levels and mandating that new products be made with at least 40% recycled plastic.

“It is actually possible to nearly end plastic pollution with this treaty,” Douglas J. McCauley, a professor of ocean science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said in an email. “It was also sobering to see that without a treaty, plastic pollution will double by 2050,” he added.

Some observers headed to the talks said it was time for negotiators to move ahead with a treaty, even without every nation signing on. Many developing countries were angered by the modest deal on climate crisis financing that emerged by consensus from the Azerbaijan talks.

An ambitious treaty with holdouts is better than a watered-down one signed by all, said Jamala Djinn, a policy adviser at Break Free From Plastic, a coalition of organizations working to curb plastic pollution. The United States, she noted, has not been a signatory to a number of global treaties that were nevertheless effective.

“We can’t afford to let a handful of plastic producers hamper the ambition of a vast majority of member states,” she said.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and the sole member of Congress joining the Busan talks, agreed.

“If the U.S. doesn’t sign on, at least we wouldn’t be holding the world back,” he said.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2024 The New York Times Company