Why is a global treaty on plastic pollution dividing the world?

SEOUL— What to do with all the plastic that pollutes the oceans, the food supply and even our bodies?

That's the question delegates from 175 countries are trying to answer this week in Busan, South Korea, where the fifth and final round of negotiations is underway for a United Nations-led treaty that would regulate the entire life cycle. of plastic, including production, design and disposal.

Many hoped that the initiative, which began two years ago, would result in the most consequential environmental agreement since the Paris climate agreement in 2016.

However, over the course of four rounds of talks, sharp divisions emerged, raising concerns that the session in Busan would end with a watered-down treaty far removed from those ambitious goals.

The biggest disagreements center on whether the treaty should focus on reducing overall plastic production or whether simply improving recycling practices is enough.

Meanwhile, the commitment of the United States, one of the world's leading producers of plastic waste, has been thrown into doubt following the outcome of the presidential election.

Even before the meeting began on Monday, South Korea's Environment Minister Kim Wan-sup was trying to lower expectations, telling reporters: “I think it may be more realistic to take gradual measures.”

Here's what you need to know about the problem and efforts to resolve it:

How serious is the plastic problem in the world?

Few disagree that the level of pollution has reached alarming levels.

Between 2000 and 2019, annual plastic production doubled to 460 million tons. It is expected to reach 736 million tons in 2040, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Very little of the world's plastic waste (about half of which comes from single use plastics such as packaging, straws and disposable utensils, is recycled. Only 9% of the 353 million tons of plastic discarded in 2019 was recycled.

That figure is even lower in the U.S., where each person generates an average of 487 pounds of plastic waste each year—just 4% was recycling in 2019, and most were incinerated or dumped in landfills.

Because it does not biodegrade, much of the plastic we throw away ends up leaking into the environment in the form of microplastics, small particles less than 5 millimeters in size that have been found in water, food, and even human placentas.

Although the effects on human health are just beginning to be studied, a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine linked microplastics in certain blood vessels with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

Workers from a utility company dump waste on the bank of the Lim River near Priboj, Serbia.

(Armin Durgut/Associated Press)

“Our world is drowning in plastic pollution,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a video message to delegates on Monday.

“By 2050, there could be more plastic than fish in the ocean. “Microplastics in our bloodstream are creating health problems that we are only beginning to understand.”

Is there any way out?

Research suggests it's not too late to act.

TO paper published in the journal Science this month found that just four policies could “reduce mismanaged plastic waste by 91% and gross plastic-related greenhouse gas emissions by a third.”

The two most effective: a minimum 40% recycled content mandate for new plastic products, followed by a limit on new plastic production, plus a plastic consumption tax and greater investment in waste management systems.

What are the biggest obstacles to treaty negotiations?

The most difficult questions to resolve have also been the most critical: who will pay for what and whether the treaty will set binding production limits or allow countries to set and meet their own voluntary targets.

The poorest countries, such as small island states In the Pacific, they are asking their wealthier counterparts to shoulder a greater share of the financial costs of waste that is largely produced by developed economies but that ends up on their shores.

The UN has estimated that measures to combat plastic would cost $1.64 trillion by 2040.

On the other hand, nations such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, whose economies depend on the fossil fuels that provide the ingredients for plastic, oppose mandatory limits on production and instead advocate focusing on recycling and waste management. waste.

And while countries such as Rwanda and Britain have pledged to demand clear limits on the production of new plastics, fossil fuel-producing countries have insisted that parties should be allowed to set their own voluntary targets.

“We reject any proposal that places an undue burden on industries,” Saudi Arabia said in its opening statement on Monday, advocating for “recycling solutions rather than imposing rigid and exclusionary policies.”

Citing “delaying tactics” by countries in this field, Virginijus Sinkevicius, the European Commission's environment chief, predicted this year that it would be very difficult to close negotiations by the end of November.

Why do so many countries and environmental activists oppose a solution focused on recycling?

Few disagree with the need for better waste management. But critics say focusing almost exclusively on recycling overstates the effect it can have and distracts from more fundamental solutions to plastic pollution.

“We have to stop giving it so much importance. It really is that simple. And this treaty is our best chance to achieve that,” said John Hocevar, director of the Oceans Campaign at Greenpeace USA.

“This is not a problem we can solve by recycling,” he said. “Most plastic will never be recycled.”

This is the case that California Atty. General Rob Bonta is making a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, one of the world's largest producers of petroleum products. polymers It is used to make single-use plastics.

in a complaint Filed in San Francisco County Superior Court this year, the state Department of Justice argued that the company “deceived Californians for nearly half a century by promising that recycling could and would solve the growing waste crisis.” plastics.”

“Exxon and Mobil, through the Society for the Plastics Industry, created and promoted the chasing arrow symbol despite knowing that it was misleading the public into believing that all plastics are recyclable,” the complaint said.

Exxon Mobil “knew that these statements were false or likely to mislead the public, including the knowledge that most plastics could not be recycled at scale.”

What about the United States?

In August, US negotiators reportedly decided to support a production cap, a surprising change from a previous position calling for individual voluntary targets.

But this month, officials told environmental groups at a closed-door meeting that they no longer saw that limit as a viable “landing zone,” according to a report by Grist, a climate news website.

Many doubt that a deal, even if reached, would survive under President-elect Donald Trump, who has a long record of rolling back climate regulation and recently nominated fossil fuel executive Chris Wright for energy secretary.

During his first term, Trump retired United States of the historic Paris climate agreement, calling it a “scam.”