In latest round of plastics treaty negotiations, production cap is at stake

Just a day after the conclusion of the annual United Nations climate conference in Azerbaijan, diplomats began meeting in Busan, South Korea, for another round of discussions – this time on plastic.

The fifth and potentially final round of negotiations on a global plastics treaty began on Monday, with high hopes that countries will be able to reach an agreement to tackle plastic pollution by December 1. During an opening ceremony, U.N. speakers implored delegates to find the “bold political will” to address the damage plastic causes to human health and the environment. South Korean Environment Minister Kim Wan Sup said that “we must end plastic pollution before plastic pollution kills us.”

The specific issue at issue in INC-5, the official name for this round of negotiations, is what many participants see as the defining question of the treaty: whether the world will directly limit the amount of plastic that manufacturers can produce ? Dozens of countries have said a production cap is the only way to achieve the treaty’s goal of “ending plastic pollution,” even as they have struggled to convince oil-producing countries to ‘accept. Virtually all plastics are made from fossil fuels.

Supporters of a production cap, including environmental groups and a coalition of scientists, sometimes compare the plastic pollution crisis to an overflowing bathtub. Instead of cleaning the floor – cleaning up existing plastic waste while the industry plans to produce ever more – they want to turn off the metaphorical faucet. Reducing plastic production would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate people’s exposure to the 16,000 chemicals used in plastic products, at least 4,200 of which have hazardous properties.

There are also financial arguments for strict limits on plastic production: the Institute for Environmental Economics and Financial Analysis, a think tank, recently argued that a cap on the production of primary plastic polymers, combined with d Other demand and supply initiatives could mitigate the volatility and price instability currently affecting producers.

“World leaders meeting here in Busan must reach an agreement that gradually reduces unlimited plastic production,” Von Hernandez, global coordinator of the anti-plastic coalition Break Free From Plastic, said in a statement. Alongside nonprofits Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund, Break Free From Plastic delivered a 3 million-signature petition to government officials the day before talks began, asking them to “dramatically reduce” plastic production.

Much has changed since countries first agreed to negotiate a plastics treaty in 2022, and even since the last meeting in April. This summer, the United States indicated it would support capping production under the treaty, only to reverse course a week after former President Donald Trump’s re-election. Chris Dixon, ocean campaign manager for the nonprofit Environmental Investigations Agency, which is participating in the negotiations, said any hope that the United States would eventually ratify the treaty has “completely evaporated.” since the Republicans will soon take control of the Senate.

There are other signs that countries may not agree to a production cap at INC-5. Ahead of the conference, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, Inger Andersen, appeared to put her thumb on the scale by making several speeches and media appearances in which she highlighted the usefulness of plastics for society , a common topic of discussion in the industry. In an interview with the international news agency AFP, she called the debate over production caps an “unintelligent conversation.”

“These remarks are part of a series of worrying statements that risk prejudging the outcome of the negotiations,” more than 130 environmental organizations wrote in a letter sent to UN Secretary-General António Guterres in October.

Luis Vayas Valdivieso, president of the CNI-5, also drew attention to how he consolidated the text from the previous meeting – a voluminous document filled with the language everyone wanted – into a more manageable basis for negotiation . For unclear reasons, it removed the article titled “primary plastic production”, which would likely relate to a potential cap, and replaced it with a vaguer article on “supply”, focusing mainly on voluntary national commitments.

Instead of capping production, some countries, including the United States, say they support so-called market mechanisms aimed at indirectly lowering demand for plastic production. This could range from a tax on plastic to a ban on certain plastic products. They want the treaty to focus on increasing plastic recycling above the current catastrophic rate of 9% and eliminating existing plastic pollution.

The American Chemistry Council, or ACC, a US trade group, says a cap on plastic production would eliminate jobs and lead to an “increased environmental footprint” because alternative materials weigh more and therefore cause more gas emissions greenhouse effect during transport.

The ACC did not respond directly to Grist’s request for comment on the financial case for a production cap, but the president of the group’s division representing plastic manufacturers, Ross Eisenberg, suggested that demand for plastic products would increase as the world’s population becomes wealthier. He cited a 2024 report commissioned by the International Council of Chemical Associations, of which the American Chemistry Council is a member, concluding that a cap on plastic production could increase the costs of many goods and services and that it would “impact on those who are least able to afford it.” he.

“The most effective way to balance supply and demand is through natural market forces, rather than arbitrary production caps,” Eisenberg said.

Benny Mermans, president of the Global Plastics Council, said in a statement ahead of INC-5 that “we have the power to shape a future in which society continues to reap the immense benefits of plastics without them becoming waste. pollution “. He called for a deal that treats plastics “as valuable resources rather than waste”.

According to an analysis by the nonprofit Center for International Environmental Law, 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists have registered to attend INC-5, more than the entire the European Union and its Member States combined.

It is too early to know what will come of the INC-5 discussions, but the first days of the meeting suggest that the week will be deeply divisive. In two events last Sunday and Monday, Andersen again came under scrutiny from environmental groups and the media for appearing to try to influence negotiations – this time by allegedly leading meetings at behind closed doors with the national delegations during which she put pressure on them to abandon the production ceilings of their priorities. Green groups also raised concerns that the decision to base negotiations on Valdivieso’s simplified text was being “largely ignored”, with some countries allegedly trying to overload the document with new suggestions.

On Wednesday, some delegates expressed frustration with the slow pace of negotiations, saying “the end seems far from being in sight.”

Other issues to be resolved – or not resolved – at INC-5 include whether the treaty will ban or restrict lists of toxic chemicals used in plastics, how to finance the treaty’s provisions, and how the agreement will be structured. Many countries, supported by environmental groups, favor a top-down format with legally binding global provisions; others, including the United States, favor a voluntary approach in which countries are free to set their own targets, whether for the production and use of plastic or the management of pollution.

Lennox Yearwood Jr., president and CEO of the social justice organization Hip Hop Caucus, told Grist from Busan that countries should enter into a treaty protecting frontline communities most likely to live near petrochemical plants and landfills. “INC-5 negotiators must prioritize binding measures that cap plastic production, emphasize our commitment to addressing current harms caused by the fossil fuel industry and tackling plastic waste,” he said. he declared.

“Without bold action, the treaty negotiations risk becoming another missed opportunity to combat environmental racism on a global scale. »

---