Charting success for the Plastics Treaty

Abstract

Plastic has become indispensable to human ways of life across the world, yet the environmental cost of our dependence is increasingly recognized as untenable. In 2022, 175 nations resolved to work toward a legally binding agreement on plastic pollution by 2024. Yet addressing plastic pollution requires changes across the entire production chain, from production to consumption to disposal. This Voices asks: what is needed for the Plastics Treaty to meaningfully address the plastics crisis? Plastic has become indispensable to human ways of life across the world, yet the environmental cost of our dependence is increasingly recognized as untenable. In 2022, 175 nations resolved to work toward a legally binding agreement on plastic pollution by 2024. Yet addressing plastic pollution requires changes across the entire production chain, from production to consumption to disposal. This Voices asks: what is needed for the Plastics Treaty to meaningfully address the plastics crisis? Numerous studies that have modeled the interventions necessary to significantly reduce plastic pollution and its associated climate emissions have reached the same conclusion: we need to make less plastic. The simplest and strongest way to achieve this is through source reduction mandates—policies to require less plastic over time. Single-use plastics are the ideal target as they represent ∼40% of total annual plastic production globally and are the most easily eliminated or replaced. Moreover, Ocean Conservancy data shows that single-use plastics make up a disproportionate amount of marine debris collected from beaches, nearly 70% of which are not recyclable. A focus on source reduction can have an outsized impact to prevent pollution across the plastics life cycle, while also cleaning up our recycling streams to enhance the transition to a circular economy. Fortunately, there is precedent for the kind of ambitious source-reduction policies necessary to address the plastic pollution crisis. Last year, California, the fifth-largest economy in the world, passed the world’s first law requiring precisely that: a 25% reduction in single-use plastics in 10 years. In addition to preventing an estimated 21 million metric tons of plastics, this policy will drive innovation to reduce plastics production at the global scale. The science is clear—to decrease plastic pollution and reach our climate goals, we need to reduce plastic production. The UN Plastic Treaty represents an unparalleled opportunity to address this crisis at its source. That’s why Ocean Conservancy is calling on negotiators at the 2nd session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to End Plastic Pollution to include a 50% target for source reduction of single-use plastics by 2050, which would eliminate over 2.6 billion metric tons of plastics. The Global Plastic Treaty represents a critical and momentous opportunity for the world to effectively tackle the global plastic crisis, but the Global South bears the brunt of its impact. Given the substantial environmental and socio-economic challenges faced by the region, it carries a significant responsibility to actively voice its concerns. Plastic-associated pollution pervades every stage throughout the life cycle, from extraction and production to disposal. While plastic pollution is pervasive in every stage of its life cycle, the disposal phrase is particularly concerning for countries in the Global South compared to their wealthier counterparts. With their technological and economically inadequate waste management infrastructure, the Global South is incapable of managing the influx of low value, single-use plastics from wealthier countries. Moreover, wealthy nations outsource their plastic to poorer countries via trade, effectively engaging in waste colonization, resulting in a moral and ethical quandary. Resolving these environmental inequities is crucial to ensuring equitable responsibility among all stakeholders involved in the agreement. While negotiating for technology and knowledge transfer of innovations in sustainable plastic alternatives, it is crucial for Global South to also seek support in building necessary infrastructure to manage their waste. It becomes imperative to establish consolidated, value-chain-oriented systems to meet the evolving sustainability needs of the developing economies. Advocacy for integration of plastic pollution reduction efforts with broader development agendas, such as poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation, and climate action can rally support from the international community and mobilize resources for comprehensive and sustainable strategies. As the second session of the Plastic Treaty negotiations unfolds in Paris, serious questions have been raised about the process. While the United Nations Environment Assembly called for “the widest and most effective participation possible,” logistics were cited as the reason for restricting participation to one person per registered NGO. This affects engagement of the most impacted and vulnerable populations (e.g., waste pickers, children and youth, Indigenous representatives). It also limits scientists’ inputs. Under UN accreditation rules many independent academics rely on NGOs to register and risk being “locked out of the room.” This is particularly salient as intergovernmental ambitions to deal with the pollution crisis (including plastics) are yet to be supported by robust independent scientific assessments like those of the IPCC for Climate Change or IPBES for biodiversity loss. This is illustrated by the controversy following the recent launch of the “Turning off the tap” report subcontracted to three institutions and intended to inform negotiations. Its scope excludes consideration of a cap on production referring instead to eliminating “unnecessary production” and implicitly frames this systemic issue as driven by demand and consumers’ behavior. Some assumptions, e.g., that circularity minimizes impacts of chemicals in plastics, are not supported by scientific evidence. Given the speed at which such assessments are drafted, they cannot be expected to be as robust and thorough as those of the IPCC or IPBES. Transparency and the meaningful contribution of independent scientists is crucial to the success of the Plastics Treaty. For this, they must be in the room. Implementing an international legally binding policy instrument will be monumental in addressing global plastic pollution and has the power to also encourage sustainable innovation. The Plastics Treaty aims to address the full life cycle of plastic issues but should also consider the wide spectrum of actors and initiatives needed to address plastic pollution. In fact, long before the Plastics Treaty negotiations began, community organizers, entrepreneurs, and technology developers have been deploying solutions for sustainable plastic management. These initiatives are expertly designed to meet local challenges, such as ineffective waste management, but often struggle with financing and scaling-up. Projects such as washing machine filters for microplastics, zero waste refill stores, and personal plastic offsets have been spearheaded by small organizations and can lead to large impacts only if they are sufficiently scaled. As policymakers negotiate the conditions of the Plastics Treaty, it is important they include incentives to support bottom-up initiatives and innovation. Bans and regulations are powerful tools to foster innovations in responsible production and recycling/reuse, but there must also be sufficient investment in alternative materials, novel delivery systems and advanced recycling and reuse infrastructures. To secure financing, the Treaty can implement extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes whereby plastic producing and using companies pay into funds which are then earmarked for innovation programs. If the Treaty builds-in incentives for bottom-up initiatives and innovation and solid support to scale them up, there is huge potential to effectively address pollution and support the on-the-ground actors already working hard in this fight. The Plastics Treaty negotiations are reaching a high point in 2023. However, there have been efforts to undermine the United Nations Environment Assembly’s endeavor to embrace a universally binding global agreement by 2024, such as attempts to form a coalition of countries seeking an approach with no enforcement mechanism (e.g., the Paris Agreement). It thus becomes imperative to focus on the agreements and priorities of an international legally binding treaty to effectively eradicate plastic pollution. The Plastics Treaty must consider three crucial aspects: (1) plastic reduction, (2) efficient waste management, and (3) measures to prevent contamination. Plastic reduction can be achieved through implementating recyclable/reusable plastic product designs, promoting the use of recycled plastic materials, and diminishing plastic footprint by incentivizing less plastic production. Enhancing waste management practices requires a comprehensive approach, from efficient collection to proper disposal, while also striving to elevate recycling performance. Finally, to avert plastic contamination, it is imperative to phase out the use of single-use plastics and allocate resources toward the development of waste management strategies (e.g., hierarchical-level approaches) with a specific emphasis on coastal regions. Importantly, the Plastics Treaty must be fair and equitable, particularly in supporting developing countries that possess limited resources to establish advanced sustainable waste management systems. This can be achieved through the provision of financial and technical assistance, which call for a well-designed governance framework to ensure the necessary supports are delivered and implemented. The global crisis of plastic pollution ranges from macro- to nanoplastics. As research shows, these various scales of pollutants are released into the environment, the air we breathe, food we eat, and water we drink via society-wide use of plastic products. Such emissions, inherently linked to our everyday activities, constitute a wicked problem, and it is increasingly evident that existing systems, regulations, and technological solutions are insufficient to level off the exponential growth in plastic production and pollution. Without fundamental changes in how society utilizes, produces, and perceives plastics, emissions of plastics in all size ranges will continue to escalate. A meaningful Plastics Treaty should acknowledge that “conventional” solutions like recycling and reuse are one-sided measures. What is needed are bold and disruptive initiatives addressing the fundamental principles of “making less” and “making better.” As such, the concept of “making less” is simple but faces momentous challenges due to the plastic habituation deeply ingrained in modern societies. Defining the concept of “making better” requires in-depth discussions and careful consideration via a holistic lens: it is particularly crucial to recognize that plastics, throughout their life cycle, are intricately linked to climate change, biodiversity loss, and chemical pollution, collectively forming the triple planetary crisis. In the pursuit of reducing global plastic production, and improving the plastics we do produce, we must consider risks of promblem-shifting and cascading effects on other environmental challenges. Their interconnectedness necessitates a holistic examination to ensure that any initiatives under the Plastics Treaty do not inadvertently exacerbate other environmental problems. Global plastic production amounted to 390 million tonnes in 2021. Although only 8.3% and 1.5% were bio-based and recyclable plastics, their proportions are expected to increase at higher rates. This is laudable, yet insufficient, as production remains to rely quite heavily on fossil resources that are CO2 intensive. Plastic waste also inflicts harmful outcomes like soil contamination and water pollution. Switching to renewable-based feedstock emerges as an important way to alleviate the negative impacts. However, the production process can still be energy intensive, and hazardous and toxic chemicals can also be generated as by-products. The principles of green chemistry must be applied to improve overall sustainability. In addition to addressing these issues, the mounting plastic waste cannot be overlooked. Degradable materials may seem to be the solution, but the impacts of degraded plastics on the environment remain unclear. Degradable polymers should, in my opinion, remain a niche product for selected applications before we have a clear understanding of their ecotoxicity. We can, alternatively, help to address the plastic waste problem by leveraging what plastics are—a valuable carbon source: possibilities are manifold, ranging from gasification via targeted depolymerization (e.g., converting plastic waste to syngas or other valuable building blocks) to upcycling to useful monomers and new valuable products (e.g., converting used plastic bottles to new textiles). With CO2 budgets decreasing and an increasing price tag on CO2 emissions, the value of plastic waste is likely to increase. This could lead to more responsible use of plastics throughout their life cycle, facilitate recycling/upcycling, and foster new and circular developments in the context of urban mining. The open burning of mixed wastes containing plastics is rampant across the world. Such burning leads to toxic emissions, contributes to air, soil, and water pollution and is a serious public and planetary health problem. Nevertheless, communities with absent or inadequate waste services are often left to fend for themselves in the face of a tsunami of plastic packaging and consumer plastics, such that open burning is an almost inevitable result. This is despite laws against such burning. In fact, ostensibly anti-plastic pollution campaigns and policies that focus on plastic litter can often lead to increased plastic burning. Although communities and local government officials engage in clean-up activities to care for their spaces or to meet waste management goals, there are no real alternatives to deal with the collected wastes, and, ultimately, the communities end up burning them. The case of open burning speaks to the necessity of policies that are attentive to local contexts and constraints and that take a comprehensive view of the plastic pollution problem. To be successful, the UN Plastics Treaty must include mechanisms to build local capacities for (1) alternatives to both plastics and single-use dependence, (2) effective waste management, and (3) monitoring of implementation. As of now, we are too dependent upon plastics to eliminate them completely. What is needed is a pragmatic approach that involves the multiple, diversified stakeholders who are reliant on plastics (industry players included), recognizes their varied interests and constraints, and targets the most pernicious plastics and additives to reduce harmful impacts as we work progressively toward plastic control and stewardship.