UN Global Plastics Treaty talks end without agreement

With the collapse of the UN Global Plastics Treaty talks in Geneva, many commentators have been expressing their thoughts on what this means, what will happen now, and what this means for business.

With some countries opting for an outright ban, others – mostly oil producing countries – look to increase abilities to recycle more.

The plastics problem is one that has long been considered, and it really is an issue that can only be answered with multiple solutions. Just simply banning new plastics is not a complete answer. Nor is simply moving to alternative substrates.

The biggest problem is this – even if we do this, there is still a huge amount of it, in fact most of what has ever been made, polluting our planet, leaching into soil and waterways and breaking up into air – so not just a ban, but also going back and relieving the earth of what we already have, a project that is nigh on impossible, and very costly, as much of this lies in landfills and the ocean (more than 80% of marine debris is plastic), and more is stored in our homes, offices, warehouses and the like.

And, a high percentage of plastics can’t be recycled at all, and the facilities to recycle more are just not there.

Also, different kinds of plastics degrade at different rates. For instance, the average time for a plastic bottle could be at least 450 years, whilst a plastic bag takes at least 200 years – some take even longer – even up to 100 years. So, trying to clean up what is already existing is a massive job with many associated problems.

And of course, there is always the problem of what we put in its place. We produce and use excessive amounts of plastic because it is useful, and whilst a lot of that could be switched to fibre based alternatives, not all can. And, then you have ENGOs, wrongly, banging their drums about trees (a sustainable resource) being cut down, as fibre based substrates cannot be infinitely recycled without some virgin fibres being introduced from time to time (but that is a whole different story!).

There are of course less polluting and more sustainable forms of plastic, but these are often more expensive and do not always work as well.

One simple example here is the humble plastic carrier bag. First a cost to have your bag to carry your purchases found that people were mostly willing to pay their 5p. Prices were raised, and people still bought them. Why? Because they are handy and trying to carry multiple items if you have forgotten your own bag can be impossible.

Then supermarket retailers stopped home deliveries in bags – for some this worked, but for many it didn’t and retailers who found they did not offer this service began to see a loss of customers to those supermarkets who did (and many more disgruntled customers who stayed but were not happy about having the choice taken away from them). If you live in flats for instance, or have mobility issues (where the process of home delivery can be almost impossible without bags), or are even a busy mum or dad trying to cope with young children whilst your delivery is taking place, or even just someone who is pushed for time (which is probably why you've opted for delivery in the first place), having groceries delivered in a crate (plastic) and having to take them out one by one and put them into another receptacle (often made of some form of plastic), or having to carry them without bags is a big no-no.

Yes, the changes did cut the number for a while, but the numbers are now going back up and the use of plastic carriers is increasing again. Why? Because they are useful, cheap and easy – they simply do the job.

These and many other questions and problems, make a consensus on what to do about the plastic situation one that has no easy answer.

According to Symphony Environmental Technologies, a leader in advanced plastic technologies, the breakdown of the recent talks reflects the deep divide between political rhetoric and practical solutions.

‘We should stop talking about bans versus business as usual – instead we need to focus on technologies and policies that actually solve the problem,’ said Michael Laurier, CEO of Symphony Environmental. ‘The traditional policies of reduce, reuse, recycle, are clearly not adequate, and you cannot fit into a circular economy the plastic which has escaped into the environment as litter. The only way to deal with this is to use technology such as Symphony’s d2w to manufacture the plastic so that it will quickly biodegrade if it gets into the open environment without leaving microplastics behind. This can be done at little or no extra cost, and without changing suppliers – yes it really does work!’

‘The world cannot ban its way out of the plastics challenge. We need innovation, infrastructure, and global cooperation to manage plastic waste responsibly while preserving the benefits that plastics bring to modern life.’

‘The Geneva talks fell apart because they were trying to legislate against a material instead of a problem – mismanaged plastic waste,’ he added. ‘If negotiators return to the table at all, they should focus on solutions that combine environmental protection with economic practicality, so we can make real progress.’

‘Plastics have become the environmental villain in the soundbites – but the real enemy is pollution. The answer isn’t to erase plastics from the planet, it is to make them smarter, safer, and better managed.’

Sian Sutherland, co-founder, A Plastic Planet, Plastic Health Council, had this to say: ‘The failure to reach agreement on the UN Global Plastics Treaty represents a devastating capitulation to big oil’s interests. After three years of unprecedented collaboration a minority of governments have scuppered the opportunity for binding health and production commitments that were fundamental to the treaty's effectiveness. What makes this particularly grotesque is that industry leaders themselves now recognise that the ubiquity of plastic will soon become economically unviable, yet global consensus and an ambitious UN chair, proved impossible when the disruptive few were driven by a pack of fossil fuel lobbyists ready to reap the rewards of failure.

‘The high ambition coalition and civil society built extraordinary solidarity over these negotiations – a unity that transcended traditional boundaries. The fact that this could not overcome a process so fundamentally compromised by the narrow interests of the tiny fraction reaping massive financial rewards reveals the urgent need to reform how we make planetary decisions. We cannot allow the few to continue hijacking the health and wellbeing of the many. I hope to see the majority of nations backing an ambitious treaty take forward their work and deliver change in the future.’

Alexandra French, CEO of materials innovation company Xampla, which is pioneering natural polymer alternatives to single use plastics, said: ‘This treaty has disappointingly failed to deliver the binding global measures we desperately need to address the impact of plastic on our planetary and personal health. Natural polymers are a proven solution to the plastic crisis, delivering on performance but unlike plastics, don’t pollute our environment for generations to come. 

‘Negotiators have chosen voluntary guidelines that will change nothing. With an estimated 12 million tonnes of plastic entering the ocean each year, it is clear that new innovations must be championed to deliver genuine change – not voluntary measures which will only guarantee the plastic crisis continues.’

Commenting, Diane Crowe, group sustainability director at Reconomy, the international circular economy specialist, also said: ‘It is disappointing that after 11 days of intense negotiations in Geneva in what was supposed to have been the final round of talks, no agreement has been reached.

‘This was a missed opportunity to tackle one of the greatest structural challenges of our time. The world is extracting and consuming virgin resources faster than the world can regenerate them with too few plastics being circulated back into the economy. This dependence on virgin materials is placing unsustainable pressure on the earth’s ecosystems and is contributing significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions. A strong agreement could have accelerated the global shift to a circular economy with nations committing to make better use of existing materials which would lower carbon emissions and environmental harm and reduce costs for businesses.’

Joshua Sherrard-Bewhay, ESG analyst, Hargreaves Lansdown, said: ‘After three years of talks, countries have not been able to agree on the provisions of a binding global treaty that reduces plastic consumption. 

‘The treaty aimed to set legally binding caps on plastic production, improve waste management, recycling and product design, remove hazardous chemicals from plastics, and create funding mechanisms to support developing countries. 

‘While the adoption of the Paris Agreement a decade ago showed that international cooperation and consensus was possible on sustainability issues, today’s political climate suggests responsibility will fall onto individual countries and companies.’ 

He continued, ‘Companies in the oil and gas sector will have been especially interested in the outcome, as upstream production was in scope of the treaty. Equally, consumer goods and staples, as well as many other producers of products, are likely to view this as a signal that policy is not likely to change any time soon.

‘It is reported that 56 companies are responsible for 50% of the world’s plastic pollution. Investors that wish to encourage positive action on plastic should look beyond companies that only have recycling schemes and towards those that focus on phasing out single use and virgin plastics. Engaging with companies to provide transparent reporting and progress on reduction plans will be key to encouraging progress.’