The final session of the discussions facilitated by the United Nations aimed at tackling plastic pollution began in South Korea in December, amid substantial disagreements over the need to manage the increasing flow of plastic waste. These disagreements threaten the two-year effort to reach a consensus.

As reported by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, plastic production is set to increase by around 60% to 736 million tons annually by the year 2040. This statistic raises serious concerns, as research emphasizes the detrimental impacts of these materials accumulating in both the environment and human bodies.

Read: Discovery of plastic-eating insect in Kenya

The crux of the negotiations in Busan revolves around determining whether to implement binding restrictions on certain categories of chemicals and plastic production or to agree on a funding strategy to improve waste collection and recycling initiatives.

A coalition of nearly 70 countries, including Rwanda, Norway, and the UK, is advocating for a “high ambition” treaty that would regulate hazardous chemicals and eliminate the most polluting single-use plastic products such as cutlery.

Conversely, representatives from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and other petro-states vocally oppose this initiative. They argue that plastics are vital for sustainable development, highlighting their weight advantages over alternatives that lead to lower fuel consumption during transportation. They also contend that plastic pollution stems from consumption and disposal behaviors, rather than the material itself.

Previous rounds of negotiation have seen these countries resisting enforceable agreements and using diplomatic maneuvers to hinder voting within the negotiating committee.

This has resulted in frustration among advocates pushing for high ambition. Some are warning that without significant progress toward binding limitations, the discussions risk ending in a stalemate.

“Addressing production is a crucial matter for numerous nations. It cannot be ignored,” stated Anne Beathe Tvinnereim, Norway’s Minister for International Development and head of its delegation in Busan.

“If we do not confront issues related to chemicals and the most littered products, merely focusing on waste management is in vain,” she articulated, likening the situation to “mopping the floor while the tap is running.”

A heap of plastic waste in Gorakshep, Sagarmatha Region, Nepal. Image: Mailee Osten-Tan/Getty Images

The growing plastic crisis in our environment cannot be ignored. In developing nations, plastic debris is clogging rivers and beaches, threatening wildlife.

A significant accumulation of trash in the Democratic Republic of Congo even led to the shutdown of a hydroelectric dam in December, causing power outages.

The United Nations states that plastics account for around 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

As plastic products break down, they transform into microplastics, which have been found in human breast milk, brain tissue, and blood. Research has linked bisphenol F, a chemical present in certain plastics, to reduced IQ levels in children.

Microplastics on Mt Everest

Microplastics are ubiquitous, detected in ecosystems that range from the depths of the Mariana Trench in the Pacific Ocean to the snow-covered peaks of Mt. Everest. A recent study suggested that aerosolized plastic particles could even affect cloud formation and increase rainfall.

Surveys indicate robust public support for initiatives to combat plastic pollution. A study conducted by Ipsos across 32 countries this year found that 90% of respondents back global regulations prohibiting harmful chemicals in plastics. Moreover, 87% underscored the importance of reducing overall plastic production.

Read: Nigeria emerges as the world’s second largest plastic polluter …

Nevertheless, there are significant interests lobbying for heightened plastic production. Industry representatives actively oppose production limits, arguing that approximately 2.7 billion people lack access to adequate waste management systems and that the focus of the Busan talks should be on securing more funding for these systems.

Benny Mermans, chairman of the World Plastics Council and vice president of sustainability at Chevron Phillips Chemical, stated that any global agreement should emphasize “circularity,” treating used plastics as valuable resources rather than waste.

An employee at Trex Co. stands with bales of recycled plastic, which the company transforms into decking material. Image: Nathan Howard/Bloomberg

Nearly half of all new plastic products are used only once before being disposed of. Globally, only 9.5% of plastic is recycled. Companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. advocate for enhanced recycling initiatives, including “advanced recycling” for items that are difficult to decompose, like candy wrappers. Nonetheless, recycling plastic can be costly and often results in pollution, and initiatives aimed at expanding recycling capabilities have frequently run into obstacles.

As the demand for oil decreases due to advancements in renewable energy and electrification, growth in petrochemicals is anticipated to play a critical role in offsetting this decline, positioning the sector as a vital fallback for oil-exporting countries and the fossil fuel industry. BloombergNEF projects that the share of petrochemicals in total oil demand could nearly double by 2050.

“The oil and gas industry perceives this as a contingency plan or safety net throughout the energy transition,” commented Dharmesh Shah, a senior campaigner for the Center for International Environmental Law, a nonprofit with offices in Washington, DC, and Geneva.

What positions do the US and China hold?

The United States, as the foremost global economy and main oil producer, wields significant influence in the negotiations, although its role in Busan remains unclear. Reports in August suggested that the Biden administration intended to endorse a global target to limit plastic production. Advocates welcomed this development, while industry leaders criticized it.

Then the elections occurred. Donald Trump, who campaigned on a platform to enhance fossil fuel extraction and withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement, reclaimed the presidency. Concurrently, Republicans secured control of the Senate, which must approve the treaty with a two-thirds majority for it to become legally binding.

A week later, the US negotiating team notified nonprofit organizations pushing for stringent plastic regulations that there was “no landing zone” for strict production caps, according to members of the Break Free From Plastic coalition involved in the discussion.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality reiterated the US commitment to “securing an ambitious, legally binding global instrument to combat plastic pollution based on a comprehensive strategy that addresses the entire lifecycle of plastic.”

“This approach is completely unacceptable,” remarked Sarah Martik, executive director of the Center for Coalfield Justice, a Pennsylvania advocacy group. She expressed concerns that it could potentially “derail” the negotiations.

The uncertainty surrounding the US’s current stance and the Republican electoral gains have prompted delegates to direct their focus elsewhere.

Future advancements toward a robust, legally binding treaty will likely hinge on the influence of emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, which are major consumers of oil and natural gas.

“As a significant consumer, you hold the power to dictate your consumption preferences,” noted Juliet Kabera, director general of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority and a primary negotiator at the Busan talks. “Producers will be forced to respond to your demands because they rely on your market.”

Volunteers lay out plastic bags to dry at a recycling center in Rayong, Thailand. Image: Bloomberg

As the world’s leading plastic producer, China maintains a strong trading relationship with Saudi Arabia, the source of a considerable portion of its crude oil imports. Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil company, is investing in plants in China capable of converting crude oil into petrochemicals.

This year, however, China’s National Development and Reform Committee issued directives emphasizing specialty chemicals, while aiming to limit the establishment of smaller facilities that produce common plastics. Environmental advocates interpret this as a sign that China may support a global initiative to restrict production capacity.

Divergent roadmaps

As the delegates gather in Busan, there are effectively two starkly contrasting treaty proposals. One comprises a lengthy 70-page document filled with over 300 contentious issues. The other is a succinct “non-paper” submitted by the negotiating committee chair, Luis Vayas Valdivieso from Ecuador, outlining the limited areas of agreement.

This white paper has faced criticism from certain NGOs for lacking binding limits, while others view it as the most feasible path forward. “It serves as a productive starting point since no single group is fully satisfied with it,” explained Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business at the World Wildlife Federation, noting that it would be “achievable to finalize” within a week of discussions.

On the opening day, delegates are expected to vote on whether to pursue the non-paper over the longer draft. Should they choose the latter, Simon forecasts that achieving progress would be significantly more challenging as it would reopen all discussions. However, serious challenges remain even with the more concise document and recognition by various nations that enhanced waste management and recycling, particularly in the Global South, is essential.

African countries have been leading initiatives to restrict single-use plastics, with many nations implementing or committing to policies aimed at reducing consumption. A treaty could confer international recognition on these bans and establish design requirements to ensure single-use plastics adhere to consistent chemical standards, thereby facilitating easier recycling.

The primary challenge, however, lies in potentially regulating harmful chemical compounds and additives found in plastics. This includes BPA and other bisphenols, phthalates, and PBDE flame retardants. Advocates for high ambition aim to create a targeted list of chemicals that have a history of environmental leaching or high potential for human harm, with the goal of gradually banning them.

Clearly, these challenges will not be easily resolved within a week in Busan. Some delegates are hoping for the best-case scenario of an agreement on a binding framework for ongoing discussions related to plastic, similar to the annual COP summits addressing climate change.

“We understand that we won’t achieve everything we want or everything the world needs,” Simon said. It is essential, she emphasized, that “whatever we finalize” in Busan “is adaptable over time, allowing us to build upon it.”

© 2024 Bloomberg

For in-depth finance and business news, follow Moneyweb on WhatsApp here.