The global plastics treaty process has fallen flat. Here’s what went wrong, and how you can help
- Written by Melanie MacGregor, ARC Future Fellow and Matthew Flinders Fellow in Chemistry, Flinders University
Progress towards a legally binding global treaty on plastics pollution stalled and went into reverse this week. The United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, ran overtime. It’s likely to conclude this evening, without agreement.
This is an incredibly disappointing result. As a member of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, I was hoping for action to genuinely curb plastic pollution. Our priorities included considering the whole life cycle rather than just disposal, setting targets to reduce plastic production, and regulating the use of harmful additives to reduce risks to human health.
Unfortunately, vested interests hijacked the negotiations. Countries with major petrochemical producers resisted caps on virgin plastic production. We’ve seen this before. Legitimate scientific concerns about harm have been downplayed by powerful interests time and time again — with tobacco, PFAS, asbestos, and climate change.
When it comes to plastics — especially the micro- and nanoplastics now invading our bodies — awareness and early action could make all the difference. But we can still take action into our own hands as consumers, to minimise exposure and reduce waste. It we act together, we can also send a powerful message to the plastics manufacturing industry.
We cannot recycle our way out of this mess (The Scientists’ Coalition)Why do we need a plastics treaty?
An ambitious plastic treaty could have a positive, lasting impact on the environment and human health.
The Montreal Protocol, adopted in 1987 to phase out ozone-depleting aerosols, is a great example of what can be achieved.
The original Kyoto Protocol for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, on the other hand, was not ambitious enough. It had fewer signatories and its effectiveness varied between countries. The plastics treaty is at a similar crossroads.
This treaty is a unique opportunity. It could ensure harmful additives are disclosed, new materials are proven safe before use, and upstream measures — such as reducing production and simplifying plastic chemistry — are prioritised.
Dissecting the changes
A promising draft treaty, circulated in December after two years of negotiations, was revised at the end of the first week of the summit, and then cut in half midway through the second week. All items of contention had been removed.
Words such as “target”, “chemicals”, “harmful” and “phase out” were absent. Article 19 — the one addressing human health — was deleted altogether. References to public awareness disappeared from the waste-management section.
Gone are plans to globally phase out specific products such as plastic bags and straws. So is the section on sustainable production and reduction targets. There is no mention of chemicals of concern, or transparency around additives. Even basic language about improving recycling rates, banning open burning and dumping, or encouraging behaviour change has been removed.
On a positive note, the revised draft still encourages innovation and research. But without safeguards, there’s a risk efforts will simply consist of finding loopholes to dodge penalties. We’ve seen this before too: replacing one banned chemical with another unregulated, equally harmful one.
What can we do as consumers?
In the absence of a strong treaty — at least for now — we shouldn’t underestimate the power and influence we have as consumers.
Industry does respond to public demand. Just look at what happened with plastic microbeads. These tiny pieces of plastic were once common in personal care products such as exfoliants, body scrubs and toothpastes. But when people started to reject products containing microbeads, recognising them as a source of microplastics, manufacturers took note.
Governments also stepped in. The Netherlands was the first country to ban them, soon followed by many others. Eventually, manufacturers phased plastic microbeads out of their product lines worldwide.
That shift was largely driven by popular pressure. It’s a small win, but a telling one — a reminder that our choices can make a difference.
Did you know some of the biggest sources of microplastics are synthetic textiles and tyres? Together they contribute more than 60% of primary microplastics. Microplastics are released not just when an item is discarded and decays in the oceans, but every time it’s worn or washed.
Seemingly small actions – such as buying fewer clothes, choosing natural fibres where possible, washing less often, and walking or cycling instead of driving – can make a difference if we all act collectively.
It’s also worth looking at other sources of microplastics in our surroundings, to limit exposure. Carpets are generally made of synthetic fibres that constantly shed microplastics. Exposure is significantly higher indoors, including inside cars – another reason to walk.
Don’t wait for a treaty
Australia is not a big producer of raw polymers from fossil fuels. That may be partly why our nation is part of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution by 2040.
However, Australians consume more single-use plastic per capita than most other countries – more than 50 kilograms per person, per year.
We don’t need to wait for a treaty to start curbing plastic pollution in our own lives. If we get serious about changing our ways, manufacturers may be forced to take notice.
Authors: Melanie MacGregor, ARC Future Fellow and Matthew Flinders Fellow in Chemistry, Flinders University
