Can the world unite to end the plastic pollution crisis?

A coalition of nearly 70 nations, including Rwanda, Norway and the UK, is pushing for a “high ambition” treaty to regulate dangerous chemicals and phase out the most polluting single-use plastic products, like cutlery.

But Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and some other petrostates — plastics are made from chemicals derived from fossil fuels — ardently disagree. They have argued that plastics are an important material for sustainable growth, since, for example, they’re lighter than many substitutes and can cut transportation fuel use, and that plastic pollution arises not from the material itself but from the way it is consumed and disposed of. In previous rounds of talks, they have opposed binding provisions and used levers in the diplomatic process to prevent voting by the negotiating committee.

“Some elements do not belong to this treaty, such as chemicals of concern and supply,” the Russia delegation said during the plenary session.

That has left high-ambition representatives frustrated. And some are now warning that unless real progress can be made on adding those binding limits, the talks could end in stalemate.

“The production side is a red line for many countries. It needs to be addressed,” Anne Beathe Tvinnereim, head of Norway’s delegation to Busan and the country’s minister for international development, said before the talks started.

“Unless we address chemicals [and] the most littering items, then it’s really no use just looking at the waste management side,” she said. That would be like “mopping the floor while the tap is open.”

Microplastics on Mt. Everest

The rising toll of plastic in the environment is impossible to ignore. In the developing world, plastic waste is clogging beaches and rivers and choking wildlife. A glut of trash in the Democratic Republic of Congo this month even shut down a hydroelectric dam, forcing power cuts. Plastics are also responsible for about 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN.

As plastic items break down, they become microplastics. These have now been found in human breast milk, brain tissue and blood. Research has linked a chemical used in some plastics, bisphenol F, to lower IQs in children.

Microplastics are ubiquitous across ecosystems, detected everywhere from the depths of the Pacific Ocean’s Mariana Trench to the snow on Mt. Everest. One recent study found that aerosolized plastic particles could even affect cloud formation and induce heavier rainfall.

Polls suggest there is broad public support for restrictions to limit plastic pollution. On average across 32 countries, 90% of people surveyed this year by Ipsos backed global rules banning chemicals used in plastic that are hazardous to human health and the environment. And 87% said it’s important to reduce the amount of plastic produced globally.

But there are powerful interests for producing more plastic. Industry groups have been lobbying hard against caps. They say the problem is that 2.7 billion people live without access to adequate waste management, and finding more money for that should be the focus of Busan.

A global agreement should be “anchored in circularity, treating used plastics as valuable resources rather than waste,” Benny Mermans, chairman of the World Plastics Council and vice president of sustainability at Chevron Phillips Chemical, said in a statement ahead of the talks.

About half of new plastic items are used just once and then thrown away. Globally, just 9.5% of plastic is recycled. Petrochemical companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. back more recycling, including “advanced recycling” for goods that are hard to break down, like candy wrappers. Recycling plastic can be expensive and polluting, and some efforts to scale it up have struggled.

Read more: Inside Big Plastic’s Faltering $1.5 Billion Global Cleanup Effort

As renewable energy and electrification sap demand for oil, growth in petrochemicals is expected to help offset that, making the sector an important backstop for oil-producing countries and the fossil fuel industry. Petrochemicals’ share of total oil demand could nearly double by 2050, according to research firm BloombergNEF.

“The oil and gas industry is looking at this as a Plan B, or an escape hatch, for surviving the energy transition,” said Dharmesh Shah, a senior campaigner for the Center for International Environmental Law, a nonprofit with headquarters in Washington, DC, and Geneva.

Where do the US and China stand?
As the world’s largest economy and biggest oil producer, the US could exert a lot of influence in negotiations, but whether it will in Busan and to what end is uncertain. In August, it was reported that the Biden administration would support a global target to limit plastic production. Advocates celebrated while industry leaders condemned the stance.

But then came the election. Donald Trump, who campaigned on promises to drill for more fossil fuels and pull the US back out of the Paris climate accord, won the presidency. And Republicans gained control of the US Senate, which would have to ratify the treaty with a two-thirds majority for it to be legally binding.

A week later the US negotiating team held a briefing for nonprofits pushing for stringent action on plastic and told them there was “no landing zone” for hard caps on production, according to members of the Break Free From Plastic coalition who were on the call.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality said in a statement that the US remains committed to “securing an ambitious, legally binding global instrument to tackle plastic pollution based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full lifecycle of plastic.”

“This attitude simply isn’t good enough,” said Sarah Martik, the executive director of the Center for Coalfield Justice, a Pennsylvania advocacy group. She said she worries it could “derail” the talks.

The vagueness of the current US position and the Republicans’ election victory have led delegates to place their energies elsewhere.

Moving forward with an ambitious, legally binding treaty, they say, will likely hinge on the influence of growing economies like China, India, Brazil and South Africa, which are major buyers of oil and natural gas.

“If you’re a big consumer, that means you have the muscle to dictate what you want to consume,” said Juliet Kabera, director general of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority and a key negotiator at the Busan talks. “That is going to also push the producers to give you exactly that, because they need your market.”

China is the world’s biggest producer of plastic and has a close trading relationship with Saudi Arabia, the source of much of its imported oil. State oil company Saudi Aramco is investing in plants in China that can process its crude into petrochemicals.

But China’s National Development and Reform Committee earlier this year gave guidance that prioritized specialty chemicals while looking to limit the development of small plants that make more common types of plastic, environmental advocates note. They argue it could make sense for China to agree to a global deal to cut capacity.

Competing roadmaps

During the first plenary session on Monday, delegates approved using a “non-paper” released at the end of October by the negotiating committee chair, Luis Vayas Valdivieso of Ecuador, as the foundation to facilitate conversations this week. An earlier 70-page document that was the result of previous negotiations can continue to be used as a source by delegates.

The non-paper had been excoriated by some NGOs for having no binding limits, but others say it represents the best path forward. “It is a great starting point because not one community is happy about it,” said Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business at the World Wildlife Fund, adding that it would be “feasible to finish” in a week of talks.

African nations have spearheaded efforts to curb single-use plastic, and dozens of countries on the continent have instituted or pledged policies to reduce consumption. A treaty could make those bans international and also create design imperatives so that single-use plastics follow a set of universal chemical blueprints, making them easier to recycle.

The tallest hurdle, however, is the possible regulation of chemical compounds and additives used in plastics that research shows are harmful. These include BPA and other bisphenols, phthalates and PBDE flame retardants. High-ambition advocates would like to set out a target list of chemicals that have a history of leaching into the environment or a high likelihood of causing human harm, and then to ban them one by one.

All of this is not likely to be resolved in one week in Busan, of course. The best-case scenario, some delegates say, would be if nations could agree to a binding framework for ongoing dialogue on plastic, the way the world now has an ongoing dialogue on climate at annual COP summits.

“We know we are not going to get everything we want and everything the world needs,” said Simon. It’s essential, she added, that “whatever we lock in” in Busan “can be strengthened over time, so that we can build.”