How a global plastic treaty could cut down pollution

The “Paris agreement for plastic” was set to be finalised at the end of this week.

But after a week and a half of intense discussions in Geneva, Switzerland, where negotiators from 180 countries are gathered, the talks are at risk of delivering a much weakened agreement (if one can be finalised at all).

“With less than 48 hours to go”, writes one academic in Geneva, “the window for action is closing”.

What has gone wrong in Geneva? And what do experts think needs to be part of a treaty in order to make it effective?

Running into resistance

Writing at the start of this round of negotiations on August 5, social scientists Cat Acheson, Alice Street and Rob Ralston of the University of Edinburgh, highlighted various elements in the draft text which could make a real difference.

“These include cutting plastic production (Article 6), banning plastic products and chemicals that are hazardous to humans or the environment (Article 3), and a section dedicated to protecting human health (Article 19).”

But many countries are pushing back. Winnie Courtene-Jones, our expert in Geneva, is a lecturer in marine pollution at Bangor University. She says the same political disagreements that have stalled previous talks remain unresolved:

“Resistance largely comes from a bloc of countries with strong petrochemical industries and interests, unwilling to compromise or pursue ambitious measures.”

This is the “like-minded group” of countries that has frustrated attempts to include these aims since the talks began in Uruguay in November 2022. Nearly all plastic is made from fossil fuel, hence the shared position of major petrochemical producers including Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran – plus the large presence of people working for oil and gas firms and plastic manufacturers at the negotiations.

This cohort favours an agreement that seeks to manage waste, rather than cap plastic production.

“They have done so by arguing that plastics are in fact essential for protecting health, due to the role of single-use plastic in modern medicine,” Acheson and colleagues say.

From womb to grave

Petrostates citing the needs of healthcare workers in their arguments against limiting how much plastic is made worldwide are probably disingenuous. A landmark report published last week in the Lancet medical journal shows why.

“Plastics, the evidence shows, are a threat to human health – from womb to grave,” say Acheson, Street and Ralston. “They’re linked to miscarriages, birth defects, heart disease and cancer.”

The report highlights how more than 16,000 chemicals are used in plastic, many of which are not disclosed by the companies making it. Plastic chemicals are tied to health effects at all stages of human development, though foetuses, infants and young children are thought to be especially susceptible.

Less than 10% of plastic is recycled, the Lancet states. Much of it leaks out at various stages between use and disposal and breaks down into tinier and tinier fragments. Plants and worms in the soil and plankton in water ingest or absorb these microplastics, and are in turn eaten by larger organisms. This is how plastic travels through food webs – and eventually reaches us.

“It is now clear that the world cannot recycle its way out of the plastic pollution crisis,” according to the Lancet report.

Plastic-eating microbes

There are some promising developments.

Just a few days ago, Julianne Megaw, a lecturer in microbiology at Queen’s University Belfast, reported the findings of her latest research on microbial degradation, which she says involves “harnessing the natural abilities of certain bacteria and fungi to break down plastics in ways that current technologies cannot”.

Such microbes are often found in polluted sites, but Megaw’s research shows they’re also found in more pristine environments. Some were able to degrade plastics by around 20% in a month without any pretreatment.

These results are “among the highest biodegradation rates ever recorded for these plastics,” writes Megaw. “This suggests that we don’t have to stick to polluted sites. It’s possible that we could find microbes with excellent plastic-degrading potential anywhere.”

This is great news of course. Maybe one day billions of friendly microbes will be set loose to clear up a century or two of plastic pollution. But even in the most optimistic scenario, we’re still some way off being able to use microorganisms at scale.

Reaching the limit?

And so that leaves the idea of placing limits on total plastic production. Research by Costas Velis, a lecturer in resource efficiency at the University of Leeds, indicates why an effective treaty will need to include some kind of global cap:

“All efforts to scientifically model the extent of plastic pollution in the future assume that restricting how much plastic the world makes each year will be necessary (among other measures) to curb its harmful presence in the environment.”

But even if countries can phase down plastic manufacturing, Velis cautions that we would have much further to go to solve the problem.

“Cutting production almost in half and using all other strategies, such as ramping up recycling and disposing of plastic waste in landfills or via incineration plants, would still leave residual pollution in 2040,” he says.

Waste management reforms, changes to the design of remaining plastic products and mandates for retailers will also be necessary.

“It could be possible to massively simplify the types of polymers used in packaging so that just a few are in circulation. This would make recycling more effective, as one of the present complications is the huge variation in materials that leads to cross-contamination. Likewise, countries could massively expand systems for reusing and refilling containers in shops,” he says.

You and I will have to get used to living with much less plastic as well – a marked shift in our lives for which there is little precedent, Velis says. A result in Geneva that reins in the expanding plastic industry could at least kickstart that process.

“Every year without production caps makes the necessary cut to plastic production in future steeper – and our need to use other measures to address the problem greater,” he says.

Whatever happens in the next few days, be sure to check out the latest coverage here on The Conversation. We have plastics experts lined up to assess the final treaty – or explain why talks ultimately did collapse.

Post-carbon

Last week, we asked you if growing awareness of microplastic contamination had affected your behaviour.

Stefan Frischauf said that plastic bags are a nightmare and, as an architect, “rebuilding and reuse of materials should be regulated in much more severe ways”.

Babette Schouws says: “I have stopped buying clothes made of polyester or other plastic materials … I always check the tag before I try something on.”

And Tina Grayson set up “a small business selling our solid shampoo and conditioner bars”. Each bar, she says, saves about three plastic bottles. “This is our contribution to the ever worrying increase of plastics and microplastics in our world – as well as doing other things in our house such as ordering milk from the milk man in glass bottles rather than buying plastic ones from the supermarket, using chewable toothpaste, using toothbrushes without plastic handles, buying our loo paper from Bamboo which is wrapped in paper etc.”

Next week, we’d like to know if severe heatwaves in the UK, southern Europe or beyond have affected your holiday plans. Will you try and avoid 40°C temperatures or head for a dip in the sea to cool off?

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.