Failure to settle on terms for international policies that could curb the rising tide of ‘forever debris’ teach us a very valuable lesson.
Of course, when the UN Global Plastics Treaty talks in Geneva, Switzerland, ended on 15th August without an agreement to ratify, lamentations came thick and fast.
The optimistic plan was to put a cap on global production, phase out the use of toxic chemicals in the industry, promote sustainable design and circularity, and create a standardised Extended Producer Responsibility programme. Wishful thinking.
Instead, we got very little, other than another example of why major petrochemical states like the US and Saudi Arabia can’t be trusted to vote against their own immediate economic interests. In this instance, both blocked consensus and pushed for a treaty focused on waste management, not reduction.
‘This treaty was our best chance to create a unified global framework to curb plastic pollution,’ says Michael Lunn, CEO of the Environmental Industries Association [EIA]. ‘Its failure is a setback not just for the environment, but for UK businesses striving to innovate in sustainable materials and circular economy models.’
The disappointment was echoed in sentiments elsewhere, too. Diane Crowe, Group Sustainability Director at circularity specialist Reconomy, explains why the emphasis must be on production levels and the materials used within that process, rather than dealing with plastic after the fact.
‘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,’ she tells us.
‘This dependence on virgin materials is placing unsustainable pressure on the earth’s ecosystems and is contributing significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions,’ Crowe continues. ‘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.’
Despite yet another significant setback, advocates of a far-reaching plastic treaty aren’t about to stand still. At the EIA, for example, a new strategy has been launched with five key aims. These include:
- Strengthen domestic legislation: Advocate for stricter UK laws on plastic production and chemical safety.
- Support innovation: Partner with industry to accelerate development of non-toxic, reusable, and recyclable materials.
- Build coalitions: Work with like-minded nations to form a “coalition of the willing” that implements treaty elements at national and regional levels.
- Empower communities: Promote indigenous and frontline community-led solutions to plastic pollution.
- Hold polluters accountable: Push for mandatory EPR schemes and transparency in plastic supply chains.
Other organisations are also rallying to promote and support action at more local and regional levels in lieu of a truly global regime. More to the point, many experts are citing Geneva as proof that waiting around for international regulations to be introduced is doing more harm than good.
‘While global agreements like the UN plastics treaty are important, the breakdown of talks in Geneva confirms again that we cannot wait for politicians and legislation to care for our oceans and the communities most affected by plastic pollution,’ says Raffi Schieir, Director of Prevented Ocean Plastics. ‘Every day, waste workers, recyclers, and local entrepreneurs are already delivering impact, and need support.
‘At Prevented Ocean Plastic, we see first-hand how proven, scalable solutions- led by communities and supported by business- can foster global entrepreneurship and stop plastic from reaching the ocean. We need to centre the people driving change, accelerate the infrastructure that works, and invite more partners to turn ambition into action,’ Schieir continues. ‘Now is the time to double down on scaling the solutions we already know work, keep building, keep collaborating, and keep people at the heart of the solution.’
Others have warned that the very idea of a plastics ‘ban’ creates a false reassurance. It’s not possible for us to ‘ban our way out of the plastics challenge’, because this isn’t a realistic solution. In order to solve it, the problem itself — not the material — must be the focus of any proposed legislation. And by that Michael Laurier, CEO of Symphony Environmental, means focusing on the mismanagement of waste and the use of manufacturing biodegradable plastics.
‘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,’ he says. ‘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’s to make them smarter, safer, and better managed.’
Image: Louis Hansel / Unsplash
More Case Studies, Features and Industry Insight:
Great reveal: how air pollution masked global warming, confusing adaptation plans
Greening the permit: embedding sustainability in local event planning
Should London rethink Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land to solve housing crisis?
