By ensuring the collapse of UN talks seeking the first legally binding agreement on tackling plastic pollution, blockers in Geneva have failed the next generation. Most states are willing, even determined, to act. But the US joined petrostates obstructing action. Their children too will live to regret that.
To say that plastics are part of our lives from cradle to grave is an understatement: microplastics have been found in placentas, as well as blood and breast milk. While we can’t yet be certain of the full impact of the substances, we know that many have been linked to health effects and that foetuses, infants and young children are highly vulnerable. Microplastics have been shown to damage human cells in laboratory experiments, and a review published this month documented how exposure is associated with increased risks of miscarriage, stillbirth, birth defects, impaired lung growth, childhood cancer and fertility problems as an adult.
Yet even as our awareness of the danger to human and planetary health soars, so does plastic production, which is expected to triple – to more than a billion tonnes a year – within 35 years. Half of the plastic produced annually is for single-use items. In part, this growth is because petrostates see petrochemicals as their solution to maintaining demand given the shift towards renewables and nuclear in power generation.
Three years ago, the prospect of a binding global treaty brought hope to all those concerned about the impact of plastics. But subsequent discussions failed and in Geneva this week, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others insisted that action should be limited to tackling waste – which can only have a wholly inadequate impact – not curbing production and halting the use of toxic chemicals in their manufacture. The US insisted that only voluntary measures were acceptable. Rightly, that was not enough for delegates from “high ambition” states, which include those in the EU, Britain, Canada and most of the global south. The insistence on a consensus decision allowed a minority to prevent the action needed.
It is deeply disappointing that no agreement could be reached, and that none lies in sight, though perhaps not surprising, especially when diplomacy and multilateralism are struggling more generally. Many of those attending concluded that no deal was better than a weak one which might allow the pressure for real change to dissipate. They will continue their push, though not necessarily through the same mechanism, given this second failure. Some think another UN forum might be more successful.
We cannot afford to despair. Campaigners also note that it took eight years of talks to agree an amendment on hydrofluorocarbons to the Montreal protocol on ozone-depleting substances. Some hope that China could play a critical role in making a shift: it is one of the world’s biggest producers of plastics, but it is less reliant on them, and Beijing could benefit from being regarded as a leader on this global environmental issue. In the meantime, countries can and must take action unilaterally, and within blocs, to reduce plastic usage. Some, like Colombia, are already taking significant steps.
If the record number of industry lobbyists in Geneva was a depressing sign of the entrenched interests that all who care about this issue must battle against, it was also proof that plastics producers know that change is possible and that the case for it grows stronger by the day. They have fought it off for now, but they must not prevail.
