According to the United Nations, plastic production has skyrocketed from 2 million tons in 1950 to approximately 400 million in 2024. This number is expected to triple by 2060. Only 10 percent of this plastic is currently recycled and reused. The rest will remain in our environment for centuries, polluting the planet from the oceans to the mountains, contaminating food chains and human bodies, risking damage to our organs and brains.
In 2025, we will start eliminating plastic pollution. From 2022, decision-makers at the United Nations, representing more than 170 countries, are negotiating a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty dealing with the full life cycle of plastics, from design, through production, to disposal. This treaty shares many of the mechanisms present in the treaty Montreal Protocol of 1987which ultimately led to the phasing out of CFCs – chemicals responsible for ozone depletion. As such, it can succeed despite opposition.
The treaty was expected to be finalized by the fifth and final session in Busan, South Korea, in delayed November 2024. So far, unsurprisingly, negotiations have been polarized. At the time of writing, the draft treaty had two options for its overall goal: the first, more ambitious one, aims to “end plastic pollution”; the second one aims to “protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution.”
The first option is defended by a group of countries that are part of the so-called A high-ambition coalition to end plastic pollutionled by the Nordic countries, but also includes countries such as Rwanda and Peru. Option two is favored by major oil producers such as Saudi Arabia, who want to focus the discussion on plastic recycling and waste management rather than plastic production. In August 2024, the United States, also a major producer of plastics and oil, announced a surprising policy change, now also pledging to support restrictions on plastic production. Given the influence of the Americans, this recent position will have an impact on the treaty.
Agreeing to option one would put us on a path very similar to that followed by the Montreal Protocol. While the treaty is unlikely at this stage to set specific binding targets for phasing out plastic production, it would undoubtedly set an ambitious target to end plastic pollution. On the other hand, option two (“protecting human health and the environment”) is an awfully vague goal, in part because we don’t really know for sure what the human health impact threshold is, and we may not know for some very long time.
Either way, these two options are a step forward. Both provide necessary direction for the plastics industry to develop better technologies. For example, option one would inspire companies to develop alternatives such as fully biodegradable and compostable materials that will eventually replace plastics (especially single-use plastics such as shopping bags and plastic packaging, which currently account for 35% plastic consumption). Option two would likely push the industry to develop more effective ways to reduce the waste stream, such as improved recycling processes.
This control of technology is perhaps the most essential aspect of the treaty. For example, the original 1987 Montreal Protocol set very conservative targets for phasing out CFC production reductions: 20 percent by 1994 and then 50 percent by 1998. At the time, these were considered far too leisurely relative to what was needed to address problem. Crucially, however, the protocol also clearly states that these goals will be re-examined as recent scientific and alternative technologies become available. This put pressure on the industry to develop technological solutions as companies competed to develop better products. Ultimately, these alternatives – such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which can be used in refrigeration with much less impact on the ozone layer – developed so much faster than expected that just three years later countries met again to agree to phase out total apply of CFCs by the year 2000.
In 2025, the Global Plastics Treaty will send a clear message to the plastics industry that it must change the way it does business. This will be the beginning of the end of plastic.