A global treaty would benefit the plastics industry

The fifth and final scheduled round of talks to establish an international plastics treaty concluded in December of last year with no agreement except to meet again sometime in 2025.

I am not surprised at the outcome or, should I say, lack of outcome. I have said before that getting hundreds of delegates representing 170 countries with more than a thousand lobbyists whispering in their ears to agree on a treaty with hefty financial and political implications is not a scenario for success.

Will a sixth negotiating session make a difference? I remain highly skeptical.

A bloc of about 100 countries wants limits on virgin resin production, and another 94 countries want problematic chemicals phased out entirely. The oil-producing nations, including those in the Middle East, Russia and India, do not want virgin resin production curtailed or chemical phase-outs.

American Chemistry Council President and CEO Chris Jahn said after the fifth negotiating session in Busan, South Korea, that it is important for treaty talks to stay focused on addressing mismanaged scrap.

Katie Drews, CEO of Eureka Recycling in Minneapolis and national director of the Alliance for Mission-Based Recycling, said in Busan that the treaty should limit hard-to-recycle plastics, cut back on plastic production, avoid chemical recycling and prioritize reuse and redesign.

If no treaty is achieved, I believe the biggest loser will be the plastics industry—processors, suppliers, original equipment manufacturers and recyclers.

Antiplastics sentiment is growing. It started with concerns over plastic waste killing marine life, and now there are concerns that microplastics are building up in our bodies. The antiplastics movement is only going to get louder.

If there is no treaty, the industry endures criticism and marches on. Jobs and profits are maintained.

But that makes the industry look like it cannot solve its own problem. Recycling, while important, has not yet made much of a difference in the bigger picture. It cannot be discounted, but we also cannot depend on recycling to quell the antiplastics sentiment.

I hope the sixth treaty negotiating session simply does not become the next one in an unending string. The plastics industry needs to show the world it can solve its pollution problem.

A treaty might lead nations to adopt meaningful, common-sense legislation that would improve collection, invest in technology, enforce product design standards, require more recycled content in finished products, limit virgin resin production and eliminate problematic chemicals and additives.

Will meaningful change require an entirely new plastics value chain? Let’s hope not.

But are big changes to the current value chain needed? Yes.

Would an international treaty improve our future? No doubt.

We should all be paying attention.