SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Despite the majority support of promising proposals for global product and chemical bans, the latest draft treaty text offers nothing of use," one advocate said.
As negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty enter their final stretch in Busan, South Korea, environmental and human rights advocates warned Friday that national delegates are "sleepwalking into a treaty that will not be worth the paper it will be written on."
The current treaty draft text, shared with delegates on Friday, excludes key civil society demands, such as a clear and binding limit on plastic production and a ban or phaseout of the most dangerous plastics and chemicals.
"Despite the majority support of promising proposals for a strong and binding treaty on plastic pollution, what we have currently in this text is far from what we need," Erin Simon, WWF vice president and head of plastic waste and business, said in a statement.
"A weak treaty based on voluntary measures will break under the weight of the plastic crisis and will lock us into an endless cycle of unnecessary harm."
A majority of the countries gathered for the fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to advance a plastics treaty supports bans on the most dangerous plastics and chemicals, binding rules on production design to ease a transition toward a circular economy, sufficient financial support to make the treaty a reality, and a robust mechanism to strengthen the treaty over time. They are backed by nearly 3 million people in more than 182 countries who signed a petition ahead of the last round of negotiations calling for an ambitious treaty.
Since negotiations began on November 25, however, progress has been stymied by oil-and-gas-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia, which called capping plastic production a red line, according toThe Associated Press. At the same time, plastics industry lobbyists together make up the largest single delegation at the talks.
"It's very simple: To end plastic pollution we need to reduce plastic production," Simon said. "To do that we need binding global bans on specific harmful plastic products and chemicals. Despite the majority support of promising proposals for global product and chemical bans, the latest draft treaty text offers nothing of use."
In order to bridge the gap on limiting plastics production before negotiations conclude on Sunday or Monday, Panama put forward a proposal on Thursday that would not set a numerical plastics production limit at this time, but would entrust signatories to do so at a later meeting. This proposal was backed by over 100 countries and was included in the draft text shared on Friday, alongside an option to eliminate the article on production.
Juan Carlos Monterrey, the head of Panama's delegation, saw the inclusion of the country's proposal as a step in the right direction.
"This is great! This is great," Monterrey told the AP. "It is a big show of force, of muscle, for those countries that are ambitious. And also this shows that consensus is still possible."
However, Monterey acknowledged to Reuters that his offering was a compromise.
"Most of the countries... came here with the idea of including a numeric target (of plastic reduction), but... we have put forth a proposal that not only crosses but stomped our own red lines... So we're seeking all the other delegations that have not moved a centimeter to... meet us halfway."
Environmental advocates and civil society groups warn that delegates should not chase consensus at the expense of ambition.
Graham Forbes, who leads Greenpeace's delegation, told the AP that the draft was a "weak attempt to force us to reach a conclusion and get a treaty for treaty's sake," though he considered the inclusion of Panama's proposal the one bright spot in the text.
In addition to the question of binding production limits, another sticking point is a ban on particularly harmful plastics and additives, which currently has not made it into the treaty language.
"What we have right now isn't a treaty with common rules at all. It's a list of measures so broad that they're effectively meaningless," WWF's Simon explained. "For example, we don't have bans, we have suggestions. We have lists of products and chemicals but no one is compelled to do anything of substance with them. Without political will to bind those articles, we would have zero chance of ending the plastic crisis, which is what we came to Busan to do."
Some countries as well as plastics industry representatives argue that the treaty is not the proper vehicle to regulate chemicals.
"At this point the progressive majority has a decision to be made," Simon argued. "Agree to a treaty among the willing even if that means leaving some countries that don't want a strong treaty or concede to countries that will likely never join the treaty anyway, failing the planet in the process."
WWF's global plastics policy lead Eirik Lindebjerg added: "We are calling on countries to not accept the low level of ambition reflected in this draft as it does not contain any specific upstream measures such as global bans on high risk plastic products and chemicals of concern supported by the majority of countries. Without these measures the treaty will fail to meaningfully address plastic pollution. High ambition countries must ensure that these measures are part of the final treaty text or develop an ambitious treaty among the willing."
On Friday, a coalition of observing civil society groups held a press conference in which they issued a statement making a final call for an ambitious treaty.
"Contrary to their excuses, ambitious countries have the power and the pathways to forge a treaty to end the global plastic crisis," the statement, signed by groups including WWF, Greenpeace, Break Free From Plastic, and Friends of the Earth, said. "What we are severely lacking right now, however, is the determination of our leaders to do what is right and to fight for the treaty they promised the world two years ago."
It continued: "A weak treaty based on voluntary measures will break under the weight of the plastic crisis and will lock us into an endless cycle of unnecessary harm. The clear demand from impacted communities and the overwhelming majority of citizens, scientists, and businesses for binding global rules across the entire lifecycle is irrefutable."
The signatories also said that ambitious nations should be willing to walk away and craft their own, stronger treaty rather than compromise on a weak document.
"In these final throes of negotiations, we need governments to show courage. They must not compromise under pressure exerted by a small group of low-ambition states and hinge the life of our planet on unachievable consensus," they concluded. "We demand a strong treaty that protects our health and the health of future generations."
"This plastic crisis is rooted in the overproduction of single-use plastics, building for us and future generations a very toxic legacy," said one Indonesian youth activist.
With the fifth and final round of global plastics treaty negotiations set to begin Monday in Busan, South Korea, an estimated 1,500 people took to the city's streets and nearly 3 million more signed a petition calling for a legally binding pact "to drastically reduce production and use, and protect human health and the environment."
The Saturday march at the Busan Exhibition and Convention Center was led by the global Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) movement and local allies from the Uproot Plastics Coalition. They want the treaty to include targets to slash production.
"Mandatory targets to reduce plastic production are essential to combat the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and toxic pollution," BFFP's Semee Rhee said in a statement. "Failure to check the untrammeled production of primary plastic polymers would mean allowing the plastic pollution crisis to persist and perpetuate social and environmental injustices for generations to come."
Indonesia youth activist Aeshnina Azzahra Aqilani stressed that "this plastic crisis is rooted in the overproduction of single-use plastics, building for us and future generations a very toxic legacy. Waste created today will poison all children and the planet through toxic plastic emission and microplastic exposure along the plastic life cycle."
"Safeguard the health and survival of future generations by advocating for a legally binding global plastic treaty—a treaty that encompasses ambitious goals for a reduction in plastic production, with accountability placed on corporations for reuse and refill solutions in its place," the campaigner urged. "The world is watching. The future is waiting. Make the right decision."
The first session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) was held two years ago in Uruguay. Since then, there have been meetings in France, Kenya, and Canada. The latest lobbyist-dominated round of talks concluded in April with no clear path to curbing production, which civil society and frontline groups have argued is a "nonnegotiable" component of the treaty.
The Busan meeting is scheduled to run from Monday through next weekend, on the heels of the United Nations climate summit that just wrapped up after running into overtime in Baku, Azerbaijan. Plastic production is not only a waste problem but also a contributor to the climate emergency, because 99% of it is made from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels.
"As the host country of INC-5 and the world's fourth-largest producer of plastic raw materials, the South Korean government bears a significant responsibility in addressing plastic pollution," said Sammy Yu of Green Korea United. "Despite its passive stance during INC-4, the Korean government must take a decisive position on 'reducing production' at the fifth round of negotiations and advocate for it strongly."
"Moreover, negotiations are not confined to the conference room," Yu asserted. "To effectively push for a production reduction stance in these discussions, the government must first restore its domestic resource circulation policies, which have regressed over the past two years, and align them with its negotiation position."
Sunryul Kim of Greenpeace Seoul office said that "the people are speaking with one voice, demanding that the negotiators ensure that the plastics treaty will ensure cuts in production and end single-use plastic."
"We are at the most critical part of creating this agreement and what will come out of this negotiation will affect our future for generations to come," Kim continued. "As the host country and a member of High Ambition Coalition (HAC), the South Korean government must listen to its citizens and lead the way for strong production reduction targets at the negotiating table."
Greenpeace, BFFP, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) collected 2,899,202 petition signatures, which were delivered during a Sunday event in Busan to U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), sponsor of the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, and Rwanda Environment Management Authority Director General Juliet Kabera, whose country co-chairs the HAC with Norway.
Politicians receive nearly 3 million petition signatures calling for an end to the age of plastic before treaty talks in Busan, South Korea on November 24, 2024. (Photo: Sungwoo Lee/Greenpeace)
"These signatures reinforce what is already commonly known—that a legally binding global treaty that regulates plastics across the entire life cycle and eliminates harmful plastic products and chemicals is the only way our leaders can deliver on their promise to end plastic pollution," said Eirik Lindebjerg, WWF global plastics policy lead and head of delegation to INC-5.
"We simply cannot achieve this goal through fragmented and voluntary actions which have dominated our collective response for so many years," Lindebjerg added. "At INC-5, governments can and must create the treaty people are demanding, one which decisively and definitely protects people and nature now and for generations to come."
Also on Sunday, hundreds of activists with Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) and its South Korean arm made a human sign spelling out "End Plastic" on a beach near where over 175 governments are set to meet for the final round of negotiations.
"We are united in our call for a strong treaty that tackles the plastic pollution crisis head-on, demanding action that cuts plastic production at its very source," said FOEI chair Hemantha Withanage. "The urgency of the plastic issue can no longer be understated. Every day, the equivalent of 2,000 garbage trucks full of plastic are dumped into the world's oceans, rivers, and lakes, choking ecosystems and communities."
Activists with Friends of the Earth International made a human sign spelling out "End Plastic" on a beach near the final round of treaty negotiations in Busan, South Korea on November 24, 2024. (Photo: FOEI)
Speaking with The Guardian ahead of the talks, Norwegian Minister of International Development Anne Beathe Tvinnereim warned that the world will be "unable to cope" with plastic waste a decade from now unless there is a deal reached to cut production.
"We are not going to land a perfect treaty. But we need to get further. And I think we will. I choose to be hopeful," Tvinnereim said. "With High Ambition Coalition countries, we will continue to demonstrate that there is a big group of countries that sticks to its ambitions. The world desperately needs some leadership now, and some good news."
"The petrochemical industry and its toxic products pose an urgent threat to human health and the global climate," a campaigner said.
Environmental and policy groups on Tuesday called for financial institutions to stop funding the U.S. petrochemical industry.
Break Free from Plastic, Friends of the Earth, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), and the Texas Campaign for the Environment issued a 39-page report, Exiting Petrochemicals, that they called a "guide" for financial institutions to divest from the industry.
Petrochemicals are made from fossil fuels and are the basis for a wide array of industrial feedstocks and end products, mostly in plastics or fertilizers. The products drive climate change and harm public health throughout their life cycle, from the frontline communities—disproportionately marginalized and low-income—where fuels are extracted to the oceans and human bodies where microplastics, for example, end up.
The report calls for financial institutions—banks, investment firms, and insurance companies—to stop funding fracking, rapidly phase out all fossil fuel financing, and require petrochemical clients to publicly release transition plans. It also calls for an immediate halt on the financing of new petrochemical projects, about 120 of which are currently planned in the U.S., mostly in the Gulf and the Ohio River Valley.
"The communities most impacted by these developments, often low-income and communities of color, bear the brunt of pollution and health risks," Sharon Lavigne, executive director of RISE St. James, a campaign group in Louisiana, said in a statement.
"We must hold financial institutions accountable for their role in financing these harmful projects," Lavigne added. "It's time to stop funding environmental racism and start investing in a cleaner, safer future for everyone."
Diane Wilson, the executive director of the San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper and a fourth-generation fisher, said the industry had already had a negative impact on her area.
"Given the terrible damage that I have seen corporations like Formosa Plastics do to communities, workers, fisheries, bays, and fishermen, the line has to be drawn: No more funding for plastics and petrochemicals!" she said.
Brandon Marks, a CIEL campaigner, summarized the problems the report seeks to address: "The petrochemical industry and its toxic products pose an urgent threat to human health and the global climate."
Source: "Exiting Petrochemicals" report (2024)
Primary plastics production accounted for 5.3% of global greenhouse gas emissions as of 2019—more than commercial aviation and international shipping combined, according to the report.
Fertilizers are also a major emissions source, especially those used in cornfields. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers derived from fossil fuels account for an estimated 2-5% of total global emissions.
In total, the U.S. petrochemical industry alone releases roughly the emissions equivalent of 40 coal-fired power plants every year, the report says.
The climate impact, however, is only part of the problem, as the report details.
"Petrochemical production releases carcinogenic and other highly toxic substances into the air, exposing fenceline communities to higher risks of cancer, leukemia, reproductive and developmental problems, nervous system impairment, and genetic impacts," the authors wrote in the executive summary.
"Petrochemical production also pollutes waterways with contaminated wastewater," they continued. "In fact, Formosa Plastics was fined $50 million in 2019 for illegally discharging plastic pollution into Texas waterways and another $19.2 million as of June 2024 for continuing violations."
Fossil fertilizers also pose major risks, endangering farmworkers, polluting drinking water, and causing dead zones in marine environments like the Gulf of Mexico, the report says.
Two-thirds of the people living on the fenceline of petrochemical projects are from marginalized racial backgrounds, making these groups disproportionately represented—they make up only 39% of the U.S. population, according to the report.
The authors also put forth the business case against financing the petrochemical industry, arguing that new regulations and decreased demand will make petrochemical plants stranded assets.
"Choosing to finance and insure these projects is not just irresponsible; it's a poor investment," Marks of CIEL said. "Banks, insurers, and investors must stop financing petrochemicals now."