Creating a Global Package to Solve the Plastic Problem

According to the United Nations, plastic production has increased dramatically from 2 million metric tons in 1950 to nearly 400 million in 2024. This number is expected to triple by 2060. Only ten percent of this plastic is reused and recycled. The rest will remain in our environment for centuries, polluting the planet, from the oceans to the mountains, contaminating food chains and human bodies, where it risks damaging our organs and brains.

By 2025, we will start eliminating plastic pollution. Since 2022, policymakers at the United Nations, representing more than 170 countries, have been negotiating a legally binding Global Plastics Agreement that addresses the full life cycle of plastics, from design to production to disposal. This agreement shares many features with the Montreal Protocol of 1987, which eventually led to the phasing out of CFCs, chemicals responsible for ozone depletion. Therefore, it can be successful, despite its opposition.

The agreement was supposed to be concluded at the fifth and final session, in Busan, South Korea, at the end of November 2024. So far, perhaps surprisingly, the negotiations have been divided. At the time of writing, the draft agreement includes two options regarding its general goal: the first, more ambitious, aims to “eliminate plastic pollution”; the second, on the other hand, 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 High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, which is led by the Nordics but includes countries such as Rwanda and Peru. The second option is preferred by major oil producers such as Saudi Arabia, who want to steer discussions focused on plastic recycling and waste management, rather than its production. In August 2024, the United States, also a major producer of plastic and oil, announced a dramatic policy shift by pledging to support limits on plastic production. Given how powerful the American people are, this new position will affect the deal.

Agreeing on the first option would put us on a path very similar to that followed by the Montreal Protocol. While it is unlikely at this point that the agreement will set binding goals for the phase-down of plastic production, it will undoubtedly set a goal to end plastic pollution. On the other hand, the second option (“protect human health and the environment”) is a very vague objective, partly because we do not know for sure what the limit is the impact on human health, and we may not know at all. for a long time.

Regardless, these two options are a step forward: both provide the direction needed in the plastics industry to develop better technology. The first option, for example, would encourage companies to develop alternatives such as biodegradable and compostable materials designed to eventually replace plastic (especially single-use plastics such as shopping bags and plastic packaging, which account for 35 percent of plastic use today). The second option could push the industry to develop more efficient ways to reduce the stream, such as improved recycling processes.

This technical guidance is perhaps the most important aspect of the agreement. The original Montreal Protocol of 1987, for example, set gradual targets for reducing CFC production: 20 percent in 1994 and then 50 percent in 1998. to deal with the problem. But, most importantly, the protocol also clearly stated that the target would be revised as new scientific and alternative technologies became available. This put pressure on the industry to develop technological solutions as companies competed to create better products. Finally, those alternatives—such as hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs) that can be used in refrigeration while having a much smaller impact on the ozone layer—were developed so quickly than expected that, after only three years, countries met again to agree to eliminate the ozone layer. consumption of CFCs completely by the year 2000.

By 2025, the Global Plastics Treaty will send a clear message to the plastics industry that it must change the way it does business. That will be the beginning of the end of plastic.