Countries have one week to conclude a treaty aimed at ending the massive flow of plastic waste around the world. An “international legally binding instrument”, as it is called; that is to say obligatory. The deadline for the work of the International Negotiating Committee expires, in theory, next Sunday.
It may seem that plastic waste is a mountain of glasses, bottles and plates thrown away in any way, but the problem is even more serious: polymer pollution encompasses an entire process that begins with the extraction of oil, continues with the extraction of raw materials at a breakneck pace, continues with toxic additives or microplastics in addition to the infinite quantity of disposable objects. The problem continues with landfills leaking plastic and the inability to recycle the volume of waste generated.
This whole cycle crystallizes in river mouths clogged with waste, plastic islands floating in the sea for kilometers long and a percentage: 3.4% of all global CO2 emissions.
The treaty must take into account scientific evidence, including a reduction in the production of primary plastics and consideration of chemicals associated with plastics.
Carmen Morales-Caselles
— Researcher at the Marine Research Institute (University of Cádiz)
Negotiations between countries take place in Busan (Republic of Korea). “These first 12 hours leave a lot of uncertainty about the destination,” says Carmen Morales Caselles, researcher at the Marine Research Institute of the University of Cádiz, from the congress halls. The scientist calls for the treaty to “take into account scientific evidence, include a reduction in the production of primary plastics and take into account chemicals associated with plastics”. He also considers it essential to add “the principle of prevention and precaution in addition to the polluter pays principle”.
Disengage a world addicted to plastic
The problem has arisen because basically the world has become addicted to plastic. “Consumption has quadrupled over the last 30 years,” according to OECD calculations. Plastic production has doubled since 2000, reaching 460 million tonnes. “The production of basic polymers – the raw plastic to make most products – is at the heart of the discussions,” analyzes a report from the Center for Science and the Environment (CSE).
Between 19 and 23 million tonnes of plastic waste end up each year in aquatic ecosystems: rivers, wetlands, lakes and seas according to the UN. At the current rate, this volume would triple by 2060.
The European Union has even committed to “not maintaining subsidies for this production”. While Russia leads a group of countries – dubbed the Global Plastic Sustainability Coalition – it does not want to talk about reduction but rather “sustainable production and consumption”. The alliance includes Cuba, Uganda, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela and Egypt.
“Limiting production threatens oil industry revenues,” the CSE document states, and many of these states are oil producers. Analysts at Bloomberg NEF believe that the petrochemicals needed to make plastic “are poised to become one of the biggest demand generators for oil.” The volume of this hydrocarbon intended for these products “can double by 2050”.
But things don’t stop there. The colossal volume of plastic production results in a gigantic amount of waste. “Between 19 and 23 million tonnes of plastic waste end up each year in aquatic ecosystems: rivers, wetlands, lakes and seas,” indicate UN calculations. “Since 1950, approximately 6.9 billion tonnes of primary plastic waste have been generated. » Three quarters ended up in uncontrolled landfills or in the environment. At the current rate, this volume would triple by 2060.
A recent survey recalculated the amount of plastic waste humans throw into the environment through its many channels. This is not a nuanced revision: scientists assure that emissions are twice as large as previously thought, which placed the figure at 50 million tonnes per year.
Additives, microplastics and disposables
Pollution does not only come from polymers. Plastics contain a variety of toxic and persistent chemical compounds added during their production. The Busan talks aim to tackle this source of danger, according to the text on which delegations are working. Morales Caselles recalls that “only a small part of the chemicals contained in plastic are regulated by the multilateral environmental agreements in force”.
Likewise, the treaty must address, according to issues previously agreed by countries, the issue of microplastics: tiny particles that can be the pieces into which larger objects decompose or fragments added to other products. Their size means they can be ingested by humans and animals. The effect on organisms is still being studied. Microplastics are so ubiquitous that they have already colonized Antarctic.
The plastic waste maze continues. Disposable utensils are a very visible aspect of the problem. More than 120 countries have already imposed specific taxes or bans on these objects, but “they have not been enough to reduce pollution”, specify OECD analysts. The European Union (and Spain) have made progress in this area by imposing taxes on plastic bags; veto cutlery or straws and set an end date for single-dose bottles of sauces or shampoo. The Busan governments have asked for “clear guidelines” on what objects should be abandoned – if indeed it is agreed to be abandoned.
Astronomical demand, growing production and large quantities of waste form a triad that makes the waste generated unmanageable. And recycling doesn’t solve this equation. In fact, globally, only 9% of plastic waste is properly recycled. And more than 20% are poorly managed. This means that most waste pollutes the environment.
A weak treaty is a failed treaty. We need an ambitious, legally binding deal to reduce production and end single-use plastics.
Graham Forbes
— Head of the Greenpeace delegation for the plastic treaty
In a move that echoes that of oil companies on climate change, plastic manufacturers themselves have known for decades that recycling is not the solution. An investigation this year by the Center for Climate Integrity uncovered internal company documents showing how manufacturers misled the real possibilities of recycling. Presenting this false global solution made it possible to encourage the production and therefore the sale of plastic.
“A weak treaty is a failed treaty,” summarizes the head of the delegation sent by Greenpeace to observe the negotiations, Graham Forbes, at the start of the talks. “We need an ambitious, legally binding agreement to reduce production and end single-use plastics,” he concludes.
