The failure to reach an agreement, despite an international consensus in 2022 on the need for a global treaty, reflects the limitations of international environmental governance. The negotiations have revealed how challenging it is to reach consensus on a global scale when national interests and economic priorities diverge.
The need for urgent action is undeniable, over 8 billion tonnes of plastic has been produced since 1950, with less than 10% recycled. As a climate scientist, this stark statistic and its devastating impact on both marine ecosystems and our natural environment, highlights the interconnectedness of environmental issues. Plastics contribute to both ocean pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, both of which have complex feedback loops that exacerbate each other. Plastic production itself is carbon-intensive, while the breakdown of plastics in marine environments releases harmful chemicals, damaging ecosystems and biodiversity. The solution can only be achieved with integrated policies that tackle not just plastic pollution but also the carbon footprint associated with plastic production.
In this instance, it was Kuwait who proposed in their final statement, that the goal should not be to eliminate plastic entirely, but to mitigate its harmful effects on the environment. This strategy of reducing the environmental harm rather than completely eliminating plastics, reflects an important aspect of the debate as the global economy is deeply embedded in a plastic-dependent infrastructure. The systems that produce and distribute plastic are ingrained in supply chains, manufacturing, and consumer culture, making significant reductions difficult to implement. It is a strong argument that, without denying the devastating environmental impacts of plastic pollution, we still have to contend with the negative impact that a comprehensive phasing-out of plastics would have on economic development in certain parts of the world.
This divide between nations is emblematic of a larger issue in climate and environmental negotiations, the challenge of balancing global environmental targets with the economic realities of developing nations or those dependent on fossil fuels and petrochemicals. Unless these nations can agree alternative development pathways to economic diversification, it’s unlikely that future negotiations will find common ground.
While the failure to reach agreement on plastic pollution is a critical setback in global environmental efforts and will give many of us reason to despair at these summits such as COP, it is worth mentioning here that for all the summits, many nations have yet to implement even basic plastic waste management systems.
I am heartened though by the crucial role played by public accountability in driving change. We must acknowledge the power of public pressure. Education, and local policy changes are as essential as international agreements, as grassroots movements can encourage governments to act where international negotiations have stalled.
While there are significant differences in priorities and economic concerns among nations, it is clear that solutions will need to be multifaceted and inclusive of both environmental and economic considerations. The road ahead requires a balance between reducing plastic waste, fostering sustainable alternatives, and ensuring that vulnerable economies can transition without sacrificing development. Without such a holistic approach, plastic pollution will continue to damage the environment and undermine efforts to mitigate climate change, making it even more difficult to achieve the broader goals set in international climate agreements.