Global Plastics Treaty must be shored up against oil and gas ambitions

Plastic pollution threatens the lives of millions across the world, and yet – at what was meant to be the final inning – negotiations about the UN’s Global Plastics Treaty have buckled under pressure from a coalition of petrostates. 

The fossil fuel industry’s fight to stay in business, no matter the cost to humanity or our planet, is more flagrant than ever.  

At COP29, we saw oil-rich states like Saudi Arabia push back against the inclusion of wording about the “transition away from fossil fuels” in the final text – creating an apparent backslide away from the ambition that we saw at COP28. 

Barely a week later, a group of oil-producing countries – which included Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran – have prevented the rest from creating the agreement we so badly need to curtail plastic production.  

Fossil fuels crowd out voices on plastic’s frontline  

The vast majority of plastics are made from chemicals derived from fossil fuels, including crude oil and natural gas.  

With plastic use set to triple between 2019 and 2060, it is hardly in fossil fuel companies’ interests to see a treaty stamped and signed that limits plastic production.  

That explains their large attendance at the most recent convening for the Global Plastics Treaty.  

The Center for International Environmental Law counted 220 fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists registered to attend INC-5 (echoing the hordes of fossil fuel lobbyists on the list for COP29).  

Together, they would have made up the largest delegation at INC-5, outnumbering host country South Korea’s delegates, representatives for the Pacific Island Nations, and for Latin America and the Caribbean. 

In some cases, fossil fuel lobbyists may have gained access to crucial negotiation talks by piggybacking on country delegations, with some names counted among representatives for China, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, Iran, Kazakhstan and Malaysia. 

That Indigenous Peoples, land and environmental defenders and other civil society groups had to jostle for limited room inside key negotiating spaces – with some reportedly forced to sit on the floor to observe discussions – makes the swathe of fossil fuel lobbyists feel all the more bitter. 

One group of Indigenous Peoples raised their fists and shouted in protest during a plenary, when it became evident that the Chair did not intend to let them speak. Civil society representatives showed their own fists too in solidarity.  

They were granted the floor for mere minutes – despite the fact that it is the Indigenous communities, waste pickers and defenders living on the frontline of plastic pollution who will be worst impacted by any concessions the fossil fuel industry secures. 

“Plastic pollution is not just a crisis, it is an assault on our planet, our people and our future,” Juan Carlos Monterrey, a Panama delegate, said in a statement.  

“And yet here we are, tip-toeing around the truth. Sidestepping ambition and ignoring the urgency that demands action.” 

Plastic’s harms to people and planet 

Nearly 220 million people live at risk of plastic-aggravated flooding, according to a Tearfund report published in 2023.  

In Mumbai, over 1,000 people were killed by flooding in 2002, which has been attributed to a pile-up of plastic bags choking vital storm drains.  

Over a third of the solid waste collected by trash barriers along Indonesia’s Cikapundung River is plastic, prompting speculation that dumped waste is raising the river’s water levels while blocking its flow. 

We are, sometimes quite literally, drowning in plastic. And that’s after plastic production has polluted the air and drinking water.  

Plastic production and disposal are responsible for around 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions – more than that emitted by the Pacific Islands combined – with plastic production emitting the lion’s share.  

In Alberta, Canada, a thick, viscous substance called bitumen is extracted from the ground over an area larger than the size of England, before being shipped off to create products like single use plastic bottles.  

The emissions from these tar sands were recently found to be up to 64 times higher than previously reported, with polluting particles including poisonous matter that can cause lung cancer, respiratory illness and premature births.  

Indigenous Peoples such as the Dene and Cree communities have lived in the area for centuries. They have reported having to shut their windows to protect themselves from breathing in the toxic air. 

They have also watched the Athabasca River, from which they traditionally draw drinking water and fish, depleted to feed the water-intensive oil extraction.  

“If you spend time in the tar sands region you will smell it, you can’t escape it," Tori Cress, Society of Native Nations and Co-Chair of the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics, said in a statement.  

“Dene, Métis and Cree people in their lifetime have witnessed the destruction of the water that they used to drink from as children.”  

Even for those who don’t have an oil deposit on their doorstep, plastic continues to shed tiny particles called microplastics as it breaks down. 

While the health impacts of microplastics are still under review, studies have found them lodged in our lungs, the placenta, blood vessels and even our brain. It is thought that they could impair fertility, disrupt hormones and cause cardiovascular issues. 

Plastic production must end 

And yet, in spite of these clear harms that plastic does to people and planet, the fossil fuel industry is hellbent on keeping any limits on production out of the final Global Plastics Treaty.  

References to the waste hierarchy – which prioritises a reduction of primary plastic polymer production, then material redesign, recycling and reuse – have been removed from the waste management section in the treaty text. 

Mentions of “energy recovery” (meaning the burning of plastic waste, which releases more harmful pollutants into the air) meanwhile remain.  

Rather than sign-off on this weakened treaty, the Chair has allowed an INC-5.2 to be scheduled for 2025, when it is hoped that participating countries can break the stalemate that petrostates have managed to broker.  

If this second go at finalising the Global Plastics Treaty is to be successful, plastic production must be a core part of the agreement.  

Specific global reduction targets need to be named, adequately financed and considered a primary measure to reduce plastic waste, rather than playing second fiddle to waste management and repurposing schemes. 

Defenders and civil society groups, including Indigenous Peoples, must have a presence in negotiation talks, with the balance tipped to make their voices heard – not towards the fossil fuel industry lobbying to preserve the plastic tide.  

The profiteering of the few cannot be allowed to undermine the bold vision of the 102 countries who are committed to phasing out plastic production.  

After all, as Juan Mancias of the Society of Native Nations has commented: “There was no ‘consensus’ when they decided to start making plastics.”   

“Every minute that passes, our rivers, our air, and our bodies become more contaminated,” says Cecilia Bianco of Taller Ecologista, Argentina, in a statement. 

“A large group of countries are in agreement on what must be done, but it is not enough. We hope that next year will bring the ambitious treaty the crisis demands.”