MOST of us know that plastic pollution is a major problem. We see it on our streets, in our rivers, on our beaches, and even in the stomachs of marine life. We read about the worrying effects of microplastics on human and planetary wellbeing.
But many of us are less aware that governments worldwide have been negotiating a global plastics treaty to tackle this crisis. This treaty could change the way plastics are produced, used, and disposed of across the world. However, progress has not been as fast as many have hoped, and corporate interests have led to some foot-dragging at the bargaining table.
In response to the growing plastic pollution crisis, governments agreed in 2022 to develop a legally binding treaty under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme. The 2022 United Nations Environment Assembly Resolution on ending plastic pollution includes a reference to the development of an international binding instrument which addresses the full lifecycle of plastic. Achieving this means setting legally binding global reduction targets on plastic production, ensuring safer alternatives, and reducing the amount of plastic that ends up polluting our planet.
When negotiators gathered in Busan in South Korea late last year for the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) on the Global Plastics Treaty, there was hope that real progress would be made in tackling one of the planet’s most pressing crises. But INC-5 ended in deadlock, with vested interests watering down ambitions and preventing the approval of the agreement. Now, as we head towards the crucial resumed session INC-5.2 – which is a make-or-break moment – we must face an uncomfortable truth: plastic pollution is not just an environmental issue, it is a symptom of a deeper crisis of human behaviour, economic greed, and political inertia.
We live in a world where plastic has become so embedded in our daily lives that we barely notice it. From the moment we wake up and squeeze out toothpaste from a plastic tube to the coffee we sip from a takeaway cup with a plastic lid, we participate in an unsustainable system designed for convenience at the expense of planetary health. Every minute, the equivalent of a truckload of plastic enters the ocean. Microplastics now contaminate the air we breathe, the water we drink, and are found in our bloodstreams, brains, lungs, and even in unborn babies.
The science is unequivocal: the overproduction of plastics is fuelling a planetary crisis. The fossil fuels driving climate change are the same ones feeding plastic production. And despite the glossy promises of recycling, globally only around 9% of plastics are recycled. The rest ends up in landfills, incinerators, fields, rivers, oceans, and our food. But we act as though this crisis belongs to someone else – as if governments, corporations, or scientists will step in and fix it. And while the reality is that it is their responsibility, they won’t act unless they’re pushed.
Why was it difficult to conclude the negotiations at INC-5? It was in large part because the same industries that profit from plastics are using their influence to block an ambitious, legally binding treaty. They argue that voluntary commitments and national-level regulations are enough, and that many of the issues which the treaty sets out to address are already covered by existing international agreements. But we have seen this play out before, whether with climate change, tobacco control, or hazardous chemicals. Without an enforceable, global agreement that tackles plastics from production to disposal – an “end-to-end” treaty – the crisis will only deepen.
Rich nations, particularly those hosting powerful petrochemical companies and petro-states, are resisting regulations that would curb plastic production. Meanwhile, developing nations, many of which bear the brunt of the plastic crisis, struggle with inadequate waste management systems. The solution cannot be a piecemeal approach where only certain types of plastic are banned or where responsibility is shifted onto consumers through ineffective recycling campaigns. We need a globally implementable commitment to cut plastic production at its source.
History has shown that when people demand action, governments respond. The Montreal Protocol of 1987, which successfully phased out ozone-depleting substances, was made possible by public and scientific pressure. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change of 2015, while imperfect, exists because millions of people took to the streets demanding climate action. The plastics crisis demands the same level of urgency and mobilisation.
Governments will not act boldly unless we force them to. Industry lobbyists and their public relations experts will not back down unless their influence is outweighed by public pressure. We must call on our governments to support a treaty that:
> Caps and phases down plastic production, rather than just addresses the waste aspect of the lifecycle of plastics.
> Holds corporations accountable for their role in plastic pollution, including through taking responsibility to clean up after themselves.
> Bans harmful chemicals in plastic production.
> Ensures a just transition for workers in the informal sector and the entire plastic value chain.
> Provides funding and technology transfer for low-income nations to build sustainable waste management systems, including manufacturing plastic alternatives from agricultural waste.
This is not just a battle for policymakers in negotiation rooms. It is a battle for all of us. As individuals, we can reduce our plastic use, support businesses that are plastic-free, and educate those around us. But more importantly, we must pressure our governments to stand on the right side of history at INC-5.2 in August. Write to your representatives, join campaigns, and raise your voice on social media.
The industries profiting from plastic pollution are counting on public apathy. We must prove them wrong. We are already seeing wooden toothbrushes in the market and restaurants that no longer provide drinking straws. Demand creates supply and we need to demand more from the industry.
A united approach to tackling plastics pollution is within reach – but only if we demand it. The stalemate of INC-5 should not discourage us; it should fuel our determination. The planet cannot afford another weak compromise. This time let’s get the treaty we need across the finish line.
Prof Tan Sri Dr Jemilah Mahmood, a physician and experienced crisis leader, is the executive director of the Sunway Centre for Planetary Health at Sunway University. She is the founder of Mercy Malaysia and has served in leadership roles internationally with the United Nations and Red Cross for the last decade. She writes on Planetary Health Matters once a month in Ecowatch. The views expressed here are entirely the writer's own.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Get 20% OFF The Star Digital Access
Cancel anytime. Ad-free. Unlimited access with perks.
