One of the popular definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. After the failure last week of INC 5.2, which followed the remarkably similar failures of INCs 1 to 5, should we conclude that the United Nations is insane?
If ever an acronym was needed, the plastic treaty negotiation was a case in point. INC 5.2 refers to the ‘second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.’ Having finally realised the scale and sheer horror of the plastic waste crisis, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) kicked off the INC process in 2022 with the aim of achieving a Paris Climate Agreement-style treaty by the fifth session to be held in Busan, Republic of Korea at the end of 2024.
Unfortunately, UNEP was also under the naïve delusion that a consensus decision could be achieved on the topic. 99% of plastics are made from petrochemical feedstocks. Fossil fuel producing nations and large oil and gas companies are becoming well aware that their dominant days are numbered when it comes to sectors like transport and energy. That is why they are betting the farm on plastics. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), based on current trends annual plastic production, use and waste generation are projected to increase by 70% in 2040 compared to 2020. Given that 435 million tonnes of raw plastic was produced in 2020, of which only an average of 9% is recycled, we are heading to hell in a polypropylene handcart.
By now reader(s) of the Laundromat will be highly aware / bored to tears by this column’s obsession with the plastics industry. However, the sector conducts an irresistibly compelling masterclass in greenwashing, disinformation, and aggressive lobbying. How UNEP expected the petrostates to sign up to an effective plastics treaty is a mystery. The science is very simple: we produce far more plastic than waste management and recycling can ever be expected to handle. The ONLY plausible solution involves reducing production and consumption. The plastics industry, on the other hand, will not consider any reductions and only proposes largely unproven downstream waste management measures.
Plastics industry statistics under the microscope
Here is a typical example of the industry’s disingenuousness that the Laundromat has been shouting into the wind every time the Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW) publishes its annual ‘impact report.’ Despite the name the AEPW is the plastics industry. One of the headline statistics in its 2024 report is the following:
- Cumulative Impact since 2019: 239,985 tonnes of unmanaged plastic waste reduced.
The AEPW presents most of its metrics without context. Here is some context:
- Based on the OECD numbers, a conservative 2.25 billion tonnes of plastic was produced in the same period.
- Therefore, over the 5-year period the combined might of the global petrochemical industry managed to reduce plastic waste through AEPW-funded projects by an amount equivalent to a whopping 0.0106% of total production.
Meanwhile, at INC 5.2 the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) identified 234 petrochemical lobbyists among the delegates. They clearly worked the room hard as the final treaty text made no reference to production caps and appeared tailor-made for plastics industry interests. The issue of the thousands of toxic chemicals used in plastic production was also conveniently bypassed. Common sense would tell us that the petrochemical industry is not going to be part of a consensus decision to curb its output, following a turkeys and Christmas voting logic.
But is some sort of global plastics treaty not better than no plastics treaty whatsoever? The resounding answer from the overwhelming majority of high ambition countries as well as civil society: NO! The INC 5.2 Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso meekly announced vague plans for an INC 5.3 at some later date. He may as well have been speaking to an empty room, as any remaining faith in the UNEP process appears to have evaporated like the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in your Tupperware.
What next: More of the same or a radical departure?
The INC process failed largely due to the interventions of a small number of petrostates including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and the United States (US). The European Union (EU), United Kingdom (UK) and more than a hundred other nations had high ambitions for an effective global plastics treaty. Some of these countries have come together in a High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution (HAC) and may well decide to proceed with their own treaty outside of the UN-sponsored process – perhaps as Fleetwood Mac’s ‘Go Your Own Way’ plays in the background.
This strategy can work. The Ottawa Convention on Landmines has been quite effective despite the initial UN process having failed to reach consensus in the late 90s. If the high-ambition countries can begin reducing their consumption of plastics through their own treaty, the petrostates will see their market shrink whether they like it or not. It could be a large-scale example of consumer power, of which there are some compelling success stories. Amazon’s recent significant reduction in plastic packaging waste is reportedly the result of many years of persistent engagement by institutional shareholders.
If INC 5.3 does take place NordSIP will report on it, perhaps by cutting and pasting its prior reporting on 5.1 or 5.2. Meanwhile we will keep a close eye on the high ambition countries’ next move. According to David Azoulay, the CIEL head of delegation at INC 5.2: “We need a restart, not a repeat. Countries must escape the tyranny of the consensus we have seen here by reforming it – or forming a treaty of the willing. The world needs less plastic. The science knows it, people know it, doctors know it, and the markets know it. Together, we will continue to rise and push everywhere, until countries deliver the global treaty that the world needs and deserves.”
