The UN had a chance to curb plastic pollution. Fossil fuel interests killed it

After years of mounting evidence that plastic pollution is poisoning our planet, harming our health and driving catastrophic climate change, this round of UN talks was meant to be the moment world leaders come together to stop the flood of disposable plastic we’re drowning in.

It was billed as the final push for a historic, legally binding global treaty that would put people and nature before the profits of the plastic lobby. Instead, after ten tense days, negotiators walked away empty-handed — and the reasons should alarm everyone.

Most of the world’s governments came ready to act. The so-called “high ambition coalition”, including the UK, the EU, and many countries in Africa, Latin America, and Small Island States, pushed for limits on plastic production, regulations on the most harmful plastic products and chemicals, and a strong financial package to support countries in implementing the treaty. Their position is grounded in reality: we can’t recycle our way out of a plastics crisis that starts with producing far more plastic than the planet can handle.

Yet a small but vocal minority of blocker countries refused to consider even mentioning production. Plastics are made from fossil fuels, and more plastic means more profit and a lifeline for an industry threatened by the energy transition. For the rest of us, it means more waste choking rivers, killing wildlife, polluting food chains, and fuelling climate change.

The scale of the crisis is staggering. The world makes more than 400 million tonnes of new plastic every year, and without decisive policy action, that could triple by 2060. Plastics already account for 3.3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and the toxic chemicals involved threaten human health at every stage — from manufacture to disposal.

The failure in Geneva must be a wake-up call. This was not a minor delay or a “normal” part of diplomacy. A handful of countries, acting in the interests of a fossil fuel lobby that had hundreds of representatives at the talks, were able to derail a process supported by over a hundred nations. That is unacceptable.

Civil society’s call is clear: we need a strong treaty that cuts plastic production, protects health, secures robust and equitable financing, and tackles pollution from extraction to disposal. Anything less will be a betrayal of people and planet.

The commitment to solve this problem remains. Countries will come back to the negotiating table to craft an agreement. The ambitious bloc was right to reject a toothless agreement put forward by the chair that would have been a betrayal of future generations and a blank cheque to the fossil fuel industry.

Now leaders must decide whether they stand with the communities bearing the brunt of plastic pollution — or with the industries determined to profit from it until the oceans, the climate, and our health pay the price.

____________________

Rudy Schulkind is a political campaigner at Greenpeace UK.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk