
The final session of discussions mediated by the United Nations regarding plastic pollution launched in South Korea (in December) amidst considerable disagreements on the need to regulate the growing influx of plastic waste, a division that threatens a two-year effort for a comprehensive agreement.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development forecasts that plastic production will rise by roughly 60% to 736 million tons annually by the year 2040, raising severe alarms as research underscores the detrimental impacts of these materials as they accumulate in the ecosystem and in human bodies.
ADVERTISEMENT
CONTINUE READING BELOW
Read: Plastic-eating insect discovered in Kenya
The central topic of the negotiations in Busan pertains to the choice of implementing binding restrictions on certain types of chemicals and plastic manufacturing, or to agree on a funding strategy aimed at improving waste collection and recycling initiatives.
A coalition comprising nearly 70 nations, including Rwanda, Norway, and the UK, is pushing for a “high ambition” treaty that targets hazardous chemicals and bans the most polluting single-use plastic products, such as cutlery.
In contrast, representatives from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and several other oil-rich states firmly oppose this move, asserting that plastics play a vital role in sustainable development. They argue that plastics are lighter than alternatives, thereby reducing fuel consumption during transportation, and that plastic pollution stems from usage and disposal behaviors rather than the material itself.
Previous negotiation sessions have witnessed these nations resisting binding agreements and employing diplomatic tactics to obstruct votes within the negotiating committee.
This series of events has left advocates seeking high ambition feeling frustrated. There are warnings that if no substantial progress towards binding restrictions is achieved, the negotiations could reach a standstill.
“Addressing production is essential for many countries. It cannot be ignored,” stated Anne Beathe Tvinnereim, Norway’s Minister for International Development and leader of its delegation to Busan.
“If we do not confront chemicals and the most littered products, concentrating solely on waste management becomes pointless,” she further elaborated, likening it to “mopping the floor while the tap is still running.”

A mound of plastic waste in Gorakshep, Sagarmatha Region, Nepal. Image: Mailee Osten-Tan/Getty Images
The growing plastic crisis in our environment is alarming. In developing nations, plastic waste clogs beaches and rivers, jeopardizing wildlife.
A significant buildup of garbage in the Democratic Republic of Congo even led to the shutdown of a hydroelectric dam in December, resulting in power outages.
The UN reports that plastics account for roughly 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
As plastic materials deteriorate, they disintegrate into microplastics, which have been found in human breast milk, brain tissue, and blood. Research has linked bisphenol F, a chemical present in certain plastics, to decreased IQ levels in children.
Microplastics on Mt. Everest
Microplastics are ubiquitous, discovered in ecosystems spanning from the depths of the Pacific Ocean’s Mariana Trench to the snowcap of Mt. Everest. A recent study suggests that aerosolized plastic particles could even affect cloud formation and lead to increased rainfall.
Surveys indicate robust public support for initiatives to mitigate plastic pollution. A study by Ipsos across 32 countries this year revealed that 90% of participants backed global regulations banning harmful chemicals in plastics. Additionally, 87% stressed the need to reduce overall plastic production.
Read: Nigeria is the world’s 2nd biggest plastic polluter …
However, there are substantial interests promoting increased plastic production. Industry stakeholders have been persistently lobbying against production limits, claiming that about 2.7 billion people lack access to adequate waste management systems, asserting that the Busan discussions should prioritize acquiring more funding for that purpose.
Benny Mermans, chairman of the World Plastics Council and vice president of sustainability at Chevron Phillips Chemical, expressed that a global agreement should emphasize “circularity, treating used plastics as valuable assets rather than waste.”

An employee of Trex Co. stands with bales of used plastic, which the company recycles into decking material. Image: Nathan Howard/Bloomberg
Nearly half of all newly produced plastic products are thrown away after a single use. Globally, only about 9.5% of plastic is recycled. Petrochemical companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. are backing increased recycling initiatives, including “advanced recycling” methods for items that are challenging to decompose, like candy wrappers. However, recycling plastics can be costly and often results in pollution, and attempts to enhance recycling capabilities have faced numerous challenges.
As renewable energy sources and electrification reduce oil demand, growth in the petrochemical sector is anticipated to play a pivotal role in balancing this decline, establishing it as a critical fallback for oil-exporting countries and the fossil fuel sector. Research from BloombergNEF predicts that petrochemicals could nearly double their proportion of total oil demand by 2050.
“The oil and gas industry regards this as a contingency plan or a safety net within the energy transition,” noted Dharmesh Shah, a senior campaigner for the Center for International Environmental Law, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC, and Geneva.
ADVERTISEMENT:
CONTINUE READING BELOW
Where do the US and China stand?
The United States, being the largest global economy and leading oil producer, wields significant influence in the negotiations, yet its role in Busan remains ambiguous. Reports in August indicated that the Biden administration would back a global target to limit plastic production. Advocates greeted this news positively, while industry leaders criticized it.
Then came the elections. Donald Trump, who ran on promises to expand fossil fuel extraction and withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement, won the presidency. At the same time, Republicans gained control of the Senate, which must approve any treaty with a two-thirds majority for it to be legally binding.
A week later, the US negotiating team notified nonprofit organizations advocating for strict plastic regulations that there was “no landing zone” for stringent production limits, according to members of the Break Free From Plastic coalition during a call.
The White House Council on Environmental Quality reiterated the US’s commitment to “securing an ambitious, legally binding global instrument to tackle plastic pollution based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full lifecycle of plastic.”
“This position is simply unacceptable,” remarked Sarah Martik, executive director of the Center for Coalfield Justice in Pennsylvania. She voiced concerns that it could potentially “derail” the negotiations.
The uncertainty surrounding the US’s current stance and the Republican electoral victories have led delegates to shift their focus elsewhere.
Future advancement toward a comprehensive, legally binding treaty will likely depend on the influence of emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, which are major consumers of oil and natural gas.
“As a significant consumer, you have the power to dictate your consumption preferences,” remarked Juliet Kabera, director general of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority and a key negotiator at the Busan talks. “Producers will be compelled to cater to your demands as they rely on your market.”

Volunteers spread plastic bags out to dry at a recycling centre in Rayong, Thailand. Image: Bloomberg
As the largest producer of plastic in the world, China has a robust trading partnership with Saudi Arabia, which supplies a substantial portion of its crude oil imports. Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil corporation, is funneling investments into facilities in China that convert crude oil into petrochemicals.
This year, however, China’s National Development and Reform Committee issued directives focusing on specialty chemicals while actively reducing the establishment of small facilities manufacturing common plastics. Environmental advocates interpret this as a sign of China’s willingness to support a global effort to limit production capacity.
Competing roadmaps
As delegates gather in Busan, there are effectively two drastically varying draft treaties. One is a comprehensive 70-page document laden with over 300 contentious points. The other is a concise “non-paper” submitted by the negotiating committee chair, Luis Vayas Valdivieso from Ecuador, emphasizing the limited areas of consensus.
This non-paper has faced backlash from certain NGOs for its lack of binding limits, while others see it as the most achievable path forward. “It serves as a useful starting point since it does not fully satisfy any one group,” remarked Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business at the World Wildlife Federation, suggesting it could be “feasible to finalize” during a week of discussions.
On the first day, delegates are likely to vote on whether to advance with the non-paper instead of the lengthier draft. Should they choose the latter, Simon predicts that progress will be considerably more challenging, as it would reopen all discussions. Nonetheless, significant obstacles persist even with the more succinct document, alongside recognition from multiple nations that improving waste management and recycling—especially in the Global South—is crucial.
African nations have been at the forefront of initiatives to restrict single-use plastics, with many countries enacting or pledging policies to minimize consumption. A treaty could lend international recognition to these bans and institute design requirements enforcing consistent chemical standards for single-use plastics, thereby simplifying recycling efforts.
The primary challenge, however, lies in the potential regulation of harmful chemical compounds and additives in plastics, such as BPA and other bisphenols, phthalates, and PBDE flame retardants. Advocates for high ambition aim to devise a targeted list of chemicals known for their environmental leaching or potential harm to humans, striving to gradually eliminate them.
Clearly, these matters will not be easily resolved within a week in Busan. Some delegates aspire for the best-case scenario of achieving an agreement on a binding framework for continued discussions regarding plastic, akin to the annual COP summits focusing on climate change.
“We acknowledge that we won’t secure everything we seek or everything the world necessitates,” Simon stated. It is vital, she underscored, that “whatever we finalize” in Busan “can be improved over time, paving the way for further developments.”
© 2024 Bloomberg
Stay updated on Moneyweb’s detailed finance and business news on WhatsApp here.