In the fight against the escalating crisis of plastic pollution, United Nations-hosted negotiations for a global plastics treaty have been undermined by powerful industry players and petrostates, threatening the health of our planet and its inhabitants. With the next round of talks set to resume in Geneva in August 2025, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
The Scale of the Plastic Pollution Crisis
Plastic pollution has reached catastrophic levels, with approximately 450 million tonnes of new plastic produced annually, a figure projected to triple by 2060 if current trends persist. From the peaks of Mount Everest to the depths of the oceans, plastic and its toxic chemicals have infiltrated every corner of the globe, contaminating human brains, breast milk, soils, and ecosystems. Beyond environmental damage, plastic production, derived almost entirely from fossil fuels, significantly contributes to the climate crisis, exacerbating global warming and biodiversity loss.
The urgency of addressing this crisis cannot be overstated. A robust global treaty to limit plastic production is seen by over 100 nations and 1,100 scientists as essential to reducing these harms. However, powerful forces are working to maintain the status quo, prioritizing profit over planetary health.
Corporate Capture of Treaty Talks
The plastics treaty negotiations, facilitated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) since 2022, have been infiltrated by an overwhelming presence of industry lobbyists. At the December 2024 talks in Busan, South Korea, a record 220 corporate lobbyists attended, outnumbering the host nation’s delegation and dwarfing the presence of independent scientists. Companies like Dow and ExxonMobil sent multiple representatives, some even embedded within national delegations, granting them access to sensitive, member-state-only sessions.
This “total infiltration,” as described by insiders, allows the plastics and petrochemical industries to skew discussions in favor of their agendas. Critics argue that these lobbyists, backed by deep-pocketed fossil fuel and plastic giants, are pushing for solutions like recycling technologies, which only 9% of plastic globally is successfully recycled, according to a 2022 OECD report. These solutions are often dismissed as “magical thinking” by experts like David Azoulay from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), who emphasizes that managing current plastic production levels is already unfeasible.
Petrostates and the Petrochemical Bloc
Leading the charge against a strong treaty are petrostates like Saudi Arabia, the world’s second-largest oil producer, which owns Sabic, a major plastic manufacturer. Alongside allies like Russia and Iran, Saudi Arabia has consistently blocked proposals for production caps, leveraging its experience in stalling climate negotiations to obstruct progress. The country’s influence extends beyond the negotiating table, with significant financial contributions to UNEP, including $25 million since 2019 for environmental initiatives and hosting World Environment Day in 2024.
This financial leverage raises concerns about undue influence. Critics point to a lack of transparency in UNEP’s operations and the absence of a conflict-of-interest policy, which allows industry players to operate with equal standing to affected communities and scientists. The result is a negotiation process that often sidelines evidence-based solutions in favor of corporate interests.
Harassment and Intimidation at the Talks
The high-stakes environment of the treaty negotiations has also fostered hostility toward scientists and advocates pushing for change. Professor Bethanie Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicologist from the University of Gothenburg, has faced repeated harassment, including being surrounded and yelled at by industry representatives. In one incident at an official UN event in Ottawa, Canada, a plastics industry representative barged into a meeting, accusing her of spreading misinformation. Carney Almroth has also had to take precautions against surveillance, such as using privacy screen protectors to shield her phone from prying eyes.
Such tactics echo the “tobacco playbook,” where industries challenge scientific evidence and attempt to discredit researchers. Carney Almroth notes that many scientists fear speaking out due to potential legal challenges or career repercussions, creating a chilling effect on open discourse.
UNEP’s Role Under Scrutiny
UNEP’s executive director, Inger Andersen, has faced criticism for her handling of the negotiations. Environmental organizations have accused her of lacking ambition and undermining the need for a production cap. In September 2024, Andersen’s remarks suggesting that a cap on plastic production was “not an intelligent conversation” drew ire from over 100 environmental groups, who argued that her statements contradicted scientific evidence. Her close ties with Saudi Arabia, including multiple high-level meetings and financial agreements, have further fueled concerns about UNEP’s impartiality.
Despite these criticisms, UNEP maintains that its focus is on facilitating a treaty that ends plastic pollution. A spokesperson emphasized that the organization adheres to a strict code of conduct to prevent harassment and ensures stakeholder participation. However, without a clear conflict-of-interest policy, the influence of industry and petrostates continues to loom large.
The Path Forward:
As the treaty talks approach their sixth round in Geneva, the global community faces a critical juncture. Ninety-five nations, including France, have issued a rallying cry for an ambitious treaty, warning that “mountains of plastic” are “suffocating ecosystems” and “threatening our children’s future.” Scientists, represented by groups like the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty (Scept), are advocating for evidence-based policies, but their limited access to negotiations hampers their ability to counter misinformation.
To succeed, the treaty must prioritize:
-
Capping Plastic Production: Limiting the production of virgin plastic, particularly for single-use items, to reduce environmental and health impacts.
-
Transparency and Accountability: Implementing a conflict-of-interest policy to curb industry influence and ensure fair representation.
-
Support for Vulnerable Nations: Providing resources for smaller nations and NGOs to participate fully in negotiations.
-
Science-Driven Solutions: Establishing an official scientific advisory panel to guide discussions with unbiased evidence.
Why This Matters
The plastics treaty represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address a crisis that affects every aspect of our environment and health. Failure to act decisively risks perpetuating a cycle of pollution, climate change, and biodiversity loss. By standing up to corporate and petrostate interests, the global community can forge a path toward a cleaner, healthier planet.
As Professor Carney Almroth asserts, the fight is about more than just policy—it’s about protecting people and the environment from the unchecked power of industries profiting from pollution. With the world watching, the August 2025 talks in Geneva will test whether nations can unite for the greater good or succumb to the pressures of a powerful few.
