For decades, the fossil fuel industry has advocated for recycling as a viable alternative to clamping down on the single-use plastic crisis filling landfills and oceans. With the upcoming U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP28), the industry is taking this message global, using it to undermine efforts to decrease fossil fuel usage. Last week at the third Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee meeting (INC-3) in Nairobi, Kenya, the strategy was crystal clear. The conference, part of a process to secure an international agreement on plastics by 2024, ended in deadlock as countries and trade groups such as the American Chemistry Council opposed the idea of limiting plastic production.
The presence of more than 140 registered fossil fuel and plastics lobbyists, linked with six national delegations, made them the largest contingent at the conference. They outnumbered independent scientists 4 to 1 and the collective delegations of the 70 smallest countries combined. The fossil fuel and petrochemical representatives contested the possible “phaseout” of particularly damaging and replaceable plastics, advocating for a “circular economy” where plastic waste is reused indefinitely to create new products.
However, anti-plastic campaigns argued that this approach diluted the original goal of the treaty, which aimed to significantly reduce plastic entering the environment. With 8.3 million tons of plastics already in landfills and the environment, and an estimated 12 million tons by 2050, there is an urgent need for a binding agreement to address this issue.
The coalition of 60 U.N. member states called the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution called for expanded recycling and new-model plastics that are easier to break down and remake into other products. Their primary objective was binding measures to reduce plastic production, with a focus on eliminating and restricting problematic plastics.
The outcome of the conference was a zero draft that ballooned with pro- and anti-plastics proposals, setting the stage for a potential failure in the treaty process. A coalition of countries, including China, Russia, and Iran, favored waste management over the reduction of plastic production. The Saudi delegation argued that phasing out primary plastics would stifle economic growth and stability. The U.S. also sought to replace global commitments with voluntary measures to reduce single-use plastic.
The pro-plastic coalition proposed focusing on ending plastic pollution rather than the production of new plastic, promoting the concept of chemical recycling to create a closed-loop system. However, critics argue that chemical recycling remains unproven on an economic basis, and the industry’s investment in advanced recycling pales in comparison to the funds allocated for producing virgin plastics.
In summary, the lobbying efforts of fossil fuel and petrochemical representatives at the INC-3 raise concerns about the focus on recycling and waste management rather than addressing the root issue of plastic production and its impact on the environment. As the world grapples with a plastic crisis, it is crucial to prioritize meaningful measures that reduce the production of plastics and promote sustainable alternatives.
