Why is a global treaty on plastic pollution dividing the world?

SEOUL —  What on earth to do about all the plastic polluting the oceans, the food supply, even our bodies?

That is the question that the delegates from 175 countries are trying to answer this week in Busan, South Korea, where the fifth and final round of negotiations are underway for a United Nations-led treaty that would regulate the full life cycle of plastic, including production, design and disposal.

Many hoped the initiative, which began two years ago, would result in the most consequential environmental accord since the Paris climate agreement in 2016.

Yet over the course of four rounds of talks, sharp divisions emerged, stirring concern that the session in Busan will end with a watered-down treaty far removed from those ambitious goals.

The biggest disagreements center on whether the treaty should focus on reducing overall plastic production or whether it is sufficient simply to improve recycling practices.

Meanwhile, the commitment of the U.S., which is one of the world’s top producers of plastic waste, has been cast into doubt after the outcome of the presidential election.

Even before the meeting began Monday, South Korean Environment Minister Kim Wan-sup was trying to dial back expectations, telling reporters: “I believe it may be more realistic to pursue stepwise measures.”

Here is what you need to know about the problem and the efforts to solve it:

How bad is the world’s plastic problem?

Few disagree that the level of pollution has reached alarming heights.

Between 2000 and 2019, annual production of plastics doubled to 460 million tons. It is expected to reach 736 million tons by 2040, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Very little of the world’s plastic waste — about half of which comes from single-use plastics such as packaging, straws and disposable utensils — is recycled. Just 9% of the 353 million tons of plastic discarded in 2019 was recycled.

That figure is even lower in the U.S., where each person generates an average of 487 pounds of plastic waste each year: Just 4% was recycled in 2019, with the majority incinerated or dumped in landfills.

Because it does not biodegrade, much of the plastic we throw away ends up leaking into the environment as microplastics, tiny particles less than 5 millimeters in size that have been found in water, food and even in human placentas.

Although the effects on human health are just starting to be studied, one recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine linked microplastics in certain blood vessels to increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

Utility company workers push waste to the shore of Lim river near Priboj, Serbia.

(Armin Durgut / Associated Press)

“Our world is drowning in plastic pollution,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a video message to delegates on Monday.

“By 2050, there could be more plastic than fish in the ocean. Microplastics in our bloodstreams are creating health problems we’re only just beginning to understand.”

Is there a way out?

Research suggests that it’s not too late to act.

A paper published in the journal Science this month found that just four policies could “reduce mismanaged plastic waste by 91% and gross plastic-related greenhouse gas emissions by one third.”

The two most effective: a 40% minimum recycled content mandate for new plastic products, followed by a cap on new plastic production, in addition to a plastic consumption tax and increased investment in waste management systems.

What are the biggest obstacles to the treaty negotiations?

The most intractable questions have also been the most critical: Who will pay for what, and whether the treaty will set mandatory production caps or allow countries to set and abide by their own voluntary targets.

Poorer countries, such as the small island states in the Pacific, are calling for their wealthier counterparts to shoulder a greater share of the financial costs of the waste that is largely produced by developed economies but ends up on their shores.

The U.N. has estimated that measures to fight plastic would cost $1.64 trillion by 2040.

On the other hand, nations such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, whose economies are dependent on the fossil fuels that provide the ingredients for plastic, oppose mandatory caps on production, arguing instead for a focus on recycling and waste management.

And while countries including Rwanda and Britain have issued a pledge calling for clear limits on the production of new plastics, fossil fuel-producing countries have insisted that parties should be allowed to set their own voluntary targets.

“We reject any proposals that impose undue burden on industries,” Saudi Arabia said in its opening statement Monday, arguing for “recycling solutions rather than imposing rigid and exclusionary policies.”

Citing “delaying tactics” by countries in this camp, Virginijus Sinkevicius, the European Commission’s environment chief, predicted this year that it would be very difficult to bring the negotiations to a close by the end of November.

Why are so many countries and environmental activists opposed to a recycling-focused solution?

Few disagree that better waste management is necessary. But critics say focusing nearly exclusively on recycling exaggerates the effect that can have and distracts from more fundamental solutions to plastic pollution.

“We have to stop making so much of it. It really is that simple. And this treaty is our best chance to do that,” said John Hocevar, Oceans Campaign director at Greenpeace USA.

“This is not a problem we can solve by recycling,” he said. “Most plastic will never be recycled.”

This is the case that California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is making in a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, one of the world’s largest producers of petroleum-based polymers used to make single-use plastics.

In a complaint filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court this year, the state Department of Justice argued that the company “deceived Californians for almost half a century by promising that recycling could and would solve the ever-growing plastic waste crisis.”

“Exxon and Mobil, through the Society for the Plastics Industry, created and promoted the chasing arrow symbol despite knowing that it was deceiving the public into thinking that all plastics are recyclable,” the complaint read.

Exxon Mobil “knew that these statements were false or likely to deceive the public, including knowledge that most plastics could not be recycled at scale.”

What about the United States?

In August, U.S. negotiators reportedly decided to support a production cap, a surprising reversal from an earlier position calling for individual voluntary targets.

But this month, officials told environmental groups in a closed-door meeting that they no longer saw such a cap as a viable “landing zone,” according to reporting by Grist, a climate news website.

Many doubt that a deal, even if it were to be struck, would survive under President-elect Donald Trump, who has a long track record of rolling back climate regulation and recently nominated fossil fuel executive Chris Wright for Energy secretary.

During his first term, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the landmark Paris climate accord, calling it a “rip-off.”