Gobal Plastics Treaty | Recycling Policy ·
Back to Blog
AMBR’s observer provides takeaways from the mission-based recycling perspective
Will the global plastic treaty be the solution to the plastic pollution crisis, or just a light shake-up enabling even more greenwashing? This is the question on every advocate’s mind as we reflect on the latest negotiations and prepare for the November session in Busan, South Korea.
This past April, international delegates, impacted communities, plastic pollution elimination advocates, and petrochemical and packaging industry groups converged in Ottawa, Canada for the United Nations’ Fourth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) to develop an internationally binding treaty to reduce plastic pollution.
The treaty negotiations offer a historic opportunity to develop a comprehensive international response to the global plastics crisis. While some delegates are championing an ambitious treaty that truly tackles global plastic pollution throughout plastics’ lifecycle, others delegates, particularly from countries economically tied to oil and gas production and the petrochemical industry, are encouraging treaty negotiations to focus solely on downstream “solutions” such as recycling and plastic incineration technologies.
As recyclers, we know firsthand that recycling and other waste management strategies are not the answer to prolific plastic pollution. Much of the plastic entering recycling facilities was never designed to be recycled and generally carries little value. Worse yet, it trashes authentic recycling of highly recyclable materials like glass, cardboard, and paper.
As mission-based recyclers, we prioritize keeping resources in the ground in order to protect people and the environment. We know plastic production is plastic pollution, and we must stop it at its source.
AMBR’s steering committee member and executive director of the Ecology Center, Martin Bourque, attended the negotiations as an observer representing the recycling industry. Sadly, little progress has been made, and only one more meeting is planned.
Here are some key observations of the treaty negotiations from the mission-based recycling perspective:
Consumer Pressure for Plastic Pollution Reduction is Paying Off. Many groups, including AMBR’s founding organizations, have been applying pressure on packaging companies for their contributions to the global plastic crisis. The impact of this pressure was evident at the treaty negotiations, as global consumer goods brands demonstrated an unprecedented willingness to support global regulations, marking a notable divergence from the petrochemical industry’s ambitions to limit such regulations.
The Petrochemical Industry is on the Ropes. With significant fissures emerging in corporate sectors, the petrochemical industry is becoming increasingly isolated in its efforts to convince delegates that we can recycle our way out of the crisis they have created. The false solutions they have sold for decades seem to be falling on increasingly deaf ears as the health, environmental, community, and national impacts of plastic production and release become more critical and visible. They still hold powerful sway but have to expose themselves more and more to use it.
Nuance Around Plastic Polymer Resin is Being Introduced. Similarly, a refined definition of plastic is beginning to emerge, with more nuance being introduced to clarify the difference between durable plastics and single-use plastics and which are essential and non-essential. Industry consensus is emerging, and single-use plastics are being dubbed unnecessary. As mission-based recyclers, we applaud this emergent definition, as single-use plastics are by far the worst contaminants in the recycling stream and the environment.
Global Reduction of Plastic Production is Urgently Needed. Canada’s Aamjiwnaang First Nation attended the INC-4 negotiations and spoke of the plastic-producing industrial facilities surrounding their lands. One such facility, INEOS Styrolution’s plastic manufacturing plant, which makes polystyrene from post-consumer recycled plastic, was recently found to be releasing the cancer-causing chemical benzene at 22 times higher than the level that Canadian officials deem safe. Also in attendance were representatives from East Palestine, Pennsylvania, outlining the health and economic impacts of the PVC polymer precursor spill in their town, which occurred in February 2023. The evidence was clear: plastic pollutes wherever it goes, in every stage of its lifecycle, and it pollutes across the globe.
The Work Ahead
More than 34 countries signed on to a non-binding declaration, Bridge to Busan, urging the treaty negotiations to address the full lifecycle of plastics and emphasizing that this includes the production of primary plastic polymers. The authors note the impacts of plastic polymers on climate change and the potential for unchecked plastic production to overwhelm current waste management practices and existing recycling operations.
As we move into the intersessional period and prepare for the next set of negotiations, AMBR continues to urge the Biden administration to be a global leader and embrace the EPA’s waste hierarchy—reduce, reuse, and then recycle—in its negotiations for the treaty. Despite the administration’s expressed adherence to the EPA waste hierarchy, it has yet to demonstrate a willingness to support plastic production reductions.