UN Plastic Agreement: Negotiations in Busan Fail to Reach Consensus
The global community has once again failed to establish an international agreement to combat plastic pollution. A UN conference held in Busan, South Korea, concluded without a resolution, despite the urgent need for a coordinated international response to the escalating plastic waste crisis.
During this fifth round of negotiations, the chairperson, Luis Vayas from Ecuador, acknowledged that significant progress remains to be made. The conference was originally convened two years ago with the goal of developing a comprehensive framework addressing the entire lifecycle of plastic, including its production, processing, and disposal.
Currently, only a mere nine percent of all plastic produced globally is recycled. A few key nations, notably Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran, have resisted efforts to include regulations on plastic production within the agreement. They prefer that the focus remain on enhancing waste management practices instead.
Recent studies, including one from the University of California, Berkeley, predict that the demand for plastic is expected to grow substantially in the coming years, potentially tripling by 2050. This anticipated increase is driven by the fact that twelve percent of crude oil extracted is utilized for plastic production. Many oil-producing countries view plastic as a viable market opportunity, especially as the demand for gasoline declines with the rise of electric vehicles.
As a result, the chairperson had no choice but to postpone the decision regarding the agreement to a future conference. Environmental expert Noreen O'Meara from the University of Surrey commented that the decision to delay was a prudent one, as rushing towards a compromise could have forced progressive nations to make excessive concessions.
Despite representing a significant majority among more than 170 participating countries, a coalition of over 100 nations, including Mexico, Panama, Rwanda, and the European Union, supports an agreement that would impose specific targets for reducing plastic production. Norwegian international law expert Magnus Løvold suggested that the advanced coalition should consider proceeding with an agreement without the obstructive nations, raising the question of whether they would have the courage to break free from the prevailing consensus culture.
The unclear stance of the United States played a role in the negotiations' outcome. Initially resistant to regulating plastic production, the Biden administration appeared to shift its position, only to revert to its original stance shortly before the conference commenced. Environmental activist John Hocevar from Greenpeace USA highlighted this inconsistency, noting that while the White House expressed a willingness to support measures to reduce plastic production, they ultimately declined to endorse production caps.
The failure to reach an agreement has drawn sharp criticism from environmental organizations, which argue that the growing plastic pollution crisis cannot be adequately addressed without a reduction in production levels. The complexity of recycling plastic is compounded by the 16,000 different additives used to give it various properties, resulting in an alarmingly low recycling rate.
Furthermore, plastic production is responsible for approximately five percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, a figure that is challenging to mitigate given that 90 percent of these emissions arise from the production of raw plastic materials. Only by significantly decreasing the volume of new plastic can emissions be effectively reduced.
As the world grapples with an ever-increasing plastic pollution crisis, the next UN plastic conference will be critical in determining the future of international efforts to combat this pressing issue.
