U.N. Plastics Treaty Talks Collapse
How do we solve the problem of plastic wastes?

The nations of the world were supposed to complete negotiations on a Global Plastics Treaty on December 1. They didn't. The main sticking point was some countries' demand for a global cap on the future production of plastics.
Plastics are ubiquitous because they are amazingly useful and cheap. (Baseline projections suggest that annual global plastic use will triple to 1.3 billion tons by 2060.) They are also extraordinarily durable, taking decades to centuries to break up and degrade. This means that much of the plastic produced today will linger for generations.
Plastic pollution is undeniably a problem. Each year, tens of millions of tons of plastic wastes pile up in landfills or—much more problematically—pollute landscapes, waterways, and the oceans. In the 2022 Global Plastics Outlook, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that "only 9% of plastic waste is recycled (15% is collected for recycling but 40% of that is disposed of as residues). Another 19% is incinerated, 50% ends up in landfill and 22% evades waste management systems and goes into uncontrolled dumpsites, is burned in open pits or ends up in terrestrial or aquatic environments, especially in poorer countries."
Thanks to rising use and to terrible waste mismanagement, the 2019 Global Plastics Outlook pointed out, 6.1 million metric tons of plastic waste leaked in 2019 into aquatic environments; 1.7 million tons flowed into oceans. An estimated 30 million tons of plastic waste currently float in the oceans, and a further 109 million tons are piled up in rivers. "The build-up of plastics in rivers implies that leakage into the ocean will continue for decades to come, even if mismanaged plastic waste could be significantly reduced," notes the report.
This accumulation of plastics waste is an example of an open access commons problem. In this case, millions of free-riding consumers negligently toss their wastes into natural environments which have no owners who have an incentive to protect them.
The latest Global Plastic Treaty negotiations fell apart over a clash between two different perspectives on how best to handle this waste. The first perspective holds that plastics pollution is largely a mismanagement problem. The second aims to reduce the amount of plastics that would be produced in the future.
The nearly 70 countries that call themselves the High Ambition Coalition pushed for "a clear path to ending plastic pollution, including on reducing production and consumption of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels." To that end, they pushed for a cap on the future production of plastics. This was fiercely opposed by a coalition of oil- and gas-producing nations, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and Kuwait. (About 98 percent of new single-use plastics are manufactured out of crude oil and natural gas.) A delegate from Kuwait summed up their views when he said, "We are not here to end plastic itself…but plastic pollution." Since all United Nations treaties must be adopted by consensus, the talks then collapsed.

Clearly, the disposal of plastic wastes is widely mismanaged, especially in developing countries:
One piece of good news is that only about 4 percent of plastic wastes are currently mismanaged in the United States. That figure rises to an average of 6 percent for developed countries.
Poorer countries are doing much worse: The figures for mismanaged wastes in China, India, Latin America, and Sub-Saharan Africa are 27, 46, 42, and 64 percent, respectively. These same regions are responsible for the bulk of the plastic wastes flowing down their rivers into the oceans:

Besides the unsightliness and deleterious ecological effects of plastic pollution, there are some very preliminary health concerns about exposure to the micro and nano plastics every plastic product eventually breaks down into. That said, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration notes that "current scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics detected in foods pose a risk to human health."
There are two strategies for tackling such environmental open access tragedies: privatization or regulation. In the rich countries like the United States, most wastes, including plastics, are picked up and disposed by public or commercial garbage haulers in the $91 billion waste management industry. Most Americans take responsibility for their wastes by paying local taxes or fees to bury them in landfills, burn them, or recycle them. As a result, relatively little plastic from the U.S. ends up in the oceans. Bans on plastic bags and water bottles in this country are largely instances of symbolic moral preening.
Here is some more good news: Human technical ingenuity is already making progress toward curbing the plastics wastes problem by developing infinitely recyclable bio-based plastics.
In the meantime, a race is on between rising plastic wastes and the GDP increases poor countries would need to improve their waste management. The negotiations for U.N. environmental treaties usually involve a lot of wrangling between rich and poor countries over money. This particular text currently maintains a decorous silence over just how much cash might be at stake, but a 2022 report by the McKinsey consultancy estimated that building out fully functional waste management systems—roads, landfills, waste-to-energy facilities, trucks, trash points, recycling—could cost emerging economies $560 billion to $680 billion over 10 years.
Environmental treaties do not always fail. The Montreal Protocol succeeded in eliminating the chlorofluorocarbon emissions that were eroding the Earth's ozone layer. On the other hand, the Paris Climate Change Agreement has so far failed to stem the greenhouse gas emissions associated with global climate change.
So far the plastic diplomats haven't done much better than the climate-change diplomats. But they haven't given up yet: Negotiations will resume in the middle of next year.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Most plastics are too cheap to bother recycling.
The profit motive harms the environment.
Making goods that only last a few years, if that, and are replaced at full inflationary cost make the rich richer.
Constantly supporting this cycle of greed and waste by taking raw materials from the earth is also more profitable than making products that last 30 years and are repaired through their life as necessary.
The profit motive made West Germany cleaner and richer than the socialist motive made all of Eastern Europe dirty and poor. That includes your National Socialist movement.
Fuck off, Nazi.
Postwar west Germany didn’t have a free market, profit motive, fuckwit.
It had a regulated social market economy.
Contrary to what Bernie Sanders says, a safety net funded by capitalists is not socialism.
Socialism means the state owns and runs the means of production. It means the same idiots who run the DMV raise crops and bake bread, which leads to starvation and death.
It’s not quite that two dimensional fuckwit. As much as your feeble mind thinks otherwise.
No place anywhere ever had a totally free unregulated market. Government, leadership has always exhibited some control.
So according to YOU, everything everywhere everytime has always been socialist.
You “stand for” something that never existed.
It is quite two dimensional. Production is privately owned or it isn’t. Rules don’t equal ownership.
“Rules” as the name says “rule”, “control” ownership. Thats what they do.
You “stand for” something that never existed.
Refuted!
Refuted.
It’s not even like being religious because god might actually exist. It’s unknown.
We know that a completely free market never existed.
So you’re either rejecting every economy that ever existed, holding out for an impossible myth, or you’re accepting some rules and regulations that dictate what you can and can’t do with your private property.
Two dimensional.
By far most of the plastic in the Pacific Ocean is lost fishing equipment.
https://theoceancleanup.com/press/press-releases/over-75-of-plastic-in-great-pacific-garbage-patch-originates-from-fishing/
Considering ...
* Lies about the Pacific plastic patch
* Lies about COVID
* Lies about the COVID vaxes
* Lies about Climate
* Lies about endangered species
* Lies about nutrition
* Lies about transgender mutilation
* Lies about Israeli genocide
... I think I am about done believing ANYTHING coming out of the UN, period, and anything coming out of any government science.
ETA that government science probably is useful once in a while. But their track record puts the burden on them to prove it. Guilty until proven innocent.
Don’t believe anything anywhere ever again. Bigotry is your way forward.
Or
Criminalize lying.
Sure, and tattoo liars and make them wear cloth badges.
And don’t forget, let them live to spread their bullshit while collecting reparations.
The reason these "negotiations broke down comes down to one thing, a bunch of third world countries wanted hundreds of billions dropped on them by successful first world countries.
Solution: Teach Southeast Asians how to use a fvckin trash bin
This. Though it does go a bit deeper than that, as there has to be a system for emptying the bins coherently.
Still, yes, once again, it's not the West that's actually the problem here.
How dare you! The West, especially the US, is responsible for all evil in the world. If plastic use and waste is evil, it's our fault. QED
In Indonesia products such as shampoo and soap are sold in small packets, a bit bigger than the catsup handed out at McDonalds because of the lower cost of each purchase. They are used showering in the rain and thrown down to wash away. Think people living in shacks.
The simple solution is always the best.
Eliminate the UN.
How about not basing plastics policy on an 8-year-old boy's science project?
This.^^^
Because that's what all this hysteria is based on.
Or they could just spend a billion dollars on more trash cans. Or something.
Um, plastic trash cans?
Oh noooooooooooo.
I feel like we need more testing before we draw any conclusions. But in the meantime make sure you're up to date on your booster jabs.
"How do we solve the problem of plastic wastes?"
That's simple - burn it and use the heat to generate electricity.
"...decades to centuries to break up and degrade..."
It burns really quick though!
High Efficiency Low Emissions thermal power plants solve this problem. Not only does it reduce the waste, it turns it into something of value: fuel. People can make money selling the fuel to the plants. There would be a financial incentive for people to collect garbage in poor countries. All that pollution would be gone in a few years if people can make money from collecting it.
It's a simple solution but, as long as we are wedded to the CO2 lie, it will only happen in places where the government doesn't pay any attention to the lies of the UN. I have read that Japan has well over 1000 waste-to-energy plants operating. The whole world could benefit from this technology, if we all tell the UN to get stuffed.
But the UN is philosophically opposed to prosperity.
Nope. The third world technocrats are fully committed to their own prosperity and want to cut their countries in on the transfer of wealth. Finally a few countries like the US are saying no to this.
- burn it and use the heat to generate electricity.
This is the obvious solution. Plastics consume about 10% of the petroleum produced. As long as we are referring to non-halogenated materials, they can easily be burnt as fuel without having to sort polyethylene from polypropylene etc. The remaining forms such as PVC (used in construction to begin with) can be landfilled or reused.
We are not the problem. When we throw a plastic bottle in the trash in the USA, it gets disposed of properly and does not end up in the ocean. As your graphic shows, it is the "terrible waste mismanagement" of shithole countries that is trashing the oceans and coasts. Rather than trying to outlaw plastics, a constructive international response would be aid to shitholes to set up modern waste management systems.
Taking care of the trash is a low priority for poor countries. They've got other things to worry about. This country didn't take care of the trash until we got rich. No reason to think others are different.
So the solution here is to help lift poor countries out of poverty. How can we do this? The easiest way would be trade. Free trade and comparative advantage are how countries get wealthy. If we want the people living in poor nations to become rich enough to worry about cleaning up their trash, eliminating tariffs on the things they want to sell to us would be a good start.
Foreign aid on the other hand is just taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.
“How can we do this? The easiest way would be trade.”
Sorry, best we can do is take out their socialist tinpot dictator and install our puppet. - US Government
No, import all those people here so they have access to garbage cans.
Mexico City has a lot less trash on the streets than New York City.
The PRC is hardly a poor country any more, and India, Brazil and Indonesia are relatively well off. Further, aside from Brazil, each of these prime emitters are high population density which lends itself to efficient collection, sorting for fuel vs. re-use (as I mention above).
The BIGGEST pollution going on is Reason turning to political "environmentalist lobbying".
What's so harmful about UN-used plastic anyways? Looking at it?
So don't; cover it up. A big whoop-Ty do about nothing.
If it ever becomes human valuable we'll know exactly where to dig-it up.
The real bottom-line is.............
"Oh LOOK! Plastic!!! That's why [WE] are excused to Gov-Gun STEAL from all you State-Slaves."
"Oh LOOK! A Grasshopper! That's why [WE] are excused to Gov-Gun STEAL from all you State-Slaves."
etc, etc, etc, etc ... There's always a "Oh LOOK! An excuse to STEAL MORE."
This is an easily solvable problem, grab all the eco fags, ship them to being, and have the protesting the dumping policy of the slant eyes!
Bejing
Yeah, glad you corrected that. You kinda had me baffled as I thought you were trying to make some philosophical point about a state of being or something.
>How do we solve the problem of plastic wastes?
Oh! This is an *easy* one.
The majority of the issues with plastic waste comes from countries that don't have routine residential/business trash collection. This stuff is thus just thrown out into the street/local river.
So if you want to fix the problem, you get these countries to a point where they can afford to pay people to drive trucks to pick up trash cans.
And then you put it in a proper modern landfill.
No, we are not in danger of running out of landfill space.
That requires allowing their economies to grow rather than engaging them in trade wars.
ngl, I've always kinda figured we'd get to a point where rocketry is commonplace and advanced enough that we're able to load it all in there and shoot it at the sun.
Also, recycling went out of fashion half a decade ago. That's stupid second bin taking up extra space in your garage? It goes to the exact same place the garbage bin does. I find it ludicrous that we continue to utilize two separate environmentally unfriendly heavy oil/fuel burning trucks to keep up the appearance that recycling still matters or serves any environmentalist point in America.
Maybe the planet wants plastic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rld0KDcan_w
"We" dont have to do anything. South Asia is the issue. Anyone who doesnt understand and recognize this is the problem.
Yet, somehow, it's all America's fault.
See my comment above.
Wrong. It's Liberal/Leftist America's fault. They're the ones who are self-loathing and blame all the woes of the world on their shameful existence. Marxism permits zero happiness.
Conservative (as well as increasingly Populist) America, however, has stopped apologizing for this nonsense. We know who the enemies of the world are. In this case, yet again, it's China and India.
Nope. It’s liberal/leftist America who blames the rest of us in America, and excuses the folks who are really filling the oceans with plastic.
Too bad we can’t ship them to China, the Philippines, etc., and let them try to stop the pollution there.
When I was a smoker I tended to behave as if "the world is my ashtray" and tossed the butts anywhere and everywhere I went. If I had thought about it at all, I might have assumed that tobacco and cellulose are biodegradable, so no harm done. All the smokers I knew did the same. We wouldn't have known much about the problem of cost externalization, or cared much about it if we had known.
All of us participate in the culture of thoughtless dispersal of used stuff, stuff of all kinds, not just plastics. Personally I include landfills and junkyards as forms of thoughtless dispersal. What about all the raw materials used to make the stuff? Some critical raw materials are becoming scarcer and more expensive, and we can't make more of them (except plutonium perhaps). So we either figure out how to recover and reuse such materials post-production, or we'll end up fighting each other over any remaining sources. I'm including things like electronic components containing small amounts of precious and rare-earth metals. Until recently most of that sort of stuff was shipped from here to the Philippines, China, or Africa, where the locals were willing and able to extract the gold and platinum by whatever means necessary. That still left the plastic bits, of course.
Some years ago the local hospital instituted a smoke-free policy in its entire campus, much of which was parking lots and small woods. A nonsmoker by that time, I tried to point out to the administration that the policy was unenforceable outside the buildings. They weren't impressed, but they didn't authorize an actual butt patrol force either. Years later I notice that there are fewer butts left near building entrances, but there are fewer smokers now; I can't recall seeing any discarded nicotine-vapes around here.
As part of the policy's promotion the hospital circulated newsletters in which the question of third-hand smoke sometimes appeared. I tried to point out the flaw in that argument, which was and is that the 3rd-hand idea wasn't supported by the available evidence. Right about then I was informed that a co-worker reported smelling smoke on my person, which could have earned me a reprimand of some kind if true. I hadn't smoked in years, and I was somewhat offended by the accusation. I asked to have a quiet word with the accuser, but this was refused. The real issue wasn't smoke but rather a personality conflict. I just went ahead with the job as usual, and I never heard anything more about second-hand smoke smells. After a while I never heard anything more about so-called third-hand smoke either.
"Bans on plastic bags and water bottles in this country are largely instances of symbolic moral preening."
But left wing Democrats keep banning retailers from giving away free cheaply made plastic bags to customers (so we can carry groceries out of stores), and instead require retailers sell so-called recycled plastic bags (made in China) for $.50 to $1.
Pittsburgh's plastic bag ban has prompted me to do my grocery shopping outside the city (so I drive more) and stop recycling most recyclables (because the city gave out big blue plastic containers to put all recyclables in (that is too large to fit in my tiny kitchen).
So much improving the environment.
Such stupidity.
I don't know where to start on the number and range of misinformation points in this article. I suppose the most egregious is the unsupported assumption that ALL of the "pollution" examples given here are deleterious on some level and that they are all in need of some "solution." The next most serious unsubstantiated background narrative here is that some private market "solution" must of necessity be better than the failed government treaty type efforts (or that the "successful" one actually reduced the "erosion" of the ozone layer and might somehow be a model for other treaty efforts - in fact it might have been counterproductive by causing much more harm through unintended consequences). I don't know why some self-styled libertarians seem to have a blind spot when it comes to the environment and the fake "externalities problem" but it is getting tiresome to read this garbage on "Reason." In every stage of human development human action and production has caused social and environmental dislocations; and in every subsequent stage the problems of the previous step have been almost completely eliminated to the betterment of both mankind AND the environment, with not a single example of an intentional private or official solution to any of them. Privatization of solutions has almost always been as much a failure as official government management of such problems. Leave humans alone and the market will almost always eliminate old problems while generating new ones. The solution to poor countries discharging plastic into the waterways is to allow economic and political freedom to carry them out of poverty. Just GET OUT OF THE WAY!
“Leave humans alone and the market will almost always eliminate old problems while generating new ones. “
Like Chernobyl and Fukushima? Or WW1, WW2 and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or Covid?
These man made environmental and human life disasters could have been avoided if rules developed with correctly applied logic and science were recognized, applied and enforced based on the principle that the environment and life must be prioritized over greed and waste.
It’s called “planning” not “leaving people alone to do whatever they want” and it’s what every successful civilization does.
Wait wait wait. China (pop. 1.41b) and India (pop. 1.43b) I understand, but are you telling me that The Philippines (pop. 117m) is the world's chief dumper of plastic into the ocean?
I realize "not my problem" sounds awkward when talking about a global environment, but if the primary people causing the problem are all in the east indian ocean/south china sea and the very same people are the ones most harmed by all the trash maybe just let it keep festering until they decide they don't want to put up with it anymore instead of asking wealthy western countries who don't pollute the oceans to pony up for it. But we all know that's what the UN really is: a grift machine for extracting guilt payments from wealthy countries to support tinpot dictators in poor ones.