This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

In a significant reversal, the Biden administration announced during two closed-door meetings this week that US negotiators will support limits on plastic production as part of the United Nations’ global plastics treaty.

The news was first reported by Reuters and confirmed to Grist on Thursday by the State Department. It represents a major shift for the United States, which had previously rejected production limits in favor of an approach focused on boosting the recycling rate and cleaning up plastic litter.

While industry groups condemned the decision as “misguided,” environmental organizations said it could sway momentum in favor of production limits at a consequential point during the negotiations. There is only one meeting left before the treaty is supposed to be finalized in 2025.

“This couldn’t have come at a better time,” said Christina Dixon, ocean campaign leader for the nonprofit Environmental Investigation Agency. “The US position has been one of the great unknowns and they have the power to be a constructive and collaborative player, so it’s a relief to see them setting out of their stall at this critical moment.”

Backed by industry groups, oil-producing states like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and until now, the United States, have opposed restrictions on plastics manufacturing.

Negotiations over a treaty have been ongoing since March 2022, when the UN reached a landmark agreement to “end plastic pollution.” Over the course of the four negotiating sessions that have occurred since then, however, progress has been slow—in large part due to disagreements over the treaty’s scope.

A so-called “high-ambition” coalition of countries, supported by many scientists and environmental groups, say the treaty must prevent more plastic from being made in the first place. Some 460 million metric tons are manufactured globally each year—mostly out of fossil fuels—and only 9 percent of it is recycled.

Because the manufacturing, use, and disposal of plastics contribute to climate change, experts at the nonprofit Pacific Environment have found that the treaty must cut plastic production by 75 percent by 2040 in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

The high-ambition coalition also supports specific bans or restrictions on the most problematic types of plastic—typically meaning those that are least likely to be recycled—as well as hazardous chemicals commonly used in plastic products. This coalition includes Canada, Norway, Peru, Rwanda, and the UK, along with more than 60 other countries.

Oil-producing states like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China—backed by industry groups—oppose these measures. They want the treaty to leave production untouched and focus on managing plastic waste. The US counted itself among those countries until this week.

Now, in addition to supporting restrictions on plastic production, the US says it will also support creating a list of problematic plastics and hazardous chemicals, according to Reuters.

Because the US carries so much weight in the treaty negotiations—and because North America produces one-fifth of the world’s plastics—Dixon said the White House’s new position could be “a welcome signal to fence-sitting countries,” encouraging them to join the high-ambition coalition. “I hope it will only further isolate the small group of countries who are unwilling to commit to the necessary binding regulations we need to see on the supply of plastics.”

Industry groups reacted less favorably to the news. 

Chris Jahn, president and CEO of American Chemistry Council, a plastics and petrochemical trade group, said in a statement that the US had “cave[d] to the wishes of extreme NGO groups.” He described the White House’s new position as a betrayal of US manufacturers that would slash jobs, harm the environment, and cause the cost of goods to rise globally.

“If the Biden-Harris administration wants to meet its sustainable development and climate goals, the world will need to rely on plastic more, not less,” he said, citing the material’s utility in renewable energy infrastructure, making buildings more energy efficient, and reducing food waste. 

Nearly 40 percent of global plastic production goes toward single-use items like packaging and food service products.

Matt Seaholm, president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association, shared similar sentiments to Jahn. In a statement, he said the White House had “turned its back on Americans whose livelihoods depend on our industry.”

He added that the US’s reversal would undermine its influence in the treaty negotiations, “as other countries know this extreme position will not receive support in the US Senate.” The Senate has to approve treaties before the US can ratify them.

Despite the industry’s outrage, polling suggests that ambitious policies to address the plastics crisis are broadly popular among the public. According to one recent poll from the nonprofit National Resources Defense Council, nearly 90 percent of Americans support measures to reduce plastic production. Eighty-three percent specifically support plastic production limits as part of an international treaty, and even greater numbers support treaty provisions to eliminate “unnecessary and avoidable plastic products” and toxic chemicals.

Reducing plastic production is “what the American people want,” Anja Brandon, director of US plastics policy for the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy, said in a statement. She cited additional polling from her organization showing that 78 percent of Americans think ocean-bound plastic pollution is a “pressing problem.”

Brandon and other environmental advocates now say they’re eager to see how the US’s new position will translate into advocacy during the final round of plastics treaty negotiations, scheduled to begin in late November in Busan, South Korea. They’re calling for the US to sign onto the “Bridge to Busan,” a declaration put forward by a group of countries last April asking negotiators to “commit to achieve sustainable levels of production of primary plastic polymers,” potentially through “production freezes at specified levels, production reductions against agreed baselines, or other agreed constraints.”  

“I’m cautiously optimistic,” Julie Teel Simmonds, a senior attorney for the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “I look forward to seeing US delegates fight for these positions at the next plastics treaty negotiations in South Korea.”

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

In a significant reversal, the Biden administration announced during two closed-door meetings this week that US negotiators will support limits on plastic production as part of the United Nations’ global plastics treaty.

The news was first reported by Reuters and confirmed to Grist on Thursday by the State Department. It represents a major shift for the United States, which had previously rejected production limits in favor of an approach focused on boosting the recycling rate and cleaning up plastic litter.

While industry groups condemned the decision as “misguided,” environmental organizations said it could sway momentum in favor of production limits at a consequential point during the negotiations. There is only one meeting left before the treaty is supposed to be finalized in 2025.

“This couldn’t have come at a better time,” said Christina Dixon, ocean campaign leader for the nonprofit Environmental Investigation Agency. “The US position has been one of the great unknowns and they have the power to be a constructive and collaborative player, so it’s a relief to see them setting out of their stall at this critical moment.”

Backed by industry groups, oil-producing states like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and until now, the United States, have opposed restrictions on plastics manufacturing.

Negotiations over a treaty have been ongoing since March 2022, when the UN reached a landmark agreement to “end plastic pollution.” Over the course of the four negotiating sessions that have occurred since then, however, progress has been slow—in large part due to disagreements over the treaty’s scope.

A so-called “high-ambition” coalition of countries, supported by many scientists and environmental groups, say the treaty must prevent more plastic from being made in the first place. Some 460 million metric tons are manufactured globally each year—mostly out of fossil fuels—and only 9 percent of it is recycled.

Because the manufacturing, use, and disposal of plastics contribute to climate change, experts at the nonprofit Pacific Environment have found that the treaty must cut plastic production by 75 percent by 2040 in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

The high-ambition coalition also supports specific bans or restrictions on the most problematic types of plastic—typically meaning those that are least likely to be recycled—as well as hazardous chemicals commonly used in plastic products. This coalition includes Canada, Norway, Peru, Rwanda, and the UK, along with more than 60 other countries.

Oil-producing states like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China—backed by industry groups—oppose these measures. They want the treaty to leave production untouched and focus on managing plastic waste. The US counted itself among those countries until this week.

Now, in addition to supporting restrictions on plastic production, the US says it will also support creating a list of problematic plastics and hazardous chemicals, according to Reuters.

Because the US carries so much weight in the treaty negotiations—and because North America produces one-fifth of the world’s plastics—Dixon said the White House’s new position could be “a welcome signal to fence-sitting countries,” encouraging them to join the high-ambition coalition. “I hope it will only further isolate the small group of countries who are unwilling to commit to the necessary binding regulations we need to see on the supply of plastics.”

Industry groups reacted less favorably to the news. 

Chris Jahn, president and CEO of American Chemistry Council, a plastics and petrochemical trade group, said in a statement that the US had “cave[d] to the wishes of extreme NGO groups.” He described the White House’s new position as a betrayal of US manufacturers that would slash jobs, harm the environment, and cause the cost of goods to rise globally.

“If the Biden-Harris administration wants to meet its sustainable development and climate goals, the world will need to rely on plastic more, not less,” he said, citing the material’s utility in renewable energy infrastructure, making buildings more energy efficient, and reducing food waste. 

Nearly 40 percent of global plastic production goes toward single-use items like packaging and food service products.

Matt Seaholm, president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association, shared similar sentiments to Jahn. In a statement, he said the White House had “turned its back on Americans whose livelihoods depend on our industry.”

He added that the US’s reversal would undermine its influence in the treaty negotiations, “as other countries know this extreme position will not receive support in the US Senate.” The Senate has to approve treaties before the US can ratify them.

Despite the industry’s outrage, polling suggests that ambitious policies to address the plastics crisis are broadly popular among the public. According to one recent poll from the nonprofit National Resources Defense Council, nearly 90 percent of Americans support measures to reduce plastic production. Eighty-three percent specifically support plastic production limits as part of an international treaty, and even greater numbers support treaty provisions to eliminate “unnecessary and avoidable plastic products” and toxic chemicals.

Reducing plastic production is “what the American people want,” Anja Brandon, director of US plastics policy for the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy, said in a statement. She cited additional polling from her organization showing that 78 percent of Americans think ocean-bound plastic pollution is a “pressing problem.”

Brandon and other environmental advocates now say they’re eager to see how the US’s new position will translate into advocacy during the final round of plastics treaty negotiations, scheduled to begin in late November in Busan, South Korea. They’re calling for the US to sign onto the “Bridge to Busan,” a declaration put forward by a group of countries last April asking negotiators to “commit to achieve sustainable levels of production of primary plastic polymers,” potentially through “production freezes at specified levels, production reductions against agreed baselines, or other agreed constraints.”  

“I’m cautiously optimistic,” Julie Teel Simmonds, a senior attorney for the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “I look forward to seeing US delegates fight for these positions at the next plastics treaty negotiations in South Korea.”

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Proponents of the voluntary carbon market say it’s a mechanism not only to advance sustainability goals, but also to funnel much-needed cash to some of the world’s poorest countries. 

The idea is that companies seeking to “offset” their climate footprint will help pay for the development of projects that sequester or prevent greenhouse gas emissions—endeavors like planting trees to suck carbon out of the atmosphere, or protecting forests that were ostensibly in danger of being chopped down. These projects, which generate exchangeable “credits” representing 1 metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions each, come with the promise of jobs for local residents, and project developers often pledge to devote part of their revenue to public infrastructure like schools.

In Africa, the voluntary carbon market is “a powerful means to address climate change and uplift communities,” according to one nonprofit that writes nonbinding standards for the sector.

It’s increasingly unclear, however, whether that narrative holds up to scrutiny. A series of reports published since last November by the nonprofit Carbon Market Watch, or CMW, has highlighted a near-total lack of published research on how much money flowing into the carbon market actually winds up supporting climate mitigation projects or reaching local communities. One report called attention to a lack of fair and transparent benefit-sharing agreements, clauses in projects’ design documents that detail how they will distribute revenue and nonmonetary benefits to people they affect. 

Most recently, an analysis published by the group last week found that, while most carbon credit projects are located in poor countries, they are largely controlled by companies based in wealthier North American and European countries. The authors said there is “no evidence” that the voluntary carbon market, or VCM, brings economic benefits to communities where projects are based, a point that human rights and environmental groups have long been making.

“Rich countries are passing the burden of climate action from rich to the poorest countries.”

“When it comes to knowing if the VCM is actually working as a tool to channel finance from the Global North to the Global South, there’s no information there,” said Inigo Wyburd, a policy expert for Carbon Market Watch and the author of the newest report. “It raises serious questions as to, well, are these communities really benefiting?”

The most recent report looks at two samples of carbon credit projects: one composed of 30 from around the world, and another of 39 projects just in Africa. Only 13 percent of the projects in the global sample are located in countries with the highest level of “human development,” based on a UN metric encompassing education, health, and living standards. But nearly 60 percent of the companies that own, develop, monitor, and vet the projects are based in the world’s most developed countries.

The numbers are even more pronounced for the African sample, which shows that less than 10 percent of projects are based in countries with the highest UN development index. Sixty-two percent of all the projects’ developers and 63 percent of their owners are located in the most highly developed countries outside of Africa. 

According to Wyburd, this doesn’t necessarily mean that companies based in rich countries aren’t directing revenue to local communities. In a way, it makes sense that there would be more companies from wealthy countries participating in carbon credit projects, since they have better access to capital and technology. But paired with the lack of transparency on financial flows, the geographical disparity is concerning.

“As many companies are not based in the same region where their project is carried out, any money that is not directly assigned to project implementation is potentially diverted to become profit for actors located in the Global North,” the report says. Notably, the analysis found that at least 10 projects across both samples were missing documentation on things like monitoring and verification.

The CMW paper only hints at what African rights and environmental groups have been saying much more forcefully. Last year, a coalition of organizations across the continent published a scathing critique of the Africa Carbon Markets Initiative, an effort to develop the continent’s voluntary and government-run carbon markets and bring it $6 billion in annual revenue by 2050. 

While the Africa Carbon Markets Initiative has promised to share revenue equitably and transparently with local communities, the environmental groups called the program “a new form of colonialism,” saying it would exacerbate climate change and obstruct “the attainment of genuine African development pathways.” More broadly, they criticized all carbon credit projects, which they said would commodify Africa’s land and other resources in order to benefit foreign corporations.

“Rich countries are passing the burden of climate action from rich to the poorest countries,” the authors wrote, “in return for which African countries are asked to package up projects that fit the demands of the Northern companies to deliver tons of carbon.”

This problem has already played out across Africa, Asia, and South America, where communities have repeatedly reported being fleeced by companies seeking to generate carbon credits. In one instance, the Switzerland-based company South Pole and Carbon Green Investments—a firm founded by a wealthy Zimbabwean businessman to receive proceeds from South Pole—sought to generate credits by ostensibly preventing deforestation around Lake Kariba in Zimbabwe. Like other projects, part of its allure was that it would also raise money for local communities.

But an investigation from the news site Follow the Money, the Germany newspaper Die Zeit, and the Swiss broadcaster SRF could only account for a tiny fraction of the funds that were promised to support schools, health clinics, and vegetable gardens. Dozens of village chiefs, local politicians, and villagers told the outlets they had doubts about the project; some said there was no money reaching them.

Farai Maguwu, director of a Zimbabwean research and advocacy organization called the Centre for Natural Resource Governance—which was not one of the groups involved with the critique of the Africa Carbon Market Initiative—told Grist in an interview last year that the Kariba project developers had made the local community out to be “ignorant people” who would “destroy their environment” if not for the carbon credits. He said projects like Kariba were “shortchanging” locals: “using them to generate millions of dollars which are never plowed back into those communities.”

“It’s quite irritating when they present these self-serving projects as an opportunity for Africa,” he added.

South Pole told Grist it could not comment on “the actions of other organizations,” and that it had only acted as a “consultant” to the Kariba project; the responsibility for distributing funds to stakeholders “was never with South Pole.” The company said in a press release last year that the Follow the Money investigation had been published “out of context,” and that the company’s intention has always been to “do well as a business by doing good, including creating lasting impact in some of the world’s poorest places.” Several months later, the company cut ties with the Kariba project, though it said it “continues to believe in the significance” of the project for local communities.

The Africa Carbon Markets Initiative did not respond to Grist’s request for comment, and Carbon Green Investments could not be reached.

Meanwhile, carbon credit activity on the continent seems to be growing: Based on Carbon Market Watch’s analysis of publicly available data, 841 projects based in Africa issued 17 percent of global carbon credits between 2020 and 2024, up from 433 projects issuing 7 percent of credits between 2010 and 2020. 

Wyburd, with Carbon Market Watch, said he isn’t against carbon credits necessarily. “I think there are good projects,” he said. “I think there are developers and implementers trying to make a real difference. But it’s difficult to differentiate them from the bad, and that is inherently because of this lack of transparency.” 

Although the voluntary carbon market is not formally regulated, Wyburd called for stronger disclosure requirements from bodies like the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, a nonprofit governance body that aims to provide oversight for the sector. His report recommended that companies make project-level financial reports publicly available, and that standards bodies conduct regular audits to make sure documents are accurate and up to date.

Some environmental groups are less optimistic. In its publication last year, the coalition of African environmental groups asked African governments to “withdraw from and take no further interest” in any carbon market mechanisms. To fund sustainable development, they said African nations should: create a “polluters pay fund” that charges companies per ton of carbon they emit, demand that wealthy countries send more climate finance and cancel “odious debts,” and redirect fossil fuel subsidies toward renewable energy.

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

In the time it takes you to read this sentence—say, four seconds—the world produces nearly 60 metric tons of plastic, almost entirely out of fossil fuels. That’s about 53,000 metric tons an hour, 1.3 million metric tons a day, or 460 million metric tons a year. Those numbers are fueling widespread and growing contamination of Earth’s oceans, rivers, and the terrestrial environment with plastic trash.

In March 2022, the United Nations’ 193 member states got together in Nairobi, Kenya, and agreed to do something about it. They pledged to negotiate a treaty to “end plastic pollution,” with the goal of delivering a final draft by 2025. The most ambitious vision espoused by member states in the negotiating sessions that have taken place so far would require petrochemical companies to stop making so much of the darn stuff by putting a cap on global plastic production.

Given the existential threat this would pose to fossil fuel and chemical companies, you might expect them to be vociferously opposed to the treaty. Yet they claim to support the agreement. They’re even “championing” it, according to statements from a handful of industry groups. The American Chemistry Council has repeatedly “welcome[d]” progress on the treaty negotiations, while an executive from the International Council of Chemical Associations told Plastics Today in April that the industry is “fully committed” to supporting an agreement.

While plastics manufacturers concede that pollution is a scourge, they don’t think the solution is to decrease the production and use of their products.

So what exactly do plastic-producing companies want from the treaty? To answer this question, Grist sifted through dozens of public statements and policy documents from five of the world’s largest petrochemical industry trade organizations, as well as two product-specific industry groups. These documents included press releases reacting to treaty negotiating sessions and longer position statements detailing the industry’s desired pathway to a “world without waste.” 

Much of what these groups have published is vague—many documents call for “targets,” for example, without saying what they should be. Grist reached out to all of the groups for clarification, but only two agreed to answer questions about the policies they support.

What we found is that, although they fall far short of what so-called “high-ambition” countries and advocacy groups would like to get out of the treaty, industry groups’ proposals to bolster recycling and waste collection could cause a significant reduction in mismanaged plastic waste—even in the absence of a cap on plastic production. According to a policy analysis tool developed by researchers at the University of California, the elements of the treaty that industry groups support, cobbled together, could cut global plastic pollution by 43 million metric tons annually by 2050—a 36 percent reduction below business-as-usual estimates.

Meanwhile, a realistic production cap could cut annual pollution by 48 million metric tons all by itself. Excluding a production cap from the treaty will make it much harder to rein in plastic pollution, said Douglas McCauley, an associate professor of biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and one of the creators of the policy tool. “It means you really have to ramp up your ambition on what some of the other policies would need to do,” he told Grist.

These numbers matter, because the plastic industry’s influence over the treaty negotiations seems to be growing stronger. At the most recent round of talks—held in Ottawa, Canada, at the end of April—nearly 200 petrochemical and fossil fuel lobbyists registered to attend. That’s 37 more than were registered for the previous session, and more than the number of representatives from European Union member states. 

At the same time, several delegations promoted solutions on the industry’s terms. Malaysia warned about the unintended economic consequences of limiting plastic production, and India said the treaty should focus on pollution while considering plastics’ utility to modern society. Given the power of the plastics industry and the tendency of international negotiations to cater to the lowest common denominator, it’s possible that the treaty will strongly reflect these industry priorities.

To understand the industry position on the plastics treaty, it’s important to understand how plastic makers conceptualize the plastics crisis. While they agree that pollution is a scourge, they don’t think the solution is to reduce society’s production and use of plastic. After all, plastics come with myriad benefits. They’re inexpensive, lightweight, and widely used in important sectors like clean energy and medicine—their “unmatched properties and versatility have allowed for incredible innovations that conserve resources and make more things in life possible,” as the Plastics Industry Association has put it. America’s Plastic Makers, an arm of the American Chemistry Council, says policymakers should ensure that the material stays “in our economy and out of our environment.”

The way to do this, according to industry groups, is through “plastics circularity,” a concept that seeks to keep the material in use for as long as possible before it’s thrown away. Generally, this means more recycling. But circularity can also refer to scaled-up systems allowing plastic to be reused, or better infrastructure for waste collection. As plastic makers see it, the plastic treaty’s function should be to increase circularity while retaining the social and economic benefits derived from plastic products. 

Perhaps the biggest problem faced by circularity proponents is plastic’s abysmal recycling rate. At present, the world only recycles about 9 percent of all plastic it produces; the rest gets sent to landfills or incinerators, or winds up as litter. What’s more, in most cases the material can only be reprocessed once or twice — if at all—before it has to be “downcycled” into lower-quality products like carpeting. Although some experts believe it’s impossible to recycle much more plastic due to technological and economic constraints, plastic makers say otherwise. Indeed, plastics circularity hinges on the possibility of a better recycling rate.

Plastic pellets are notorious for spilling into waterways from manufacturing facilities or cargo ships. In Europe, 20 truckloads worth escape into the environment every day.

To that end, several industry groups—including the World Plastics Council, the self-described “global voice of the plastics industry”—are advocating for “mandatory minimum recycling rates” as part of the treaty, as well as higher targets for recycled content used in new products.

This could mean that countries, regions, or other jurisdictions would set legally binding quotas for the amount of plastic recycled within their borders and then converted into new items. Plastic makers typically favor targets that are set at the local or national level and that differentiate based on the type of plastic, since some types are harder to recycle than others.

Industry groups also want recycling targets to be “technology-neutral,” meaning they should count plastics processed through controversial “chemical recycling” techniques. Although these techniques do not yet work at scale, the industry says they will one day be able to break down mixed post-consumer plastic into their constituent polymers using high heat and pressure, and then turn those polymers back into new plastic products. Environmental experts oppose chemical recycling, pointing to evidence that it is primarily used to burn plastics or turn them into fuel.

The two policies—on plastics recycling and recycled content—could be mutually reinforcing, with the latter creating a more reliable market for the recycled material generated by the former. Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers, told Grist via email that recycling and recycled content targets would “create demand signals and provide added certainty for companies to make additional investments for a circular economy, so more plastic products are reused or remade into new plastic products.”

According to Plastics Europe, the continent’s main plastic trade group, boosting the recycling rate would decrease countries’ dependence on fossil fuels used to make virgin plastics.

Plastics Europe and the World Plastics Council declined to be interviewed for this article. They did not respond to questions about their support for specific recycling and recycled content targets, although Plastics Europe has voiced support for “mandatory data and reporting objectives for all stages of the life cycle of the plastics system.” For the US, America’s Plastic Makers supports a 30 percent recycled content requirement in plastic packaging by 2030, and for 100 percent of plastic packaging to be “reused, recycled, or recovered by 2040.”

Additional policies supported by industry groups could indirectly facilitate an increase in the plastics recycling rate by raising money for recycling infrastructure. These policies typically involve systems for “extended producer responsibility,” or EPR, requiring companies that make and sell plastics to help pay for the collection and recycling of the waste they generate, as well as the cleanup of existing plastic pollution.

Every industry group Grist reached out to says it supports EPR as a part of the treaty, although some specifically note in their policy documents that such policies should be adopted at the local or national level, rather than globally. Some groups, including the American Chemistry Council and Global Partners for Plastics Circularity—an umbrella group supported by a dozen plastics associations and companies—also call more vaguely for additional financing through “public-private partnerships and blended finance.”

For plastic packaging—which accounts for about 36 percent of global plastic production—a European industry consortium called the Circular Economy for Flexible Packaging supports “mandatory legislation on product design” to make products easier to recycle. It doesn’t back any specific design elements, but points to ideas laid out by the Consumer Goods Forum, an industry-led network of consumer product retailers and manufacturers.

To achieve climate goals, some environmental groups have estimated that the world must reduce plastic production by 12 to 17 percent every year starting in 2024.

These ideas include using clear instead of colored plastics, limiting the use of unnecessary plastic wrap, and ensuring that any adhesives or inks applied to plastic packaging don’t render it nonrecyclable. Plastics Europe additionally supports technical and design standards for biodegradable and compostable plastics intended to replace those made from fossil fuels.

Many groups also say they support targets for “pellet containment,” referring to the tiny plastic pieces that are melted down and shaped into larger items. These pellets are notorious for spilling out of manufacturing facilities or off of cargo ships and into waterways; in Europe, 20 truckloads of them escape into the environment every day. Several trade groups say in their public statements that they support an industry-led program called Operation Clean Sweep to help companies achieve “zero resin loss” by “fostering a venue for precompetitive collaboration and peer-learning opportunities.” 

However, Operation Clean Sweep has been around since 1991 and has not yet achieved its goal; some policymakers have recently called for stricter regulations on plastic pellet loss.

In addition to capping plastic production, many countries’ delegates—along with scientists and environmental groups—would like the treaty to ban or restrict some of the most problematic plastic polymers, as well as certain chemicals used in plastics. They call these “chemicals and polymers of concern,” meaning those least likely to be recycled, or most likely to damage people’s health and the environment. Potential candidates include polyvinyl chloride, widely used in water pipes, upholstery, toys, and other applications; expanded polystyrene, or EPS, the foamy plastic that’s often used in takeout food containers; and endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as phthalates, bisphenols, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

The general idea of identifying problematic chemicals and polymers in the plastics treaty is very popular; observers of the negotiations say it’s been one of the areas of greatest convergence among delegates. Industry groups are also supportive—but only of a very specific approach. According to the World Plastics Council, the treaty shouldn’t include “arbitrary bans or restrictions on substances or materials,” but rather regulations based on the “essential use and societal value” of particular types of plastic.

For instance, polystyrene used in packing peanuts and takeout containers is virtually never recycled and might be a good candidate for restriction. But the Global Expanded Polystyrene Sustainability Alliance—a trade group for EPS makers—points to evidence that, in Europe and Japan, the material can be recycled at least 30 percent of the time when it’s in a different format—namely, insulation for products like coolers, as well as big pieces used to protect fragile shipments.

One expert puts the maximum recycled content for consumer product packaging at about 5 percent due to technological constraints.

“We’ve got five major types” of polystyrene, said Betsy Bowers, executive director of the Expanded Polystyrene Industry Alliance, a trade group representing the US EPS market. “Some of them can be recycled, and some of them can’t.”

Plastics Europe has said an application-based approach could also consider plastic products on the basis of “leakage,” how easily the products become litter; the feasibility of redesigning them; or “effects on human or animal health.” That said, the organization does not support restricting plastic-related chemicals as part of the treaty, beyond what is already spelled out in existing international agreements like the Stockholm Convention. The International Council of Chemical Associations, whose members include individual chemical manufacturers and regional trade groups, does not support any chemical regulation as part of the treaty. 

In an email to Grist, the American Chemistry Council said it supports a “decision-tree approach” to prevent specific plastic products from leaking into the environment. The organization said in a letter sent to President Joe Biden last May that it opposes “restrictions of trade in chemicals or polymers” because they would “make U.S. manufacturers less competitive and/or jeopardize the many benefits plastics provide to the economy and the environment.”

The International Council of Chemical Associations, the Plastics Industry Association, and the Circular Economy for Flexible Packaging initiative did not respond to Grist’s request to be interviewed for this story, or to questions about the policies they support.

While it’s clear that self-preservation is at the heart of the petrochemical industry’s agenda for the plastics treaty, the policies it supports could have a positive impact on plastic pollution. According to the policy analysis tool created by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, Santa Barbara, a suite of ambitious policies to hit recycling and recycled content rates of 20 percent, reuse 60 percent of plastic packaging (where applicable), and dedicate $35 billion to plastics recycling and waste infrastructure could prevent 43 million metric tons of plastic pollution annually by midcentury. Most of this reduction would come from the infrastructure funding.

McCauley, one of the creators of the tool, said these policies are certainly better than nothing. They can bring the world “closer to a future without plastic pollution,” he told Grist, although he emphasized that recycling is not a silver bullet. 

The policy tool takes for granted that higher recycling and recycled content rates are achievable, but this might not be the case. Bjorn Beeler, executive director and international coordinator for the nonprofit International Pollutants Elimination Network, said a 20 percent recycling rate would be “nearly impossible” to reach, given the relatively low cost of virgin plastic and the petrochemical industry’s projected expansion over the coming decades.

Jan Dell, an independent chemical engineer and founder of the nonprofit The Last Beach Cleanup, estimated the maximum possible recycled content rate for consumer product packaging would be about 5 percent, due to insurmountable technological constraints related to plastics’ toxicity.

“Whether the treaty includes plastic production cuts is not just a policy debate. It’s a matter of survival.”

Experts tend to favor plastic production caps as a much faster, reliable, and more straightforward way to reduce plastic pollution than relying on recycling. According to McCauley’s policy tool, capping plastic production at the level reached in 2019 would prevent 48 million metric tons of annual plastic pollution by 2050—even in the absence of any efforts to boost recycling or fund waste management. “It’s possible to be effective without the cap,” said Sam Pottinger, a senior research data scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a contributor to the policy tool. “But it requires a huge amount of effort elsewhere.”

There’s no reason the plastics treaty couldn’t incorporate a production cap in addition to the industry’s preferred recycling interventions. Some experts say this would form the most effective agreement; according to the policy tool, a production cap at 2019 levels plus the suite of recycling targets and funding for waste infrastructure could prevent nearly 78 million metric tons of annual plastic pollution by 2050. Bumping up the funding for recycling and waste infrastructure to an aggressive $200 billion, in combination with the production cap and other policies, would avert nearly 109 million metric tons of pollution each year.

“We need to use all of the tools in our toolbox,” said Zoie Diana, a postdoctoral plastics researcher at the University of Toronto who was not involved in creating the policy tool. She too emphasized, however, that governments should prioritize reducing plastic production.

The case for a production cap goes beyond plastic litter concerns. It would also address the inequitable impact of toxic pollution from plastic manufacturing facilities, as well as the industry’s contribution to climate change. In April, a study from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that plastic production already accounts for 5 percent of global climate pollution, and that by 2050—given the petrochemical industry’s plans to dramatically ramp up plastic production—it could eat up one-fifth of the world’s remaining carbon budget, the amount of emissions the world can release while still limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). To achieve international climate goals, some environmental groups have estimated that the world must reduce plastic production by 12 to 17 percent every year starting in 2024.

“Whether the treaty includes plastic production cuts is not just a policy debate,” said Jorge Emmanuel, an adjunct professor at Silliman University in the Philippines, in a statement describing the mountains of plastic trash that are harming Filipino communities. “It’s a matter of survival.”

Petrochemical companies, for their part, do not deeply engage with these arguments—at least not in their public policy documents. They claim that plastics actually help mitigate climate change, since the lightweight material takes less fuel to transport than alternatives made of metal and glass. And industry groups’ public statements mostly do not address environmental justice concerns related to plastic use, production, and disposal, except to vaguely say that the treaty shouldn’t harm waste pickers—the millions of workers, most of them in the developing world, who make a living collecting plastic trash and selling it to recyclers. 

The fifth and final round of negotiations for the plastics treaty is scheduled to take place in Busan, South Korea, this November. Although many observers, including a group of US Congressional representatives and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have called for conflict-of-interest policies to limit trade groups’ influence over the talks, these requests face long odds. The dozens of countries advocating for production limits may have to defend their proposals against an even larger industry presence than they did at the last session in Ottawa.