• ‘Negotiations were hijacked by industry interests determined to protect business as usual,’ says Graham Forbes of Greenpeace
• Headlines sounding like there will not be any further action ‘far from truth,’ notes Susanne Brander of Oregon State University
• ‘Every year of delay risks crossing irreversible tipping points,’ warns Environmental Investigation Agency’s Amy Youngman

ISTANBUL 

As the world sinks a little deeper into plastic pollution each day, hopes ran high for the long-awaited talks in Geneva. It was billed as a turning point: 10 days of negotiations with representatives from 179 countries and nearly 2,000 participants gathered under the UN flag to hammer out the world’s first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution.

Instead, the August negotiations ended without an agreement, a setback that dominated headlines worldwide.

But to scientists and campaigners who were inside the room, the picture is more complicated. The talks were indeed stalled by deep divisions and by powerful countries protecting fossil fuel and petrochemical interests – still, they argue, Geneva is not the end of the story. 

Why did the talks fail?

From the beginning, the Geneva negotiations faced heavy political and commercial headwinds.

“Rather than moving toward real solutions, the negotiations were hijacked by industry interests determined to protect business as usual,” Graham Forbes, who led Greenpeace’s delegation, told Anadolu.

He accused petrochemical-producing countries of protecting their profits while the world absorbs the costs of plastic waste. “It was a betrayal of billions of people” living with the consequences of plastic pollution, Forbes said.

“It largely failed because countries that are profiting from either the extraction of petrochemicals or the production of plastics are basically drawing a line in the sand,” said Susanne Brander, associate professor at Oregon State University.

Having worked as an independent scientist for the treaty process, Brander noted that those countries were “not willing” to compromise with others impacted by pollution, which she called “incredibly disappointing and disheartening.”

Amy Youngman, legal and policy specialist at the Environmental Investigation Agency, highlighted the sticking points: whether to cap plastic production, how to regulate hazardous chemicals, and questions related to finance, particularly who pays for what.  

What’s at stake for the environment?

Experts say the costs of delay are mounting. “Every year of delay risks crossing irreversible tipping points. The science is clear that microplastics are now inescapable, from the deep ocean to the air we breathe,” said Youngman.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) projects plastic production could triple by 2060, fueling consumption and waste far beyond what current systems can manage.

Youngman noted that plastic overproduction, by driving unmanageable consumption and waste, will lead to rising pollution, increased toxic exposure and deepening inequality.

Forbes warned that without a binding treaty to cut production, the plastics crisis will “spiral out of control.”

People worldwide are already breathing, drinking and eating microplastics, he said, while communities near petrochemical plants face cancer, respiratory illness and contaminated water.

“Unchecked plastic production is a death sentence for humanity,” he added.  

Is this the end?

Scientists and campaigners agree that the crisis is as real as stone and urgent action is needed – and while questions and doubts linger, they insist that the road to a future treaty remains open.

“I feel like a lot of the headlines coming out of this made it sound like the decision had been made. The cake was baked, we were done, and there was not going to be any further action,” said Brander “That’s pretty far from the truth.”

The negotiations operate by consensus, meaning any single country can block progress. “The negotiations are not dead, but the consensus-based process is broken and must change,” Forbes said.

He noted that a growing bloc of governments across regions now supports production cuts and may pursue alternatives beyond consensus, such as forming a “coalition of the willing” or voting within the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) on plastic pollution.

Youngman added that more governments are starting to see the “cost of delay” and could move ahead without waiting for unanimity.

She said China is one of the countries “breaking from the fossil-fuel bloc,” and has expressed willingness to back regulation across the full life cycle of plastics.

“This parallel momentum not only keeps pressure on the formal process but also demonstrates that determined countries can and will take leadership to start tackling the plastics crisis immediately,” she added.  

What would an ideal treaty look like?

If a treaty is to succeed, experts agree it cannot stop at recycling.

“A weak waste management treaty would be a disaster that reinforces the broken status quo,” Forbes said.

Forbes and Youngman both said an ideal treaty should be binding, tackling root causes by cutting plastic production, phasing out harmful chemicals, redesigning products for reuse, closing waste trade loopholes, protecting health and ensuring fair financing.

Brander argued that an ambitious treaty must cut virgin plastic production and establish global regulations for harmful chemicals instead of fragmented national rules.

Human health should be “absolutely” included in the treaty, she argued, saying it is one of the factors driving the most ambition.

“People care about the fish, they care about the ocean, but when they hear that it’s affecting their kids, when it’s affecting the health of future generations, I think that’s where people really start to take it seriously,” Brander told Anadolu.  

Resistance to change

Part of the difficulty in battling the plastic crisis lies in human psychology, Brander said.

“We want things to be convenient,” she said. “And when that convenience is challenged, there is often this collective kind of incentive to push back against it.”

That resistance is why she described the current outlook as “pessimistic.” But she also insisted that it is not too late to take action.

“Governments must now decide whether they are willing to rise above fossil fuel interests and deliver the global leadership this crisis demands, or risk being remembered as the ones who looked away while the problem spiraled out of control,” she said.