Disappointing. That word was in constant usage by many delegates at the final round of talks on what was supposed to be a landmark agreement on tackling plastic pollution in South Korea, but which ended with no resolution in the early hours of Monday last. The representatives of more than 600 countries and organisations met in Busan for the negotiations that began on November 30, the culmination of a series of sessions convened by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) following its resolution in March 2022 to end plastic pollution. The intergovernmental negotiating committee then formed had subsequently met in November 2022 in Uruguay, June 2023 in France, November 2023 in Kenya, and April this year in Canada. The initial intention to have a legally binding treaty in place by the end of this year was derailed by Big Oil – petroleum and plastic producing nations and companies.
In a nutshell – cracked as it were since the issue is too enormous to be thus confined – the fact is that global plastic production has reached bewildering heights. In 2023, production was pegged at 413.8 million tonnes. This is a growing industry that is estimated to reach 1,100 million tonnes by 2050 if the status quo is maintained. The impact on the environment to date has been staggering. Some 23 million tonnes of plastic waste ends up in the world’s oceans every year; it harms marine life, ecosystems, and contributes to climate change. In addition, microplastics, the tiny bits that can endure for centuries, have so far been found in human blood, brains, lungs, breast milk, placentas and testicles.
While we have all heard the term ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ being bandied about, the truth is that less than ten percent of plastic gets recycled or reused. Therefore, the only part of that concept that makes any sense going forward is reduction. Even if global recycling efforts were to increase tenfold, they could hardly keep up with current production. The question also arises as to where the recycled products would be used if new ones continue to roll off production lines. Although they talk the talk, ‘Big Oil’ is really not tuned in to recycling. It is in effect a huge scam being perpetrated against the world in the interest of big profits and when money talks, who really hears the underlying conversation? Very few.
Money, therefore, absolutely made the difference at the Busan session. The fossil fuel and plastics group spent massively to ensure the outcome. The projections of slimmer pockets – if restrictions on production and phasing out of plastics that are difficult to recycle were cemented – had long spurred action by the players in this industry. Even more so when one considers the growing global shift towards clean energy, including the upswing in production of electric vehicles. The thought process is obvious, if oil and gas sales seem likely to take a hit, then there must be a boom in plastic production to cover that imminent loss.
InfluenceMap, an independent think tank producing data-driven analysis on how business and finance are impacting the climate crisis, has been following the money for years. Its analysis over a period of five ‘Big Oil’ players – BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and TotalEnergies – revealed that collectively they are spending some US$750 million each year on public relations regarding climate change. What that figure looks like when the outlay of all of the others is added is mind boggling, but nowhere near as staggering as their current cumulative profits and what they stand to lose.
According to reports from Busan, there were over 200 fossil fuel and chemical industry representatives at the talks. Further, the UK Guardian, which analysed the delegations, reported that 16 lobbyists from the plastics industry attended the meeting as delegates from China, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, Iran, Kazakhstan and Malaysia. Their arguments against curbing plastic production were seen as coming from those countries. More than that, prior to the talks, InfluenceMap found that the petrochemical industry intervened dozens of times on the proposed treaty via company statements, social media and consultation responses.
At the end of the Busan meeting some 95 disappointed countries stuck to their guns calling for a legally binding pledge to reduce plastic production levels. The UNEP signalled its intent to convene another session next year, but no one really expects a different outcome. Environmentalists are urging those countries to make their own treaty, which could involve bans on certain imports among other actions that could force change in companies and the wider industry.
Change, we are told, is constant. People who were born 50 to 60 years ago can probably remember a world where plastic production and usage was minimal. No human, animal or plant died because of that and the global environment was infinitely better off. Here in Guyana, baby boomers might recall the days when ‘take away’ Chinese food was handed to the customer in grease-proof paper placed inside a paper bag. (Today this is being touted as a novelty and showcased on TikTok and Instagram by influencers.) Back then, baskets and reusable bags made of cloth, leatherette and polythene were a must on trips to the shops or markets. In Georgetown, the big stores like Bookers, Fogarty’s and JP Santos offered customers paper bags with their names or logos printed on them. Of course there was still pollution; the incinerator on Princes Street was the city’s main waste disposal and in rural areas citizens burned their garbage, but there were no plastics choking the drains and canals.
People might choose to debate whether those simpler days meant the country was backward, since in the developed world plastics were already in common usage. However, the evidence shows that it was definitely a cleaner time. What is being called progress these days, came at a hefty cost to the environment as well as to our health. That being said, and with everything else taken into consideration, the government should let citizens know where it stands on the issue of phasing out plastic production. This country was among the nations to agree in 2022 that a global treaty was needed to tackle the issue of plastic pollution. However, to date, the government has ignored or deflected calls for bans on throwaway plastics, while still claiming to be pursuing a green agenda. The two clearly do not mesh. So where exactly are we?
