As negotiations for a global pact on plastic pollution began in Geneva, there was significant speculation regarding the U.S. stance. The overarching question was whether it would take a passive role, assuming that the Trump administration would not ratify a UN treaty, or whether it would actively seek to dilute the agreement’s ambition for the benefit of its petrochemical industry.
As discussions approached their midpoint, it became evident that the U.S. has chosen the latter, aggressively opposing measures aimed at limiting plastic production that might jeopardize its influential petrochemical sector.
According to negotiators and observers speaking with Climate Home News, Washington has joined forces with a coalition of fossil fuel-producing nations, which includes Gulf countries and Russia, effectively stalling progress in the negotiations and leaving no clear path to a consensus.
Conversely, a coalition of nearly 100 nations, including Canada, Australia, and many from Europe, Africa, Latin America, and the Pacific, supports initiatives aimed at reducing the production of virgin plastics to sustainable levels.
According to John Hocevar, Greenpeace USA’s Oceans Campaign Director, the U.S. is now actively exerting its influence to dissuade other countries from pursuing progressive measures.
Hocevar stated, “The U.S. approach now appears to be closely aligned with the countries that have been blocking progress throughout the process.” This is a marked change, as the U.S. has become more aggressive in its diplomatic efforts.
Before the negotiations commenced, the U.S. issued letters to several countries urging them to reject any limitations on plastic production and chemical additives. A delegate from a Pacific island country receiving such a memo said that while the communication did not contain explicit threats, it emphasized that upstream measures related to a treaty would be intolerable.
The ongoing discussions have been further complicated by a firm preference from President Donald Trump’s administration for bilateral agreements over multilateral treaties. This stance largely deviates from the trajectory of previous administrations.
This shift in U.S. policy is reflected in the closed-door meetings in Geneva, where the U.S. has continually expressed its disapproval of any global measures, showing unwillingness to compromise.
A spokesperson for the State Department clarified, “The United States supports an agreement that respects national sovereignty and focuses on reducing plastic pollution without imposing onerous restrictions on producers that would harm U.S. companies.”
Throughout the week, the U.S. put forth a formal proposal to amend an article that outlines the treaty’s objectives, seeking to limit its scope to just managing plastic pollution, contrary to the United Nations resolution that established negotiations for a comprehensive deal covering the entire lifecycle of plastics.
Research from the OECD indicates that plastic production is set to nearly triple by 2060 if no action is taken. Alarmingly, only 9% of plastic worldwide is recycled; most ends up in landfills or the ocean. Since nearly all plastic is derived from fossil fuels, the direction of this sector will critically impact global strategies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
As the world gradually transitions away from fossil fuels in energy sectors, oil and gas-producing nations view the petrochemical industry as a lifeline for their economies. Research from Zero Carbon Analytics indicates that seven countries, including the U.S., China, and Saudi Arabia, are responsible for two-thirds of global plastic production.
During the ongoing negotiations, several stakeholders from developing countries have noted that those opposed to production cuts are becoming more candid about their desires. They are explicitly expressing their reluctance to allow the treaty to interfere with their exports.
Separate submissions from Saudi Arabia on behalf of 22 Arab nations, along with Russia, India, Iran, and Malaysia, reiterated their rejection of any production measures. They proposed that related articles should be excluded from the draft treaty text altogether. Additionally, countries like China and Brazil, while not officially submitting proposals, have shown silent support for this position.
Conversely, Panama, representing 89 nations, along with a coalition of Pacific island states, reintroduced proposals from last year’s meeting in Busan. Their suggestions called for adopting a global target at a future plastics COP to decrease primary plastic polymer production to sustainable levels.
Meanwhile, Japan and South Africa sidelined their proposals, which many viewed as attempts at compromise, advancing calls for nations to “promote” or “manage” plastic consumption and production. However, no agreement has materialized from these discussions.
A negotiator from the high ambition coalition acknowledged that while the coalition has shown readiness to compromise on wording, the treaty must signal that the current trajectory regarding production is unsustainable.
As frustration mounts within the negotiating body, more countries are actively discussing the possibility of calling for a vote on the treaty, particularly as the U.S. has indicated its unwillingness to accept necessary measures for an effective treaty.
Currently, if a consensus fails, qualified majority voting is permitted under the draft procedural rules. However, these rules were never finalized due to objections from major emerging economies, such as Saudi Arabia, China, and India, which seek to retain veto power over decisions.
Despite widespread recommendations from advocates, government representatives have refrained from initiating a vote. As one negotiator stated, the option of voting is becoming more plausible, yet significant unity is needed among countries across the plastics supply chain to ensure a relevant and effective treaty.
image source from：climatechangenews
