Editorial: The US is fumbling the UN plastics treaty

Nov. 25 marks the beginning of the last meeting that the United Nations Environment Programme has scheduled to negotiate a plastic pollution treaty. The goal is to create a legally binding agreement to rein in the over 350 million metric tons of plastic waste the world creates per year.

Negotiations are supposed to wrap up this year and end with a finished treaty. But from what happened at prior meetings, this outcome is iffy. The latest draft of the treaty still has over 3,000 notes requesting changes. It’s also behind schedule—the draft should have been at this stage by the second or third meeting in the series. The November plastics treaty meeting, in Busan, South Korea, is the fifth.

And then came the US presidential election.

The reelection of Donald J. Trump, whose policies on fossil fuels and deregulation have alarmed environmentalists, suggests that the US will not be signing whatever plastics treaty is worked out.

So the US delegation is heading to the November meeting in an interesting position. Since the next administration is unlikely to follow through with anything the US says at the negotiations, other member countries aren’t going to regard what the US has to say as binding. While this may seem a disadvantage, the Joe Biden administration could use it as an opportunity to support a more ambitious treaty.

Until mid-November, it looked poised to do so. In August, the White House held two closed-door meetings with environmental groups and members of the plastics industry. According to sources present at the meetings, Jonathan Black from the White House Council on Environmental Quality said the US was considering methods to curb plastic pollution that it hadn’t previously, including limiting new plastic production and restricting some chemicals used in plastics.

These are two provisions supported by the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) to End Plastic Pollution, a group of over 60 countries that have joined together to try to push through a more stringent plastics treaty. While Black’s details were scant, environmental groups were cautiously optimistic.

The Biden administration could send the US delegation to Busan with the goal of supporting, or even joining, the HAC. With the freedom that comes from being at the end of a president’s term, the delegation is also free to encourage other member states toward a stronger treaty, without fear of political repercussions back in the US.

But that approach may be off the table.

At another closed-door meeting, on Nov. 12, White House officials implied that the US doesn’t plan to support production caps. According to parties at this meeting who spoke to C&EN on background, officials said the US doesn’t see production caps as a “viable landing zone.” They also said this stand was not a reversal of the August position. Sources at both meetings said that Black’s statements in August and those made on Nov. 12 were vague and lacked specifics. As this issue of C&EN was going to press, the US Environmental Protection Agency released a national plastic pollution strategy saying the US could set a goal to reduce single-use plastic production. However, this suggestion also lacked specific action and details.

In implying that it likely won’t support production caps, the US has emboldened countries that don’t want the caps, such as Russia and Iran, to stand their ground against the HAC. And what will result will be a less effective treaty.

And maybe that’s what the Biden administration wants. The US, after all, is one of the world’s biggest plastics producers and would take an economic hit under a plastic production cap. But according to a UN Environment Programme (UNEP) report, harm from plastic pollution disproportionately affects Indigenous and less affluent communities, women, and children. For 4 years now, the Biden administration has painted itself as pro–environmental conservation and environmental justice. The US’s recent clarification suggests that it will choose to protect the economy rather than the most vulnerable parts of the population.

Biden has an opportunity as he closes the door on his presidency. We can only wait to see who he leaves behind.

This editorial is the result of collective deliberation in C&EN. For this week’s editorial, the lead contributor is Leigh Krietsch Boerner.

Views expressed on this page are not necessarily those of ACS.