by: Natalie Hasan
In August’s Geneva negotiation round—the culmination of global efforts to establish the world’s first legally binding plastics treaty. Delegates from over 170 nations had envisioned a comprehensive pact to curb plastic pollution from production through to disposal. Instead, the talks collapsed, weakening meaningful proposals in favour of vague promises on recycling and waste management.
The roadblock? A web of economic incentives spun by petrol and petrochemical empires. As demand for traditional fuels wanes, these industries have embraced plastics as a new growth engine. Plastic production, already responsible for over 2 gigatonnes of CO₂ emissions annually—that would rank it behind China and the U.S.—is projected to triple by 2050, consuming a staggering share of the global carbon budget.
Petrochemical giants like Dow, ExxonMobil, Shell, BASF, SABIC, and INEOS have aggressively expanded production, collectively enough to fill 6.3 million rubbish trucks since the treaty process began. With every passing minute, they lock in future pollution even as they flood the negotiation halls with lobbyists. At one point, fossil-fuel representatives outnumbered the entire EU delegation.
Their message was blunt: focus on the back end—recycling, redesign, waste—rather than the source. This strategy echoes tactics long used in climate talks, where consensus-driven models stall meaningful reform under economic pressure. The result: a paralysis of progress, in large part orchestrated by those with the most to lose.
Yet the treaty remains pending. Its stalling is not due to lack of scientific urgency—plastic’s overflow on the planet is visible across shorelines, rivers, and urban landscapes—but because our political structures still prioritise growth over ecosystem survival.
That is precisely why our everyday choices matter. We have political power in our purchases, investments, and votes—a power to redirect profit toward sustainable innovation instead of petrochemical expansion. As citizens, we are complicit until we act differently: demanding refill systems over single-use, supporting regenerative materials, and blocking the financial flow that sustains pollution—as consumers, shareholders, and voters.
If the treaty collapse in Geneva feels like defeat, let it instead spark strategic reflection. Confronting the systemic economic architecture of pollution means choosing differently—not just in rhetoric, but in how we live, invest, and demand accountability. The planet’s tipping point is our turning point.
Feature photo source: Issuu
Also read: What we should learn from SHEIN ban in France
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel.
