The global movement to create a treaty to end plastic pollution is at a critical juncture. This has serious implications for the treaty’s future sustainability. That draft treaty, which was the result of two years of negotiations, was circulated in December 2022. As the summit wore on, the treaty was subjected to major amendments and deletions that have many stakeholders reeling.
During the first week of the summit, negotiators got to work and started redrafting the treaty text. Their intent was to address a mix of issues related to plastic pollution. That all changed by the second week, when the floor fell out and the amended draft was reduced by fifty percent. Most importantly, Article 19, which directly linked human health to exposure to plastics in their proliferation, was removed altogether. This decision has been widely condemned by public health advocates and environmentalists.
As conversations continue, specialists from around the world are shining a light on the terrifying plastic use and exposure, especially in countries such as Australia. Australians are among the biggest consumers of single-use plastics in the world, using and throwing away an average of more than 50 kilos per person each year. This staggering figure underscores the urgency for effective policy measures to combat plastic waste and its detrimental effects on health and the environment.
The High Ambition Coalition and Its Role
Australia joined the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution by 2040. This diverse global coalition is determined to address this critical challenge head on. Members of this coalition are responsible for more than 60% of primary microplastics released into oceans and ecosystems around the world. The coalition’s goal is to support strong, effective policies that reduce plastic pollution at the source and encourage sustainable alternatives.
Australia finds itself in hot water because of its high consumption. Secondly, the nation doesn’t convert tons of virgin raw polymers from fossil fuels. Yet, this reality begs an important question: what is the U.S. Experts claim that even if Australia doesn’t have to be the world leader in production, its extremely high per capita consumption requires urgent changes.
The coalition’s efforts are reminiscent of great historical precedents like the Montreal Protocol, adopted in 1987 to phase out ozone-depleting substances. This pact stands as a testament to what is possible when we pursue high levels of cooperation and ambition globally. Industry interests have allegedly taken over discussions for the upcoming plastics treaty, making their adoption more difficult and distracting advocates from a productive consensus.
The Impact of Indoor Plastic Exposure
Studies have found that people are exposed to plastics even more indoors, including in cars. This harsh reality makes plain the immediate need for robust regulation. We need to address both the outdoor pollution and the indoor settings, where people now spend the majority of their time. The human health and well-being implications of this exposure are deeply troubling.
Health advocates had hoped for more and are disappointed. They are especially angered by the removal of Article 19 from the draft treaty. They contend that we need to focus on understanding and mitigating the dangers associated with plastic contact. Such a focus must be front and center in any global agreement created to address plastic pollution. Without a health-oriented framework to guide this work, we’re at risk of undermining positive advancements and putting the public’s safety in jeopardy.
Educating the public on the health risks posed by micro- and nanoplastics will be instrumental in creating the widespread support needed to encourage timely action. Experts claim that if we can tackle these mini plastics, the most polluted particulate form, we can really make a dent on plastic pollution. Countries are stepping up to the plate on plastic regulation. They have a responsibility to create both near-term and far-reaching policies that work in defense of human health and our shared environment.
The Future of the Treaty Process
As negotiations move on, there is waning optimism that a strong agreement can be reached under the new global plastics treaty. No doubt, many stakeholders are concerned. They are concerned that without a clear foundation to address critical areas such as human health and environmental effects, the treaty process could cease before fulfilling its objectives.
These latest turn of events at the summit underscore the vulnerability of multilateral agreements that attempt to tackle ever-more-complex global problems. The omission of Article 19 is part of a dangerous pattern. It sends a dangerous signal that important health priorities are being sacrificed to please special interests.
Despite these failures, there is still hope that countries can look back on past successful environmental treaties and rediscover success. The good news is, countries like the Netherlands are leading the charge by banning single-use plastics. This ambitious legislative step shows how policy can be a catalyst for transformative change.