Digital Exclusive: U.S. flip-flop jeopardizes global treaty to end plastic pollution
Rob Benedict, Vice President, Petrochemicals and Midstream, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
United Nations (UN) negotiations around a global agreement to end plastic pollution have been ongoing for the past two years and were expected to conclude by the end of this year. With just one round of negotiations remaining, the Joe Biden administration (U.S.) signaled a 180o change – shifting from supporting nations creating their own individualized plans to manage plastic waste, to now calling for universal plastic production caps and banning certain chemicals.
This wholesale shift willfully ignores the value that plastics, and the petrochemicals they are derived from, play in our lives today and for society to thrive well into the future. It also disregards the role that these industries play in both the U.S. and global economies. And, by shifting the U.S. position on these issues, we may upend the progress made over the last two years getting to a global agreement built upon consensus. Even worse, restricting plastic production and banning chemicals also fails to solve the root cause of the plastic waste challenge – insufficient and ineffective waste collection and recycling systems. Put simply, this is bad policy.
Global demand for plastics is growing. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) projects that global plastic demand will triple by 2060 – driven by increased consumption in emerging economies that crave the same modern conveniences and access to the products that have made us safer, healthier and more prosperous for decades. This is because plastic products and the petrochemicals they are derived from are critical to feeding a growing world, to healthcare and medical advancements that help us live longer and better, and to the technologies that reduce emissions, among a myriad of other benefits. In fact, these products underpin the UN’s own Sustainable Development Goals.1
Because demand will be strong for decades to come, capping plastic production and banning certain chemicals will only force production elsewhere and will have far-reaching impacts on every sector that relies on plastics. This threatens the more than 1 MM jobs the industry supports and the nearly $600 B in economic contributions it makes domestically and instead offshores production to other countries, like China, that do not have the same environmental standards and protections in the U.S.
A recent study2 by Oxford Economics, which looks at socioeconomic impacts of potential plastic production caps, found that these policies push up production costs, disproportionately burdening those least able to afford higher prices. The same study also found production caps would have wide-ranging impacts on a variety of industries and products, not just those plastics that most frequently enter the environment, including durable products used in the construction, automotive, aviation and renewable energy sectors.
We have made incredible progress building consensus around a global agreement that addresses the problem of mismanaged plastic waste in a way that allows every country to develop plans that work for their unique circumstances. This approach, which AFPM has supported, has the potential to bring us closer to our goals of eliminating plastic waste. By taking the more extreme, zero-sum approach of restrictions and bans, we risk losing key petrochemical producing nations that have already said they would not go down this path. These are countries that are essential to reaching the stated goals of this whole process. What good are high ambitions if countries representing some of the biggest growth in both plastic production and consumption take their ball and go home?
These negotiations present a historic opportunity to effectively address mismanaged plastic. To be successful, we need the Biden White House to return to the view that plastic pollution requires solutions that recognize the value of plastics and give space for individual countries and industry to evolve to meet the needs of the day.
Instead of focusing on plastic production caps and chemical bans, we need to address the root causes of mismanaged plastic waste by improving waste collection and management systems, increasing recycling rates and creating plastic products that are safe and easier to collect, sort, reuse and recycle.
This includes supporting regions in developing waste management plans that reflect their unique national circumstances. It also includes creating systems where used plastic is not just discarded as trash but can be recycled and given new life over and over again. This means embracing and scaling technologies like advanced recycling and expanding and improving mechanical recycling. This also means creating products that are more easily recyclable.
This U.S. policy change is no victory for the environment or the U.S. There will be no winners if the U.S. brings this position to the last round of negotiations taking place later this month in South Korea. We urge the Biden administration to reverse course and return to a position intent on ending plastic pollution, while unlocking innovation and accelerating a global transition to a circular economy before negotiations resume.
We cannot let one administration’s agenda get in the way of accomplishing a global goal, especially when an agreement is within reach. There is too much at stake.
LITERATURE CITED
1 UN, "The 17 goals," online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals
2 Oxford Economics, "Mapping the plastics value chain," April 2024, online: https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-ICCA-Oxford-Economics-report.pdf?pi_content=f10a1306ce4ba584bb89ea37c0b66738cf84ffbb034e2f04d8270f2b9d077414
Comments