After two and a half years of talks, the last round held from August 5 to 15 in Geneva ended without a global treaty to fight plastic pollution, producing only a vague intention to resume discussions in the coming months.
Photograph by Naja Bertolt Jensen on Unsplash
Far from reducing our dependence, global plastic production has soared from 2 megatonnes (Mt) in 1950 to 475 Mt in 2022. If nothing changes, production could triple to 1,200 Mt by 2060. Currently, we are dealing with more than 8,000 megatonnes of plastic waste, of which less than 10% is recycled.
Global trends in plastic production total and by sector, 2000–2100 | The Lancet (2025)
These alarming figures, along with the increasingly documented consequences for human and planetary health due to the uncontrolled presence of these compounds in the environment, explain why UN member states have sought to address one of the greatest crises of our times through a legally binding treaty. However, after six extensive meetings involving nearly 200 countries, no text has been agreed upon and solutions remain pending.
“Unfortunately, a small group of oil-producing countries has blocked progress on the two key issues needed to tackle the problem: setting a cap on global plastic production and banning toxic chemicals associated with plastics,” explains Ethel Eljarrat, director of the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA-CSIC).
The debate has polarized into two groups: countries with a strong economic dependence on oil extraction, who favor a treaty limited to waste management; and those advocating for a far more ambitious agreement that includes limits on plastic production, progressive reduction measures, and the elimination of hazardous substances. The latter group, which includes the European Union and a large number of countries from the Global South, refused to sign a minimal treaty since, as the researcher points out, “accepting it would have meant giving in and denying the existence of a real problem.”
“Focusing the solution to plastic pollution solely on recycling generated waste, when recycling rates under current production do not even reach 10%, is clearly insufficient. Expecting measures to be taken at a national level is to misunderstand what plastic pollution in the environment really means.”
Low recycling rates highlight the inability of current technology to address a problem of this scale. Our economy remains linear, and products are not designed to facilitate reuse or recovery.
“We have scientific evidence showing that tackling plastic pollution requires considering the material’s full life cycle, from resource extraction to its final destination,” clarifies Carmen Morales, researcher at the Marine Research Institute (INMAR) and member of the Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty present in Geneva.
Eljarrat also stresses the concern caused by the toxicity of certain plastic additives used to make the material more resistant and flexible, which prevents ensuring completely safe recycling. Of the more than 12,000 chemicals used in plastic products, at least 2,500 raise concerns, and many of them (over 60) have already been classified as highly hazardous. Their long-term effects—known as “chronic toxicity”—can lead to adverse health impacts, including endocrine disruption, neurotoxic effects, or various types of cancer.
For all these reasons, an effective and ambitious negotiation is urgently needed to deliver a global treaty capable of curbing plastic production, limiting dangerous chemicals, and ensuring a less plastic-dependent future for a planet already saturated with this material.
“In the meantime, every year we delay this agreement, we continue increasing virgin plastic production, generating larger volumes of plastic waste that spread through our aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and using toxic substances that enter our bodies and harm our health,” concludes Eljarrat.
Iria Sambruno
Communication and Outreach | IDAEA
More news
