UN Global Plastic Treaty Derailed by Big Oil

Good History

There are beacons in environmental history illuminating positive change when science mobilizes global environmental policy. One example is the 1987 Montreal Protocol that effectively banned the use of ozone-depleting substances, including chlorofluorocarbons. This cooperative effort allowed for the regeneration of the Earth’s protective ozone layers, the closing of holes over the Earth’s poles, and is considered one of the most successful international environmental agreements. In the 1980’s it became clear that acid rain, a by-product of burning fossil fuels, was responsible for worldwide damage to boreal and aquatic ecosystems, not to mention treasured national landmarks. Through coordinated national efforts of developed countries, sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced worldwide by 93%. It was with this level of success and cooperation in mind that the Global Plastics Treaty was considered by the United Nations in August of this year at their summit in Geneva, Switzerland. 

The Global Plastics Treaty 

The Global Plastics Treaty addressed the whole picture of plastic pollution, seeking to limit production, promote systems that reuse rather than recycle, identify and eliminate harmful chemical additives to plastic, and dedicate financial avenues to the effort. It expanded the focus on marine pollution to include health and human rights and the knowledge that plastic pollutes throughout the entirety of its life cycle.  A majority of countries support the foundational principles of the Global Plastics Treaty including Pacific Small Island Developing States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Fiji, Panama, Colombia, and other champion countries in Latin America and Africa. The battleground in Geneva mimicked the one taking place throughout the ocean and in our own bodies, as plastics are found in the stomachs of deceased animals, in our organs, brains, and causing rampant biological destruction. Plastic pollution is one of the world’s greatest environmental crises, second only to climate change. Yet it is not only plastic we find ourselves battling, but its manufacturers. The Goliath in this story of contenders is the collective of petrochemical giants protecting their financial interests. And David could be any one of us. “Indigenous Peoples, frontline and fenceline communities, waste pickers, workers, scientists, and civil society have consistently brought their views into the heart of these corporate-heavy negotiations.”[i] 

Erosion

Sadly, after the first week of negotiations, many of the primary principles of the treaty had been stripped, including the following: “Words such as “target”, “chemicals”, “harmful” and “phase out” were absent. Article 19 — the one addressing human health — was deleted altogether. References to public awareness disappeared from the waste-management section.”[ii] Global bans on plastic bags and straws were eliminated from the document as were reduction targets and language about sustainability and chemicals of concern. Gone were goals for more efficient recycling and bans on open burning or dumping. Driving the removal of contentious language was the presence of lobbyists on the plenary room floor.

Why Lobbyists? 

In an effort to democratize the institution of the UN, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) engage in an advisory capacity as do a variety of stakeholders, including corporations. These industries provide technical expertise and offer perspectives on the impact of decisions on the technological and economic landscape. Yet many environmental and health advocates point to the lack of transparency in identifying lobbyists. According to the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) provisional list of INC-5.2 participants, fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumber the combined diplomatic delegations of all 27 European Union nations and the EU combined (233). Leading up to the INC-5.2 summit, these lobbyists typically work to “apply pressure on Member States, engage in intimidation tactics, and attempt to compromise ambition in related processes, threatening the treaty’s integrity. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) warned that actors with vested interests have used well-documented tactics such as lobbying, strategic funding, and ghostwriting scientific studies.”[iii]

Industry Playbook

“We have decades of evidence showing the fossil fuel and chemical industries’ playbook: deny, distract, derail. Fossil fuel companies are central to plastic production, as over 99 percent of plastics are derived from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels. Many of these companies are facing legal scrutiny over their role in the climate crisis. After decades of obstruction in the climate negotiations, why would anyone think that they would suddenly show up in good faith in the Plastics Treaty talks? Involving the very corporations that profit from harm in shaping the path forward guarantees one thing: a treaty that protects their bottom line, not the public or the planet,” says Ximena Banegas, CIEL Global Plastics and Petrochemicals Campaigner.[iv]

The fifth and final meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) adjourned without agreement and without any directive for a path forward. Yet Renée Sharp, director of plastic and petrochemical advocacy at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) who was present at the negotiations, said “No treaty is better than a weak treaty that creates an illusion of progress and could discourage stronger action.”[v]

According to Juressa Lee, co-chair of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Plastics (IIPFP), “The infiltration of these negotiations by extractive industries is a huge miscarriage of justice and is symptomatic of the structural issues behind the INC process, which devalues the voices of those bearing the brunt of the plastics crisis across its entire life cycle, from extraction to disposal.”[vi]

A Way Forward

A treaty designed to protect the world and future generations from plastic pollution has been stalled but not buried, with continued conversation living amongst advocates for the environment, human health, human rights, and indigenous autonomy. Yet, we should not wait for the establishment of a new treaty to exercise our power as consumers and citizens. Consumer pressure to highlight the need for dolphin safe tuna or the dangers of microbeads in facial care products shows how public perception and purchasing choices can turn the tides of manufacturing. These stories of change need to be more than just single threads in the fabric of our relationship with the natural world.

[i]         Break Free from Plastic. (2025, August 15). Civil society perseveres in the face of a deeply flawed plastics treaty negotiations process and demands that countries take decisive action. https://groundwork.org.za/civil-society-perseveres-in-the-face-of-a-deeply-flawed-plastics-treaty-negotiations-process-and-demands-that-countries-take-decisive-action/

[ii]        MacGregor, Melanie, ARC Future Fellow and Matthew Flinders Fellow in Chemistry, M. (2025, August 21). The global plastics treaty process has fallen flat. here’s what went wrong, and how you can help. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-global-plastics-treaty-process-has-fallen-flat-heres-what-went-wrong-and-how-you-can-help-263189

[iii]       Fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists overrun Plastics Treaty Negotiations. Center for International Environmental Law. (2025, August 7). https://www.ciel.org/news/inc-5-2-lobbyist-analysis/

[iv]       Fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists overrun Plastics Treaty Negotiations. Center for International Environmental Law. (2025, August 7). https://www.ciel.org/news/inc-5-2-lobbyist-analysis/

[v]        Natural Resources Defense Council. (2025, August 15). Global Plastics Treaty Collapse: “no treaty is better than a weak treaty.” NRDC. https://www.nrdc.org/reaction/global-plastics-treaty-collapse-reaction

[vi]       Merle, Bastien. (2025, July 23). “Total infiltration”: How plastics industry swamped vital global treaty talks. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/23/total-infiltration-how-plastics-industry-swamped-vital-global-treaty-talks