Delegates from 191 countries meet again this month to negotiate a UN plastics deal in Ottawa and need to avoid falling into industry traps that will hamper real progress. Recent comments from Dow Chairman and CEO Jim Fitterling in Luck is a perfect example of how to ensure failure in Ottawa. If delegates are committed to the priorities laid out to them, they will fail to implement real solutions to the growing problem caused by his company and others like it.
Mr Fitterling suggests continuing to invest in flawed systems that have failed to solve the problem of plastic pollution for decades, rather than prioritizing what is really needed to reverse this crisis: reducing plastic production and phasing out toxic chemicals.
World leaders made similar mistakes at the UN climate talks. When is the last climate talk? has concluded in December, stronger language calling for a phase-out of fossil fuels was dropped, the agreement was not legally binding, and financial support for countries to transition to more renewable energy sources was not considered. Representatives of small island states most at risk from rising sea levels said: “This process has failed us.” and pointed to a “list of loopholes” in the agreement, saying it would not help avoid climate catastrophe.
We can learn lessons from this for the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC) negotiations. Just as fossil fuel companies are pushing carbon capture technologies that will allow them to continue emitting planet-warming gases into the atmosphere, the plastics industry is pushing the Biden administration to embrace the false solution of “chemical recycling” – or using heat to transform plastic into small amounts of fuel or use toxic chemicals to produce new plastics, creating huge amounts of hazardous waste. President Biden cannot allow this to happen.
Currently we are drowning in plastic, with World plastic production to 450 million tons from 2 million tons in 1950. Microplastics were found everywhere, including in the most unexpected places: Arctic sea ice, Mariana Trenchair in pemotions of the mountainsit’s raining here National parksand in man heart, blood, lungs, breast milkAnd placenta. Unless new laws and a strong international treaty are passed, plastic production could double in the coming decades.
Instead of supporting reductions in plastic production, the US is copying the petrochemical and plastics industry’s talking points at UN conferences, focusing on waste management and emphasizing failed plastic recycling and “circular” plastics – the same talking points in the Dow’s commentary. Jim Fitterling.
The truth is that plastic recycling has proven to be a dismal failure: 5% to 6% processing speed here in the US, recycling does not eliminate the health hazards associated with plastic chemicals. Plastics are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including thousands of highly toxic ones. links to cancer, infertility, effects on brain development and other serious diseases arising during processing that distributed by these toxic chemicals are even greater. This invalidates the very concept of safe and circular plastic.
The current U.S. position does not prioritize chemicals, greenhouse gas emissions from plastic, or the need to significantly reduce plastic production. On the contrary, other countries are actively addressing these problems. More than 90 countries united in the High Ambition Coalition to Stop Plastic Pollution are warning of an “alarming acceleration in the production of virgin plastics worldwide” and expressing scientific concerns about the “negative health impacts of plastic.” [from exposures] to toxic chemicals.”
The High Ambition Coalition is also calling for mandatory regulations aimed at “reducing the production and consumption” of plastic, as well as “eliminating and limiting unnecessary, preventable or problematic plastics.” [including plastics’] chemical components.”
The chemicals in plastic have real-world consequences, especially for communities that live near where plastic is produced and disposed of. Communities near plastics production sites in the United States face disparate health risks, while waste pickers and communities near landfills in low- and middle-income countries experience elevated rates of disease associated with toxic exposure, according to a UNEP report.
The Biden administration should not rely on anemic plastic recycling efforts to solve the global plastic crisis. The agreement should require a reduction in plastic production and a rapid phase-out of harmful plastic chemicals.
The United States still has a chance to lead the fight against the threats posed by toxic plastics. To do this, it must put the health of the nation and the world above the needs of the plastics, fossil fuel and chemical industries. For too long they have had a negative impact on international climate negotiations, including last year’s COP28. Let’s not waste decades of valuable time and make the same mistake with the global plastics treaty.
Judith Enck is a former regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, president of Beyond Plastics, and faculty member at Bennington College.
Pamela Miller is the executive director and founder of Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) and chair of the International Pollutant Elimination Network (IPEN).
Another must-read comment posted by Luck:
The views expressed in Fortune.com comments are solely the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs Luck.