Annually, the whole world produces more than 400 million tons of new plastic. This number is predicted to grow by 70% by 2040 without any policy changes. In Europe, the annual production is at 54 million tonnes. Every year, 19 million tonnes of plastic end up as pollution in nature, with microplastics representing 90% of plastic on the ocean surface.
So it’s not only the plastic bags and straws you see in the media coverage, but the small particles that currently take over the plastic pollution domain. Also important to note here, that despite the environmental harms it clearly poses, climate change or over-fishing have been found to be more detrimental for the oceans, compared to plastic pollution.
Let’s look into what the UN negotiations tried to do and where they fell short. Is it really a problem of plastic pollution mismanagement or the supply chain as a whole?
The draft text for the treaty did not limit plastic production or aimed to regulate the chemicals used in the production of plastics. This draft was rejected by many of the 184 present countries taking part in the negotiations. Around 100 countries were ready to limit production, take part in cleanup and recycling as well as highlight the importance of reducing toxic chemicals. Not to anyone’s surprise, oil countries were only interested in dealing with the plastic waste. The final end to negotiations came on Friday, adjourning it to a later date without a conclusion.
The EU was ready to take part in the treaty, but not “at any cost,” said Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall, with 72 hours of negotiations still ahead of the nations. The Danish Environment Minister Magnus Heunicke also called the negotiations “very difficult” and feared the “drama” coming up in the last days. In the end, the “like-minded” nations, led by Saudi Arabia, Iran, United States and India didn’t back down on their production interests and opposed the limits imposed by the treaty.
What really made it into the draft?
The points of agreement in the draft ended up being very few. The treaty focused on reducing problematic plastic products that are difficult to recycle, which would lead to redesigning plastic products. As it unfortunately often goes, there were no legally-binding global rules, but rather commitments for nations. The attendees also didn’t resolve whether the focus should be on reducing the production of plastics as a whole or to address the entire lifecycle (from design, through production to recycling). Other topics included the production of primary polymers and financial means to implement the outcomes of the treaty.
This is not the first time the topic is discussed. These talks were a culmination of 5 talks that took place over the last 2,5 years, always failing to find an agreement.
One of the solutions which could come into effect before a solution is reached could be plastic offsetting. Similar concept to the loved and hated carbon offsetting solution. The idea, already supported by the World Bank, is the same: plastic polluters would be able to pay a company to collect and reuse plastic to compensate for their production or waste. So if a polluter company buys the amount of credits equal to their production amount, they can be labeled “plastic neutral”. The way the off-set plastic is handled is not controlled and essentially does not tackle the amount that is being produced.
Another important aspect of the issue is that the plastic pollution problem is inseparable from fossil fuel production. While the discussion here is stirred towards the pollution, the nations should focus on limiting future production of plastics, which are predominantly (more than 99%) made from fossil fuels. While the energy sector is trying to get rid of fossil fuels, and renewable energy is becoming cheaper to produce, the industry is looking for new ways to make profit – for example in plastics production. Future plastic production is predicted to be the main demand actor for fossil fuels after further decarbonization of the energy industry. The only “luck” our planet has here, is that people are becoming more and more aware of the harmful effects of plastic and refrain from purchasing it.
Plastic pollution in our bodies
Banning single-use plastics and putting the responsibility on consumers without systemic change in the production will not really get us far. For example, even in terms of the amount of municipal waste, paper and cardboard, and importantly, food, all come before plastic waste.
Of course, the impact of plastics, and more specifically microplastics on wildlife, people and the environment as a whole should not be ignored. The exact figures of the amount of microplastics we end up consuming is often disputed, but research confirmed micro plastics found in human liver, kidneys, brain or even bones.
As reported by BBC, in early 2025, 8 volunteers agreed to consume a solution of microplastics and be researched, a first of its kind including plastic. The outcomes of the study, which aims to replicate real-life ingestion, such as plastics released into hot water, will come out later this year. A 2025 research found microplastics in human cadavers’ brains. Additionally, people diagnosed with dementia prior to their death had 10 times more plastic in their brain compared to their counterparts without the condition. Many things remain unknown and need to be confirmed, especially questions like, who’s the most at risk, is there a place in the human body that the plastics are most likely to be stored in? One researcher said that the impact might not be directly visible, but can be a result of damage of cells which create a burden for the body and create a long-term deterioration.
While research continues, negotiations are halted, microplastics make their way into our soil, bodies of humans and animals alike without taking a break. As a society choosing our elected officials, we need to prioritize a wider overhaul of supply chain and decarbonization across industries.