A cut in time: On the plastic pollution problem
Economic costs of ban on plastic must be seen with its ill-effects on health
Despite a week of wrangling, an ambitious endeavour piloted by the United Nations Environment Programme to phase out plastic turned out to be a failure. The Global Plastics Treaty is the result of a resolution by member-countries of the United Nations, passed in 2022, to ‘end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.’ Over the next two years, countries met five times, including the latest (billed as the final one), to create a broad framework agreement. The UN resolution of 2022 was deemed historic as it gave the impression that the world was unanimous that plastic pollution could only be addressed through globally coordinated action. However, it is the solution to the problem that has proven to be divisive. Of the nearly 170 countries gathered at the fifth round of meetings in Busan, roughly half — led by the European Union and supported by Pacific island-nations — were of the view that despite the usefulness of plastic and its significant role in enabling mass consumption through the modern era, its relative indestructibility was now an environmental hazard. It had begun to seep into the bodies of animals, both of the land and sea, and had progressed to be much more than an eyesore in the form of litter flowing out of overwhelmed municipal recycling systems.
The claim that better recycling and re-use will redeem the situation, these nations believe, is a pipe dream and, therefore, imposing gradual cuts on the source of plastic, virgin polymer, was the only effective route to ending plastic pollution. However, many of the large developing countries, and those with economies premised on the extraction of oil and petrochemical refining, baulk at such a proposal. They view calls to cut plastic production as trade barriers masquerading as environmentalism. They view the framing of the plastic pollution problem as one that requires regulating production as something that goes beyond the intent of the 2022 resolution. While talks have stalled, it is likely that countries will reconvene next year — possibly with a fresh perspective — and get beyond the impasse more creatively. India has chosen to side with the countries that are averse to production cuts; yet, it must acknowledge that its capacity to recycle plastic is only about a third of the plastic that is annually introduced. The indispensability of plastic to the economy cannot be a permanent excuse to delay action on evaluating its health impacts on people in India, its ecology and marine environment. A planned exit is always better than finding oneself on the wrong side of history.