Plastics Treaty Talks End in ‘Abject Failure’ as US, Other Big Oil Allies Sabotage Progress
ENVIRONMENT, 25 Aug 2025
Jake Johnson | Common Dreams - TRANSCEND Media Service
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chairman of the negotiations on a global treaty on plastic pollution, looks on with members of his office in Geneva on 15 Aug 2025. (Photo: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)
15 Aug 2025 – “The vast majority of governments want a strong agreement, yet a handful of bad actors were allowed to use process to drive such ambition into the ground,” said one environmentalist.
Negotiators in Geneva adjourned what was expected to be the final round of plastics treaty negotiations on Friday without reaching an agreement, a failure that environmentalists blamed on the Trump-led United States, Saudi Arabia, and other powerful nations that opposed any effort to curb plastic production—the primary driver of a worsening global pollution crisis.
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) on Plastic Pollution agreed after 10 days of talks to resume negotiations at a yet-to-be-announced future date. Lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry swarmed the negotiations, working successfully to prevent a binding deal to slash plastic production. More than 99% of plastics are made from fossil fuel chemicals.
“The inability to reach an agreement in Geneva must be a wake-up call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head-on,” said Graham Forbes, Greenpeace USA’s Global Plastics Campaign lead. “The vast majority of governments want a strong agreement, yet a handful of bad actors were allowed to use process to drive such ambition into the ground. We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. The time for hesitation is over.”
The high-stakes talks marked the sixth time international negotiators have convened in an effort to craft a plastics treaty as production continues to grow and toxic pollution damages oceans, waterways, and communities across the globe. Talks in December similarly concluded without a deal.
The latest round of negotiations faltered after nations refused to rally around a pair of draft treaty documents—but for different reasons.
Supporters of a strong agreement—including Fiji, France, and Panama—objected to the exclusion of any binding plastic production cuts in the drafts, while the US, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and others balked at the scope of the proposals and argued any treaty should focus primarily on waste management.
The proposal unveiled Friday in a last-ditch attempt to reach consensus acknowledged that “current levels of production and consumption of plastics are unsustainable” but did not include any binding limits.
Under the current process, every nation must agree on a proposal’s inclusion in treaty text.
Countries that want a treaty must now leave this process and form a treaty of the willing. And that process must include options for voting that deny the tyranny of consensus we have watched play out here.
Agnès Pannier-Runacher, France’s minister of ecological transition, didn’t attempt to hide her fury at the outcome of the latest round of talks, calling out the “handful of countries” that “blocked the adoption of an ambitious treaty against plastic pollution” because they were “guided by short-term financial interests rather than the health of their populations and the sustainability of their economies.”
“The scientific and medical evidence is overwhelming: plastic kills. It poisons our oceans, our soils, and ultimately, it contaminates our bodies,” said Pannier-Runacher. “I am angry because France, together with the European Union and a coalition of more than 100 countries from every continent—developed and developing, determined and ambitious—did everything possible to obtain an agreement that meets the urgency of the moment: to reduce plastic production, ban the most dangerous products, and finally protect the health of our populations.”
David Azoulay, who led the delegation for the Center for International Environmental Law in Geneva, called the talks “an abject failure” and warned that any future negotiations will end similarly “if the process does not change.”
“We need a restart, not a repeat performance,” said Azoulay. “Countries that want a treaty must now leave this process and form a treaty of the willing. And that process must include options for voting that deny the tyranny of consensus we have watched play out here.”
_______________________________________________
Jake Johnson is a staff writer for Common Dreams.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Go to Original – commondreams.org
Tags: Big Oil, Ecocide, Ecological Degradation, Ecology, Environment, Life, Microplastics, Natural ecology, Nature, Nature's Rights, Plastic, Plastic Pollution, Plastic Treaty, USA, United Nations
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.