By Sally Campbell. Featured image by Antoine Giret, on unsplash.com
I was standing in Brodick Co-op yesterday and the signs say:
We’re a co-operative owned by our members. Their website adds “They have a say in how we’re run, get lower prices on everyday essentials, and help choose local causes to support.”
At that moment I was thinking about plastic use in packaging and I had been trying to buy vegetables not in packaging and grown in the UK; leeks, carrots, broccoli, some onions. Not a wide selection. So why is the Co-op not being pressured by its members (Co-op owned by us!) to reduce packaging by putting pressure on its suppliers? It has more clout than us. But all is not lost. The failure of a recent UN Conference to address the issue highlights the urgency many countries feel, and presents a chance to rebuild stronger, and hold petro-states accountable. If anything, this moment underscores the necessity of bold, binding action and the growing frustration of a world that demands it. There are a few upcoming moments both locally and internationally that can help foster the changes we must make.
Then this week, research was reported in The Guardian (29 August) by Tom Perkins on microplastic inhalation by the public. A study published in the Journal Plos One (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/) estimates humans can inhale as many as 68,000 tiny plastic particles daily, many so small they can migrate across the cell wall into human tissues. The concentration of these tiny particles was found to be much higher inside the passenger space of cars, mostly due to less good ventilation. Back to the Co-op, another good reason to pressure it on packaging and to be sure we purchase consumer goods including clothing free of man-made fibres and plastics. Incidentally, most kitchens are full of degrading plastic consumer products.
These sombre pieces led me to a report by Greenpeace, which reinforced everything above. We, the people, have to exert pressure on local, national and international power to change our type of packaging, and use of plastic production. Start with our own use!
The report released at the end of July 2025, by Greenpeace UK, revealed how the Global Plastics Treaty was under threat from some of the world’s largest petrochemical companies who have been systematically lobbying against cuts to plastic production while generating massive profits from their growing plastics business. The report revealed that since the treaty talks began in November 2022, seven companies alone have produced enough plastic to fill 6.3 million rubbish trucks – equivalent to five and a half trucks every minute.
The report – ‘Plastics, Profits and Power: How petrochemical companies are derailing the Global Plastics Treaty’ draws on data obtained from industry sources. It finds that since the start of the treaty process Dow, ExxonMobil, BASF, Chevron Phillips, Shell, SABIC and INEOS have ramped up their plastic production capacity by 1.4 million tonnes and sent a combined total of 70 lobbyists to negotiations, where they have also been represented by powerful industry front groups.
Dow alone had sent at least 21 lobbyists to negotiations whilst earning an estimated £3.4 billion from plastics. The report also states that INEOS, the UK’s largest plastics producer, had raised production capacity by more than 20% and is investing £3.5 billion in Project ONE, set to become Europe’s biggest plastics plant in Antwerp, Belgium.
The Greenpeace UK report came just days before governments met in Geneva, Switzerland, in the final round of Treaty talks. The report revealed the tactics used by lobbyists to dominate negotiations, influence delegates, and block progress. It also highlighted the lobbying by powerful trade associations at the talks, pushing industry-friendly positions whilst shielding corporate members from scrutiny.
Greenpeace was calling for at least a 75% reduction in plastic production by 2040 and is demanding that a strong conflict of interest policy be embedded in the treaty to prevent undue influence; negotiations must also prioritise those most affected by the plastics crisis, with space guaranteed for independent scientists, Indigenous Peoples, frontline communities and civil society groups, all of whom should be able to play a role in shaping and implementing the treaty. The summit to agree a Global Plastics Treaty ran from 5-14 August 2025 in Geneva, Switzerland. Greenpeace was present with an international delegation of 30 people representing Africa, Southeast and East Asia, Middle East and North Africa, Europe, Canada, Colombia and the US. The delegation pushed for greater ambition in the treaty process, particularly on the critical issue of delivering legally binding cuts to plastic production.
Sadly, delegates from 184 countries failed to reach agreement on the first-ever legally binding treaty to curb plastic pollution, after petro-states watered down its final text, leaving the world without a united road map to address one of its most urgent environmental crises. Marine life choking on plastic in our oceans, microplastics in our food and beverages, and landfills full of items that will be there for at least a thousand years: this is the plastic world we currently live in. Plastic pollution is real. A staggering 269,000 tons of plastic ends up in our oceans every year, meaning that there will soon be more plastic than fish in our oceans if we do not change our ways. It is ENGOs mission to help fight the battle against single-use plastic bottles and waste.
The UN negotiations, the sixth round of talks in just under three years, were due to end on the Thursday but countries continued to negotiate into the night in the hopes of breaking a deadlock. There remained a split between a group of about 100 nations calling for curbs on production of plastic, and oil states pushing for a focus on recycling.
Speaking in the early hours, Cuban delegates said that countries had “missed a historic opportunity but we have to keep going”. “I’m hugely disappointed that an agreement wasn’t reached,” said the UK’s Marine Minister Emma Hardy. “Plastic pollution is a global crisis that no country can solve alone, and the UK is committed to working with others at home and abroad to protect the environment and pave the way to a circular economy,” she added.
Despite the benefits of plastic to almost every sector, scientists are particularly concerned about potentially toxic chemicals they contain, which do leach out as plastics break down into smaller pieces. Microplastics have been detected in soils, rivers, the air and even organs throughout the human body.
Every year, 21 million tonnes of plastic waste, most often single use items, leak into the environment — enough to cover every single beach in the world with a thick layer of trash — poisoning soils, oceans, and every living being. Scientists have found microplastics in our lungs, brains, and even placentas.
It was in 2022 that world leaders proposed a Global Plastics Treaty to stop plastic from further suffocating our planet. It was meant to be one of the most ambitious. The core dividing line between countries has remained the same throughout: whether the treaty should tackle plastics at source – by reducing production – or focus on managing the pollution that comes from it. The largest oil-producing nations view plastics, most of which are made using fossil fuels, as a vital part of their future economies, particularly as the world begins to move away from petrol and diesel towards electric cars.
That group, which includes Saudi Arabia and Russia, argue that better waste collection and recycling infrastructure is the best way of solving the problem, a view shared by many of the producers themselves. “Plastics are fundamental for modern life – they go into everything,” said Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers, a trade association for the plastic production industry in the United States. “Focusing on ending plastic pollution should be the priority here, not ending plastic production,” he added, warning that attempts to substitute plastics with other materials could lead to “unintended consequences”.
But many researchers warn that this approach is fundamentally flawed. Global recycling rates are estimated at only about 10%, with limits on how far that can rise. “Even if we manage to boost that over the next few decades to 15, 20, 30%, it would remain a substantial amount that is polluting the environment and damaging human health,” said Dr Costas Velis, associate professor in Waste and Resource Engineering at Imperial College London. “Therefore, we do need to improve recycling… but we cannot really hope that this is going to solve all the aspects of plastic,” he added. Unfortunately most plastics degrade with age compromising recycled product advantages.
Why did the negotiations in Geneva this month collapse?
A Treaty Undermined from the Start
- A rift over production vs. recycling
The central fault line: the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) called for the treaty to mandate limits on virgin plastic production, while ‘the likeminded group’ wanted to focus solely on recycling and product design… Over 100 countries advocated for binding reductions in plastic production and restrictions on toxic additives. But petro-states, including the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait resisted, argued for a focus on waste management. Environmentalists and HAC nations were (rightly) not going to accept a treaty that did not tackle the full life-cycle of plastics so refused to discuss a final text that was so unambitious. This impasse became unbridgeable.
- The power of petro-lobbying
Behind-the-scenes, powerful industry lobbyists influenced the agenda, watering down language and undermining progress. Analysis from CEIL revealed a record-breaking 234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists, outnumbering national delegations, scientists and indigenous peoples present. Fossil Fuel and Petrochemical Lobbyists overrun Plastics Treaty: Vested interests hijacked the negotiations; scientific concerns were downplayed by powerful interests. Voices within the talks decried the dominance of fossil-fuel interests over environmental urgency.
- A Treaty too weak, too late
Draft texts lost all potency. Key sections on health protections, ‘phase out’ targets, and chemicals of concern were stripped away or scrubbed entirely. The final texts failed to address the lifecycle of plastics or offer real safeguards for communities and ecosystems.
- Consensus rules and deadlock
The requirement that every country agree – a consensus rule – meant even one strong dissent plunged the talks into crisis. Proposals to shift to majority voting were blocked, raising alarms that the process was broken. It required unanimous approval from more than 180 countries. Even just one plastic-polluting country can block the entire world from acting. Can this be changed? The EU, backed by more than 100 countries, has voiced its frustration and wants this deal to move forward. The only solution is to ditch the broken unanimity rule and move to majority voting. If two-thirds of countries want to save the planet from plastic, the negotiations can move forward. Leaders are considering this proposal after the last disappointing summit. A powerful wave of public pressure can help world leaders move to majority voting and secure a strong Global Plastics Treaty.
Greenpeace’s Reaction:
Greenpeace and other environmental groups expressed dismay and anger, calling the outcome a “devastating missed opportunity”.
Greenpeace’s Stance and Actions: Criticism of Fossil Fuel Interests: Greenpeace believes that oil-producing nations, and the lobbyists from the petrochemical industry who were present in large numbers, blocked progress on the treaty.
They urged countries to confront these fossil fuel interests and consider a different process, potentially including voting rather than relying solely on consensus.
The Outcome: Uncertain Path Forward: The collapse leaves the world without a united plan to combat plastic pollution. Failure highlights the ongoing tension between reducing plastic production and focusing solely on waste management and recycling.
Collapse of the Global Plastics Treaty was not just a policy setback; it was an environmental heartbreak. Without limits on production, the scale of plastic pollution continues to grow, carrying grave risks for ecosystems, human health, and climate instability. But all is not lost. The failure highlights the urgency many countries feel, and presents a chance to rebuild stronger, and hold petro-states accountable. If anything, this moment underscores the necessity of bold, binding action and the growing frustration of a world that demands it. There are a few upcoming moments both locally and internationally that can help foster the changes we need to see to end plastic pollution:
COP30 will take place in Belém, Brazil, from November 10-21, 2025. This 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference will be a pivotal event, marking a halfway point for countries to update their climate pledges under the Paris Agreement. The conference’s location in the Amazon region highlights the critical role of nature and land use in climate action. Discussions around plastic production caps will likely be readdressed due to the material’s significant contribution to climate breakdown. We need to make sure the UK leaders are present here and in firm voice!
With thanks to Greenpeace, which continues the fight for a better world.
Sally Campbell August 30, 2025