Many nations hope to reduce the half a billion tons of plastic made each year. But pushback from plastic and oil producers, and Donald Trump’s election, could scuttle an agreement.
On the heels of contentious climate talks in Azerbaijan, negotiators from around the globe are descending on Busan, South Korea, this week with another formidable goal: the world’s first treaty designed to tackle plastic pollution’s explosive growth.
On the table is a proposal that aims to cut down on the millions of tons of plastic waste discarded each year. And a broad coalition of nations is seeking to go a step further and rein in plastic production, with a focus on restricting single-use plastic.
That notion had gained traction leading up to the final round of talks in Busan, with even the United States, a major plastics producer, tentatively backing the United Nations-led effort.
Then came the election of Donald J. Trump.
Now, few expect the United States to sign on to an eventual treaty at all. And with deep-seated opposition from oil and gas nations like Saudi Arabia and Russia — which, like the United States, produce the fossil fuels used to make plastic — some delegates are wondering whether any agreement is possible by the scheduled end of the talks on Sunday.
“The U.S. really engaged on this, but if they step back, it’s a big disappointment,” said Ndiaye Cheikh Sella, a delegate for Senegal and the chief of staff of the country’s environmental ministry.
There is one consensus among most delegates: The world has a colossal plastic waste problem.
The world produces nearly half a billion tons of plastic each year, more than double the amount from two decades ago, and much of that turns up on coastlines and river banks, as well as in whales, birds and other animals that ingest them. Researchers have estimated that one garbage truck’s worth of plastic enters the ocean every minute.
Scientists have also sounded the alarm on microplastics in the environment and in the human body, as well as the thousands of chemicals in plastic that can leach into food, water and the environment. Producing and transporting plastic releases planet-warming gases — if plastics were a country, it would be the world’s fifth-highest emitter of greenhouse gases. Recycling isn’t keeping up; scientists estimate that only 9 percent of plastic waste generated globally is recycled.
Developing nations have been at the forefront of efforts to tackle plastic pollution, as they have struggled to cope with waste sent by rich countries.
“The stakes have never been higher,” said Anja Brandon, the director of plastics policy at the Ocean Conservancy, a nonprofit focused on marine conservation. While there were competing approaches to reducing production, she said, there was “broad acknowledgment that we need to be making less.”
Some powerful nations, and industries, are opposed.
Stewart Harris, a spokesman for the International Council of Chemical Associations, which represents the global chemical and plastics companies, said that the group did not support measures to restrict plastic production, instead favoring an agreement centered on reuse, recycling and other ways to “give value to plastic at the end of its life.”
Mr. Harris, who also directs global plastics policy at the American Chemistry Council, pointed to the unintended consequences of curbing plastic production, including higher prices that could burden low-income households. (Plastic pollution also disproportionately burdens poor people.)
The chemicals industry is likely to find an ally in Mr. Trump, who previously tapped an A.C.C. executive to lead the toxic chemical unit at the Environmental Protection Agency. However, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mr. Trump’s pick for health secretary, supported action on plastic production during his presidential bid. In September last year, Mr. Kennedy posted a 10-point plan to “fix the plastics pollution crisis” on X, starting with supporting “an ambitious international plastics treaty.”
There has also been heavy pushback from a handful of nations that favor a nonbinding agreement without restrictions on plastic production. Major gas exporters, including Russia, Qatar and Iran, held a meeting this month in preparation for the Busan negotiations, with a focus on “ensuring that the role of natural gas is duly considered.”
Still, consumer giants including Mars and Unilever have thrown their weight behind a stronger agreement, calling on nations to draw up a treaty “that addresses the full life cycle of plastics.” On Saturday, hundreds of people marched in Busan urging nations to agree to a robust plastics treaty.
Scientists say a solution is possible. A recent paper in the journal Science estimated that just four of the policies that have been discussed so far at the plastic treaty talks could reduce mismanaged plastic waste by more than 90 percent, and plastic-related greenhouse gas emissions by one-third. Those policies include capping new plastic production at 2020 levels and mandating that new products be made with at least 40 percent recycled plastic.
“It is actually possible to nearly end plastic pollution with this treaty,” Douglas J. McCauley, a professor of ocean science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said in an email. “It was also sobering to see that without a treaty, plastic pollution will double by 2050,” he added.
Some observers headed to the talks said it was time for negotiators to move ahead with a treaty, even without every nation signing on. Many developing countries were angered by the modest deal on climate crisis financing that emerged by consensus from the Azerbaijan talks.
An ambitious treaty with holdouts is better than a watered-down one signed by all, said Jamala Djinn, a policy adviser at Break Free From Plastic, a coalition of organizations working on plastic pollution. The United States, she noted, has not been a signatory to a number of global treaties that were nevertheless effective.
“We can’t afford to let a handful of plastic producers hamper the ambition of a vast majority of member states,” she said.
Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon and the sole Congress member joining the Busan talks, agreed.
“If the U.S. doesn’t sign on, at least we wouldn’t be holding the world back,” he said.
The Biden administration has taken its own steps to tackle plastic waste, including a plan for the federal government to phase out purchases of single-use plastics. But the survival of such policies under the incoming administration is in doubt, along with the prospect of a U.S.-ratified treaty.
Days after the presidential election, White House officials told stakeholders at a meeting that the United States did not see a treaty that curbed plastic production as a viable option, according to two people present who were not authorized to discuss the meeting publicly.
Other points of contention include whether the treaty should include a list of chemicals of concern used in plastics that are targeted for stricter controls; whether it should single out products — such as Styrofoam cups — that need to be phased out; and what financing should be provided for developing nations that lack the technical and financial resources to handle the waste.
Dennis Clare, a legal adviser for Micronesia, said that for many countries, plastic pollution was an equity issue. Small island nations overrun by plastic pollution played little role in generating plastic waste but bore a huge brunt, he said.
“If the countries with the most wealth and most resources take a pass, it’s an inequitable burden shift,” Mr. Clare said. “It’s dumping, quite literally and figuratively, on poorer downstream countries.”
English 
Spanish