Tough US stance casts gloom over plastics pollution deal after Geneva flop
bdnews24.com -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 12:57:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–China Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, White House Policy Proposals
The collapse on Friday of a sixth round of UN talks aimed at curbing plastic output has dimmed hopes of tackling a key source of pollution and left many advocates of restrictions pessimistic about a global deal during the Trump administration.
A three-year global push to reach a legally-binding treaty to curb plastic pollution choking the oceans and harming human health now appears adrift, participants said.
Many states and campaigners blamed the failure on oil-producers including the United States, which they said hardened long-held positions and urged others to reject caps on new plastic production that would have curbed output of polymers.
Debbra Cisneros, a negotiator for Panama, which supported a strong deal, told Reuters, the United States, the world's number two plastics producer behind China, was less open than in previous rounds conducted under Joe Biden's administration.
"This time they were just not wanting anything. So it was hard, because we always had them against us in each of the important provisions," she said at the end of the 11-day talks.
Anti-plastic campaigners saw little hope for a change in Washington's position under President Donald Trump, who in February signed an executive order encouraging consumers to buy plastic drinking straws.
"The mentality is different, and they want to extract more oil and gas out of the ground," said Bjorn Beeler, International Coordinator at International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global network of over 600 public interest NGOs.
The US State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment about its positions and its role in the talks. US delegate John Thompson declined to respond to questions from a Reuters reporter on the outcome.
A State Department spokesperson previously said that each party should take measures according to its national context, while Washington has expressed concerns that the new rules could increase the costs of all plastic products. The Trump administration has also rolled back various US climate and environmental policies that it says place too many burdens on national industry.
Earlier this week, Washington also flexed its muscle in talks about another global environmental agreement when it threatened measures against states backing a proposal aimed at reducing shipping emissions.
For a coalition of some 100 countries seeking an ambitious deal in Geneva, production limits are essential.
Fiji's delegate Sivendra Michael likened excluding this provision to "mopping the floor without turning off the tap."
For each month of delays, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) said nearly a million tons of plastic waste accumulates - some of which washes up on the beaches of island states.
'CONSENSUS IS DEAD'
Some participants also blamed organisers, the International Negotiating Committee (INC), a UN-established body supported by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).
A low point was a formal meeting an hour before the negotiations were set to conclude at midnight on Thursday which lasted less than a minute and was then adjourned until dawn, prompting laughter and jeering from delegates.
"Everyone was in shock as no one understood," said Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director for environmental group GAIA. "It's almost like they were playing with small children."
France's ecology minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher called proceedings "chaotic."
Asked what went wrong, INC chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso blamed the rift between countries and called the negotiations complex. "But we have advanced and that's important," he said.
UN provisional rules require all states to agree - a constraint that some see as unworkable, especially under a US administration that is retreating from multilateralism.
"Consensus is dead. You cannot agree a deal where all the countries who produce and export plastics and oil can decide the terms of what the deal is going to be," said IPEN's Beeler.
Some delegates and campaigners suggested introducing voting to break the deadlock or even for the UN-led process to be abandoned altogether. The WWF and others called on ambitious states to pursue a separate deal, with the hope of getting plastics-producing nations onboard later.
Two draft deals emerged from the talks - one more ambitious than the other. Neither was adopted. It is unclear when the next meeting will take place, with states merely agreeing to reconvene at a later date.
One positive development was that top plastics producer China publicly acknowledged the need to address the full-life cycle of plastics, said David Azoulay, Managing Attorney of the Center for International Environmental Law's Geneva Office. "This is new, and I think this opens an interesting door."
Sign Our PetitionThe recent failure of the UN talks in Geneva aimed at addressing the crisis of plastic pollution underscores a significant barrier to global environmental cooperation, primarily attributed to the United States' hardened stance under the Trump administration. For advocates striving to protect our oceans and public health, this setback is a glaring reminder of the challenges posed by political interests that prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term ecological sustainability. The implications of this failure extend far beyond the immediate consequences for plastic pollution; they reflect a broader pattern of environmental neglect that has historical roots in corporate lobbying and the prioritization of fossil fuel interests.
Historically, the production of plastics has been inextricably tied to the fossil fuel industry, which has aggressively marketed single-use plastics as convenient consumer goods. This has resulted in a plastic pollution crisis that not only harms marine ecosystems but also poses serious risks to human health. As the second largest producer of plastics globally, the United States holds a unique responsibility in leading international efforts to curb this pollution. However, the Trump administration's rollback of environmental regulations and its overt support for fossil fuel extraction signal a retreat from such leadership. This retreat mirrors the historical tendency of powerful nations to prioritize economic interests over environmental protection, often at the expense of vulnerable communities and ecosystems.
The remarks from international delegates, such as Debbra Cisneros from Panama, illustrate a growing frustration among countries that bear the brunt of plastic pollution. Countries like Fiji, which are on the frontline of climate change and pollution, are calling for urgent action, emphasizing that limiting plastic production is essential to any meaningful response. The metaphor of "mopping the floor without turning off the tap" poignantly encapsulates the absurdity of addressing the symptoms of pollution while ignoring its root causes. This highlights the necessity for a paradigm shift in how we approach environmental policy—one that recognizes the interconnectedness of production, consumption, and environmental health.
The failure of the Geneva talks also serves as a crucible for broader social justice implications. The countries most affected by plastic pollution are often those with the least capacity to address it, resulting in a disproportionate burden on marginalized communities. As pollution accumulates—nearly a million tons each month, according to the World Wildlife Fund—low-income countries, particularly island nations facing rising sea levels and economic vulnerabilities, are left to deal with the fallout. This dynamic raises critical questions about global equity and responsibility in the context of environmental crises. It highlights the need for wealthier nations to take accountability for their contribution to global pollution and to support developing nations in their efforts to combat it.
In this context, the U.S. delegation's refusal to support production limits can be viewed as a choice that prioritizes corporate interests over global solidarity and environmental justice. The ongoing struggle against plastic pollution is emblematic of larger systemic issues that require concerted advocacy for environmental policies that prioritize sustainability over profit. As we reflect on the implications of the Geneva talks' failure, it becomes clear that true progress will require not only a shift in policy but also a transformative approach to governance that embraces environmental responsibility as a fundamental principle. For advocates and activists, this moment should galvanize further efforts to pressure lawmakers, engage in grassroots organizing, and amplify calls for comprehensive environmental reforms that dismantle the structures that perpetuate pollution and inequality.
The recent collapse of UN negotiations aimed at establishing a global treaty to combat plastic pollution underscores a significant failure at the international level to address one of the most pressing environmental crises of our time. The events in Geneva signal not only a setback for the coalition of nations advocating for stringent regulations but also highlight the troubling influence of oil-producing nations, particularly the United States, on global environmental policy. The reluctance of the U.S., under the Trump administration, to support measures that would cap plastic production reveals a broader systemic issue: the prioritization of corporate interests over public health and environmental sustainability.
Historically, the United States has played a pivotal role in international environmental agreements. However, the Trump administration's approach represented a stark departure from previous administrations' commitments to global cooperation on climate and pollution issues. By encouraging the production of more plastics and rolling back existing environmental regulations, the administration not only obstructed these negotiations but also showcased a fundamental disregard for the implications of plastic pollution. This pollution is not just an environmental concern; it poses serious health risks, particularly to marginalized communities who bear the brunt of industrial waste. The link between environmental degradation and social justice remains an essential focal point in advocating for stronger regulations.
As advocates for environmental justice, it is imperative that we recognize the power dynamics at play within these negotiations and the role that corporate lobbying and fossil fuel interests exert over policy decisions. To combat this, grassroots movements and community organization must be strengthened. One of the most effective actions that concerned citizens can take is to mobilize local and national campaigns that demand accountability from their representatives. This includes advocating for policies that support sustainable alternatives to plastics, such as investments in biodegradable materials and circular economy initiatives that facilitate recycling and waste reduction. By pressing local governments to commit to these changes, we create a ripple effect that can influence broader legislative actions.
Moreover, it is crucial to engage in public education efforts that illuminate the consequences of plastic pollution. Many individuals remain unaware of the scale of plastic waste and its impacts on marine ecosystems and human health. Educational campaigns that highlight the connection between plastic production and fossil fuel extraction can galvanize public opinion and spur collective action. By fostering a deeper understanding of these issues, we can shift the narrative around plastic use and encourage individuals to advocate for systemic change, including supporting policies that prioritize environmental health over short-term economic gains.
Finally, it is essential to maintain pressure on international negotiations and hold nations accountable for their commitments. This can be achieved through sustained advocacy at various levels, including international forums and climate summits. Engaging in dialogues with representatives from other countries that support strong environmental protections can help to build coalitions that counteract the influence of recalcitrant nations like the U.S. By fostering solidarity among nations committed to combating plastic pollution, we can amplify our collective voice and demand a more equitable and sustainable approach to environmental governance.
In conclusion, the failure of the Geneva negotiations is not merely an isolated incident; it reflects broader systemic issues within global environmental policy shaped by corporate interests and political ideologies. As engaged citizens, we must recognize the interconnectedness of these issues and take action at local, national, and international levels. By advocating for sustainable practices, educating ourselves and others, and exerting pressure on policymakers, we can work towards a future where environmental health is prioritized, and the devastating impacts of plastic pollution are effectively addressed.
The recent article highlighting the setbacks in global negotiations to address plastic pollution underscores the urgent need for grassroots action and collective advocacy. Here’s a comprehensive list of actions individuals can take to address this issue, as well as specific suggestions for petitions, organizations to contact, and what to communicate to those in power.
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Educate Yourself and Others**: Understanding the plastic pollution crisis and its causes is essential. Share information through social media, community groups, and local events to raise awareness about the impact of plastic on the environment and human health.
2. **Reduce Personal Plastic Use**: Commit to reducing your own plastic consumption by opting for reusable bags, bottles, and containers. Encourage others to do the same by sharing your journey.
3. **Support Local Initiatives**: Get involved with local environmental groups that focus on reducing plastic waste. This can include beach clean-ups, recycling programs, or educational workshops.
### Exact Actions to Take:
1. **Sign and Share Petitions**: - **"Ban Single-Use Plastics" Petition**: Use platforms like Change.org to sign and share petitions aimed at local and national governments to impose bans on single-use plastics. - Example: [Change.org Petition for a Plastic Ban](https://www.change.org/p/ban-single-use-plastics-in-{your-city}) 2. **Contact Elected Officials**: - Write to your local and national representatives to express your concerns about plastic pollution and urge them to support legislation that restricts plastic production and promotes sustainable alternatives.
Here are some points to communicate: - Emphasize the urgent need for binding agreements to reduce plastic output. - Request transparency and accountability from the U.S. government in international negotiations. - Advocate for policies that promote renewable resources over fossil fuels.
**Example Contacts**: - **Senator Elizabeth Warren**: - Email: elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov - Mailing Address: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 New Sudbury St., Boston, MA 02203 - **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez**: - Email: ocasio-cortez.house.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 2302 Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC 20515
3. **Join Environmental Organizations**: - Become a member or volunteer for organizations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Greenpeace, or the Sierra Club that focus on reducing plastic pollution and advocating for stronger regulations on plastic production. - Engage with their campaigns and contribute to their efforts through donations or volunteer work.
4. **Participate in Local Environmental Meetings**: - Attend town hall meetings or local government sessions to voice your concerns and advocate for policies that support reducing plastic pollution.
5. **Organize Community Clean-Ups**: - Rally friends and neighbors to participate in local clean-up events at parks, beaches, or neighborhoods to directly combat plastic pollution and encourage community engagement.
### What to Say:
When reaching out to your representatives or engaging in discussions, consider using the following points:
- **Highlight the Urgency**: "The recent UN talks on curbing plastic pollution have shown that the current U.S. stance is detrimental. It is crucial that we take immediate action to protect our oceans and communities from this escalating crisis." - **Advocate for Change**: "I urge you to support legislation that limits plastic production and promotes sustainable alternatives. The health of our environment and future generations depends on it." - **Call for Accountability**: "Please ensure that the U.S. government participates actively and transparently in international negotiations to establish a legally binding treaty on plastic pollution."
By taking these steps, we can collectively push for meaningful change and hold our leaders accountable in the fight against plastic pollution.