All eyes on Paris

At the end of May, the intergovernmental negotiating committee on plastic pollution, will hold its second meeting in Paris. Its goal, as I’ve mentioned previously, is to develop a legally binding global plastics treaty governing the use and re-use of plastics, with the aim of eliminating pollution by single-use plastics by 2030.

Such an ambitious goal is a noble pursuit, and I doubt the industry would disagree. Given, however, that the INC has yet to agree on core obligations for any such treaty, it feels a little piein-the-sky for now. Recent years have taught us just how difficult it is to achieve consensus and progress between multiple international players, but with circularity as a common goal, I have no doubt that some good will come from the discussions.

That said, it’s concerning to me that within the core obligations that have been suggested as possible outcomes from the discussions, the language focuses on ‘phasing out’, ‘banning’ and ‘reducing the demand’ for polymer as a material. A more sensible approach, of course, would be to dedicate this energy and resource towards adoption of novel technologies such as carbon capture as a plastic feedstock, or chemical recycling.

The global population is expected to grow by two billion in the next thirty years. There will, realistically, be no let-up in demand for food supply chains in which produce can be kept fresher for longer, allowing it to reach more plates before spoiling. Or for packaging which can be made lightweight, to reduce the impact of global distribution. Or in the case of the medical sector, which faces the gloomy but likely challenges of antimicrobial-resistance and further pandemics in the future, cheap, mass produced items like face masks and gloves will be something future society will be completely dependent on. Disappointingly, despite the vital role these last two products played during the pandemic, they are what’s displayed on the IUCN’s news page dedicated to the Paris meeting. Specifically, it’s a photo of a face mask and a glove floating in the ocean. Nobody would deny that single use plastics need to be kept out of waterways. But honing in on these essential products, suggesting they're 'problematic', sends the wrong message about plastics – and actually, when you’re talking about a 2030 target, it seems completely bonkers to even suggest banning these items. To be replaced by what? Any argument for banning or reducing demand for life saving technology must be grounded in science. Any alternatives proposed must not only outperform the current options, but also have a comparatively superior LCA and lower carbon footprint. Unfortunately, I don’t think a bamboo-based facemask with limited protective properties and a horrendous supply chain, charged at £2.99 per unit is likely to cut it (that’s a hypothetical example, by the way).

So here’s hoping the Paris meeting will be an open-minded affair, which uses scientifically sound data to promote a circular economy that is realistic for the future.

Head of Content

Dave Gray