Planet over Plastic
More than recycling is needed to tackle plastic pollution.
Summary
- The world is urging a significant agreement on plastic pollution, emphasizing the need for a strategy that goes beyond recycling.
- The agreement focuses on reducing plastic production, tackling toxic chemicals in manufacturing, and enhancing waste management by increasing producer responsibility.
- This global initiative is crucial for addressing the environmental and health risks of plastics, emphasizing the need for international cooperation and sustainable practices.
- Despite the challenges, the agreement represents an important step towards a cleaner, healthier planet.
The world is nearing an international agreement to tackle plastic pollution impacting oceans and cities. Plastic is a product that we as humans have created for ourselves. It is convenient and indestructible, but like many such products, has become widespread in our world today.
Today we want to talk about why this global agreement is so important to us. So why is plastic pollution being talked about when it is really about how we manage it in our cities?
The latest global agreement is called the ECOLOGICAL globalization Ecological globalization refers to agreements made on products and pollutants that cross national borders. The world needs to come together to agree on some rules about how to control and mitigate pollution.
The most famous of these is the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The world agreed to regulate Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) , which are chemicals that damage the Ozone layer.
Numerous agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Basel Convention on Hazardous Wastes, have been established to promote global cooperation for sustainable living within the planet’s limits.
The latest in this vein is the upcoming agreement on plastic pollution.
Can we reduce plastic pollution simply by managing litter and garbage in cities and oceans? Or is something more stringent needed—something that addresses the entire life cycle of plastics?
This agreement seeks to shed light on that.
We know that when it comes to the problem of plastic pollution in our cities, we need to do more. Governments in countries in the Global South are starting to understand this. Cities are plagued by mountains of garbage that do not decompose over time. So, if we pollute, the waste remains. That is the essence of plastic pollution.
Cities around the world are learning to do better. They are sorting waste, recycling plastic, and managing pollution to reduce litter in our streets, rivers, and waterways.
But they also see that it is a losing battle.
We need to take stronger action to address the nature of plastic pollution. And that is the main purpose of the conference.
So, what does it propose?
We need to move beyond the simplistic idea that recycling is the solution. We are learning that recycling is not a panacea. It is not as easy or effective as we once believed.
Why do I say that? We know today that only a tiny fraction of the plastic produced globally (one-tenth) is actually recycled or reprocessed. The data now tells us that recycling alone is not enough.
There are also serious challenges in the recycling process. Agreed to, which is a chemical that damages the ozone layer.
A recent study by the Centre for Climate Change and Environmental Research (CFC) found that a northern Indian city’s waterways are filled with branded plastic packaging waste, both in rivers and throughout the city. These are products that should have been collected and managed under the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system.
Clearly, the best way to manage plastics today is, first, to segregate waste. Second, to impose responsibilities on producers under the EPR to collect, recycle, and safely manage their plastic waste.
But that’s not happening.
If the EPR had worked successfully, we wouldn’t be seeing so much litter in our cities, landfills, and oceans. And much of this plastic waste comes from leading brands that are already supposed to be EPR compliant.
This tells us that recycling is important but not enough. That’s why the plastics treaty under negotiation is so important. It focuses on what is called upstream – how much plastic is produced in the world. Should there be a limit to that?
This is a controversial issue. Plastic is produced by the petrochemical industry – an industry based on fossil fuels. It’s not just about the petrochemical sector’s power; we also need to consider which plastics are truly necessary and which are not. How do we make that decision?
We need to reduce global plastic production to manage it more effectively. That’s why upstream action should be given the highest priority.
The second is midstream.
Midstream refers to the materials and chemicals used to make the plastic we use. Why is it important?
Recycling plastic with toxic chemicals is much more challenging. The choice of materials and chemicals in plastic design, along with the need to ban harmful substances, is a crucial aspect of the global agreement.
The third part is about waste management
This is where the best practices of the EPR need to be further expanded. We need to explore what more can be done globally under the EPR, and, of course, we need to address the financing needs of countries in the Global South. All of this needs to come together to make the agreement effective and ambitious.
Now, while the world is coming together on this, we know that these are very difficult times.
We live in a world that is insecure, polarized, and fractured. Countries view international agreements primarily as a means to safeguard their own national interests rather than as a way to manage shared resources.
This is the reality of the world today. This agreement requires us to rebuild trust and unite to reduce pollution that threatens life, health, and ecosystems worldwide.
I know it will be difficult.
Take, for example, the issue of banning certain chemicals. How do you determine which chemicals are highly toxic? There is no global standard for that.
And countries are worried: Will the chemicals that are being banned go off patent? Will they now be forced to turn to new, more expensive chemicals? Will it be affordable?
All reasonable concerns.
They need dialogue, negotiation, and rules to unite countries in sharing the planet’s resources. I also know that the final agreement may not win this war exactly the way we want it to be. But the important thing is that the building blocks are solid. The agreement should consider the entire life cycle of plastics.
Because in the Global South, we know that we cannot afford to clean up after pollution. We need to prevent pollution. We need to reduce it. We need to design products that are simple to manage, recycle, and renew to support a circular economy and use resources efficiently.
We need a fair agreement that unites countries from the Global North and Global South. We are not enemies when it comes to plastic pollution. We face a common enemy: the degradation of our environment and the compromise of human health.
The foundation of this international agreement should be based on both ambition and fairness. Most importantly, we need to recognize that we share a common future. A future that we cannot afford to risk.
Thank you.
(The article published by DTE Staff on August 8, 2025 was edited/rewrite by Rahman Mahfuz.)
