- Article Summary
-
Introduction
Plastic pollution stands among the most critical environmental crises of the 21st century. Since 1950, plastic production has skyrocketed over 200-fold and is projected to triple again by 2060 without decisive intervention. Today, global plastic waste risks enveloping ecosystems and endangering both human and environmental health. The UN’s proposed Plastic Pollution Treaty, aiming to be a landmark legally binding global agreement, has repeatedly stalled, revealing deep divisions among nations over how to curb this relentless tide. This blog unpacks the dire consequences of treaty failure and underscores why urgency and innovation must prevail.
Plastic pollution is not only a matter of visible debris scattered across beaches and landscapes but also an insidious and largely invisible crisis. Microplastics have been detected in drinking water, food, and even the human bloodstream. Scientists suspect potential links to health issues such as inflammation, hormonal imbalances, and cardiovascular risks. The problem extends well beyond environmental degradation: it represents a global public health challenge, an economic liability, and a profound test of international cooperation. In this sense, the fate of the UN Plastic Pollution Treaty is emblematic of humanity’s capacity to confront planetary-scale crises.
Current Status of Treaty Negotiations
The UN Environment Assembly’s 2022 resolution launched the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) with the ambition to adopt a binding plastics treaty by the end of 2024. However, as of August 2025, six rounds of negotiations have failed to yield agreement. The second part of INC-5 (INC-5.2), held in Geneva from August 5–15, ended without consensus among 184 countries.
The main sticking points include whether to set production caps on virgin plastic (urged by over 100 countries, including EU and island states) or to adopt a weaker approach focusing solely on waste management and recycling, positioned by petrochemical-producing nations like the U.S., Saudi Arabia, India, and Gulf States. Analysts warn that “consensus is dead,” and procedural reforms such as majority voting are now being discussed to break the impasse. Some suggest pursuing a parallel coalition or breakaway treaty.
Another contentious issue is funding. Developing nations, many of which bear the brunt of plastic waste inflows from richer countries, have emphasized the need for financial and technological support to build waste management infrastructure. Without such commitments, they argue, the treaty risks becoming another unfunded mandate. Meanwhile, civil society groups and scientists continue to demand ambitious targets, warning that weak outcomes could undermine the credibility of multilateral environmental governance.
Risks of Inaction
Environmental Risks
Without a treaty, plastic production and waste will surge. If no measures are taken, the yearly amount of plastic entering the ocean is projected to almost triple by 2040, reaching 29 million metric tons annually (with a potential range of 23 to 37 million metric tons per year)¹. Marine ecosystems will bear the brunt: over 100,000 marine mammals die each year from ingesting or entangling in plastic debris. Microplastics are now being found in soils, rivers, and even Arctic ice, demonstrating the truly global reach of the crisis.
Unchecked plastic production will also exacerbate climate change. Plastic manufacturing is fossil-fuel intensive, responsible for over 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions today. The UN Environment Programme estimates that greenhouse gas emissions from the production, use, and disposal of plastics could consume 19% of the global carbon budget by 2040. Inaction thus risks undermining progress on both pollution reduction and climate mitigation, creating a dangerous feedback loop of environmental degradation.
Economic Risks
Plastic pollution carries colossal economic costs. The OECD estimates that preventing land-based plastic leakage via improved waste infrastructure would require between €54 billion (moderate ambition) and €74 billion (high ambition). In contrast, inaction invites far greater costs: some forecasts suggest global losses up to US$281 trillion by 2060 due to plastic pollution.
Industries such as tourism, fisheries, and shipping are especially vulnerable. Polluted beaches deter visitors, leading to significant revenue losses in coastal economies. Fisheries face stock declines as marine life is poisoned or trapped by plastic debris, threatening food security as well as livelihoods. For businesses, failing to act on plastic reduction exposes them to reputational risk, potential litigation, and consumer backlash as sustainability becomes a key market driver.
Social Risks
Communities most vulnerable to pollution are those least responsible for it. Informal waste workers and coastal populations, especially in the Global South, face disproportionate exposure to health hazards from plastic burning, water contamination, and toxic additives. Such environmental injustice will deepen if no unified treaty ensures equitable waste management and financial assistance. The disparity in plastic’s full lifetime cost is pronounced: poorer regions bear outsized burdens compared to richer ones, despite contributing far less to the problem. This amplifies inequalities and threatens both health and livelihoods.
Plastic pollution is also a human rights issue. Communities living near petrochemical plants often endure toxic emissions and contaminated water supplies. Without international oversight, expansion of plastic production facilities risks intensifying these injustices. Women and children are particularly affected, as they often shoulder the burden of managing household waste and are more vulnerable to health impacts from toxic exposure. Thus, failure to secure a strong treaty would not only undermine environmental protection but also exacerbate global inequities and social instability.
Why a Strong Treaty Matters
A robust, legally binding treaty is the strong way to coordinate global action, harmonize standards, and set enforceable limits, especially on the full lifecycle of plastics: from design to disposal, including chemicals and additives. Without it, piecemeal national policies and voluntary industry pledges will fail to curb production or protect communities.
Such a treaty would also spur innovation, encouraging circular economy models, alternative materials, and reuse systems. Major companies like Unilever and Nestlé support global standards to level the playing field and enhance sustainability alignment. For companies committed to ESG and long-term resilience, a strong treaty is a framework for sustainable competitiveness and market stability.
Beyond corporate interests, a strong treaty is also a moral imperative. It signals recognition of the interconnectedness of environmental and human systems, and of the responsibility to protect future generations from inheriting a polluted planet. By embedding equity, transparency, and accountability into its framework, the treaty could redefine global environmental governance and become a model for tackling other complex transboundary issues.
Conclusion
The collapse of the August 2025 Geneva talks underscores the peril we face without decisive global leadership and cooperation. If the treaty fails, the world risks ecological collapse, mounting human health crises, economic devastation, and entrenched inequality. Yet the growing coalition of over 100 nations, scientists, Indigenous groups, businesses, and NGOs signals hope: driven by facts, science, and shared responsibility.
This moment demands urgency. Companies, governments, and civil society must elevate pressure for procedural reform, binding production caps, lifecycle regulation, and equitable funding mechanisms. The alternative, a future drowning in unchecked plastic pollution, threatens the very foundations of sustainable development. Success will require courage and compromise, but the cost of failure would be far greater: an irreversibly polluted planet where environmental and human health are sacrificed for short-term gain. By seizing this opportunity, the world can chart a course toward a cleaner, fairer, and more resilient future.
Why Work with ASUENE Inc.?
Asuene is a key player in carbon accounting, offering a comprehensive platform that measures, reduces, and reports emissions. Asuene serves over 10,000 clients worldwide, providing an all-in-one solution that integrates GHG accounting, ESG supply chain management, a Carbon Credit exchange platform, and third-party verification.
ASUENE supports companies in achieving net-zero goals through advanced technology, consulting services, and an extensive network.
