After two weeks of speeches, breakout sessions, and a last-minute “landing-zone” draft, the UN’s plastics negotiations in Geneva adjourned without a deal. That outcome is not a crisis. It’s clarity. A centralized, one-size-fits-all treaty was the wrong approach from the start. Treaties like these tend to be costly, intrusive, and unlikely to reduce plastic leakage in the real world.
Why doesn’t a global treaty make sense? Start with the mandate, which sets a sweeping charge to “end plastic pollution” across the full life cycle. In practice, this involves establishing global rules for design, production, use, waste, and implementing enforcement mechanisms to monitor them. That’s a tall order for a process that still cannot agree on the basics.
Then there’s the evidence that treaty supporters cite to justify a sweeping global plastics treaty.
UNEP’s Turning off the Tap (2023) is a scenario-based systems model: it strings together assumptions about product redesign, reuse, recycling scale-up, policy uptake, and costs to project leakage cuts by 2040; its own methods note data gaps, reliance on expert judgment where data are missing, and sensitivity to those assumptions. Meanwhile, WHO’s Microplastics in drinking-water (2019) synthesizes real-world measurements and toxicity studies and concludes current risk appears low, but highlights major gaps—nonstandard sampling/analytic methods, scarce data on nanoplastics, and limited dose–response evidence. Good policy respects science at its strongest points; it doesn’t pretend uncertainty has disappeared.
Implementation is the bigger challenge. Plastic leakage concentrates where waste systems fail—when collection is irregular, streams are contaminated, dumping continues, or enforcement is weak. A treaty drafted in Geneva can’t solve issues on Tuesday morning in a coastal city, sort a contaminated load, or recover lost fishing gear. Adding layers of international obligations risks producing paperwork instead of results. CRP.1’s brackets on waste/MRV/implementation show how unsettled core mechanics remain.
There’s also a governance issue. The texts circulating in Geneva envisioned annexes to list bans, a standing implementation and compliance committee, and harmonized reporting—features that centralize authority and disperse accountability. That’s not a simple update to existing laws; it’s a structural shift toward supranational control of products and waste. Even with the best intentions, such frameworks invite mission creep and politicized enforcement.
If you followed the proceedings, the pattern was clear. Negotiators only moved administrative “tail” articles—such as who keeps the official copy, how countries sign, and which languages are authentic—while the substantive chapters remained in brackets, meaning large chunks of text sat in square brackets as unresolved options that lacked consensus and therefore couldn’t be adopted.
The Chair’s 12-page draft on August 13th attempted to bridge the gap by softening or postponing upstream measures; high-ambition delegations said it was too weak, while producer-aligned states argued it went too far. When both sides reject the compromise, that’s not a path forward—that’s proof the tool doesn’t fit the task.
Climate alarmists will argue that without a global deal, nothing meaningful will happen. That confuses scale with effectiveness. The fastest improvements rarely start with grand bargains; they begin with clear incentives, straightforward measurement, and accountable execution. Think locally first. Let providers compete. Pay for outcomes, not press releases. If an approach can’t beat alternatives on cost per ton of leakage avoided, it should be sunset or redesigned.
Geneva’s adjournment without a consensus on a global plastics treaty is a chance to reset. Instead of more process, choose performance. Instead of one global plan, choose diverse, local approaches that can be compared, improved, and copied. Instead of global mandates that are hard to enforce, choose incentives that are hard to ignore. Deliver first, measure honestly, and let results shape what we agree to next. Real environmental gains are not created in brackets; they’re built in neighborhoods, ports, and plants—by people rewarded for solving problems and held accountable when they don’t.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member