The US has come out in support of plastic production caps ahead of the last round of UN Plastic Treaty negotiations, but the impact of its change of tack remains uncertain
Last week the United States drastically altered its position for UN global plastics treaty negotiations, saying it would support a global target to reduce plastic production, but the final effect on the treaty's outcome remains to be seen.
In the first four rounds of intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) negotiations, the US — as one of the world's largest plastic producers — has opposed measures against upstream production in favour of limiting the scope of the treaty to waste management and tackling plastic pollution. But it will now take a new position into the intersessional discussions and the final round of negotiations which are scheduled to begin in Busan, South Korea, in late November.
The move surprised many analysts and participants, and was quickly denounced by plastic industry bodies such as the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Plastics Industry Association. The ACC argued that a global virgin plastics cap would put jobs of petrochemical workers in jeopardy, and increase the cost of consumer goods as packaging companies shift to alternate materials.
The Plastics Industry Association pointed to a study which found plastic has lower carbon emissions than other materials, and said the US has undermined its negotiating position. "We are dedicated to keeping plastic waste out of the environment and believe we need to work together to achieve this. However, the White House's drastic position change will not accomplish this goal, only set us back," PIA chief executive Matt Seaholm said.
Environmental organisations applauded the effort meanwhile, and argued that plastics production caps would be necessary to cut proliferation of plastic waste.
Greenpeace USA said the decision to change positions put the US administration "on the right side of history", and urged the US government to join the European Union in supporting a plan to cut global plastic production by 75pc.
What could it mean?
The policy change has stirred up strong reactions from both sides of the debate, but it remains to be seen how it will affect the outcome of negotiations.
The question of whether a majority vote or full consensus will be required to ratify the final text of the treaty remains open since the first round of negotiations, but International Institute for Sustainable Development's (IISD's) Earth Negotiations Bulletin executive editor Pamela Chasek said that based on experience of similar treaties the latter is more likely. Since the US was one of a number of delegations — mainly from countries with a reliance on plastic-producing industries — to oppose measures against producers in previous rounds of negotiations, its change of heart would not be enough in isolation to push through production caps.
The influence of the US may be sufficient to persuade less strident opponents of plastic caps to follow suit, Chasek said, but ultimately the impact will depend on how much leverage the US is willing to use to compel more powerful dissenters to change tack. "This has to be seen in the larger sense of US foreign policy and US strategic interests. The US may not be willing to use political capital in plastics negotiations," she said.
The US's forthcoming presidential election could be another factor. Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has expressed opposition to environmental legislation and made statements in favour of increased oil drilling during his campaign, seems unlikely to support caps on plastic production if elected, and even a Democrat victory would deliver a new president to the White House. This puts impetus on the outgoing Biden administration to facilitate an agreement in Busan. The compromises necessary for adoption of a treaty in Busan could lead to a weaker treaty that environmentalists are hoping for, Chasek said, but provide a foundation for a stronger agreement in the future.
Why now?
The US's volte-face seemed sudden, but Chasek suggested it could have been made with Biden's environmental legacy in mind.
She pointed to July's announcement the US federal government will phase out single-use plastics in its procurement, which came just days before Biden announced he would drop out of the election, as evidence he is authentically looking to side more with environmentalists on the issues of plastic and plastic waste.
"The federal government is pretty big in terms of purchasing, you're including all the military in that…it's possible that just reducing the use of plastic in the federal government could achieve [reduction] targets the US is willing to agree to", she said, adding such a move on a federal level could persuade other state and local public institutions to follow suit.
The policy change may therefore be intended to expedite progress towards a resolution in the UN plastic treaty negotiations, and allow Biden to sign it prior to leaving office.
How might recyclers benefit?
In many of the end-user markets that recyclers sell into, they compete directly with virgin plastic, so a production cap that reduces availability could help their demand. But this could also be offset if such measures led to lower plastic consumption, which would also reduce the generation of plastic waste feedstock for the recycling industry.
More broadly, greater support from the US for the scope of the treaty including measures affecting plastic producers may increase the likelihood of measures to implement extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, where producers and sellers of plastic products contribute to the cost of managing the resulting waste. EPR schemes have been shown to increase the collection of plastic waste and provide more feedstock for the recycling industry.
But a concern, highlighted by European industry body PlasticsEurope following the last round of negotiations, was a perceived lack of progress towards legally-binding targets to use recycled content, to facilitate the creation of a circular economy and "increase the value of plastic waste". So far there has been no mention of support for such measures from the US, and recycling industry participants will be keeping an eager eye on developments to see how they might benefit from the treaty as discussions come close to their scheduled conclusion.
