Global plastic treaty needs common sense
Plastic pollution must urgently end. But the negotiations must focus on what is feasible rather than on excessive demands.
Busan is known for its beautiful hilly landscape, ancient temples and clean beaches. The latter fact may be seen as a good omen. Because in the next two weeks, the megacity in South Korea will host another round of international negotiations for a global agreement on plastic pollution. A burning issue that endangers our earth’s life support system. That’s because I will go to Busan as well – to participate in side events, share views, learn from all sides and contribute to shaping a treaty that makes sense. Plastic waste: Each year, some 22 million tons end up in the environment. The total amount has more than doubled in the first two decades of our century. But as I pack my bags, I'm not just carrying facts and figures – I'm bringing hope for pragmatic, effective solutions.
The circular economy is key to stop pollution
What matters most, in my opinion, is to comprehensively embrace the concept of the circular economy. An approach Covestro is consistently following. Preventing used plastics from becoming waste and ending up in the environment is key stopping pollution. This means designing products from the outset for optimal recycling and utilizing all kinds of recycling technologies, including chemical recycling.
And I need to address another crucial point. Looking at global population growth, prosperity and sustainability goals, the world is going to need more plastics – and not less, as some parties in the negotiations try to make belief, calling for production caps. The truth is, we can’t simply do without high quality polymers, neither today nor in the future.
Having spent many years in the polycarbonate business, I've seen firsthand the vital role plastics play in our lives: Without them, no electric car drives, no wind turbine turns, no smartphone works. The problem is not plastic itself, but how we handle it. It stems from an abundance of non-durable, non-recyclable products and inadequate waste management systems. These are the real issues we must address to combat plastic pollution effectively.
Negotiations must not be diluted
However, there is currently another strong trend I'm concerned about: the growing calls to create arbitrary lists to classify "chemicals of concern", regardless of actual exposure and risk. This poses a real threat to many materials such as polycarbonate, which require these substances, and to all the applications that rely on them. These proposals seem very exaggerated, and I fear they could dilute the proper focus of the negotiations: to prevent plastic pollution.
Moreover, the proposals are redundant. Because the risk management of chemicals for plastics is already comprehensively addressed elsewhere. There are many proven national chemical regulations such as REACH in the EU, TSCA in the USA, the prioritized chemical evaluation & control framework in China and K-REACH in South Korea just to name a few, supported by the newly started Global Framework on Chemicals.
As I look forward to the intensive week ahead, I hope the Busan conference will concentrate on the essentials and quickly lead to a viable agreement. The challenge before us is significant, but so is the opportunity. It is up to all of us to create a future where plastics serve humanity without costing the Earth. The plastics industry and Covestro stand ready to work alongside governments, NGOs, scientists and communities to make this vision a reality.