Less plastic waste – not less plastic

Species extinction in Cali, climate change in Baku, plastic waste in Busan – almost every week, summits are currently being held around the globe in which central human issues are being negotiated. But the results so far have been in verse proportion to the severity of the challenges, in my opinion. For example, the conference on biodiversity in Colombia was unable to agree on the financing of species conservation, even though the next mass extinction after the end of the dinosaurs is taking place. But genetic diversity is indispensable, not least for the production of food and medicines.

There were also glaring discrepancies at the climate summit in Azerbaijan. Here, higher financing commitments were made for poorer countries – but they remained far below their demands. New resolutions to move away from fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions did not even make it into the final declaration, which was again achieved with great difficulty. And this in a year in which emissions and global warming are once again reaching negative records. A setback that makes me doubt the sense of such mammoth events.

Now eyes and hopes are focused on the third major conference, which began on Monday in South Korea. There, the international community is struggling to reach an agreement that is intended to put a stop to the alarming pollution of the environment by plastics. This, too, is a problem of the utmost urgency. Plastic waste amounting to 22 million tons ends up in nature every year – it lines roads, blocks rivers, disfigures beaches, floats as gigantic patches on the world's oceans, threatens animals and ends up in the food chain. There is a threat of even greater adversity for the future: Without further countermeasures, the amount of waste in the oceans alone could double by 2060.

Excessive claims are dangerous

One thing is clear: There is a gigantic pressure to act. The problem must finally be solved, the evil must be tackled at the root. Therefore, the upcoming fifth and decisive round of negotiations ("INC-5") must be a success. But here, too, the outlook is rather gloomy. Because in the metropolis of Busan, there are various demands on the table that, for me, go far beyond the mark and jeopardize the success of the negotiations.

For example, chemicals needed for the production of plastics should be assessed in the future according to their abstract hazard potential instead of concrete risks to which nature and living beings can be exposed under realistic conditions. I think we need to keep a sense of proportion and leave the control chemicals where it belongs and is already sufficiently exercised: in the national regulatory systems such as REACH in the EU or TSCA in the USA, flanked by the Global Framework for Chemicals, which was launched in 2023.

My clear warning: A de-listing of chemicals would result in a de facto ban on many plastics. But what we need is less plastic waste – not less plastic. On the contrary, the material is absolutely crucial. I know it may sound paradoxical to many – but climate protection is not possible without, but only with plastics. After all, they are indispensable for making the large resource-intensive sectors – energy, industry, agriculture, transport, buildings – more sustainable and climate-neutral. To marginalize plastic would be to do humanity a disservice.

Making the circular economy a guiding principle

Of course, the chemical and plastics industries themselves are also part of the problem, as a good six percent of all greenhouse gas emissions are caused by chemicals. The sector has therefore to move away from fossil resources. The oil age must give way to an era of renewable and recycled raw materials. In short, the circular economy should become the new global guiding principle. At Covestro, we are strongly committed to this and invest a lot in circularity. After all, it is the key to combating climate change, conserving resources, and preserving nature and the environment.

Therefore, this compelling concept belongs on the table everywhere, at the negotiations in Busan on plastic waste as well as at the follow-up conferences of Cali and Baku on biodiversity and climate protection. And something else should be taken to heart: It is high time for more pragmatism and willingness to compromise on all sides. This is the only way we can get what we really need: a global agreement against plastic pollution that does not deprive plastics of their raison d'être.