By Jean Baptiste Ndabananiye
The global fight against plastic pollution has hit a major roadblock: oil-producing nations are fiercely opposing production limits. As detailed in our previous article, countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran view plastics as the future of their heavily oil-dependent economies. With petrochemicals poised to become a dominant driver of oil demand by 2050, these nations see limiting plastic production as a direct threat to their economic survival.
But where does this leave the international community? How can a legally binding treaty be achieved when some of the most influential nations in global energy markets refuse to cooperate? To respond to those questions, this piece which serves as the continuation to the previous article revolves around these major sections:
- Backdrop to the issue
- Where does the issue lie?
- Requirements for global action— steps to fulfill the call for a binding global treaty to end plastic pollution
- Conclusion
Backdrop to the issue
The heart of the conflict and issue complexity
At the core of the resistance from oil-producing countries is the economic reality: as renewable energy gains ground, plastics and petrochemicals remain a critical revenue stream for fossil fuel giants. This has led to aggressive lobbying by the petrochemical industry, with major players influencing negotiations.
Furthermore, the absence of the U.S. and China from the decisive talks in Busan raises additional concerns. These two nations are the world’s largest plastic producers and have yet to tangibly commit themselves to strict production limits. The likelihood of securing a treaty without their full participation appears slim, sparking questions about whether the global community can overcome these deep-seated economic and political interests.
The recycling dilemma: a false solution?
Even if plastic production were to be curtailed, another challenge looms—recycling. A recent investigative report by The Guardian exposed how Turkey, once praised for its recycling efforts, has instead become a dumping ground for Europe’s waste. Less than 10% of the world’s plastic waste is actually recycled, while the rest is burned, dumped, or left to pollute ecosystems. The environmental cost of ineffective recycling, including the leaching of toxic chemicals, highlights the need for changes.
Where does the issue lie?
Why do the oil- producing countries oppose the treaty—the first option?
Health Policy Watch constitutes an organ which reports on leading global health policy challenges and trends, connecting journalists in global North and South on an “independent—independent global health reporting”, non-profit platform. It reportedly conducts open-access reporting which serves all stakeholders in the global health policymaking community by enhancing transparency and informed engagement.
On 3 December 2023, it published a story “UN Plastic Pollution Treaty Derailed as Fossil Fuel Nations Block Production Limits”.Health Policy Watch reported “Negotiations to produce a legally binding treaty to curb the global explosion of plastic pollution fell short on Sunday as efforts to limit the production of fossil fuel-based plastics supported by over 100 countries, including the European Union, met fierce opposition from oil-producing nations.”
“A coalition of oil and gas producers led by Saudi Arabia that included Iran, Russia, and other Gulf states under the Arab group, opposed capping plastic production, insisting the treaty should focus solely on plastics waste management.”
This platform performing global health reporting adds “Negotiations this week in Busan, South Korea (known as INC-5), were meant to be the final round of a two-year process to create what the UN Environment Agency and environmental groups called ‘the most important multilateral treaty’ since the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
Instead, the Busan summit became the third major failure of multilateral environmental negotiations in as many weeks, following disappointing outcomes at COP29 in Baku and a total collapse of talks over new funding and enforcement mechanisms at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s COP16 in Cali, Colombia, which aimed to protect nature and wildlife.”
The core of oil-producing nations’ stance lies in the essentiality of this industry to these nations. Their resistance to limiting plastic production is stimulated by strategic and economic interests. As the world is transitioning to renewable energy, traditional markets for oil and gas are shrinking.
To sustain their profits, these countries and the fossil fuel industry are shifting a focus to plastics and petrochemicals which are expected to become vital. By 2050, plastic production is projected to have turned into a crucial lifeline for oil producers.
This explains why Saudi Arabia and other major oil producers oppose production limits in plastic pollution agreements—they see plastics as their future growth market, even as the world moves away from fossil fuels in energy production.
Health Policy Watch clarifies “The fierce resistance to production limits stems from oil-producing nations’ strategic pivot toward plastics as traditional markets decline. For the fossil fuel industry and its partners, plastics offer a horizon for continued expansion even as power grids and vehicles shift to renewable energy. Petrochemicals and plastics are projected to become oil’s primary demand driver – accounting for half of consumption by 2050, according to IEA forecasts, with plastic production set to represent 20% of oil and gas output.
While Saudi Arabia led the fight against production caps in Busan, it’s part of a broader trend. Despite global pledges on climate and plastic pollution, major petrochemical investments continue across the Middle East, China, and the US, University of Lund research shows. For oil and gas producers, plastics offer a profitable sanctuary as clean energy expands. Petrochemicals yield higher margins than transport fuels – crucial as energy-sector fossil fuel demand wanes.”
According to Health Policy Watch, plastic industry lobbysts thus waged a fierce and successful struggle in the talks. “Plastic-producing nations were supported by an unprecedented industry presence at the UN talks. Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists formed the largest single delegation, with 220 representatives. This group outnumbered both the European Union’s combined delegation and the host country South Korea’s representatives, according to analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law.
The industry’s efforts to shape the treaty have been extensive. Over 93% of statements opposing an ambitious treaty came from chemical and petrochemical sectors, with companies like ExxonMobil, Dow Inc, BASF, and SABIC leading efforts to weaken the agreement, according to a report released during the talks by InfluenceMap.”
The absence of the US and China in the discussions in Busan is likely to highlight their reluctance to support strict production limits on plastics; which could significantly undermine global efforts to address plastic pollution. The US is likely to reverse its stance on production cuts. China carries minimal interest in capping production, despite proposing limits on harmful chemicals. Both of these nations holding the essential share in this sector may be poised to exacerbate the situation, potentially thwarting progress toward meaningful global action.
Health Policy Watch states “Lost in the battles in Busan were the positions of the world’s two largest plastic producers. Both China and the United States were notably absent when treaty advocates made their case for production limits on Sunday.
Though the US backed production cuts earlier this year, observers suggest this position is likely to shift following Donald Trump’s recent victory and pledges to continue expanding record levels of oil production. Beijing has put forth proposals to limit the use of harmful chemicals in plastics, but shown little interest in capping production.”
Plastics are cheaper to produce than many alternatives, especially since they are often manufactured from byproducts of fossil fuels. Shifting to alternatives can increase costs for businesses and consumers. Governments, corporations and consumers often resist to drastic change, especially due to economic and convenience factors. Moreover, implementing regulations and encouraging behavior change on a global scale constitutes a slow and complex process. All this aggravates the situation as far as plastics are concerned.
Life In Humanity views that it would actually be extremely challenging for countries relying heavily on plastics and petrochemicals to advocate for or agree upon production cuts. Plastics and petrochemicals represent a significant economic driver, especially for these countries with large oil and gas industries. Health Policy Watch explains it. “The industry’s aggressive presence at the talks reflects what’s at stake. Petrochemical companies increasingly see plastics as a safe haven from carbon regulations as demand for fossil fuels declines in other sectors. This pivot to plastics production helps offset falling fuel demand, but threatens to dramatically increase plastic waste globally, research shows.”
Recycling challenges
The Guardian on 18 February 2025 ran an article entitled “Turkey said it would become a ‘zero waste’ nation. Instead, it became a dumping ground for Europe’s rubbish.” This mega-media house highlights “When China stopped receiving the world’s waste, Turkey became Europe’s recycling hotspot. The problem is, most plastics can’t be recycled. And what remains are toxic heaps of trash.”
“The final reason why recycling offers no feasible solution to the problem of plastic’s disposal? It is increasingly being revealed to be a poisoning process. Consumer plastic contains a variety of poorly regulated additives – flame retardants, plasticisers, stabilisers – that, were they to be discarded and shipped to developing countries within steel drums, would be considered hazardous forms of toxic waste and therefore an illegal export.
And while you might be forgiven for thinking that the recycling process – washing and shredding those plastics and melting them down – would eliminate these poisons, recycling in fact has the opposite effect: leaching those toxins out and diffusing them throughout newly created plastic, a process known as migration.”
Whereas The Guardian reported that recycling provides no feasible solution especially since “It is increasingly being revealed to be a poisoning process”, other various sources maintain that plastic re-processing is fine but under certain conditions. These sources point out that while recycling acts as a solution, most plastics are not effectively recycled due to contamination, mixed materials, or lack of proper recycling facilities. As a result, most of the plastic waste ends up in landfills or the environment. “Of the seven billion tonnes of plastic waste generated globally so far [to date], less than 10 per cent has been recycled. Millions of tonnes of plastic waste are lost to the environment, or sometimes shipped thousands of kilometres to destinations where it is mostly burned or dumped,” UNEP—United Nations Environment Program clarifies.
Stena Recycling is one of Europe’s leading recycling companies. It provides comprehensive solutions in recycling, reuse, and circular services across a wide range of industries – from manufacturing, retail and engineering to municipal operations, car dismantling and battery recycling. This business manages operations in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Poland, Italy, and the US as well as network of 178 recycling facilities across Europe and more than 3500 employees.
This company collecting and recycling more than 6 million tonnes of complex waste material annually is one of those who indicate that plastic recycling can furnish a solution. It explains it in its article “7 challenges for plastic recycling”. Besides providing clarifications on the challenges, this business also recommends the solutions. It says “Despite their significant value, most end-of-life plastic products are currently incinerated. By understanding the properties of different types of plastic, we can recycle much more than we do today and create a circular economy for this valuable resource.”
Some of these challenges include the lack of knowledge, design for recycling, and correct sorting, among others. Stena Recycling states “The term plastic is, in fact, a collective name for several hundred different kinds of material. Due to lack of knowledge, different types of plastic are often combined in manufacturing processes, which makes recycling them much more difficult. This often leads to plastics being incinerated, which is a major waste of valuable resources.
We have the tools and knowledge to create circular recycling for plastics. From product design to waste sorting and collection, we can keep more plastic in circulation. We can help you with training and by sharing our knowledge. By collaborating on an analysis of your business, we can set goals and create clear action plans.”
As for challenges relating to design for recycling, the company says “A great many products are manufactured in ways that make the plastic content difficult to separate and, therefore, recycle. For example, different plastic types may be combined or other materials, such as glue and metal screws, bonded or fixed to the plastic.
By considering these issues at the design stage, it becomes easier to disassemble products into waste fractions that do not contain residues of other material. This requires specific expertise and knowledge of materials. Stena Recycling can offer both training and guidance so that the plastic content in end-of-life products can be returned into circulation and used to manufacture new products.”
It adds “Plastic is a complex material and each type has unique properties that affect its color, shape, structure and melting point. Therefore, it is important to sort plastic into different categories so that it can be kept as pure as possible. Stena Recycling can help, not only with collection but also with advice about of what to consider when sorting waste.”
Requirements for global action
“There is little assurance that the next INC will succeed where INC-5 did not,” the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), representing local communities affected by plastic pollution, said in a statement. “There is a strong probability that the same petro-state minority will continue their obstructionist tactics and further imperil the plastics treaty process.”
Life In Humanity now asks “How will the treaty be reached, while this treaty will seriously hurt the economy of the oil producing nations including those which are even very powerful such as Russia? Usually, there exist two ways to have any mechanism reached and enforced: consensus or coercion. The other bloc doesn’t wield any power to force these oil producers to accept the treaty. Here, the treaty will only be adopted and enforceable through consensus, since coercion cannot apply or work. The question now is “Will these nations accept?”
The road ahead— can a treaty be enforced or it will never?
Given the entrenched positions of major oil producers—as already said, a binding global treaty can only be realized through consensus rather than coercion. Unlike climate agreements, where financial penalties and trade restrictions can be imposed, no mechanism exists to force nations into compliance on plastic production. The only viable path forward is diplomatic engagement, incentives for economic diversification, and phased transition strategies that mitigate economic shocks to fossil fuel-dependent economies.
The world faces a defining moment in environmental governance: will nations prioritize long-term planetary health over short-term economic gains? Or will plastic pollution continue to spiral out of control, with devastating consequences for ecosystems and human health? The answers actually lie in the intricate balance of global diplomacy, economic interests, and environmental protection urgency.
The possibility of achieving a binding global treaty to end plastic pollution actually faces significant obstacles, particularly in the context of the resistance from powerful oil-producing nations, such as Russia and other members of OPEC—Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. These nations, some of which economies are heavily reliant on the extraction and export of fossil fuels, bear a clear stake in maintaining the status quo when it comes to the production and use of plastic. Raw materials used in plastic production, namely petrochemicals derived from oil and natural gas, form a critical part of the global economy, particularly in these countries. For them, a treaty that would significantly reduce plastic production and usage threatens not just their economic interests but also their geopolitical power which is rooted in the energy market.
In this context, the global community is encountering an essential question: can a treaty be reached, and if so, how? The answer likely lies in the process of consensus-building, as coercion is not a viable option. Powerful nations such as Russia, whose political and economic leverage extends far beyond environmental considerations, would likely reject any attempt at unilateral enforcement of environmental laws that could undermine their economic position. These nations possess veto power in international arenas, and their reluctance to commit to such a treaty would likely stall progress unless a consensus approach is adopted.
A consensus-based treaty would require diplomacy and negotiation at the highest levels. This might include gradual, incremental steps that allow for the phase-out of plastic production, with compensatory mechanisms to assist oil-producing nations in diversifying their economies. Economic incentives, such as the development of alternative industries or technology transfers, could make the transition less painful for these nations, thus ensuring their cooperation. Additionally, the treaty could include provisions that allow for flexibility in meeting targets, giving oil-producing nations time to adjust without feeling that their economic stability is under immediate threat.
However, the practicality of reaching such a consensus remains in question. While the need for a global treaty to address plastic pollution is undeniable, the resistance from powerful oil nations poses a considerable barrier. These countries harbor not only economic concerns but also political interests that might compopund the path to an agreement. The solution to this problem might lie in framing the treaty not just as an environmental necessity but also as an opportunity for global economic transformation—one that could reduce the overall reliance on fossil fuels and create new markets and industries in renewable energy, sustainable materials, and circular economies.
Ultimately, the fate of the treaty will depend on whether the world can strike a delicate balance between environmental goals and economic realities. The question still remains: will oil-producing nations be willing to make the necessary concessions, or will the treaty become yet another unrealized aspiration? As things stand, while the ideal solution would be a comprehensive, binding treaty, there arises a strong possibility that a global agreement may never be fully achieved without substantial shifts in the global political and economic landscape.
Rwanda’s leadership inspires but global cooperation is essential
While the push for a binding global treaty to end plastic pollution stands both urgent and necessary, its success hinges on a complex negotiation process. Oil-producing nations, particularly those with significant economic and geopolitical power, are unlikely to acquiesce without a framework that ensures their interests are considered. The treaty’s future, therefore, may lie not in coercion but in the creation of a shared vision that offers long-term economic benefits alongside environmental sustainability.
According to The Guardina, speaking before the final, critical round of UN talks on the first global treaty to end plastic waste in South Korea, Norway’s Minister for International Development— Anne Beathe Tvinnereim— acknowledged the split that had developed between plastic-producing countries and others. She represents more than 60 “high ambition” nations, led by Rwanda and Norway, who want plastic pollution tackled over its full life cycle.
While a “perfect treaty” may not be possible due to the strength of opposition, mainly from oil-producing countries, she hoped a deal could be reached that could be strengthened over time. “We are not going to land a perfect treaty. But we need to get further. And I think we will. I choose to be hopeful,” Tvinnereim said. “With high-ambition coalition countries, we will continue to demonstrate that there is a big group of countries that sticks to its ambitions. The world desperately needs some leadership now, and some good news.”
In our mentioned article, we have raised the question “Can Rwanda’s efforts against plastic pollution lead the global fight for a pollution-free future?” which remained unanswered in the article. The response to this question is subjective. Some may strongly argue ‘yes,’ while others may firmly say ‘no.’ Life In Humanity‘s position is that while this country’s efforts are commendable and undeniably crucial, they alone cannot suffice to win this battle. Addressing this challenge requires a concerted global effort—one that transcends national interests, fosters meaningful collaboration, and ensures that no nation bears the burden alone. True progress demands an integrated approach, where governments, international organizations, civil society, and individuals work together to create lasting, sustainable solutions. Yet still, Rwanda’s efforts can inspire other nations.