BEN Kritz, my fellow Manila Times columnist, in his November 9 column titled “Plastic ‘solutions’: Worse than doing nothing at all?” laid out some of the reasons why we shouldn’t set our expectations for a meaningful Global Plastics Treaty too high. Kritz used the Philippines’ Republic Act 11898 of 2022, or the “Extended Producer Responsibility Act,” as an example of environmental legislation that, tragically, fails to address the problem that it was passed to solve. He summarized the law’s defects in four points: the government isn’t really committed, the law doesn’t address plastic production at all, there are too many exceptions, and so-called solutions create their own new, maybe worse, sets of problems.

Like my colleague, I am also pessimistic that the third session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-3) will produce tangible results. The session officially kicks off today at the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. The second session, held in Paris on May 29 to June 2, didn’t bring about much progress — though on September 4, a “zero draft text of the international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment,” was released by INC Chairman Gustavo Adolfo Meza-Cuadra Velasquez, Peru’s ambassador to the United States. Lots of blanks still have to be filled, especially on the more contentious — and most crucial aspects of a future global plastics treaty.

Basically, civil society organizations are pushing for an ambitious and meaningful treaty that will substantially push back on plastic production and take out the most toxic of the “Thousands of chemicals … found in plastics” (submission by Asia-Pacific civil society organizations).

The oil industry and allied governments are among those pulling the other way. In its submission, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) states that the “overall and the initial objective of the process is to combat plastic ‘pollution’. Overstretching the scope and its coverage can only override the initial mandate given by the UNEA resolution” (United Nations Environment Assembly resolution 5/14 passed in March 2022). But note that said resolution actually says that plastic pollution must be tackled “through a full-life-cycle approach.”

OPEC’s stand emanates from the fact that plastics are made from petrochemicals. However, beyond this, the organization does raise points that are grounded in reality, such as, “In addition to environmental parameters, a cost comparison is crucial, especially for developing countries.” At the end of the day, an ambitious treaty may amount to little if countries are too poor and have no resources to help affected sectors and put in place the needed infrastructure.

The good news is that there are governments that want more than just to redirect plastic waste. The High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution counts about 60 countries in Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, and North and South America. The coalition issued a statement in time for INC-3 wherein the member countries reaffirmed their “shared commitment to end plastic pollution by 2040,” and reaffirmed their “call for the establishment of an ambitious and effective treaty to protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastics.” The coalition also expressed its “deep concern about projections of a continued and significant scaling up of plastic production, a near doubling of mismanaged plastics, and a more than 60-percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 from the plastic system in the absence of new and effective global measures.” The legally binding instrument or treaty that the coalition is working for must ensure “urgent action and effective interventions along the full life cycle of plastics.”

In all the gloom and doom of our times it is inspiring to know that at least some national governments want more than just business as usual or status quo. I’m hopeful that this means that whatever the outcome of the negotiations, these countries will push forward with national and regional initiatives to address plastic pollution as a problem of consumption and production, rather than a mere pollution or waste management problem.

The Philippines is not only not a member of the High Ambition Coalition. It appears not to be ambitious at all; it seems more interested in promoting “plastic-credits” and, as we read in Ben Kritz’s column, the dubious use of plastic waste as alternative fuel, used for instance in cement kilns. This is an “easy” solution because it means that it’s going to be business as usual, we can continue to mindlessly consume and produce an ever-increasing volume of singleuse plastics. Single-use plastics that “represent nearly 40 percent of annual plastics production,” as international nongovernmental organization Ocean Conservancy points out in its submission.

Single-use plastics are everywhere, they grow on us in our fastpaced, modern way of life. But it’s time to kick the deadly addiction and to reject toxic recycling.