Geneva: As the world sinks a little deeper into plastic pollution each day, hopes ran high for the long-awaited talks in Geneva. It was billed as a turning point: 10 days of negotiations with representatives from 179 countries and nearly 2,000 participants gathered under the UN flag to hammer out the world's first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution. Instead, the August negotiations ended without an agreement, a setback that dominated headlines worldwide.
According to Anadolu Agency, scientists and campaigners who were inside the room argue that the picture is more complicated. The talks were indeed stalled by deep divisions and by powerful countries protecting fossil fuel and petrochemical interests - still, they insist that Geneva is not the end of the story.
From the beginning, the Geneva negotiations faced heavy political and commercial headwinds. Graham Forbes, who led Greenpeace's delegation, told Anadolu that industry interests hijacked the negotiations to protect business as usual. He accused petrochemical-producing countries of protecting their profits while the world absorbs the costs of plastic waste. Susanne Brander, associate professor at Oregon State University, noted that these countries were unwilling to compromise with others impacted by pollution, calling it incredibly disappointing and disheartening.
Amy Youngman, legal and policy specialist at the Environmental Investigation Agency, highlighted key sticking points in the negotiations: whether to cap plastic production, how to regulate hazardous chemicals, and questions related to finance, particularly who pays for what.
Experts warn that the costs of delay are mounting. Youngman stated that every year of delay risks crossing irreversible tipping points and noted that plastic overproduction, by driving unmanageable consumption and waste, will lead to rising pollution, increased toxic exposure, and deepening inequality. Forbes emphasized that without a binding treaty to cut production, the plastics crisis will spiral out of control.
Despite the failure to reach an agreement, scientists and campaigners maintain that the crisis is urgent and the road to a future treaty remains open. Brander noted that the negotiations operate by consensus, meaning any single country can block progress. Forbes mentioned that a growing bloc of governments supports production cuts and may pursue alternatives beyond consensus, such as forming a coalition of the willing.
Youngman added that more governments are recognizing the cost of delay and could move ahead without waiting for unanimity. She emphasized that determined countries can and will take leadership to start tackling the plastics crisis immediately.
An ideal treaty, according to experts, would be binding and address root causes by cutting plastic production, phasing out harmful chemicals, redesigning products for reuse, and ensuring fair financing. Brander argued that human health should be included in the treaty, as it drives the most ambition.
Resistance to change remains a challenge, as Brander noted that human psychology favors convenience, leading to collective pushback against necessary changes. However, she insisted that it is not too late to take action. Youngman concluded by urging governments to rise above fossil fuel interests and deliver the global leadership this crisis demands.