Brad Reed
Aug 13, 2025
“The process has been completely captured by swarms of fossil fuel lobbyists and shamefully weaponized by low-ambition countries,” said the CEO of the Environmental Justice Foundation.
Multiple nations, as well as climate and environmental activists, are expressing dismay at the current state of a potential treaty to curb global plastics pollution.
As The Associated Press reported on Wednesday, negotiators of the treaty are discussing a new draft that would contain no restrictions on plastic production or on the chemicals used in plastics. This draft would adopt the approach favored by many big oil-producing nations who have argued against limits on plastic production and have instead pushed for measures such as better design, recycling, and reuse.
This new draft drew the ire of several nations in Europe, Africa, and Latin America, who all said that it was too weak in addressing the real harms being done by plastic pollution.
“Let me be clear—this is not acceptable for future generations,” said Erin Silsbe, the representative for Canada.
According to a report from Health Policy Watch, Panama delegate Juan Carlos Monterrey got a round of applause from several other delegates in the room when he angrily denounced the new draft.
“Our red lines, and the red lines of the majority of countries represented in this room, were not only expunged, they were spat on, and they were burned,” he fumed.
Several advocacy organizations were even more scathing in their assessments.
Eirik Lindebjerg, the global plastics policy adviser for WWF, bluntly said that “this is not a treaty” but rather “a devastating blow to everyone here and all those around the world suffering day in and day out as a result of plastic pollution.”
“It lacks the bare minimum of measures and accountability to actually be effective, with no binding global bans on harmful products and chemicals and no way for it to be strengthened over time,” Lindebjerg continued. “What’s more it does nothing to reflect the ambition and demands of the majority of people both within and outside the room. This is not what people came to Geneva for. After three years of negotiations, this is deeply concerning.”
Steve Trent, the CEO and founder of the Environmental Justice Foundation, declared the new draft “nothing short of a betrayal” and encouraged delegates from around the world to roundly reject it.
“The process has been completely captured by swarms of fossil fuel lobbyists and shamefully weaponized by low-ambition countries,” he said. “The failure now risks being total, with the text actively backsliding rather than improving.”
According to the Center for International Environmental Law, at least 234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered for the talks in Switzerland, meaning they “outnumber the combined diplomatic delegations of all 27 European Union nations and the E.U.”
Nicholas Mallos, vice president of Ocean Conservancy’s ocean plastics program, similarly called the new draft “unacceptable” and singled out that the latest text scrubbed references to abandoned or discarded plastic fishing gear, commonly referred to as “ghost gear,” which he described as “the deadliest form of plastic pollution to marine life.”
“The science is clear: To reduce plastic pollution, we must make and use less plastic to begin with, so a treaty without reduction is a failed treaty,” Mallos emphasized.
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.
