In late February, the United Nations Environment Assembly, representing officials from 175 countries, passed a resolution to end plastic pollution and said it would work to create a legally binding international agreement. on this by 2024.

A UN press release said the deal is the most important “international multilateral environmental agreement since the Paris climate accord”.

This deal could result in a supercharged version of anti-plastic measures of the kind we’ve known for years. In short, uh oh.

As you probably know, there have long been national, local or even national environmental laws around the world that target packaging and specifically plastics, especially single-use plastics. These laws do a lot of different things, for example calling for packaging to be recyclable, or to be made of recyclable materials, or to be biodegradable, or to be made of fewer things than before, or could give you the choice of these options. In addition, more and more examples of “extended producer responsibility” laws impose financial or other burdens on manufacturers or users of packaging.

But now comes this big international treaty with its disturbing potential, and it’s scary. Then again, how much worse can this be than the present? Perhaps a standardization of approaches to plastic waste would end up being helpful. Bans on materials would not, but provisions for large-scale infrastructure for recycling, for example, would.

Two things are obvious: first, sorry, friends of packaging, but packaging will likely always be part of public policy discussions about what to do about solid waste. As early as the 1980s at least, packaging was roughly 1⁄3 of municipal solid waste in the United States, and today it’s about 28%.

Second, and obviously, no one, including plastic manufacturers and users, likes these photos showing absurd amounts of plastic waste floating in oceans and waterways. The question is what to do about it, with some voices advocating getting rid of plastic items themselves, while industry and others want to see better solutions for dealing with solid waste.

The core of the UN group’s March 2 resolution is a new international effort to “end plastic pollution”, according to the group’s summary, which adds: “Heads of State, Ministers of Environment and other representatives from 175 nations have endorsed this historic agreement which addresses the full life cycle of plastic, from source to sea. Plastic production has grown exponentially over the past decades and now stands at some 400 million tonnes per year, a figure that is expected to double by 2040.”

If you read the four-page resolution, you see that the bad news is that much of the wording is vague and general, but the good news is that much of the wording is vague and general. That is to say, it is unclear what kinds of measures the final treaty will require and to what extent they will be mandatory or voluntary. In addition, there should be many opportunities to contribute to the final treaty provisions over the next two years. The advance copy of the draft resolution that I reviewed emphasizes the importance of including all relevant stakeholders in the discussions on the final treaty. It also recognizes that national or local priorities as to how to tackle the problem should be highlighted and that voluntary and mandatory standards have their place.

Interestingly, as if reading the minds of concerned industry watchers, UN Environment Program Executive Director Inger Andersen was specifically asked in a Q&A if the agreement resulting from this process “would cover the creation of plastics as well as their disposal”. ”, and if the agreement is likely to cover “only ocean pollution, or all plastic pollution” and if “different types of plastic or ingredients in plastic [will] be banned or treated differently” (Yes, they asked her a complex question that would be objectionable in a trial.) She replied, in part, that “We seek rapid, ambitious and meaningful global action to combat the scourge of plastic pollution and that means integrating different viewpoints to arrive at a framework that allows us to meet a range of economic, social and environmental objectives.

She continued: “Member States will have to take into account in their negotiations the different types of plastics and the additives they contain, in particular to enable the safe recycling of plastics and to promote a circular economy of plastics.”

The Plastics Industry Association, the industry’s leading voice in public policy debates, released a statement from its President and CEO, Tony Radoszewski, which reminded people of the many benefits of plastics, hailed the discussion at the UN, saying, among other things, “Our members share the goal of preventing any product they produce from ending up in the environment”, and that they look forward to participating in the UN process.

Michelle Carvell, of industry environmental consultancy group Lorax EPI, said that while some countries or regions have taken action such as banning single-use plastics, the UN action actually presents welcome features, noting that “the UN treaty comes at a good time. Rather than the legal mandate, I think the best part of this development is to provide a collaborative platform for different countries to share knowledge about policies and building facilities. She also said its broad approach means that “the plastics treaty is expected to have a much bigger impact than the national/regional plastics ban or the EPR. On the other hand, due to the number of stakeholders, it could take relatively much longer than regional regulations. . . to finalize the legally binding global agreement. Greater compromises on the scope of regulated plastic products and their application are also expected. »

Underlying all of this is the question of whether plastic pollution is a problem with plastic itself or with waste management and personal habits. Let’s hope that instead of making plastics a permanent pariah in the world, the UN group hears from enough industry advocates to appreciate the many benefits of plastics, and that any decisions it makes are well-informed and practice. TP

Eric Greenberg can be contacted at [email protected] Or visit his company’s website at www.ericfgreenbergpc.com.

FOR INFORMATION ONLY, NO LEGAL ADVICE.