Genuinely, why do we still struggle to understand plastics?

The material has been around for over 100 years; yet, what is good, what is not, and what should never enter our homes, let alone our lives, is still not clear.

In August (5–15th, 2025) negotiators meet in Geneva for the resumed fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2), tasked with finalising a Global Plastics Treaty. After nearly two weeks of late nights, walkouts, and endless bracketed text, the talks ended without agreement, and with no clear path forward. The chair’s revised text sits on the table, but delegations could not bridge the divide, leaving the process stranded.

At the same time, the evidence continues to pile up. In the UK, the Big Plastic Count confirmed again what households know all too well: we are still throwing away billions of plastic items each week, with little clarity about what’s genuinely recyclable.

The cat is out of the bag. We know we have a plastics problem. But we still don’t have an agreed approach or even a shared understanding of the depth of the problem.

And before some of you leap in to defend plastics — I agree! Plastic has been the cornerstone of modern convenience, of medicine, of mobility. But that very convenience comes at a cost. Its pervasive presence carries profound environmental and health risks that are no longer deniable.

The root problem

Plastic is not a single thing. It is a family of thousands of materials, each with its own chemistry, lifecycle, and impacts. From PET drinks bottles to flexible films and medical devices, it permeates every aspect of our lives. But that diversity makes regulation complex — and makes pollution harder to control.

We already know the consequences. Oceans choked with discarded waste. Rivers clogged with packaging. Microplastics, and now nanoplastics, found in our food, our blood, and even in unborn children. Emerging science is linking exposures to fertility challenges, developmental effects, and perhaps even cognitive health.

And beyond pollution lies production itself — with its greenhouse gas emissions, resource extraction, and the inequitable waste burdens borne by communities least responsible for the problem.

Why INC-5.2 collapsed

The Geneva talks broke down for one simple reason: two visions of the treaty remain irreconcilable, too far apart, or at least for now.

On one side: more than 100 countries, scientists, cities, and progressive businesses pushing for a full lifecycle approach, including limits on plastic production, bans on the most hazardous polymers and additives, and strong product standards.

On the other: a bloc of oil and petrochemical producers favouring a nationally determined, downstream approach, focused on waste management and recycling and firmly rejecting production caps.

That split of upstream limits vs downstream management has haunted the treaty process from the start. In Geneva, it hardened. And without a compromise, INC-5.2 adjourned with no date set to reconvene.

Which begs the question, should those with vested interests in the status quo be left out of the next stage solution, or should those holding the line realize that compromise is the start point for negotiated progress.

What is true, is that while we wait, and fail to find an approach forward. The problem gets exponentially worse.

Can UNEA pick up the pieces?

The next real opportunity sits in Nairobi this December, when UNEA-7 meets. UNEA is the world’s highest environmental decision-making body, and unlike the INC, it can adopt resolutions even without consensus.

That matters. UNEA-7 could:

· Extend and clarify the INC’s mandate.

· Authorise intersessional work to hammer out the most technical elements.

· Appoint facilitators to streamline the text.

· Crucially, set a clear deadline for reconvening negotiations in 2026.

Is this likely? Politically, moderately so. Member States need to show progress, and UNEA offers a platform to revive the process. But UNEA won’t settle the substance, it can only keep the momentum, restart the current process.

Will we get an agreement at all?

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: the chances of a treaty that truly caps plastic production are slim in the short term. What’s more likely is a “framework-lite” deal: one with global rules on product design, chemicals, and extended producer responsibility, but no binding production limits. That’s still progress, but it risks falling short of what the science demands. However, “is that better than nothing”, I hear you cry. Well of course it is, because right now we run the risk of kicking the can, and being (intentionally) distracted until the conversation just becomes an aspiration with no change.

A stronger outcome, which must include upstream guardrails on production, would require a grand bargain: finance, transition support, and flexibility for producer economies, in exchange for accepting caps or phase-downs. That’s not impossible, but today it feels unlikely.

And the alternative? If the UN fails, expect a patchwork of regional rules, trade measures, and private standards to fill the gap. Leading to something less elegant, but inevitable. And without the large Petro-state producers (and consumers) would it be worth it?

So what now?

We cannot recycle our way out of this. We cannot rely on voluntary commitments or endless pilot projects. The science is clear, the costs are mounting, and the window is narrowing.

As governments prepare for UNEA-7, they must show the courage to reset the talks. Businesses must align with the high-ambition coalition and prepare for a world where chemicals transparency, reuse, and design rules are non-negotiable. And citizens must keep pressure on leaders to act.

Because if the Global Plastics Treaty fails, it will not be because solutions do not exist, or indeed the science is theoretical or patchy, because it is not, but because politics could not rise to the challenge, our leaders didn’t lead, and the financial vested needs of the many out weighted doing the right thing for every heartbeat on the planet.

So, as our leaders head to Nairobi, let us hope they summon the foresight to look beyond short-term profits and lobbying power, and choose instead to write the rules of a safer, healthier future.