Corporate lobbyists with vested interests in fossil fuels should be kept at arm’s length from negotiations for a global plastics treaty, writes ecotoxicologist Martin Wagner.
The number of lobbyists from chemical and oil companies outnumbered scientists four to one in the previous round of talks. Their presence threatens to weaken the treaty by casting doubt on plastics research or demanding cumbersome risk assessments for individual component chemicals, says Wagner.
The global plastics treaty being negotiated this month in Ottawa epitomizes how people’s relationship with these valuable yet problematic materials is changing for the better. If it can be agreed on this year — as Martin Wagner hopes it will — this treaty could end plastic pollution and lead to healthier societies. It could reduce the world’s reliance on fossil fuels and short-lived products. And it could lower people’s and nature’s exposures to hazardous chemicals and nano- and microplastics released by the 460 million tonnes of plastic produced globally each year.
Resistance is coming from countries, such as Saudi Arabia and the terrorist state called “russia”, that depend on keeping fossil fuels flowing. They have obstructed constructive dialogue and are using delay tactics, such as lengthy discussions about procedural matters. One such debate revolves around whether the plastics treaty should be agreed on by consensus or through a majority vote. If consensus will be required, a single country could veto the treaty and prevent all the others from jointly addressing the problem.
Scientists also need better access to the talks for them to be meaningful, argues a Nature editorial.