Geneva Deadlock: How Big Oil Blocked a Global Plastics Treaty—Explained

For ten tense days this August, Geneva hosted what was expected to be the final push toward a landmark Global Plastics Treaty. Instead, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2, August 5–15, 2025), with delegates from 183 countries, ended in deadlock: no draft treaty, no timeline for resumption, and—most troubling of all—no shared vision for addressing one of the planet’s most urgent environmental crises.

This failure is not just a procedural setback; it is a stark warning. Plastic pollution is surging unchecked, with annual production now exceeding 460 million tons and projected to nearly triple to 1.2 billion tons by 2060 (OECD). Only 9% of that plastic is ever recycled. The rest is landfilled, incinerated, or leaks into soils, rivers, and oceans—adding to the 20 million tons of plastics already spilling into the environment each year. Geneva’s collapse entrenches a dangerous status quo.

Politics, Not Technology, Sank the Talks

The negotiations fractured along a familiar geopolitical divide. A high-ambition coalition—led by small island states, EU members, and several African and Latin American countries—pressed for binding lifecycle controls: production caps, chemical phase-outs, and extended producer responsibility.

On the other side, a petrochemical bloc—anchored by the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the UAE—insisted the treaty focus narrowly on downstream “solutions” such as advanced recycling, rejecting any mention of production caps. The US in particular reversed earlier signals of openness to limits and demanded the removal of “full lifecycle” provisions from draft texts. With decisions requiring consensus, the least ambitious position became the ceiling.

The outcome illustrates a broader reality: plastics are not just a waste issue; they are central to the fossil fuel industry’s survival strategy. As transport electrifies, petrochemical expansion has become the hedge. Every new plastic production plant locks in emissions and waste for decades.

Why “No Deal” Is Better Than a Weak Deal

It is tempting to view Geneva’s breakdown as failure. But many civil society groups argue the opposite: that no treaty is better than a weak treaty.

A deal without production limits would have legitimised “mop faster” strategies—chasing runaway plastic waste with underfunded recycling programs. The numbers make clear how futile that would be: even with ambitious improvements, global recycling rates are projected to reach only 17% by 2060. Without upstream limits, downstream fixes amount to running on a treadmill.

Equally troubling was the refusal to tackle hazardous chemicals in plastics, including endocrine disruptors and carcinogens. These additives move from packaging into food, workplaces, and ecosystems—creating long-term health risks for vulnerable communities.

Finally, the talks stalled on finance. Wealthier nations offered vague promises but no predictable funding for waste infrastructure, monitoring, or design transitions. For developing countries, already spending billions annually managing waste, new obligations without financial backing were untenable.

Climate, Health and Justice at Stake

Plastics are now responsible for about 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and that share could rise to 15% by 2050 if production continues unchecked. The climate stakes are enormous.

The justice dimensions are equally stark. The profits from petrochemicals accrue to a few corporations and producer states, while the costs—polluted air, poisoned water, mounting waste management bills—are borne by frontline communities, informal recyclers, and coastal cities. In India, municipal budgets already strain under mounting solid waste challenges; unchecked plastic growth will overwhelm systems further.

Microplastics, now found in human blood, lungs, and placentas, underline the scale of the health risk. This is not a distant problem—it is here, in our food, water, and bodies.

Consensus as Obstruction

The Geneva stalemate also exposes a structural flaw: consensus decision-making. While seemingly collegial, it grants a veto to the least ambitious players. Observers have called for alternatives—allowing votes, shifting the mandate under existing conventions like Basel, or moving forward with a “coalition of the willing”.

If multilateralism cannot deliver, plurilateral “high-ambition clubs” must take the lead—setting strong rules and using trade and procurement leverage to drive compliance.

Pathways Forward

With the grand bargain stalled, momentum must shift elsewhere. Several concrete pathways exist:

1. High-Ambition Clubs with Trade Teeth: Regional blocs such as the EU, CARICOM, or African Union can adopt binding plastics regimes, using border adjustments and procurement standards to globalise their impact.

2. Mandatory Design and Chemical Standards: Even without global caps, countries can ban toxic additives, mandate reuse/refill performance, and require recycled content—policies with proven market impact.

3. Zero Pellet Loss Enforcement: Preventing “nurdle” spills in transport and production is a low-cost, high-impact intervention that can be enforced immediately.

4. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) with Teeth: Fees indexed to hazard and design can ensure producers—not taxpayers—fund waste systems and reuse infrastructure.

5. Litigation and Financial Disclosure: Courts and regulators should treat plastics as a material financial risk. As with tobacco and opioids, litigation could reshape corporate behavior and investor risk calculations.

What governments and businesses should do tomorrow:

• Governments should stop waiting for perfect multilateralism. Announce national caps on virgin resin use in packaging and textiles; legislate additive phase-outs; and align customs codes to track polymer and additive flows. Join or build a high-ambition plastics club with mutual recognition of standards and border adjustments.

• Cities and utilities should demand EPR statutes with fee differentiation by design and hazard, ensure reuse/refill pilots scale beyond boutique settings, and tie procurement to club-level standards.

• Brands and retailers should place real orders for reuse/refill systems and redesign away from needless plastics, not just “recyclable” labels. If your business model relies on rising tonnage of cheap polymer, you are not “transition-ready.”

• Finance should treat perpetual polymer growth as a red flag. Petrochemical expansion presumes policy failure; prudent capital should price the odds of policy—and litigation—catching up.

Beyond Incrementalism

The collapse in Geneva was not a failure of imagination or technical feasibility. It was a failure of political courage. Producer countries defended a fossil-to-plastic growth model incompatible with climate goals, health protection, and fiscal responsibility.

Yet, paradoxically, the collapse also brings clarity. The illusion of a near-term global grand bargain is gone. What remains is an opportunity for bold leadership—by coalitions of willing nations, by cities and businesses, and by communities demanding justice.

The true test of progress will be simple and measurable:

• Declining virgin plastic production.

• Rapid phase-outs of hazardous additives.

• Real scaling of reuse and refill.

• Near-zero pellet loss.

• Producer-financed waste systems.

Anything less is rearranging deck chairs on a sinking polymer ship.

(The author is Head of Think Tank, Mobius Foundation.)