Skip to content Skip to footer

US Finally Agrees to Back Limits on Plastic Production. Here’s Why That Matters.

International caps on plastic production are key to ending “waste colonialism.”

Residents on boats collect recyclable plastics from the heavily polluted Citarum River in Batujajar, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia, on June 12, 2024.

Plastic waste is pummeling the South Pacific, polluting coral reefs and lagoons, washing up in tons on sandy shores and accumulating in a giant mass in the ocean. Ocean currents put Pacific Island nations at the front lines of the global plastic pollution crisis, even though the islands’ 2.3 million inhabitants contribute less than 1.3 percent of the world’s plastic waste. In just five years, experts predict that up to 53 million tons of plastic pollution will impact the lives of Pacific Islanders annually.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly agreed to begin negotiating a legally binding treaty between 175 countries that will determine how the world deals with such plastic pollution. The fifth and final negotiating session is now set to start in late November this year. Recognizing the scope and severity of the crisis, delegates for the 14 Pacific Island countries have been at the forefront of the international plastic treaty talks, advocating for strict limits on plastic production and the need to set tangible goals for waste management.

Other countries, including Rwanda, Peru and European Union nations, have also pushed for ambitious goals and plastic production caps. But the United States, alongside oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia and China, has historically opposed these proposals. The oil and gas industry wants delegates to carve out a treaty that focuses on things like plastic tracking and recycling rather than decreasing production — even though, for decades, plastics companies knew that recycling was an overwhelming failure.

But in August, in what could be a major breakthrough for the future of the planet, President Joe Biden’s administration indicated it would support plastic production limits and increased controls on the toxic chemicals that are used in the plastic production process.

Environmental groups praised the announcement, while industry groups like the American Chemistry Council — which has spent nearly $10 million in lobbying efforts so far this year — lambasted the administration for “caving” to environmentalists’ wishes and “betray[ing] U.S. manufacturing.”

While the Biden administration’s announcement gained little attention in a crowded news cycle, this shift in approach carries urgent importance. Less than 10 percent of plastic waste is currently recycled globally; the rest winds up dumped or incinerated, harming communities and polluting the Earth. If the years of negotiations yield a treaty that focuses on recycling — not production caps — as a solution to the crisis, then the world will be digging itself into an even deeper plastic pollution hole. And it would take a huge amount of additional international coordination to climb back out.

Plastic, which is derived from fossil fuels, is toxic throughout every stage of its life cycle, from production to disposal. The extraction and refinement of fossil fuels for plastic production emits hundreds of millions of metric tons of greenhouse gases each year, heating up the atmosphere and fueling the climate crisis. Research from the Center for International Environmental Law emphasized that the global plastics treaty needs “to incorporate ambitious obligations that specifically target global plastic production” if we are going to keep global warming below the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold.

Plastics also contain a slew of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals, which are released during production at facilities that, in the United States, are often placed in low-income communities and communities of color. In January, a report by Amnesty International found that the Houston Ship Channel — a major hub for fossil fuels in the United States — is a racial “sacrifice zone,” where an immense and disproportionate burden of pollution is placed on people of color by fossil fuel companies. The report noted that the scale of harmful pollution amounts to a human rights violation.

At the end of plastics’ life cycle, wealthy nations, including the United States and the United Kingdom, frequently export their waste to poorer nations in a phenomenon that has been dubbed “waste colonialism.” Often, these countries have fewer resources to manage and tame the vast amounts of trash than the rich countries that are sending it. The term was coined as far back as 1989, when several African nations expressed concerns at the United Nations Environmental Program Basel Convention that wealthy countries were using countries in Africa as dumping grounds for hazardous waste.

Nevertheless, plastics and discarded electronic devices, known as e-waste, are increasingly piling up in toxic landfills across the Global South. In Kenya, waste pickers earn a living by scavenging these e-waste dumps for metal scraps, a hazardous process that leaves them vulnerable to infections, cancer and lung diseases. According to the UN Environmental Assembly, it is waste pickers like these — people in poverty lacking health or labor protections — who are responsible for recycling 60 percent of the world’s plastic waste.

After China banned plastic imports in 2018, waste streams began flowing to Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam — though these countries have announced plans to ban imports in the near future too, diverting it to places like Myanmar. An investigation by Lighthouse Reports released in January found that low-income communities in Myanmar are suffering from the influx of plastic, which is shipped from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany.

“There is no making this better; there is no responsible plastic waste export,” Jan Dell, a plastic waste expert and independent chemical engineer, told Lighthouse Reports.

It is clear that 1989, or sooner, was the best time to enact ambitious, meaningful plastic production caps. The second-best time is today. The United States has taken a major step forward in this goal, and by breaking from its previous stance, the U.S. can hopefully pressure other powerful countries to do the same. Still, it is unclear what the outcome of the talks will be in December, or whether the Biden administration will make good on its word. Meanwhile, as UN delegates have convened to hammer out the global agreement, plastic production has continued to increase. It’s now at 460 million tons per year — an exorbitant amount of waste that will overwhelmingly impact communities in the Global South, who have spent years trying to stymie the flow.

Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn

Dear Truthout Community,

If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.

We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.

Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.

There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.

After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?

It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.

We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.

We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.

Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment. We’re presently working to find 1500 new monthly donors to Truthout before the end of the year.

We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.

With love, rage, and solidarity,

Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy