A treaty to end plastic pollution is still out of reach — that's not necessarily a bad thing
This is not necessarily a bad thing. Delegates have missed their 2024 deadline, which was extended to this round of talks. But no deal is better than a bad deal, environmental advocates say. The big schism was over whether the treaty should phase out the use of hazardous chemicals in manufacturing and set limits to how much plastic is actually produced. Countries where plastics and fossil fuels are big business — including the US and Russia — would rather just focus on managing and recycling waste, leading to the deadlock.
'We need to address unhinged plastic production.'
'We need to address unhinged plastic production,' Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, a delegate from Panama, said during a Thursday press conference before negotiations came to a close. 'We're not here to simply get to a deal. We are here to end plastic pollution.'
Plastic production has exploded since the 1950s, reaching 475 metric megatons a year by 2022. That's the year that United Nations member states committed to developing a legally-binding agreement on plastic pollution.
Plastics are made with fossil fuels and more than 16,000 different chemicals that leach into the environment and wind up in our air and our bodies; that's why health advocates are calling on policymakers to pump the brakes.
The industry has also been facing increasing heat for peddling recycling as a solution. California filed suit against ExxonMobil last year over what it calls a 'campaign of deception' about plastic recycling. It's estimated that less than 10 percent of plastic waste has ever been recycled. The material is difficult and costly to rehash, and even products made with recycled plastic typically still need to be reinforced with freshly-made plastic.
Recycling, as a result, can fuel more production, says Mohamed Kamal, a waste management expert and executive director of the Egypt-based foundation Greenish who attended the talks in Geneva. 'Recycling is a reaction to the generation of waste. It is not a preventive method,' Kamal tells The Verge. 'You would want to prevent yourself from getting injured. You wouldn't want to get injured and then react every time.'
A 'high ambition coalition' of more than 70 nations, led by Norway and Rwanda, wants to go farther by addressing the entire lifecycle of the material, including restraining plastic production. Details on the next round of negotiations haven't been decided yet, but they could take place later this year or next year.
'I feel more emotional than I have in the previous negotiations,' says Jo Banner, who co-founded the nonprofit The Descendants Project with her sister and has attended all of the plastics treaty negotiations to advocate for their community in Louisiana. It's been nicknamed 'cancer alley' since it's considered a 'frontline' community to the problem. There are around 200 industrial plants in the area connected to petrochemical and plastics production. Air pollution in Louisiana has been linked to higher cancer rates, particularly in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of Black residents and with higher poverty rates. A treaty that doesn't pay any attention to the health risks caused by plastic production wouldn't begin to help her community heal, Banner says.
'We are willing to go without [a treaty] than to have something that will continue to harm us,' she says. 'I know it may seem like, in many ways, it is a failure. But ultimately … people from the frontline have been able to be on a global stage intervening for their communities.'
Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All by Justine Calma
Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All Climate
Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All Environment
Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All Health
Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All News
Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All Policy
Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.
See All Science
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
10 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
ICE Turns to Disaster-Relief Firms to Build Detention Camps
With $45 billion earmarked for the Trump administration's expansion of immigration detention, dozens of companies are gunning for contracts to build the sprawling tent camps at the center of the White House's strategy. Some are prison operators that the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement typically works with; many are firms with no detention experience. Their appeal: They can build things fast. Several specialize in building tents for disaster-relief operations, including the Virginia-based company recently awarded $1.26 billion to construct the largest facility in the US. The administration's reliance on makeshift tent camps is drawing concerns about abuse, mismanagement and corruption. Human-rights groups and lawyers for detainees have already alleged inhumane conditions at 'Alligator Alcatraz' in the Florida Everglades, which the state denies. Read more from Rachel Adams-Heard, Sophie Alexander and Fola Akinnibi today on Businessweek: Companies With No Detention Experience Want to Run Trump's ICE Camps
Bloomberg
40 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US Hits Greek Shipper in Expansion of Iran Max-Pressure Campaign
The US Treasury Department sanctioned a Greek shipper it said facilitated the transport of Iranian oil, broadening the Trump administration's maximum-pressure campaign against Tehran and a crackdown on its so-called shadow fleet. Antonios Margaritis was designated along with a web of companies overseen by him in Greece and the Marshall Islands. The move comes weeks after US Treasury's biggest Iran sanctions action in seven years, which targeted a network overseen by oil tycoon Hossein Shamkhani, whose father is a senior adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
WIRED
40 minutes ago
- WIRED
Trump Is Betting Big on Intel. Will the Chips Fall His Way?
Aug 21, 2025 1:04 PM The Trump administration is aiming to take an equity stake in Intel, according to US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick. Experts say the unconventional deal could backfire. Photograph: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Getty Images The US government is aiming to take an equity stake in Intel in exchange for grants the company was already committed to receive under the Biden era CHIPS Act, according to comments US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick made in an interview with CNBC. The move is part of the government's efforts to boost US chip manufacturing. 'We should get an equity stake for our money, so we'll deliver the money which was already committed under the Biden administration,' Lutnick said. 'We'll get equity in return for it.' Previously, the government was discussing taking a 10 percent stake in Intel, according to the New York Times . The deal could help the venerable chipmaker fund its US-based semiconductor fabrication plants, or fabs, which have required billions of dollars to construct and maintain, even as demand for Intel chips has waned in recent years. Some chip industry experts and members of the Trump administration say that keeping Intel afloat is essential to US national security, because it lessens the country's reliance on chipmakers overseas. But analysts and one notable economist say a potential tie-up between Intel and the US government could present a conflict of interest, and may not result in the kind of domestic chip-making industry the administration is angling for. 'It's not the right policy to have the US government own things, to have privatization in reverse,' says Stephen Moore, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a former senior economic advisor to Trump's 2016 campaign. 'That's similar to Europe's industrial model, and we haven't done that often here in the US because a lot of it ends up failing.' Government Intervention The US government has some history of investing in the private sector. Moore cites a 1980s program called the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, a federally-directed multibillion dollar investment in companies producing liquid fuels from coal, oil shale, and tar sands. It was hailed by President Jimmy Carter as 'the cornerstone of our energy policy,' and had fallen apart by 1986. Then, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the US government stepped in with multibillion dollar bailouts to stop US automakers and some banks from going under. Those funds were issued either through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, in which the US Treasury Department bought up or guaranteed toxic assets, or in the form of bridge loans. Many were eventually repaid. More recently, the Department of Defense agreed to fund a US-based rare earth magnet company, MP Materials, via equity and loans, in order to expand production and decrease the country's reliance on China. The deal would in theory give MP Materials the capital to increase its manufacturing capacity from 3,000 to 10,000 metric tons. Moore says the ideal scenario is that these arrangements between the government and private industry have an endpoint. 'It should be an agreement to own a short-term stake, and then divest,' he says. But the current Trump administration has been taking some of these public-private business dealings a step further: In June, the administration approved a partnership between Japanese steel company Nippon Steel and Pittsburgh-based US Steel, dependent on a national security agreement and a so-called 'golden share' provision. The government insisted that it have a say in US Steel's company decisions, including board appointees and future relocation plans. (This deal was also designed to help the US compete with China on steel production.) Lutnick told CNBC that, in the case of Intel, the Trump administration would not get a voting stake or a say in the company's operations. 'Intel is deeply committed to supporting President Trump's efforts to strengthen US technology and manufacturing leadership,' Intel spokesperson Cory Pforzheimer said in a statement to WIRED. 'We look forward to continuing our work with the Trump Administration to advance these shared priorities, but we are not going to comment on rumors or speculation.' The US Department of Commerce did not respond to questions from WIRED prior to publication. Political Theater Patrick Moorhead, a longtime semiconductor industry analyst and CEO of the research firm Moor Insights & Strategy, says the deal could benefit Intel in the short term. 'It means Intel gets its cash without a bunch of strings attached,' he says. So far, the company has received $2.2 billion of up to the $7.86 billion it was granted through the 2022 CHIPS Act— $1.1 billion in the first quarter of 2024 and another $1.1 billion in January 2025. But these grants are tied to milestones around fabrication construction and output; if Intel doesn't reach its goals, it doesn't receive CHIPS Act funding. The company has also far outspent the $2.2 billion of grant payments in fab construction and research and development over the same time period. Intel is currently valued at $101 billion, a steep decline from its heyday in the early 2000s. Earlier this week, Softbank announced it's buying roughly $2 billion worth of Intel shares, which briefly boosted the chip firm's stock price. Intel went through a major shakeup in executive leadership this year. In December 2024, Intel announced the retirement of CEO Pat Gelsinger, a chip industry veteran, after he struggled to turn around the company's fortunes. Lip-Bu Tan, the longtime previous CEO of the electronics design firm Cadence Design Systems, succeeded Gelsinger as chief executive. Insiders describe Gelsinger's tenure as an expensive one, in which the company invested heavily in building cutting edge technology and fabs. Over the last five years, Intel invested $107.5 billion in capital expenditures and $78.8 billion in R&D expenditures, the vast majority of which were dedicated to expanding its US manufacturing capacity. Tan, in contrast, is more measured, and has told employees that Intel's investment in its newest chip node will be based on 'confirmed customer commitments,' adding that 'there are no more blank checks.' Since he took over, Intel announced it was cancelling plans for chip-making plants in Germany and Poland and slowing down construction of an Ohio fab. Intel also plans to lay off 15 percent of its workforce this year. Tan got caught in the crosshairs of the Trump administration earlier this month: In reaction to a letter from Arkansas senator Tom Cotton flagging Tan's ties to investments that reportedly have links to the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Trump called on the CEO to resign from Intel. Less than a week later Trump met with Tan and began praising the CEO. Moorhead believes that it's essential for the US to support Intel so that the country has a thriving domestic chipmaker with research and development teams in close proximity to its fabs. He points out that even as TSMC builds out its US fab in Arizona, its research and development efforts still happen in Taiwan, and its top manufacturing engineers are kept close to home. For this reason and others, Moorhead says, even if the US government begins funneling money into US semiconductors, it might lag behind in staffing domestic fabs with top talent. Many questions remain: whether the deal with Intel will actually go through, if the administration plans to convert existing CHIPS Act grants to Intel into an equity investment or invest some other way, and whether the US government might try to coerce tech companies into buying more Intel chips. Money from Softbank and the US government might help Intel's balance sheet in the short term, but the company still needs to secure big customers. Until some of those questions are answered, Moorhead says, this proposed investment doesn't accomplish much. 'It's more political theater than anything else,' he explains. 'I think what it accomplishes is it gives the Trump administration the ability to say, 'What Biden did was a giveaway, and I'm making deals,'' he adds.
