The World vs. Plastic: How the U.S. Rejection of the Global Plastics Treaty Could Shape Our Future

By KV Shan

1. The Global Plastic Dilemma: A Crisis We Can’t Ignore

Plastic — the very material that revolutionized human convenience — has now become one of the most urgent environmental threats in history. It’s in our rivers, oceans, soil, and even our bodies. In fact, microplastics have been detected in human blood, breast milk, and placentas, raising alarm bells about their potential long-term impact on human health.

We produce over 400 million metric tons of plastic each year. Half of it is single-use — items used for mere minutes before becoming waste that will outlive generations. Scientists estimate that by 2050, plastic could outweigh all the fish in the oceans. This isn’t just a problem of waste management — it’s a planetary crisis.

This week, the fight against that crisis reached a pivotal moment. The United States — one of the world’s largest producers and consumers of plastic — formally rejected key proposals in the United Nations’ Global Plastics Treaty negotiations. The move has sent shockwaves through the international community, drawing sharp criticism from environmentalists, policymakers, and vulnerable nations already battling the consequences of plastic pollution.

2. What is the Global Plastics Treaty?

The Global Plastics Treaty is an ambitious, UN-led initiative that aims to create a legally binding global framework to tackle the root causes of plastic pollution. It’s been called the “Paris Agreement for Plastics,” and for good reason: it seeks to unite the world in curbing production, regulating chemical additives, and boosting recycling infrastructure.

The Treaty’s Core Goals:

Limit plastic production to sustainable levels.
Ban or phase out harmful chemical additives that make plastics more durable, flexible, or colorful, but also more toxic.
Promote a circular economy where materials are reused instead of discarded.
Protect oceans, rivers, and ecosystems from further microplastic contamination.
Address human health risks from exposure to toxic substances in plastics.

Since 2022, more than 175 nations have been involved in the negotiations. For many, this treaty represents the last major opportunity to act before plastic pollution spirals out of control.

3. The U.S. Position: Why America Said “No”

In a leaked confidential memo obtained by Reuters, the U.S. outlined its opposition to hard caps on plastic production and chemical additive restrictions. Instead, it favors voluntary measures and national discretion.

U.S. Justifications:

Economic Impact: Production caps could hurt industries employing hundreds of thousands, from petrochemical plants to retail packaging companies.
Innovation Concerns: Strict bans might discourage research into advanced plastics that could be safer or more sustainable.
Sovereignty: The U.S. believes each country should set its own targets rather than adhere to a single global mandate.

However, critics point to the influence of the American petrochemical industry — deeply intertwined with fossil fuel production — as a major factor in the U.S. stance.

The US has been scared to commit to all the major treaties that favors mankind and is concerned only to its own selfish ends.

Here's a glimpse of US' history of backing off from treaties/agreements after initially committing to. A Superpower with great credentials.

Climate & Environmental Agreements

Kyoto Protocol (1997)
Signed under the Clinton administration, the U.S. never ratified the treaty—and effectively withdrew support under President George W. Bush, citing economic concerns and unfair burden-sharing. (Wikipedia)
Paris Agreement (2015)
Signed in 2015, the U.S. formally withdrew under President Trump—effective November 2020. It later rejoined under Biden (2021) but withdrew again via executive order in January 2025. (Wikipedia, Investopedia, TIME, Axios)

Arms Control & Security

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (1987)
The U.S. withdrew in 2019, citing Russian noncompliance. (Al Jazeera, Wikipedia)
Open Skies Treaty (1992)
The U.S. exited in 2020, halting mutual aerial surveillance arrangements. (Al Jazeera)
START II (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II)
Ratified by the U.S., it never came into effect. The U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002 prompted Russia to walk away from START II, nullifying the treaty. (Wikipedia)

Human Rights & Environmental—Signed But Not Ratified

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
Signed in 1980 but still not ratified by the U.S. (Quartz)
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Signed in 1994; ratification has not occurred. (Quartz)
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
Signed in 1995; uniquely, the U.S. remains the only UN member that has not ratified it. (Quartz)
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)
Signed in 1996, but never ratified. (Quartz, Council on Foreign Relations)
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Signed in 1992 but not ratified, due to concerns around sovereignty and IP regulations. (Council on Foreign Relations)
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)
Signed in 2000 by President Clinton, but not ratified; the Bush administration formally renounced intent to do so. (Quartz)

Multilateral Organizations & Other Agreements

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. left or initiated withdrawal from several key international institutions and pacts:

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
Withdrawn in 2017—changed to CPTPP without the U.S. participation. (Hindustan Times, ETV Bharat)
UNESCO
Exited in 2017, citing perceived bias and mismanagement; the U.S. had previously withdrawn under Reagan (1984). (ETV Bharat)
Global Compact for Migration
Left the negotiations in 2017. (ETV Bharat)
Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)
Withdrawn in 2018 under Trump. (Hindustan Times, ETV Bharat)
UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC)
Withdrew in 2018, again citing alleged anti-Israel bias. (ETV Bharat)
UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)
Funding cut and agency exited in 2018. (ETV Bharat)
ILO (International Labour Organization)
The U.S. left in 1977 and rejoined in 1980. (ETV Bharat)

Summary Table

Treaty / Agreement	U.S. Action	Notes
Kyoto Protocol	Signed, not ratified	Never entered into force for U.S.
Paris Agreement	Joined, withdrew (2020), rejoined, withdrew again (2025)	Fluctuating climate commitment.
INF Treaty	Withdrew (2019)	Key arms control treaty ended.
Open Skies Treaty	Withdrew (2020)	Reduced transparency in military activities.
START II	Signed, never entered into force	Cancelled by proxy after ABM Treaty exit.
CEDAW, UNCLOS, CRC, CTBT, CBD, Rome Statute	Signed, not ratified	U.S. holds signature but lacks ratification in each.
TPP, UNESCO, Migration Compact, JCPOA, UNHRC, UNRWA, ILO	Withdrew or exited	Reflects retreat from multilateralism under Trump.

These withdrawals span a broad spectrum—from climate accords and arms reduction to human rights and global institutions. Together, they reflect shifting U.S. approaches to international cooperation over recent decades.

TIME
AP News

4. The Power and Politics of Plastic

The American plastics industry is a multi-billion-dollar powerhouse, led by corporations like ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, and Chevron Phillips Chemical. These companies are global leaders in virgin plastic production and have powerful lobbying arms.

According to OpenSecrets.org, industry groups spent tens of millions of dollars in recent years lobbying U.S. lawmakers. The narrative they promote is that plastics are essential for modern life — from sterile medical devices to food preservation — and that overregulation could do more harm than good.

But environmental experts argue that this framing ignores the reality: the majority of plastics produced are single-use items with readily available alternatives.

5. The Global Reaction: Frustration and Division

The U.S. decision has been met with a mix of disappointment, anger, and renewed determination from other nations.

European Union: Continues to support strict production limits, having already banned several categories of single-use plastics.
Small Island Nations: Countries like Fiji, Palau, and the Maldives, which face devastating impacts from marine plastic pollution, called the U.S. stance “a betrayal of global responsibility.”
Developing Countries: Some are caught in a dilemma — dependent on plastic-based industries for economic growth but burdened by inadequate waste management systems.

Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme, warned:

“Every compromise that weakens this treaty is a compromise on human health, biodiversity, and climate stability.”

6. Why Production Caps Are Critical: The Scientific Case

Many governments focus on waste collection and recycling, but scientists stress that without reducing production, we’re fighting a losing battle.

Key Data Points:

400+ million metric tons produced annually — and rising.
Only 9% of all plastic ever produced has been recycled.
Plastic production is projected to double by 2040 if unchecked.
Microplastics have been detected in seafood, drinking water, and even the air we breathe.

Plastic is also a climate problem. Over 99% of plastics are made from fossil fuels, meaning increased production drives greenhouse gas emissions.

7. The Hidden Costs of Plastic

Plastic’s low sticker price hides a massive bill for society:

Environmental Cleanup: Cities and governments spend billions removing litter from streets, waterways, and coastlines.
Health Impacts: Exposure to certain chemicals in plastics is linked to hormonal disruptions, infertility, cancers, and developmental disorders.
Economic Losses: Industries like fishing and tourism lose revenue due to pollution and degraded ecosystems.

A 2023 OECD study estimated the total annual cost of plastic pollution at $600 billion globally — costs that are often passed on to taxpayers, not manufacturers.

8. Lessons from Other Global Agreements

Environmental history is full of examples showing the power of binding treaties:

Montreal Protocol (1987) successfully phased out CFCs, saving the ozone layer.
Paris Climate Agreement (2015) created a global framework for tackling emissions, though enforcement remains a challenge.

These examples demonstrate that binding limits work when nations commit — but they also show that without participation from major economies, progress slows dramatically.

9. What Happens If the U.S. Doesn’t Join?

Without U.S. support for binding caps:

Global enforcement becomes difficult.
Trade loopholes could allow unrestricted plastic exports/imports.
Other major producers (like China or India) may hesitate to commit fully.
Smaller, more vulnerable nations will continue to face disproportionate harm.

Some analysts fear a repeat of climate negotiations where lack of consensus led to watered-down agreements.

10. Paths Forward: Can the Treaty Survive?

Despite the setback, negotiators are pushing ahead. Potential strategies include:

Building a coalition of willing nations that commit to strict limits regardless of U.S. participation.
Introducing trade penalties on nations producing above agreed levels.
Accelerating material innovation to replace single-use plastics with biodegradable alternatives.

11. What You Can Do Now

While systemic change is essential, individual choices still matter:

Refuse single-use plastics where possible.
Support businesses using sustainable packaging.
Participate in community cleanup drives.
Vote and advocate for leaders who prioritize environmental policies.
Educate friends, family, and networks about the plastic crisis.

12. The World at a Crossroads

The U.S. rejection of the Global Plastics Treaty’s production caps is more than a diplomatic position — it’s a defining moment in the fight for a livable planet.

The truth is simple: every piece of plastic ever made still exists in some form today. It will outlast us, our children, and perhaps our civilizations unless we act decisively now.

The road ahead will be messy, political, and full of compromise. But history shows that when the world unites, even the most entrenched environmental crises can be turned around.

The question is — will we do it in time?

Sources

KV Shan: The Mind & Matter Space

Search This Blog