At the UN plastic pollution treaty talks in Geneva, delegates must push for a strong global agreement to protect future generations, according to leading marine pollution expert Professor Richard Thompson.
Named one of Time’s 100 most influential people this year for his pioneering work on plastic pollution, Thompson stressed the urgent need for bold action to safeguard human health and the environment.
Negotiators from over 170 countries are meeting in Geneva to resolve deep disagreements over whether the treaty should include limits on plastic production. Last November, talks in Busan, South Korea, collapsed without a deal.
More than 100 countries support legally binding global cuts in plastic production and the phase-out of harmful chemicals and single-use plastics. However, major fossil fuel producers like Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, and Iran oppose production limits, favoring waste management and recycling instead. The U.S., under both Biden and Trump, has leaned toward a less ambitious treaty that avoids production restrictions.
Thompson, who first coined the term “microplastics,” urged negotiators to act decisively. His call comes as a new report warns the world faces a “plastics crisis,” with pollution harming health from infancy to old age and causing at least $1.5 trillion in annual health damages.
Plastic production has skyrocketed—increasing over 200-fold since 1950—and is projected to nearly triple by 2060, driven largely by single-use plastics for packaging and food containers.
As coordinator of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, Thompson emphasized that an ambitious agreement could transform the planet’s future. “Plastic pollution is everywhere—from the poles to the equator, in our deepest oceans and highest mountains,” he said. “We’re exposed to microplastics from the womb onward. To protect future generations, we must act now.”
A global treaty would set binding targets to curb the 11 million tons of plastic dumped into oceans yearly. But since 2022, five rounds of talks have failed to finalize an agreement. While the initial goal was to address plastics’ full lifecycle, industry lobbyists—including a record 220 fossil fuel and chemical representatives in Busan—have increasingly pushed back against production limits.Here’s a rewritten version of the text in fluent, natural English while preserving the original meaning:
—
Sign up for updates
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Privacy Notice: Our newsletters may include information about charities, advertisements, and sponsored content. For details, see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCAPTCHA for security, and their Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Quick Guide
Contact us about this story
The best public interest journalism comes from firsthand accounts. If you have information on this topic, you can share it with us securely using the methods below.
Secure Messaging in the Guardian App
The Guardian app includes a secure messaging feature for submitting tips. Messages are end-to-end encrypted and hidden within normal app activity, making it impossible for anyone to detect that you’re contacting us.
If you don’t have the app, download it (iOS/Android), open the menu, and select “Secure Messaging.”
Other Ways to Contact Us
For alternative methods—such as SecureDrop, instant messaging, email, phone, or mail—visit [theguardian.com/tips](https://www.theguardian.com/tips) to see the options and their pros and cons.
Illustration: Guardian Design / Rich Cousins
Was this helpful?
Thank you for your feedback.
—
Negotiations on Plastic Pollution
“Some countries see this as an economic threat because it disrupts their usual way of doing business,” said Thompson. “But the reason negotiators from 170 countries are meeting in Geneva this week is clear: plastic pollution is harmful. Continuing business as usual is unsustainable.”
Globally, only 9% of plastic is recycled. Thompson, whose research led to the UK’s ban on microbeads in cosmetics, said reducing plastic production is necessary to address pollution.
He argued that a treaty should ensure:
– Only essential plastic is produced.
– The thousands of chemicals used in plastic are minimized.
– Future plastic is sustainable, shifting toward reuse and a circular economy.
These measures would effectively cut global plastic production.
Graham Forbes, Greenpeace’s lead delegate at the negotiations, said the science, ethics, and economics are undeniable. “Unchecked plastic production is a death sentence. The only solution is to produce less plastic. World leaders must act now, resist fossil fuel industry pressure, and take the first step toward ending the plastic crisis—creating a healthier, safer future for everyone.”
—
This version keeps the original meaning while improving clarity and flow. Let me know if you’d like any further refinements!
