In what could have been a historic turning point for the planet, the recent negotiations at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC-5.2) held in Geneva collapsed after a dramatic policy reversal by the United States. Delegates from over 170 countries had gathered to finalize a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty, aiming to drastically reduce plastic production and pollution. But instead of consensus, the session ended in disappointment—and for vulnerable communities around the world, the cost is already painfully evident.

Plastic pollution is not a distant issue; it is a present crisis that impacts livelihoods, ecosystems, and human health. Along the 129-kilometre coastline of Karachi, Pakistan, the effects are visible every monsoon. Plastic waste, mainly from consumer packaging like bags and snack wrappers, floods into the Arabian Sea, choking fishing nets, blackening seabeds, and forcing fish to flee. "Plastic is probably the number one problem for us," says Majid Motani, a fisherman who has witnessed the transformation of his coastline since the 1960s.

This local devastation reflects a global challenge. Each year, over 400 million tonnes of plastic are produced—much of it single-use—and without intervention, this number could rise by 70% by 2040. A proposed treaty, backed by more than 100 nations in the High Ambition Coalition, aimed to cap production, eliminate harmful additives, promote reuse and recycling, and make producers financially responsible for managing waste. It also sought to support frontline communities with transition financing. But these ambitions were ultimately derailed.

The US Policy Reversal

Initially aligned with the EU and Japan, the United States performed a complete U-turn under the Trump administration, advocating instead for a weak framework focused solely on waste management. Describing the negotiations as a “Waste Management Treaty”, the US opposed production caps and chemical bans. Behind this shift lies the reality that plastics are derived from fossil fuels—an industry central to the Trump administration’s economic agenda.

An executive order issued in February 2025 reversed previous commitments to phase out single-use plastics, and the US reportedly used its economic influence to discourage other countries from supporting strong measures. Allies like Australia faced trade threats, while China and India softened their stance, aligning with the so-called low-ambition bloc.

Industry Influence and Procedural Pitfalls

Geneva’s negotiation halls were swarming with 234 industry lobbyists—far outnumbering scientists. Many were even part of national delegations, casting doubt on the integrity of the proceedings. Environmental scientist Marcus Eriksen, who participated in the talks, warned that "letting industry dominate the negotiations created tremendous bias."

Compounding the issue was the UN’s consensus-based decision-making, where a single country's objection can block progress. This gave low-ambition nations outsized power, resulting in a draft treaty that many called “unacceptable” and “the lowest common denominator.” Within seconds of presentation, the draft was rejected, abruptly ending the session.

The Real-World Consequences

For fishing communities, like those in Karachi, the collapse of the treaty is a bitter setback. Plastic waste not only disrupts marine ecosystems but also threatens food security and livelihoods. Motani and his peers spend hours untangling plastic from nets, while fish disappear from the polluted waters. Around the world, microplastics are infiltrating food chains and human bodies, linked to illnesses including cancer.

“I don’t remember plastic bags polluting sea waters in the 1960s,” Motani laments. “May God drill some sense into the heads of our policymakers.”

Environmental advocates like Eriksen suggest moving the treaty outside of the UN framework, proposing a “coalition of the willing” that could enforce higher standards and form a powerful trading bloc. While not global, such a treaty could pressure reluctant nations to align or risk economic consequences.

The collapse in Geneva serves as a stark reminder of the influence of vested interests and the fragility of multilateral action. Yet, the urgency remains unchanged. From plastic-choked coastlines to microplastic-laced food, the call for systemic change grows louder. The world may not have a treaty—yet—but the movement to end plastic pollution is far from over.