The failure of recent global talks in Busan, South Korea, to produce a landmark treaty to combat plastic pollution, has underscored the complexities and challenges of addressing one of the planet’s most pressing environmental and climate issues.

Delegates from more than 170 countries were unable to reconcile sharply divided opinions on how to tackle the escalating plastic crisis, with negotiations breaking down after a week of intensive discussions.

Despite months of preparation and a two-year process aimed at crafting a binding agreement, countries remain at an impasse, unable to agree on whether the focus should be on curbing plastic production or improving waste management.

The talks were seen as a pivotal moment in the global effort to reduce plastic waste, which has surged to unsustainable levels. The world currently produces over 450mn tonnes of plastic annually, primarily from fossil fuels. Nearly 350mn tonnes of this becomes waste, of which less than 10% is recycled.

By 2040, plastics production will have escalated 70% from 2020 levels, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. And by 2050, the share that petrochemicals contribute to crude demand could nearly double, says BloombergNEF.

Mismanagement of plastic waste has resulted in significant environmental pollution, with vast quantities entering rivers, oceans and ecosystems worldwide.

Negotiators at the talks were split into two major camps.

On one side, more than 100 countries, including Norway, Rwanda and members of the European Union, called for a treaty that would include binding measures to limit plastic production, phase out certain harmful chemicals and enforce global standards. Environmental advocacy groups like Greenpeace and the Ocean Conservancy supported this approach, arguing that reducing the production of plastic at its source is the only way to effectively combat the crisis.

But oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, along with industry groups like the American Chemistry Council, resisted these proposals. They argued instead for a focus on improving waste management systems, emphasising technological solutions to prevent plastic pollution while allowing continued production.

The disagreement was emblematic of deeper conflicts between environmental goals and economic priorities. Plastic production is a cornerstone of the global petrochemical industry, which is heavily tied to fossil fuel extraction.

Many developing nations and oil-rich states have significant economic interests in the continued production of plastics, viewing it as a driver of industrial growth and job creation. Abdulrahman Al Gwaiz, Saudi Arabia’s representative, expressed this viewpoint clearly, asserting that “if you can stop plastic pollution, there should be no problem with producing plastics.”

The failure to reach an agreement was not entirely unexpected. Negotiations had been fraught from the outset, with deep ideological divides evident during earlier meetings. The latest round of talks began with cautious optimism but devolved into frustration as delegates struggled to find common ground. By the sixth day, it became clear that consensus – a requirement under UN rules for binding agreements – was unattainable.

The collapse of the talks was described by Panama’s delegate, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, as a “moral failure,” reflecting the disappointment of nations pushing for ambitious action.

Despite the lack of a final agreement, there were signs of incremental progress. The draft text of the treaty, which initially spanned 73 pages, was condensed to 22 pages over the course of the negotiations, signalling some convergence on technical and procedural details.

Many countries expressed a commitment to resuming talks next year, using the streamlined draft as a foundation. South Korea’s foreign minister, Cho Tae-yul, emphasised the importance of compromise, urging delegates not to give up. “The progress we have made is real,” he said. “Compromise is not a sign of weakness. We cannot allow perfection to become the enemy of progress.”

Environmental advocates and some delegations, however, were less conciliatory in their assessments. Hugo-Maria Schally, a senior European Union negotiator, expressed frustration with the lack of ambition, while Rwanda’s Juliet Kabera received a standing ovation after calling on delegates to stand firm in their commitment to a meaningful treaty.

Graham Forbes, representing Greenpeace, insisted that the opportunity to secure a transformative agreement remains within reach, but only if negotiators embrace more ambitious measures.

The talks in Busan highlighted the broader implications of inaction on plastic pollution. Plastics are not only a source of environmental degradation but also a contributor to the climate crisis.

Their production relies on fossil fuels, releasing significant amounts of greenhouse gases. Without urgent action, experts warn, plastic pollution will continue to exacerbate the climate crisis while threatening biodiversity, human health, and the resilience of ecosystems.

The US played a central role in the negotiations, though its position remained a subject of contention. The Biden administration advocated for a middle ground, supporting the reduction of plastic pollution while opposing mandatory caps on production.

As the world’s largest contributor to plastic waste, the US faces heightened scrutiny, particularly with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency. Some negotiators privately expressed concern that a Trump administration would adopt a more hostile stance toward international environmental agreements, complicating efforts to finalise a treaty.

The breakdown of talks in Busan represents a setback in the fight against plastic pollution, but many remain hopeful that the momentum generated during the negotiations will carry forward. Advocacy groups and ambitious delegations have vowed to continue pushing for a comprehensive treaty that addresses the root causes of the crisis.

As the world watches, the next round of talks, in 2025, will be crucial in determining whether nations can bridge their divides and forge a path toward a sustainable future.