Australian Government Plastic Pollution Action is needed now – for national regulation and the UN Global Plastics Treaty

Minister Plibersek continues to focus on the national EPA, the decarbonization agenda and no doubt other local issues. But the pollution “sleeper” that is being pushed into the too hard basket, plastic pollution, needs urgent government action now and in particular an effective UN Global Plastics Treaty, due in 2024 following the final summit in November. Australian industry and citizens expect and need government leadership to stop polluting and clean up the growing global mess, especially in the oceans.

Plastic waste levels are rising alarmingly, in remote Australasian locations such as Cape York, Kangaroo Island and all through the Indonesian archipelago. Modelling predicts this; it will get much, much worse if we do not act globally to stop plastic pollution, with up to one ton per square kilometre of extra plastic pollution being added from only 19 of the world’s rivers (see contour map below). Northwest Australia, the Gulf of Carpentaria and the southeast South Australian coast are Australia’s hotspots but they will be clean compared to the northern Indian Ocean, North China Sea and the coasts of North America. Add to the map below existing ocean waste, the other 50% of rivers and the other, uncontrolled spillage from land and understand the severity of the issue. No cleanup can stem this pollution tide.

In March 2022, a historic resolution was adopted by the United Nations to develop?an international legally binding Global Plastics Treaty on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment that addresses the full life cycle of plastic,?including its production, design, and disposal. Australia is ostensibly a leader in negotiating this Treaty as a member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution. This was great news; Australians care about coastal and ocean pollution. 90 per cent of us live in a razor-thin strip of Australia’s coast. We care about our waste, our beaches, our oceans, as repeatedly demonstrated through polls and community action. We can and should expect more from our governments in preventing plastic consumption, through collecting, sorting and recycling waste. To be an effective voice for change in establishing the global treaty, Australia needs to get its own house in order first. Australia’s clean-tech entrepreneurs, like Licella, waste companies and packaging enterprises, like PACT and Amcor are global leaders, we have an active, environmentally conscious waste industry, yet Australia’s performance in phasing out plastics has been below par to date, certainly well below the commitments of Europe. Our plastic consumption, single use and otherwise, is the 2nd highest in the world, behind only Singapore. Australia does not have a plastic packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme to take fees from consumer plastic and deploy them for recycling, even though the federal Minister, Tanya Plibersek has for years sought – half-heartedly - to put one in place. Australia has a target of 70 per cent of plastic being diverted from landfill by 2025, but based on 2021-22 figures, it is still sitting at 20 per cent. Industry has directly sought national regulation to enable collection, sorting, production of recyclate and to provide a level playing field for packagers, but governments are preventing this, citing difficulties in negotiation across local and state governments. Government needs to put in the hard yards and political capital to overcome trivial, government side operational obstacles. ?Minister Plibersek said recently “I can tell you getting state and territory environment ministers, who all think their system is the best system and if there’s any change the Commonwealth government should pay for it, to agree to a bit of harmonisation is not easy”; surely Australians expect this squabbling to be overcome? The cost impact of using recycled plastic for each packaged good is less than one cent. The national EPA and other federal environmental focus areas are really important – but this is the boiling frog of pollution, in spite of the wishes of business, citizens and the globe. The Global Treaty and federal regulation are needed now.

The fifth and final session of the?Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee? “INC-5”, is scheduled to take place from 25 November to 1 December 2024 in Busan, Republic of Korea. Australian representatives, including from the Commonwealth Government will participate. This is the last opportunity to influence this critical treaty before its execution, targeted for the end of 2024.

The treaty is critical because plastic production, use and waste is a monumental global problem. Plastic waste is filling oceans, affecting ecosystems, harnessing then releasing forever chemicals, potentially affecting human health. Globally we use over 150 million tons of single use plastic every year. Up to 10 million tons per year enter our waterways. The largest rivers in the world alone are spewing more than 2 million tons per year into oceans and this is accumulating throughout oceans and all around our coastlines. Plastic waste breaks down into microplastics then nanoplastics, in the process releasing huge volumes of toxic “forever chemicals”. There are micro- and nano-plastics in all of our food systems, waterways and in the air we breathe. There is high correlation between micro- and nano-plastics and human health impacts; research is starting to show evidence that these plastic particles are directly harming human health. The problem is getting exponentially worse as large populations in Asia, the Americas and Africa accumulate wealth and use more and more single use plastic.

The treaty can provide:

1. the level playing field that encourages industry to reduce plastic use
2. the incentives to reduce the proliferation of new plastic, including the reallocation of fossil fuel from post-peak oil fuel demand into plastics
3. the incentives to support national and global waste practices, recycling and the development of new, more sustainable products

Once industry has treaty and associated national legislative and regulatory support, it will take decades to develop the massive waste collection, sorting and recycling assets that will be needed for full scale operations, with pollution levels continuing to rise while industry scales up. We can see this lag in the development of new assets for the energy transition and our global response to climate change. A 100kiloton per annum recycling plant and its supply chain will currently cost up to $1 billion and take 5 years to develop. Trillions of dollars need to be spent to treat the 150 million ton annual consumption and overcome this massive problem.

The technology exists for collection, sorting and recycling, including turning waste products into petrochemical feedstock. Recycled plastic cannot compete economically without the Treaty because of the cost of collecting, sorting then recycling the plastic resin as well as the pernicious and often unregulated dumping (whether labelled as dumping or not)of fossil plastics, especially from China’s massive plastics industry. “Downcycling”, to reuse food grade plastic for pallets, furniture etc us helpful but requires less than a tenth of the consumed tonnage and still ends up breaking down to microplastics. Waste to Energy is an inadequate, short term solution only; while it does turn plastic waste into useful energy, the process is enormously carbon-intensive and encourages ongoing demand for single use plastic. Waste plastic never breaks down from nanoplastics; sustainable and safe recycling is a necessity.

Of course, the fossil fuel industry and its nation and corporate supporters are lobbying furiously to undermine the Treaty. At INC-4 in April, there were more oil lobbyists than all non government participants and observers. Their voices have been heard for too long and their sway on our economies needs to be overcome through global and national regulation.