Preparing for the Plastic Treaty Negotiations

Preparing for the Plastic Treaty Negotiations

As I approach the next round of Plastic Treaty negotiations in Geneva, I feel a mix of excitement and responsibility. Thanks to the incredible solidarity of c

ivil society, and specially to the African Environmental Network that very kindly supported my accreditation, I have the privilege of attending and contributing to this crucial discussion. As I prepare my arguments and organize my thoughts for potential conversations with delegates, industry representatives, and fellow advocates, I keep returning to a recent conversation I had with a friend.

During this discussion, I expressed my frustration about how industries—whose profits heavily depend on the outcome of the treaty—are allowed not only to participate in negotiations but to do so in ways that are often cynical and deceptive. These representatives frequently disguise themselves as members of NGOs or state delegations, when in reality, they are there solely to protect their investments.

My friend, who is typically skeptical of regulation, challenged me by asking, "What’s the point of even trying?" They argued that all sectors, including industry, should have a seat at the table. While I partially agree—industries should be able to present their views—I believe this must happen in a controlled and transparent environment. If they are in the room, they should be required to:

1. Clearly identify themselves and state who they represent.

2. Disclose the stakes involved, including how much money their companies stand to gain or lose depending on the treaty’s outcome.

3. Present their points openly, such as from a podium, rather than maneuvering behind the scenes or blending in as if they are impartial stakeholders.

Somewhere in our discussion, the topic shifted to tobacco. I mentioned how the Conflict of Interest clause in international tobacco treaties has been a success story, helping civil society keep industry influence under control. My friend countered by saying, "What’s the point? People are still smoking, maybe even more than before."

While there may be some truth to that claim—data suggests that the number of smokers is slowly increasing, although still far below the levels seen before regulations such as taxes and prohibitions were implemented—progress is undeniable. 

However, this exchange left me wondering: If people want to make others sick, and there are individuals willing to harm themselves, should we simply let them? Cigarette-related illnesses are costly to society, but substances like fentanyl present far more devastating societal costs. The idea that companies profiting billions from harmful products should go unchecked is baffling. This is precisely why such companies should face rigorous scrutiny and audits before their products are allowed to reach consumers.

This brings me back to plastics. Unlike cigarettes, we have very little choice about whether or not we consume plastics—they are ubiquitous. Avoiding plastic entirely is nearly impossible and often prohibitively expensive.

• Consider clothing: Fully natural fibers like wool, cotton, or hemp are significantly more expensive than commercially available options, which often contain 4–100% plastic.

• Consider food: Is it even possible to buy plastic-free food in your city? And if so, is it affordable for the average person?

• Consider tools: Electronics, mobility devices, and construction materials all heavily rely on plastic components.

Given this reality, why is it so difficult for people to acknowledge that companies set to profit billions from plastics should not be allowed to participate in treaty negotiations disguised as scientists, humanitarian representatives, or state delegates? 

Decisions about plastics should hinge on fundamental questions:

• Is it safe for people?

• Is it safe for the planet?

I am continually shocked when I encounter people who genuinely believe there's no point in regulations that forbid companies from deliberately poisoning them, their children, and their environment. As someone who has spent countless hours trying to understand this perspective—particularly why some scientists advocate for including these individuals at the table—I’ve developed some insights through extensive reflection and literature review.

The concept of positionality, originating from sociology, is crucial to this discussion. It refers to how an individual's social identity—shaped by factors such as race, gender, class, sexuality, and other aspects of identity—affects their perspective, experiences, and engagement with the world. In the social sciences, we frequently apply this concept to gender and race analysis. More recently, findings in neurology have shown that the stimuli we receive, our upbringing, the languages we speak, and the nutrients we consume configure our brains in specific ways that ultimately shape our worldview.

In simpler terms, positionality explains how our brains filter information based on our personal experiences, which are conditioned by our geographical location, upbringing, gender, culture, income level, and formal education. To simplify, it’s why people who never encounter a specific situation may respond by saying, “That doesn’t happen.” If you have never experienced sexual harassment because you are not a woman—or are among the tiny minority of men who have—then of course you might not perceive it as a daily experience.

There's an aspect of positionality that seems underexplored in research: how career choices and industry affiliations influence our motivations and priorities. I've observed that those defending companies' rights to actively and deliberately cause harm typically work in the private sector. While this observation warrants deeper investigation, let me present this thesis:

When individuals choose or find themselves in profit-oriented careers (as opposed to purpose or status-oriented positions), they develop an understanding and appreciation for prioritizing financial gains over other considerations. They likely exist within a social ecosystem where this priority system is not only understood, and both valued and respected. While there's nothing inherently wrong with legally pursuing profit—indeed, it’s an individual’s right to choose profit over other aspects when in a position to do so—this orientation significantly influences their worldview.

What's particularly interesting is how this may affect communication across different value systems. When someone like myself suggests that companies shouldn't be allowed to:

• Profit from smoking addiction that sends billions to hospitals

• Compromise the entire climate and biodiversity ecosystem

• Undermine human health through plastics production

• Secretly manipulate worldwide discussions on planetary survival

What profit-oriented individuals might hear is: "You are not allowed to choose or to want making money." Is it possible that this creates an instinctive defensive response to any suggestion of increased regulation or corporate responsibility?

This translation gap may help explain why discussions about corporate regulation often become so polarized. When we advocate for stricter controls on corporate behavior, many hear it as an attack on their fundamental right to pursue financial success or even just financial security.

It's important to clarify that I’m not just referring to high-achieving individuals with incomes above a certain threshold; I mean anyone who is genuinely trying to make ends meet. I’ve been reflecting on how this may influence why so many people are now voting for parties and candidates that deliberately seek to deregulate private industries, running campaigns that promise prosperity.

I believe that whether one is succeeding or struggling, the validation of making money is often perceived as a personal affirmation. This is something that the advocacy spectrum—particularly within leftist, environmentalist, and social democratic circles—often overlooks. We need to recognize that the desire to make money is a valid need and choice at an individual level. 

The limitations we propose on money-making are not intended to target individuals like you or me (and we must be consistent with this! We shouldn’t judge a high school friend for choosing to work for a large fashion brand to earn a living). Instead, we should make it crystal clear that these regulations should protect individuals and our planet and ensure that those who benefit immensely—those earning well over $100 million—share their wealth with everyone, without profiting at the expense of the common good, your work time, or your health or your children's future.

We must improve how we communicate this point. When we criticize morally bankrupt companies, we are not attacking the individuals who work for them—unless they are the CEO, a board member, or a majority shareholder. Your friend, cousin, or parent should be able to continue earning their income and keeping their job without being looked down upon by you or my fellow activists. However, the standards for their companies must prioritize safety for everyone, including the planet.

This is all we mean when we advocate for no fossil fuels and no petrochemicals in the plastics treaty. We are calling for a system that ensures that companies (and also some countries) who have vested money-making interests are not allowed to tailor the treaty on how much money they want to make, or how much investment they don't want to lose. We want to ensure that those decisions are made on prioritizing your health, mine and the planet we both need to survive, and hopefully thrive.

If you are working in the private sector, and have a great income, keep it, this is not about you. If you are struggling, and really want to make better money, I hope you get there and I cheer for you*. If you are somewhere in between and you want more, I also hope you get it and I cheer for you*. In the meantime let's make sure that the things you consume in any of those lives are not toxic neither to you, nor to the environment we live in.

*Just as long as you're not deliberately exploiting or abusing anyone, engaging in illegal activities, or committing any acts that could be deemed immoral. Do keep always in mind the tiny list of ethical guidelines while chasing those profits.