The 5th Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) concluded on the 2nd without any results. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee is a temporary body aimed at establishing an internationally legally binding 'Plastic Treaty' necessary to end plastic pollution. In particular, the INC-5 in Busan was the last attempt to finalize a proposal to regulate plastic production based on discussions held in Uruguay (November 2022), France (May 2023), Kenya (November 2023), and Canada (April 2024). However, it was hindered by the opposition from oil-producing countries that produce the raw materials for plastics, such as oil and natural gas.
Today, humanity produces 460 million tons of plastic each year. The production of plastic is expected to continue to rise. As the population grows and the quality of life improves, the demand for plastic will also increase. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates that by 2040, plastic production will reach approximately 736 million tons, an increase of about 60%.
Like all 'materials', plastics are subject to the paradigm of 'linear economy'. This means that oil and natural gas, which are 'extracted' from nature, are chemically processed to 'produce' plastics, which are then 'used' and ultimately 'disposed of' in various ways. In the end, all the plastics we use are discarded as waste. The situation is the same even if they are not 'disposable'.
The plastic waste we throw away is seriously polluting not only mountains and cities but also rivers, lakes, and oceans. There are massive plastic waste islands floating in the Pacific, and sea turtles suffering with plastic straws stuck in their noses. Africa and Southeast Asia are suffering from plastic waste sent from developed countries. It has even been confirmed that the micro and nano plastics created from the breakdown of our discarded plastic waste are contaminating water and air. The greenhouse gas emissions from the incineration of plastic waste are also a serious concern.
No one can deny the imperative claim that we must create a 'healthy planet' for future generations. However, the ultimate elimination of plastics, which "do not decompose even after 100 years," cannot be the only solution. We need to deeply consider whether a world without plastics is realistically possible. The economic burden that oil-producing countries are worried about is not trivial. This economic burden is not limited to oil-producing countries alone. We, with the world's 5th largest oil refining facility and the 4th largest ethylene production facility, also have a significant burden to bear. The elimination of plastics could dangerously shake the industrial foundation that began with the 'heavy chemical industry' in the 1970s. The broad definition of the 'petrochemical industry' related to plastic production is still a core national infrastructure that we cannot carelessly abandon.
We must also be concerned about the social repercussions of eliminating plastics. The practical damage from regulating plastic production will primarily fall on the socially vulnerable, including low-income individuals. For those who are economically disadvantaged, products made from expensive natural materials are merely a dream. A world without affordable and high-quality synthetic fibers, leathers, rubbers, vinyl, and plastics will be much harsher for the socially vulnerable.
The expectation that eliminating plastics will necessarily make the Earth's environment cleaner and healthier is also premature. Plastics were originally substitutes for natural wood. The significant reduction in the consumption of natural wood began when plastics emerged in earnest in the mid-20th century. By the 1980s, plastic usage had surpassed wood usage. This trend continues today. Currently, the consumption of natural wood is decreasing at an average annual rate of 4.2%. The attempt to eliminate plastics in the name of making the Earth healthier could inadvertently accelerate the depletion of natural materials, including wood. If the demand for natural materials increases, the Earth's environment will inevitably be further damaged.
We must also be concerned about our health and hygiene environment. In a world without plastic packaging, the normal production and distribution of processed foods, pharmaceuticals, and manufactured goods would be impossible. Traditional packaging made from natural materials like paper, metal, and glass cannot fundamentally prevent the spoilage and deterioration of products. We could end up reverting to a self-sufficient era that was poor and difficult, abandoning all modern division of labor.
It is clear that plastics are polluting the Earth. The concern that the situation may worsen in the future is serious. However, the idea of regulating plastic production and ultimately eliminating plastics is an unacceptable cowardly and narrow-minded approach. No matter how dangerous and dirty the technology may be, it is an inescapable fate of humanity to use it. Plastics are no exception.
In fact, the 'fire' that has been used for 500,000 years has not always been useful. The damage caused by uncontrollable 'fires' has been beyond imagination. The history of humanity is filled with the 'history of fire,' yet we still cannot give up fire. Instead, our choice has been to safely use fire, develop 'technologies' to detect and extinguish fires, and establish reasonable 'systems' to prevent fires.
We need more attention and effort towards the 'technology' and 'systems' necessary for a 'circular economy' through the reuse and recycling of plastics. The reality that the global plastic recycling rate is only 9% must also be improved. The perception that plastics are problematic because they do not decompose even after 100 years is a serious distortion of facts. The problem arises from carelessly discarding plastics, which are resources we are responsible for circulating. It is absolutely unacceptable to adopt a cowardly attitude of shifting our problems onto plastics.
