Something’s wacky. Something’s wacky, not just here in the US but all over the world. We’re running out of energy, right? We’re polluting the world with microplastics and PFAS forever chemicals, right? We’re destroying old growth forests and rain forests all over the world, right? We’re dumping and digging for precious metals with rampant disregard for the consequences, right? Something’s wacky. Something just doesn’t make sense. Let me pick one of the above. 

Despite public consensus about plastic contamination of microplastics in our bodies, we are unable to come together to put a global plastics policy in place. Sound familiar? Brands, global brands, like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Unilever and others, have had many opportunities to meet consumer expectations. Yet, they can’t find common ground to create policy that will help everyone in the world. (Try thinking about cardboard houses in landfills all over third world countries where packaging waste is dumped, and we can’t find common ground to eliminate.)  

Am I angry? You bet I’m angry. I think I know the answer for inaction but just can’t fathom corporate greed when we all have an opportunity to make changes that will help us all. I just don’t get it. Wasn’t it Calvin in Bill Watterson’s Calvin & Hobbes who said, “We have met the enemy, and it’s us!”  Well that Calvin was right then and this Calvin is right now. I’ll explain.

The Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee of the United Nations met this summer in Geneva, Switzerland. The purpose was to develop a global “harmonized” treaty for the recycling of plastics, the phaseout of single-use plastics, and, ultimately, to reduce plastic (petrochemical) production. How naive can you be? But okay, that was the objective of the treaty. 

By the way, this committee has met countless times in the past. The results have always been the same – nothing accomplished. The last time they met was nine months earlier, and, as usual, the committee failed to even come away with common ground for a framework.

Consumer research shows that microplastics, along with PFAS forever chemicals, is one of the top concerns with waste. In fact, 70% of the public feel impacted by plastics and see health risk as a top concern. I promise I will not mention other developing health concerns in this column. A GlobeScan study from last year showed more concern about plastics, particularly single-use plastics, than climate change or ocean pollution.

Microplastics in the body was the leading concern when people were questioned about human health.

The meeting in Geneva brought together more than 2,600 participants, including 1,400 delegates from 183 countries and 1,000 observers. Obviously, microplastics contamination is a major global concern. Yet, just like the meeting in South Korea last fall, the conference was unable to agree on an acceptable policy.  

A majority of the participants were in favor of setting schedules for reducing plastic production made with petroleum. Plus, they wanted a schedule to phase out chemicals with known negative health issues. It seemed to me that the conference was heading in the right direction, making great strides to reduce microplastics contamination and to reduce the impact on our health. 

Here’s what ultimately happened – nothing. No change, no framework for a global treaty, and thus another wasted opportunity to improve global health and human welfare.

Several months ago, I authored a two-part series on the “Fraud of Plastic Recycling.” Many of you responded questioning my conclusions. I remain steadfast in my belief that all plastic recycling schemes, including chemical recycling, were merely efforts by the plastic industry to try to tell us that plastic manufacturing is a good environmental citizen.  

Now this: suggesting limits on plastic production and chemical phaseout timelines would be admitting that the industry is complicit in causing health issues, e.g., microplastics in humans. Any kind of limitation or phaseout is obviously opposed by industry groups and oil-producing nations. 

Holly Kaufman, director of the Plastics and Climate Project, said, “The talks concluded without an agreement because the plastics treaty is fundamentally a fossil fuel treaty. There is a wide chasm between the petro states and the countries who want to limit production of plastics – petrochemical products that are warming our planet and poisoning people and the environment.”

In my view, the plastics industry, Shell, Exxon-Mobil, and other giant corporations, would rather focus on trying to manage their waste than decrease their manufacturing capacity.

Statistics show that less than 10% of plastic production is recycled. Less than 10%!  And, we’re talking billions of pounds of capacity with 90% being landfilled or burned. This has to change if we are going to conquer microplastics contamination.

I will grant that we will see an increase in recycled plastic content as time goes on.  The brands will demand this. Plus, governments, like the European Union, will require packaging to increase the percentage of recycled plastic content in plastic packaging.

However, no future date has been set for continued discussions on a global plastics treaty. Brands have an extraordinary opportunity to respond to consumer demands and preferences. The chairman and CEO of S.C. Johnson, H. Fisk Johnson, gets it. He was “extremely disappointed that countries couldn’t come together and at least get a framework that could be built upon in the future.”  

So there’s a glimmer of light, and it is hoped that other brands will become proactive and demand change that will reduce microplastics contamination that will reduce health risks.

Another Letter from the Earth

Calvin Frost is chairman of Channeled Resources Group, headquartered in Chicago, the parent company of Maratech International and GMC Coating. His email address is cfrost@channeledresources.com.