The United States quietly rejects upstream measures in global plastics pact negotiations as the Geneva talks face a deepening stalemate

8 August 2025

Major plastic-producing countries have been accused of ignoring environmental concerns before the talks begin in Geneva, Switzerland. Photograph: James Wakibia/Sopa Images/Shutterstock

At the opening of intensive negotiations in Geneva on a historic treaty to curb plastic pollution the United States circulated a memo forcing member nations to confront a stark reality: Washington would not budge on striking upstream provisions from the final pact. Ahead of the resumption of U.N.‑led INC‑5.2 negotiations beginning August 5 the U.S. took the step of sending letters to select countries outlining its “red lines” for the process a memorandum that effectively rejects limits on plastic production and chemical additives measures that more than a hundred other countries support.

The treaty under negotiation is meant to tackle the full lifecycle of plastics from design through disposal, offering a sweeping framework to rein in the environmental catastrophe wrought by plastic pollution. Prominent elements include caps on the production of new plastics bans on harmful chemical additives and mandates for sustainable product design. Advocates including small island nations and the European Union view upstream regulation as essential to meaningful change while major petrochemical producers including the U.S., Russia and Saudi Arabia resist such constraints.

Those opposing caps argue that global restrictions would raise costs to consumers and threaten national sovereignty over industrial policy. The U.S. State Department framed its stance as one built around “cost‑effective and common sense solutions” focused on recycling reuse and better product design rather than production limits. The memo sent out on July 25 reportedly stated that Washington would not accept plastic production targets bans on products or restrictions on additives that could drive up prices on everyday items.

The consequences of this hardline stance were swift. Negotiations entered a gridlock where ambition and pragmatism collided. Observers described a “dialogue of the deaf” taking hold as negotiators struggled to find common ground. Delegates from environmental coalitions warned that sidelining upstream measures amounts to economic and ethical retreat at a moment when plastic production is projected to triple by 2060 with devastating effects on ecosystems and human health.

Meanwhile a coalition of nearly 100 countries led by Australia, Canada numerous European states and small island nations reaffirmed their support for a treaty that includes production caps. Australian Environment Minister Murray Watt emphasized that countries aligned with petrochemical interests should not slow global progress on sustainable plastics policy. Panama’s delegation head framed the U.S. position not as pragmatic negotiating but as “economic self‑sabotage” keeping communities from future prosperity.

Underpinning the discussions is the scale of the plastic crisis. Only a fraction of all plastic produced worldwide is recycled over 460 million metric tonnes produced annually with over 20 million leaking into the environment. The costs in the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report and projections from the OECD underscore the magnitude of plastic waste as a global risk to ecosystems economies and human well‑being.

As the INC‑5.2 session unfolds through August 14 Geneva’s atmosphere is electric with arrays of Contact Groups debating hazardous plastics bans financial support for developing countries and the treaty’s foundational objectives. The days ahead will likely determine whether the treaty emerges watered down or retains the bold scope demanded by environmental advocates.

In pushing back hard against upstream regulation Washington has set the U.S. apart from the more than one hundred nations seeking a robust pact. What happens next may define whether the world secures a meaningful agreement or retreats into fragmented solutions that leave the plastic crisis to worsen.