While a global call for action was evident, the intensity of support varied significantly between Global North & South
Photo: iStock Strong public concern about the scale of the global plastics problem led to the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) passing a resolution to “end plastic pollution”, initiation of the Global Plastics Treaty in 2022, which included a mandate to address the full life cycle of plastic — from production to disposal.
A Greenpeace report People vs Plastic: Global Support for a Strong Plastics Treaty published in February 2024 revealed overwhelming public backing for reduction in plastic production and a shift towards reusable alternatives. The report, based on a survey across 19 countries with over 19,000 participants, revealed a resounding call for action.
There was a clear public support for reducing plastic production at its source. A staggering 82 per cent respondents voiced support for cutting plastic production, with Indonesia leading the charge, followed by China and Brazil. This sentiment was amplified with over 80 per cent respondents emphasising the need to prioritise biodiversity and climate protection through reduced plastic reliance. The Philippines led this category, followed by China and Egypt.
One of the most striking revelations in the report was about single-use plastics. While a staggering 90 per cent respondents favoured a transition away from single-use packaging towards reusable and refillable alternatives, a strong 75 per cent also support an outright ban on single-use plastics. Over 81 per cent expressed their willingness to switch to reusable items if they were more convenient and cost-effective. The Philippines, Indonesia, India, China and Egypt have echoed a strong support.
The report unveiled an interesting geographical divide in public opinion as well. While a global call for action was evident, the intensity of support varied significantly between the Global North and the Global South.
Six Global North countries — Canada, Germany, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States — all fell below the global average in their support for all the parameters. Interestingly, these nations share characteristics of being wealthy, developed economies with established consumer cultures.
Conversely, strong support emerged from the Global South. Six countries — China, Egypt, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines and Thailand — consistently score above the global average. This suggests a heightened sense of urgency of the plastic crisis’ impact in the emerging and developing economies, where plastic pollution was seen as a more immediate and visible concern.
The report also exposed a concerning gap between public opinion and their governments’ positions on the Global Plastics Treaty. For instance, India, China and Brazil had high public support for reducing plastic production — 86 per cent, 92 per cent and 89 per cent respectively. Their respective governments currently oppose (India, China) or remain vague (Brazil) on reducing plastic production within the treaty negotiations.
Interestingly, the report doesn’t shy away from highlighting the responsibility of corporations. Greenpeace called for holding corporations accountable for the plastic crisis. As per the findings of the survey, 60 per cent respondents believe lobbyists from the fossil fuel and chemical industries should be excluded from the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations. This sentiment underscored the public’s desire for a solution free from undue corporate influence. The report also proposes measures like extended producer responsibility schemes, where manufacturers bear the cost of managing plastic waste they generate.
The impact of plastics on human health emerges as another critical concern. A concerning 84 per cent parents who were surveyed expressed worry about plastic’s potential health risks for their children. This worry extends beyond children, with a significant majority — 77 per cent expressing concern for their own health and about 80 per cent worried about the health of loved ones.
The United Nations resolution calling for a plastics treaty emphasises sustainable production — a concept that is interpreted as requiring reduced plastic output. Greenpeace’s survey confirmed this public understanding, with a strong majority supporting cuts in plastic production — a measure the fossil fuel lobby fiercely opposes.
To fulfill the Paris Agreement and achieving peak plastic consumption by 2050, a global reduction target for plastic production is necessary. The revised zero draft offers a promising starting point with provisions for phasing down plastic production, but recent rounds of negotiations have exposed concerning geopolitical hurdles.
Countries with significant fossil fuel reserves or strong petrochemical industries often prioritise economic concerns over environmental protection. These countries frequently advocate for a treaty focused primarily on waste management, echoing talking points from the fossil fuel industry. Public opinion, however, demands stronger action. While bans on specific plastic products are important, eliminating plastic pollution at the source and controlling the supply chain are essential.
While delegations are negotiating on behalf of their citizens, the voices of the public seems to be missing from the discussions and interventions taking place at the negotiating table.
This industry-driven approach presents a serious challenge to achieving an ambitious treaty. Unless the final agreement tackles the entire plastic lifecycle with stringent measures, it will be woefully inadequate to address the current scale of plastic production and consumption.
The report ultimately calls for a ‘just transition’ away from virgin plastic production is imperative, prioritising the well-being of workers, waste pickers, indigenous communities and women — groups disproportionately impacted by plastic pollution.
CSE has been following the negotiations of the INC closely and has analysed the positions of member states based on their submissions so far. The latest study of country positions can be accessed here.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.