The core fault line remains unchanged: roughly 100 nations, including the UK and EU member states, want the agreement to tackle the crisis at its source by capping plastic production, while oil-producing states — led by Saudi Arabia and Russia — insist the focus should remain on waste management and recycling.

For small island nations and other vulnerable states, the impasse is particularly bitter. Speaking on behalf of Pacific island countries, Palau's delegation said: "We are repeatedly returning home with insufficient progress to show our people. It is unjust for us to face the brunt of yet another global environmental crisis we contribute minimally to."

Rising production, falling recycling rates

Plastics are made from fossil fuels, and petrochemical producers view them as a lifeline for their economies as the world transitions away from oil for energy. Industry leaders argue that plastics are indispensable to modern life — found in everything from medical devices to food packaging — and that investment in recycling systems offers a more realistic solution than restricting production.

But scientists counter that recycling alone cannot solve the problem. Current global recycling rates hover around 10%, and even with massive infrastructure improvements, they are unlikely to exceed 30%. Meanwhile, plastic output has exploded from 2 million tonnes in 1950 to 475 million tonnes in 2022, with projections showing continued growth unless curbs are introduced.

"Improving recycling is essential," said Dr. Costas Velis of Imperial College London, "but without addressing production, we are simply bailing water from a sinking ship."

Business and policy proposals

The pro-cap coalition of countries had pushed for measures to harmonize product design — such as requiring single-color bottles to improve recyclability — and for extended producer responsibility schemes, where companies pay levies on plastic products to fund recycling. Major consumer goods companies including Nestlé and Unilever supported these measures through the Ellen MacArthur Foundation's Business Coalition, which estimates such fees could generate $576 billion globally by 2040.

In Geneva, the chair of the talks, Ecuador's Luis Vayas, tabled a revised draft text that incorporated references to toxic chemical management and improved design standards but omitted any direct cap on plastic production. While the EU delegation called the outcome a "good basis for future negotiations," oil states expressed strong dissatisfaction. Saudi Arabia described the process as "problematic," while Kuwait said its position was "not reflected" in the text.

Environmental backlash

Environmental groups reacted angrily to the stalemate, accusing a small group of fossil fuel interests of undermining global ambitions. Greenpeace's Graham Forbes said the failure "must be a wake-up call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head-on."

The talks will reconvene at a future date, though the repeated breakdowns mean the process is now well behind its original timeline. The initial target for an agreement was December 2023.

For countries facing the harshest impacts of plastic pollution — from microplastics infiltrating food chains to toxic chemicals leaching into soil and water — the latest collapse marks yet another delay in tackling what scientists call a fast-escalating global health and environmental threat.