The first global plastics treaty

the health impacts of plastic pollution and microplastics. He's part of a group of experts who have made several recommendations for the un Plastics Treaty.

going to the treaties. Though, what it will actually do and what the member states will have to commit to essentially, And one of the main sticking points or challenges with this is that the majority of member states are wanting to cap plastic production and they also want to end the use of non toxic chemicals in the production of plastics.

Not many people realize that plastics are made from oil and gas, but they also have thousands of additive chemicals in them to essentially give them the characteristics the plastics have. And obviously there's lots of different types of plastics. And then there's a small coalition of fossil fuel producing, a petrochemical producing member states that are pushing back against this idea of capping plastic production and also cap in the

use of these chemicals. And that's essentially because they want to see a focus on recycling and waste management so that they can continue to essentially produce and make plastic because it's such a huge revenue stream for them.

plastic products are now in that environment. They're abiquitous and there everywhere, and these are the ones that we can see. So I'm talking about like the larger sized pieces of plastic just to give you an understanding of how big the problem is. We make about four hundred and ninety million metric tons of plastic a year, and so of like, well what does that look like. Well, it's doubled since two thousand and eight. And if you think it looks bad now, only if you think the beaches in the

water from your own experience looks polluted. It's going to triple in the next thirty years. So we're in a triple plastic production in the next thirty years. Based on the projections that have been made on how the oil and gas industry are going to essentially use plastics as an new revenue stree. So as the world starts to transition away from energy and transport for a primary source of oil and gas, about fifty percent of oil and gas will be used by twenty sixty for making plastics.

So it's going to become an even bigger shuit of what we're currently experiencing. What I mentioned before about the plastics that you can see, I mean, that's one thing, and so we think about plastics often, and we've drown up thinking about plastics as these larger pieces of over material that we can pick up, put in and recycling bin and essentially just happens and we get new products made from them. And that's what we've been told. It's

a story, a narrative. It's shaped by the fossil fuel industry back in the seventies and eighties that we can recycle our way out of this problem. About eight nine percent globally. Different averages, different estimates have been put forward, but that's the ballpark number for how much plastic we recycle, eight to nine percent globally each year. And there's about one percent of plastic that gets recycled twice in its lifetime.

So the idea that we can actually recycle plastic is a fallacy, and there's a lot of health issues with that concept as well. So when we're thinking about plastic that we can see, obviously it's a huge issue based on what we really know, but another really concerned anything of these tiny particles that we can't see, not its microplastics.

oil and gas. So polyester materials, polyethylene, they're essentially the materials are made from an oil and gas backbone. We still have a huge line in things like food manufacturing. This is a huge issue as well. So if you think about our food systems now, we're highly dependent on food packaging and obviously that's made from plastic. If you think about obviously coat bottles or soft drink bottles, you think about the level of consumption, there's still huge sources

contributing to this. And one of the again the keys is, like I said, is that we often will purchase products that may have the recycling so we call them the chasing arrow symbols of the Three Arrows, and people look at it and it's a very clever bit of marketing. So people look at them and they go, oh, water relief, it's got that recycling logo on, and I can drink this without in the environment, and we're drinking and pop it in that bin over there and know that it's

going to go back and be reused. And again that's a fallacy and one of the things people need to become aware of is that we can't, unfortunately, protect ourselves and the environment from the impacts of plastic through recycling, and that's because of the chemicals in them, and it's also because of the tiny fragments that break down from

them over time. And we're learning more and more, but those signed fragments are getting into us and they bioaccumulating, So basically we can't get released little particles and we're getting more and more into our bodies.

have that type of petrol backbone essentially. And then there are all these additional additives I mentioned before included into the plastic to give it its characteristic depending on what it's trying to do. So things like PFAS, which has been in the media a lot lately, forever chemicals, ye,

forever chemicals exactly. But another one which most people don't really know about, something called a phthalate, which is basically these classic chemicals that we know are endocrime disrupting chemicals, and what that means is they essentially alter our body's natural hormone system. So these chemicals are getting included into that oil and gas backbone that I mentioned before, with

very little transparency on the reporting as well. So when these plastics are made, we often don't know what's in

the plastic. But what we're now learning, which is probably the most concerning component of all this, is that the plastic particles are breaking down to these tiny fragments, to what we call a microplastic, which is essentially smaller than half a centimeter, but they can go right down to the size of something like a human blood cell or smaller than your human hair, so you wouldn't actually see

these particles in the environment. So they're essentially every wedding, and so a lot of research in the last two to three years has come out looking at both how they accumulate in our bodies so they get in and they don't leave. But we've just done a review last year looking at what are the health effects of these

microplastic particles. It's been tricky to study, so you know a lot of authoritative bodies around the world have to regulate chemicals using animal studies because that's all we have. And what we found across large number of animal studies were these really consistent effects in the respiratory, digestive and also reproductive system. So we saw the impact of fertility. We also saw that increase these biological markers in our body, things like chronic inflammation in both the lung and also

in the column. So we saw these suspected links to these cancers. So we're starting to see more and more evidence coming out to show that yeah, once these things around our body, it makes sense they're oil and gas and these chemicals I mentioned before they're going to lead to a raft at health effects, which is the thing that is probably most concerning.

corporations that want to produce plastics. And the main sticking point very simply is that a number of fossil fuel producing countries is coalition of countries which now includes the United States. They do not want to cap plastics production very simply. You know, they don't want to stop extracting

oil and gas out of the ground. But if we are going to be using it for energy and transport, the world starts transitioning regards to what the United States is currently doing, they need a new revenue stroom, and plastics is the obvious one because they can argue that we are relying on them in society and we have

become but it doesn't mean they're essential. So the very simple takeaway at the moment is that they don't want to cap plastic, and over one hundred and ten nations at the moment do and that's essentially where the treaties still lie. Can we get agreement on.

what they call a qualified majority voting when consensus fails. So, in other words, if you can't get consensus, can we get a majority of votes to essentially move the treaty language forward and start finalizing something that is legally binding. Because at the moment this is the fifth meeting, it was actually meant to be the final meaning back in November last year, and again language could not be finalized

because there was a consensus. So what may happen here is that there is you know, this country is just won't agree to consensus and they are also with their recognize this idea of a qualified majority voting if it does take place. So what may need to happen is the countries that are say, look, we want to we want to come up with a global plan on how

we redgise plastics. Is it they essentially develop it, and they're going to have to try to do that, you know, with those those countries removed from the process, because otherwise just nothing will take playing some fortunate we are just going to be in this essentially a whole wind pattern.

on essential plastics since you use plastics in Australia. There's lots we can do that current environment, which is important and we're not a huge global player. But I mean the fact that we are supporting a reduction in plastic I think is important.

in every type of soil sediment. The particles are so small in the ocean, they're already in our body, and so that for me, is probably the most concerning piece. But we do need to take action, and so capping is absolutely critical to this, and there's a need to look immediately at non essential materials. So just very simply

what is not critical for society to function. A critical piece of material may be something like a medical device, but even still there may be alternative materials that could be used. The second thing is chemicals. You mentioned chemicals before. We already have a list of four thousand knowe toxic chemicals in plastics is about sixteen thousand that have been identified, and so we need to bound those immediately being used because once they're into the plastic, as I mentioned before,

we can't recycle those plastics. If those toxic chemicals are in there or it's incredibly difficult to do that. So essentially, once they're put in, we know that they're going to end up in landfill. And there needs to be global implementation of databasic chemicals that are identified as toxic, similar to the stock Own convention where they just get banned, we can't use them. So that's the second thing when it's bound these toxic chemicals. A third thing is the

transparency around it. It needs to be reporting. So when plastics are made, we need to know what's in them. Currently we have very little idea of how many added into these plastics. And then finally, how are we going to pay for all this and implement it? And this is critical, this is happening. This is an issue, a key issue with a lot of environmental catastrophes, similar to pafas, where we have manufacturers and producers of these chemicals and

these environmental contaminants that essentially externalize the costs. So what do I mean by that is they can make it, they make it a very cheap price, and then they sell it. We consume it, but then we pay for the health implications, both human health and environmental and so we're burdened with the ongoing impact and costs of these products, even when we know that they're toxic low we do

now at plastics, So it's critical. It's really critical that the implementation of a tree, but also just moving forward globally in terms of how we remediate and how we reduce the impact or repair the impact of these contaminants is that we put the burden back on the pluta. So the fossil full industry is the petrochemical companies and the plastic companies that are making these need to bear the costs for the impact that it calls into the environment.

So capping plastic, removing toxic chemicals, increasing transparency on what's going into them, and making the pluters pay for this have been the four main things I'd want to see in this treet you.

their position in parliament changing. There is an opportunity for people to get around this as an idea and to get governments to start responding in a timely way, because if we wait thirty years and plastic production triples, the amount of plastic that's going to be in this world and this environment's going to be near and possible to remove. The idea is not to scare people. I think it's

important for people to be aware of what's happening. It's a difficult concept to understand, and we've all been misinformed about recycling idea that we can take care of it through that process and we simply can't. But we can take action, and certainly I think people may informed. It's more important than you're not having that information to make your own decisions.