If you hadn’t heard, negotiations at the fifth session of the global plastics treaty “ended without consensus” a few weeks back. These were the meetings where negotiators were supposed to set a starting text so that line-by-line negotiations to create a treaty could begin. But the U.S. sided with oil producing states like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to push the treaty to focus only on recycling and the collection of plastic waste.
As most countries wanted to put a cap on production and restrict toxic chemicals used in plastics—in other words, create real limits on plastic production and waste—they walked away without a starting text for the treaty (rather than weakening their position as the minority bloc wanted). The differences were so great participants couldn’t even pick a date for the next meeting, which as we all know from personal experience, that typically means you don’t want to meet again at all: “Umm, yeah, let’s circle back about the next meeting in a few weeks….”
As I was reading this infuriating news, an idea for a board game popped into my head. A game where you have to solve the plastic problem—perhaps collectively though folks may have different roles and win-conditions (policymaker, advocate, business lobbyist, CEO)—but here’s the twist. As you’re playing, the game board, which would be partially enclosed in a plastic case, slowly fills up with little plastic nurdles—almost as if you’re playing at the bottom of an hourglass. If you don’t win quickly enough everyone loses. Ok, I admit, that sounds unwieldy (and messy if you ever drop the game), but it got me thinking, that might work well in real life!
Plastic Negotiations Meet Squid Games?
Imagine this: The month before the negotiations begin, plastic debris can be gleaned from coasts, road sides, areas surrounding plastic factories, and washed and stored. Then as the negotiations start, those can be dropped into the conference venue from rooftop windows—one piece at a time. Nothing heavy or toxic, just old plastic bottles, beads, plastic bags, bottle caps, snack wrappers, old toothbrushes, fishing net, old disposable lighters, and so on.
At first it’d just be an annoyance. You’d have to watch where you walk, move the detritus from your negotiating papers, that kind of thing. By Day 2, you might have to wade, ankle height through a sea of plastic bits. Still, it would just be an annoyance.
But by Day 5, it’d be up to your waist. You’d struggle to push through it. Someone might trip and not be able to get up, have a panic attack and have to be rushed to the hospital. All the while volunteers would keep throwing in trash, piece by piece by piece.1 By Day 10, the negotiators would have had to push some tables together and stand on these. All decorum, like leaving for the bathroom, would be impossible, as would meal breaks. Water could be dropped down from the windows—in plastic water bottles, of course—but it’d be getting mighty uncomfortable, and a bit scary in there. If by Day 14 negotiations hadn’t concluded, they might inevitably reach their end anyway….2
Is There a Better Option?
Obviously, I’m not truly proposing this. Rather, it is a dark fantasy borne out of frustration with the negotiations’ failure.3 And in reality, I bet it’d have no more chance of success than the current negotiations. After all, what would stop paid operatives (U.S. negotiators, for example) from taking the risk of playing chicken to force a weak deal. Nothing. Indeed that’s what’d probably happen. Pick some individuals who are willing to die (a soldier, someone with a terminal disease, or perhaps an older individual who would like to leave a good nest egg to his children) and send them to force a bad or no outcome (and take out several well-intentioned anti-plastic advocates in the process—bonus!). So just like the game version, it’s not actually a good idea (even setting aside the cruelty of it). But it does reveal just how difficult it is to expect a positive outcome in these negotiations. The political will has evaporated, and the rules of the game assume people are coming with honest intentions to the negotiating table. But we know not all of them are.
So what do we do? Apart from entertaining cathartic fantasies, I’m not sure. Perhaps continued aggressive pressuring—even non-violent civil disobedience like covert actions to fill up government buildings and company headquarters with plastic waste—could force governments and corporations to take bolder positions.
But as noted in this New Scientist article, the consensus-based model adopted at the United Nations is flawed. That author suggests taking action in multi-country coalitions, which would have an impact (and at the end of the day, that’s the form all treaties take as not every country ratifies the treaties they negotiate for). But just like with climate change, then you have two groups of countries playing by different rules—some are making money destroying the climate, some are trying to make money selling alternatives, but while this may slow the climate destruction moderately, the underlying problem is not being solved.4
What if, instead, states must first commit to ratifying the treaties before they even start to negotiate? So they have skin in the game, so to speak. To some states, that may be far scarier than having its citizens potentially drown in plastic debris! Perhaps oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia and the U.S. would then not even engage with the negotiations, fearing they’d be bound to take action when a final document was agreed upon. (Important note: the U.S. has ratified few U.N. conventions, including the law of the sea, the climate treaty, the tobacco control treaty, even seemingly non-controversial ones like the rights of the child, and the convention of the elimination of all forms of discrimination of women, once again revealing its imperial, or perhaps rogue state, status. So this begs the question, why are they allowed to negotiate for treaties they’re not going to ratify?)
Sure, one country could gamble (perhaps put to the task by their coalition of unwilling) and ratify the treaty and then work to water down the final text. So ultimately, consensus in a group of 190 contrasting interests is doomed to fail, even with this new condition added.
Ok, thinking even further outside of the (game) box: what about adding nature representatives to the negotiations—perhaps a committee of 20 or so people representing the oceans, major rivers, the soil, marine life, land animals, and so on. What if they could overrule changes proposed by small groups of countries? But if and only if the proposed changes conflict with the positive functioning of Earth’s systems (according to the majority of Earth representatives)? That might be a tweak that could be added immediately (perhaps symbolically at first, shaming states that push for self-interested positions) and over time incorporated into rule changes at the U.N. (Another important note: it turns out that rule changes, unlike treaties, only need two-thirds of members to support—still a high bar, but perhaps one that’s achievable even without the threat of drowning by plastic waste.)
So might that be a way forward? Establish an Earth Representative committee for each treaty (representing different Earth interests depending on the issue), based on a rule change at the United Nations.5 Countries, states, and localities are starting to do this already (such as recognizing the legal rights of a river), so why not at the supernational level? It’s long past time Earth had official representation at the U.N. Perhaps then the humans that are part of Earth would make decisions that prioritize the wellbeing of not just their countries’ industries and economic interests, but the wellbeing of all beings that depend on and are part of this living planet.
Endnotes
1) I’m sure you’re wondering who would volunteer for this? How about residents who live near toxic plastics factories, waste pickers, incinerator operators who are now dying from cancer, NGO representatives who have spent a lifetime fighting the industry only to be stymied time after time after time? I’m sure we could find a few who would offer their services….
2) Who would be invited to this disturbing negotiation session beyond negotiators? Should lobbyists be allowed? In an ideal world no. But I’m willing to compromise. They can come, but they have to remain seated (other than bathroom breaks). That way they’ll have a heightened interest in expediting the outcome!
3) This conjures up a scene from episode 2 of The Fall of the House of Usher, which makes my imaginings look mild indeed.
4) Anyone who has played Catan: Oil Springs with me knows that if one player continues to use oil, there’s a good chance all players will lose—unless heavy sanctions are imposed and the player is isolated and prevented from producing.
5) And yes, that’d create a new challenge of ensuring these individuals are truly representing nature rather than being plants for countries’ or industries’ agendas. Maybe they can be elected, using deliberative democracy?
Leave a Reply