What to do with all this plastic polluting the oceans, food and even our bodies? That’s the question delegates from 175 countries tried to answer this week in Busan, South Korea. The fifth and final round of negotiations is underway here on a UN-led agreement that will regulate the entire lifecycle of plastics, including production, design and manufacturing. destroy

Many hoped the initiative, launched two years ago, would lead to the most effective environmental agreement since the Paris climate accord in 2016. But sharp disagreements during four rounds of talks have raised concerns that the Busan session will result in a watered-down agreement that falls short of these ambitious goals.

The biggest disagreement centers on whether the agreement will focus on reducing overall plastic production or whether simply improving recycling practices will be enough. Meanwhile, the determination of the United States, one of the world’s leading plastic waste producers, began to be questioned following the presidential election results.

Ahead of Monday’s meeting, South Korean Environment Minister Kim Wan-sup tried to temper expectations, telling reporters: “I think it might be more realistic to take measures gradually.” Here’s what you need to know about the issue and fix efforts:

How serious is the global plastic problem?

Few people deny that pollution levels have reached dangerous levels. Between 2000 and 2019, annual plastic production doubled and reached 460 million tons. It is expected to reach 736 million tons by 2040, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Very little of the world’s plastic waste (about half of which consists of single-use plastics such as packaging, straws and disposable tableware) is recycled. Only 9% of the 353 million tons of plastic thrown away in 2019 was recycled.

That figure is even lower in the US, where each person produces an average of 487 pounds of plastic waste each year: Just 4% was recycled in 2019, with the majority burned or thrown away.

Because it doesn’t biodegrade, most of the plastic we throw away ends up in the environment as microplastics, tiny particles less than 5 millimeters in size that are found in water, food, and even the human placenta.

Despite the fact that its impact on human health has only just begun to be investigated, New England Journal of Medicine It links microplastics in some blood vessels to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

“Our world is drowning in plastic pollution,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a video message to delegates on Monday. “By 2050, there may be more plastic than fish in the oceans. Microplastics in our blood create health problems that we are only beginning to understand.”

Is there a way out?

Research shows it’s not too late to take action. An article published in a journal Science, showed that just four policies could “reduce the misuse of plastic waste by 91% and reduce gross plastic-related greenhouse gas emissions by a third.”

The two most impactful are a mandatory minimum of 40% recycled content for new plastic products, followed by caps on new plastic production, as well as a tax on plastic consumption and increased investment in waste management systems.

What are the biggest obstacles to negotiating a deal?

The toughest questions were also the most critical: who would pay for what and whether the agreement would set binding production limits or allow countries to set and stick to their own voluntary targets.

Poorer countries, such as small island nations in the Pacific, are calling on their richer partners to take a larger share of the financial cost of the waste produced mostly by developed economies but reaching their shores. According to UN estimates, anti-plastic measures will cost $1.64 trillion by 2040.

On the other hand, countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, whose economies depend on the fossil fuels that provide the ingredients for plastic, oppose mandatory production limits and prefer to focus on recycling and waste management instead.

Countries such as Rwanda and the United Kingdom have imposed clear limits on the production of new plastics, while fossil fuel-producing countries have insisted that parties be allowed to set their own voluntary targets.

“We reject any proposals that overburden the sector,” Saudi Arabia said in its opening speech on Monday, advocating “a recycling solution rather than a harsh exclusion policy.”

Virginius Sinkevičius, president of the European Environmental Protection Commission, predicted that it would be very difficult to complete the negotiations by the end of November this year, citing the “delaying tactics” of countries in this camp.

Why do so many countries and environmental activists oppose a recycling-focused solution?

Few would dispute that better waste management is necessary. But critics say the almost exclusive focus on recycling exaggerates the impact it can have and distracts from more fundamental solutions to plastic pollution.

“We need to stop doing this so much. It really is that simple. “And this agreement is our best chance to do that,” said John Hochevar, Greenpeace US Oceans Campaign Director.

“This is not a problem we can solve with recycling,” he said. “Most plastics will never be recycled.”

This is the case with the California prosecutor. General Rob Bonta is suing Exxon Mobil, one of the world’s largest producers of petroleum-based polymers used to produce single-use plastics.

In a complaint filed in San Francisco County Superior Court this year, the state Department of Justice alleged that the company “deceived Californians for nearly half a century by promising that recycling could solve the growing plastic waste problem.”

“Exxon and Mobil, through the Plastics Industry Association, created and promoted the trailing arrow symbol despite knowing that it misled the public into thinking that all plastics are recyclable,” the complaint states. The statement was included.

Exxon Mobil “knew that these statements were false or likely to mislead the public, including the information that most plastics cannot be recycled on a large scale.”

What about the United States?

In August, US negotiators reportedly decided to support production ceilings, in a surprising reversal from previous positions requiring individual voluntary targets. But officials told environmental groups at a closed-door meeting this month that they no longer considered such a border a viable “landing zone,” according to climate news site Grist.

Many doubt the deal, even if it were to happen, would survive under President-elect Donald Trump, who has a long history of rolling back climate regulations and recently appointed fossil fuel executive Chris Wright as energy secretary. During his first term, Trump pulled the United States out of the landmark Paris climate agreement, calling it a “robbery.”