The recent collapse of the UN Plastics Treaty negotiations in Geneva has left many environmentalists disheartened. Advocates for reducing plastic production clashed with oil-producing states and industry groups, who pushed back against what they viewed as unrealistic restrictions. The outcome was predictable: deadlock, disappointment, and yet another reminder that global environmental diplomacy often struggles when ideology overshadows practicality.

But the failure in Geneva should not be written off as wasted effort. Instead, it should serve as a moment to reassess how the world is approaching the plastic problem. Too much of the debate has been framed in binary terms-ban plastics versus preserve the status quo-when the real solution lies elsewhere. The issue is not the existence of plastics but their persistence in the environment long after their useful life has ended.

Plastics are valuable, versatile materials. They extend food shelf life, reduce transportation costs, protect medical supplies, and are deeply embedded in modern infrastructure. The problem begins after disposal. When plastic escapes waste collection systems, it lingers in the environment for decades, gradually breaking down into tiny fragments. These micro-plastics accumulate in oceans, rivers, soils, and living organisms-including humans.

Traditional policy tools-reduce, re-use, recycle-are insufficient. Recycling infrastructure is........

© Blitz