The International Risk Podcast

Episode 280: Paralysis by Consensus: The Collapse of the Plastic Treaty Talks with Christina Dixon and Alexandra Harrington

• Dominic Bowen • Season 5 • Episode 280

Share episode

I am Dominic Bowen, and I am the host of the International Risk Podcast.

At 7am on the 15th of August, after ten days of marathon sessions and a final overtime session that stretched more than 24 hours, the Chair of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution formally adjourned INC-5.2. What was meant to be the final round of talks on a global plastic treaty ended not with a breakthrough but with collapse. Despite two draft texts, delegates left Geneva without a consensus on a legally binding agreement. 

The deadlock revealed stark fault lines: on one side, a majority of countries demanding binding rules to tackle plastics across their full lifecycle — turning off the tap at the source. On the other hand, a minority of petrochemical and oil-producing states are pushing for a nationally determined approach, focused narrowly on recycling and waste management after production. The result? Paralysis by consensus: a process where the need for unanimity allowed a small group of obstructionists to stall the world’s response to a rapidly escalating crisis.

Today, we’re joined first by Christina Dixon, Ocean Campaign Leader at the Environmental Investigation Agency. For several years, Christina and her team at EIA have been pushing for a global treaty to tackle plastic pollution and she was present at the UN Environment Assembly in 2002 when nations adopted the resolution to begin negotiations on a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. Christina has more than 15 years of experience driving change through policy and strategic communication, including her previous role as Global Campaign Lead at World Animal Protection, and holds degrees in both Broadcast Journalism and Media and Communications. 

Alongside Christina, we are joined by Alexandra Harrington, an international law scholar and practitioner specialising in international organisations, environmental and sustainable development law, corporate social responsibility, transitional justice and treaty regimes. She is Chair of the Plastic Pollution Task Force at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). She has published extensively, with recent books inlcuding International Law and Global Governance: Treaty Regimes and Sustainable Development Goals Interpretation. She holds a doctoral degree in civil law, in addition to a JD and LLM.

The International Risk Podcast brings you conversations with global experts, frontline practitioners, and senior decision-makers who are shaping how we understand and respond to international risk. From geopolitical volatility and organised crime, to cybersecurity threats and hybrid warfare, each episode explores the forces transforming our world and what smart leaders must do to navigate them. Whether you’re a board member, policymaker, or risk professional, The International Risk Podcast delivers actionable insights, sharp analysis, and real-world stories that matter.

Dominic Bowen is the host of The International Risk Podcast and Europe’s leading expert on international risk and crisis management. As Head of Strategic Advisory and Partner at one of Europe’s leading risk management consulting firms, Dominic advises CEOs, boards, and senior executives across the continent on how to prepare for uncertainty and act with intent. He has spent decades working in war zones, advising multinational companies, and supporting Europe's business leaders. Dominic is the go-to business advisor for leaders navigating risk, crisis, and strategy; trusted for his clarity, calmness under pressure, and ability to turn volatility into competitive advantage. Dominic equips today’s business leaders with the insight and confidence to lead through disruption and deliver sustained strategic advantage.


Tell us what you liked!

This is a global problem that calls for a global response and those countries that are most impacted in the global south in small island developing states are unable to solve this problem alone. Welcome back to the International Risk Podcast where we discuss the latest world news and significant events that impact businesses and organisations worldwide. Hi, I'm Dominic Bowen and today we're joined by Christina Dixon and she's the ocean campaign leader at the Environmental Investigation Agency and for years Christina and her team at the EAI have been pushing for a global treaty to tackle plastic pollution and she was recently present at the UN Environmental Assembly when nations adopted the last resolution to begin negotiations on a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. 

I'm looking forward to hearing more about Christina about the evolution of the treaty and where it's gone and to join us today we also have Alexandra Harrington. She is an international law scholar and specialises in international organisations, environmental and sustainable development law, corporate social responsibility, transitional justice and treaty regimes and she's the chair of the Plastic Pollution Task Force at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and she's published extensively on this topic with recent books including International Law and Global Governance, Treaty Regimes and Sustainable Development Goals Interpretation. She's got a doctoral degree in civil law and an additional JD and an LLM and I'm looking forward to the conversation with Christina and Alexandra today. 

Welcome to the podcast Alexandra and Christina. Thanks for having me. Christina, you've been part of the Plastics Treaty process for about six years I understand and you were actually in the room in 2022 when it was first agreed that negotiations would actually be launched. 

I found a quote from you where you said it was truly historic. Can you tell us about the more recent experience in Geneva over summer and what occurred with negotiations around the use of plastic and what happened? Where are we today? Yeah sure and it's quite evil of you to remind me of 2022 when I was a happier a happier person perhaps because yeah it was a truly historic moment to agree to negotiate a new legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution like what an amazing goal. The global community came together at the tail end of the pandemic and committed to doing something really amazing and in that decision in 2022 it was agreed that by the end of 2024 governments would meet and try and flesh out the bones of a treaty that could look at the full life cycle of plastics. 

So everything from production through to the design and use of plastics and the kind of treatment at end of life and basically what happened is well firstly we didn't meet the deadline in 2024 because we're having this conversation in 2025. The negotiations initially were extended to this summer in August in Geneva. It was really the kind of last chance saloon to try and reach an agreement but what we found was that countries were still unable to overcome some of these fundamental obstacles that are blocking global ambition to end plastic pollution and these are things that really get to the heart of the matter not just of plastics as a material but also of international governance in general. 

So on the one hand we have petro states saying we don't want to deal with the production and reduction in production of plastics and the use of chemicals and plastics but we also have countries saying we don't want there to be the ability to vote in strengthening these obligations over time. So they want everybody to basically agree by consensus in everything we do and unfortunately what we found in Geneva is that we just can't reach consensus. It's not possible.

Alexandra, much of the news coverage following the recent session actually referred to the talks as a failure and I know when I certainly heard the news on the BBC they were using words like failure and collapse of the talks. From your vantage point, when you look at it from a legal perspective and in your experience looking at these sort of discussions, was it a failure or are there some glimmers of hope? Did you see any glimmers of hope coming out of the discussions in Geneva? Thank you for the question because I do think we need to address it. When we left many of us I think felt very heavy and so it seemed like an appropriate word. 

I don't think failure is the appropriate word. What we had at the end was at least an agreement amongst most countries who couldn't agree on it much else at a certain point to agree that the two drafts that were presented to us, so the chair did really quite strong work trying to bring together all the divergent viewpoints into a proposal for we could at least agree on this, what was called the chair's text. But what we all saw coming out of the end days of this was that those chair's texts were considered to be not complete enough and not to have met the legal requirement in terms of having a resolution saying when you're going to have this negotiation process this is the mandate. 

I think that was actually something that was not a failure. It was in many ways a huge success. Yes, we have many issues that are outstanding. 

Yes, there was a lack of agreement but there was at least an agreement that the treaty couldn't be so low ambition. So what we do when we throw away this lovely pen onwards rather than addressing the full life cycle which is what is actually in that mandate that we were given. So I do think there is a glimmer of hope from that. 

Small, it certainly is there. So you talk about the two drafts and the chair's drafts and feeling heavy because there was no agreement at the end. Can you help us understand what would a quality agreement look like? An agreement that most countries could get around and what would that actually have achieved? I know it's an excellent question. 

There's this block coming into play in terms of countries, a smaller block but a block that is very much opposed to having the full life cycle which is for the vast majority of countries and certainly for those of us who are working as observers, as members of civil society or intergovernmental organisations. So we really want to see the mandate complied with. For the vast majority of countries, over 100 countries thus far have really committed to wanting that type of legal instrument where we see commitments being put in place to address supply, address production and really try to find ways to limit plastic pollution and to make the production of plastic more sustainable. 

Which is a huge tall order but it's also something that we can use the treaty to start in many ways. So I think that's what we would really all like to see coming out of whatever round you get to in the negotiation process. And I understand that one of the stark divides during the negotiations was whether we should be tackling plastic production at source or focussing on recycling and waste management. 

And Chris, can you explain, I understand it sounds a little bit like Lord of the Flies or something, but there was the two groups. You had the high ambition coalition and then you had the like-minded petro states. Can you expand and help us understand how were those two different coalitions advocating for and where are we likely to go to from here based on those two blocks? I think to understand the different approaches from the different groups, it's really important to understand that within the framework of these negotiations, there is a recognition at its core that the current levels of production of plastic are unsustainable, right? So we are producing way more plastic than we're equipped to handle. 

Waste management systems globally are totally overwhelmed and less than 9% of plastics are actually recycled anyway. And so our systems can't handle the current input. And so in order to have any meaningful interventions along the life cycle of plastics, we need to really think about kind of reducing the size of the problem that we're facing. 

That's a sort of basic way of describing the situation. And it doesn't really account for health and climate impacts, which are also very relevant to the current situation of the overproduction of plastics. But then you have that problem, which I think is kind of acknowledged by most countries in the world that there's this unsustainable production. 

But we also have some economies which are heavily reliant on the production of plastics. And as we see reduced demand for oil and gas in the energy sector, plastics are the plan B for the oil and gas industry. So there's been quite substantial investment in the build out of petrochemical infrastructure to make more and more plastics.

And plastics companies are looking for uses for those plastics that is not compatible with an intention to reduce the amount of plastics that are being produced. So we have a sort of small number of countries that rely on this economic projection that we need to make more and more plastic. And this is a good use for oil and gas. 

And another group of countries who are saying, actually, we can't cope with the amount of plastics we're producing. We're concerned about the climate impacts. We're concerned about the health impacts. 

And the only way we're going to be able to transition to any sort of circular economy is if we start looking at producing less and then retaining the kind of value within the system that we're already producing and using. And so the high ambition countries and their friends, actually 103 countries, specifically INC 5.1, put forward a proposal to reduce the amount of plastics being produced. A global plastic reduction target and related national measures. 

Countries within that group include Panama, Pacific Islands, but also the EU, the UK, Norway, and others. And so they're on the one side to say, we need this global reduction target to guide our collective ambition and to guide what we're doing at the national level. And then we have the petro states, who they've been joined by their friend, the United States now as well, saying, actually, you know, our economies fundamentally rely on the production of plastics, and we cannot show any flexibility on this. 

For us, continued growth is the only way. And that is a really difficult situation for a negotiation, because you have the high ambition countries saying, we're willing to show a bit of flexibility on the strength of those regulatory measures on production, but the countries that don't want anything are not really willing to give up anything at all. So there's really nowhere to meet in the middle on the issue of production, which is why it's become a flashpoint issue. 

It's really at the core of everything. We can't agree on production, and people have been trying for a couple of years now without a lot of success. What you say makes sense. 

And I don't think it requires us to put much thought into realising that what you said is probably true. Waste management systems are overwhelmed. There's a massive overproduction of plastics. 

I think we can all see that, and we all feel that. But pushing back, pushing back against powerful states that drive this global plastic production, you know, is going to require a really combined and really strategic level advocacy, activism, and international coordination. And as you alluded to, they're very powerful states that are going to be pushing against that. 

So even if we look at advocating for stronger legislation, if we look at lobbying for treaty action, if we try and encourage our governments to remove fossil fuel subsidies or have tariffs on that, which tariffs are very popular right now, if activists try and expose corporate greenwashing, is that likely, and I don't want to discourage anyone listening to the podcast that's engaging in those activities, but is that likely to have an impact? Is that likely to convince big petro states or the USA with its current trajectory actually to encourage them to take a step back? Yeah, I think it's a fascinating question. And actually, there's a couple of different answers, right? So the kind of campaigner in me would say that when we first started working on the plastics treaty campaign, right, to have a plastics treaty, the idea of global measures to reduce production were pretty crazy. That was like a pretty out of the box idea. 

And in the space of just a couple of years, we've gone from mad activists wanting global reduction targets to having countries like Rwanda and Peru put forward a desire for a legally binding target for a 40 by 40, like 40% reduction by 2040 at INC4. So the kind of Overton window of what's possible has really shifted. And I really wouldn't want to, I guess, put forward a narrative that dealing with production is so insane, that it's simply not possible. 

Because actually, what I believe is possible has changed so much throughout the kind of course of the negotiations. And countries really have rallied around measures, which I might previously have thought were completely impossible. So that's one piece. 

The other piece is that we're not just dealing with petrostates, you know, countries that are heavily reliant on production, we are also dealing with a major issue around the presence of corporate lobbyists within the negotiations, and the kind of pushing of vested interests from the industry. And so a lot of organisations have been doing work to expose the presence of corporate lobbyists in negotiations, not just as representing their industry associations, but also appearing even on country delegations to kind of expose that and put in place some kind of safeguards to prevent conflict of interest. So I think there's work to be done, I guess, to protect this space. 

And if you look at other negotiations, for example, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the tobacco producers were shut out of being involved in the negotiations because they had a vested interest, a conflict of interest, right, in how tobacco is governed, of course. And for some reason, that same logic isn't being applied here. So these very companies that have profited for generations and will profit for years to come, have had unfettered access to government delegates, you know, offering shiny deals on the table to try and ensure that this treaty is meaningless. 

All of these pieces together, and it's very complicated, but I actually believe that dealing with production is completely possible. It's about finding the right policy, and also ensuring that a small number of countries are not able to effectively have a veto on a majority who want to do something. So there are ways that you can design regulations into the future, you could do things like they do in the Montreal Protocol, where you have a set of countries are moving forward at one speed, and another set of countries are on a slower timeline, for example, it's called a differentiated schedule, you can link access to finance to your commitment on, you know, the obligations that you're willing to commit to. 

So there are ways to secure meaningful measures on production at the global level without the buy-in of some of those countries. But there needs to be the leadership from the ambitious countries to put those ideas forward and drive them through. You raised some really interesting points. 

I'd love for our listeners to really understand what that looked like. Alex, I wonder if you can tell us, you know, when we look at the numbers, I think there was about nearly 3000 participants from 183 countries, which is fantastic. It's hard to say that that's not a good thing. 

And from what I saw, you know, the meeting brought together really diverse groups from civil society, indigenous groups, waste pickers, youth groups, frontline communities. But I also understand that there was over 230 lobbyists representing fossil fuel organisations and petrochemical states, which actually exceeded the EU delegations and the 27 member states, but also outnumbered scientists about three to one. I wonder, was that visible on the ground? I think about those numbers that there was, you know, over 230 fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbering scientists three to one. 

Could you feel that on the ground when you're walking and you're there for 10 days, you're sharing meals, you're in meeting rooms, you're debating certain things? Could you feel that on the grounds? Or did the lobbyists just sort of not have that much impact? It depended on the topic that we were talking about. So there were some where I think the visibility was far less, and it was rather the mundane thing. So the few things that we did get agreement on, largely things that were very basic elements of the treaty, like when does it open up for signature, whenever we have it, what are the languages, where do we do these things, those type of really nuts and bolts issues we didn't feel the lobbying on. 

And because of the way that the negotiations are structured, you will never have someone who is an industry lobbyist get up and take the floor and openly say, you know, I am representing X lobby, and this is our position during the negotiation. So it is much more subtle in that way. And you do see them more, and you do get a sense more of their being there, their presence at events often, so unofficial side events. 

And when you walk around on the grounds, obviously you see people who you do know, because at this point, we all tend to know each other because we've been working together very intensely. In terms of actual visibility there, there is less visibility in their actual statements publicly. Now that is both a good thing in the sense because this is a state-driven process, but it also can be seen as a bad thing in the sense that we, for transparency's sake, don't get an understanding of how that works, practise, and what countries are getting information or textual proposals, etc., given to them by lobbyists, which they then provide as their own state position. 

So we don't get that understanding. I do think in a controlled way, it is important to have a voice from industry, because they are the ones that will have to put a lot of this in place. And so if we don't have them there to at least provide their inputs and their perspectives, we can make anything we want, and it will be very difficult to have it be meaningful and something other than a very nice, well-written piece of paper. 

But we also have to balance that, right? Because we do have so many other groups that are really involved and have a vested interest on their own, as you mentioned, so many of them, the waste pickers, the youth, etc., that we do need to make sure there is a balance, I think, and make sure that the work that is being done by one lobbying group in this instance isn't overtaking the work of everyone else. And I'm sure, because I know Christina has her hand up, but I'm sure she wants to say something. Yeah, I think I want to agree with you, actually, and just maybe expand on something that I think is really important for people listening, which is around how we view the industry, because the industry is not a monolith, right? Like all industry actors are not the same. 

And I think it is quite key to make a distinction between chemical industry lobbyists, who have been extremely active in trying to derail the negotiations in a myriad of different ways, and then the kind of fast-moving consumer goods companies, the Unilevers, the Nestles, the Koch. I know campaign groups have issues with them in many different ways, and I'm not sort of saying they're perfect, but in the context of these negotiations, the kind of business coalition within which they operate has been really constructive in terms of engaging in the kind of core issues, engaging regularly with civil society, with waste pickers, with different stakeholders and rights holders, as well as with government delegations, and kind of pushing for a lot of the same measures. And the plastics treaty negotiations is probably one of the rare spaces in which I operate, where oftentimes I will find myself agreeing with a delegate from Unilever, saying, yeah, actually, yeah, I also want binding global regulations that are harmonised so that you have a level playing field for your business operations in different countries. 

Like, yes, I would like to see global product design criteria that ensures that each country has the same requirements when it comes to product design, to ensure safety and recyclability, all of these things. And we've even seen the business coalition which those companies are in talking about how to move towards virgin plastic reduction. So I think there's actually quite an alignment amongst segments of business and industry and other kind of stakeholders and rights holders. 

And so it's actually kind of a minority of the industry that I personally feel are not kind of engaging in good faith or don't really want something meaningful. And there's actually a huge kind of very valuable part of the industry that is committed to kind of a constructive process to get something that's implementable, but also ambitious, and can also help them with cost effectiveness of their operations, as well as helping them to meet their kind of voluntary targets. I certainly agree with that, Christine, and I wasn't at the negotiations, but certainly I work with a lot of large European companies, of which some of them are, and work in packaging and materials. 

And when I meet with the CEOs, and I meet with their COOs, and I meet with their head of R&Ds, they genuinely care. Like, they talk to me, and they don't need to sell anything to me. I'm providing support to them.

But they talk about sustainability. They talk about the communities where they're selling their products to. And they realise that, at least the companies that I'm working with, they realise that if the environment suffers, if communities, if society suffers, ultimately their business suffers. 

So it's in their interest to do the right thing. Now, I'm not saying every company takes that view, but certainly I'm blessed to work with some companies that that is the process that they're looking at, and they're trying to do the right thing. So I'm glad that you certainly saw some of that during the negotiations and with companies that you've been speaking with.

And on the International Risk Podcast, we really do want to focus internationally. We really don't want to just be focussing on discussions in Washington and Geneva and London. And I was really happy to hear from one of the speakers from Madagascar that said, and I'll quote what was said, we cannot ignore the gravity of the situation. 

Every day, our oceans and our ecosystems are suffering. They're suffering from the consequences of our inability to make decisive and unified actions. And we know many, many island nations are going to be at the forefront and already are at the forefront of suffering from many environmental issues.

But we know from the Arctic, right around the world, we're finding plastics in bloodstreams, it's coming up in breast milk, it's already impacting the health of people around the world. I wonder, did you feel when you were engaging and speaking and listening to delegations, was it a really good negotiation and opportunity for all countries around the world and all stakeholders to actually buy in and speak to and speak with the process that was occurring? Or is this still a very Western-led, Western-dominated process? I can't say it was necessarily all good or all bad. And I do work with a number of states, particularly from West Africa, as an advisor, some of which are small island states. 

And they have been very vocal from the beginning in terms of, especially the Pacific island states, really being the ones to bear the brunt first and needing to get their voices out there and needing to have everyone understand, as we go through this whole process, what the impacts are for them and where they really have standing, because they have so much of an immediate impact. And certainly when you go to these countries, you see that it is there daily. If you just walk out on the beach, it was in Calaveras several years ago, you go out every morning, you walk out on the beach and it's beautiful. 

It's sunny. And then you look down and you see the plastics on the beach. And it really does give you an idea of the gravity. 

So I think from one perspective, the ability of this whole process to convene so many countries, to get so many countries together and to let them all speak was really quite important. And it certainly is, it's a very critical stage for those countries to have in terms of being able to explain these issues. I do think, however, that there is also a negative side to that balance. 

And that is that the process is a long process. The process is a complicated process and it requires us all, obviously, to be there in person, which is wonderful. We get to see each other and there's nothing like being in the same room, but it is time consuming and it is resource intensive in terms of financial resources and also human capacity. 

And what we've seen is that this places a great deal of stress on a lot of states that are the most bearing the brunt right now of plastic pollution. The UN Environment Programme is able to provide some funding to make sure at least one delegate comes from each country, but still it's very difficult for this country to get their people there, to get people to divert their resources and their time away from their other portfolios. And I know people who work for countries, small island states, where they handle almost every multilateral environmental agreement. 

So they are constantly going between them and it really is quite a burden on them. And I think that is quite difficult for the process. But we do, I think, also see it as an issue when we're looking at the very long days that we had in these negotiations, especially towards the end, when we all kind of budget in very little sleep.

And I know I personally pack a bag full of chocolate just to get through the day. But there are many large delegations from Western states who have the numbers, the sheer numbers, to be able to make sure that they can always have a presence and always be very active, and yet have staff that's not as overwhelmed and overburdened. But then we also see that the smaller states that don't have that capacity. 

And so they have a choice between having someone who is completely exhausted running around between rooms at the end, or having someone take a rest, but then missing a really potentially important key moment. So I do think those issues of equity and fairness are still a problem when we're looking at participation. And yes, they can participate. 

Absolutely, those small island states, other states that are impacted can participate, but it's how they participate, which often gets to be on the borderline of incubating in some ways, I think. As we discussed at the start of the conversation, I think we all understand that plastic pollution creates real-world suffering in many ways. It damages human health, undermines community well-being, has significant economic pain, and really disrupts vital ecosystems. 

And, you know, we know that plastics in our personal systems and our bodies causes cancer, endocrine disruption, disease, reduced fertility, lung diseases, development disorders, cognitive impairments. And that's just us as humans. We also know that the impact on wildlife is significant, and the economic cost, I think it's between three and five hundred billion dollars annually to clean up plastics, just from an economic point of view. 

And then, of course, there's the impact on tourism and ability to use land that's being destroyed. Alex, can you help us understand even further, what are the risks? If we don't come to a solution in 2026 or 2027, what does that mean? What should business leaders, what should academics, what should mums and dads listening to this podcast, what should they understand the actual implications to them are? What are they going to see if we don't come to an agreement soon? So I think if we don't have an agreement, practically we will, as we understand more science, to just see, I think, a greater awareness. And probably what we will see is more countries trying to put in place their own regulations and even some regional groups saying that they will try to put in place their own regulations on products that we're all using, on products that are part of our lives every day. 

But we don't necessarily realise cause as much harm as they actually do in practise. So I do think that there are at least some countries that are really committed to doing this. And so they will start to put those things in place.

What I think is also really interesting to come out of this is the presence of youth in particular at these negotiations. I have been really lucky to work with the children in these major group to do trainings with them so that they knew kind of what to expect coming in and all of these things. And it was really, I think, quite powerful for many of them. 

And there was a very large youth delegation there and present. And I think what we'll also start to see is youth. And again, youth in the UN system goes up to age 35. 

So people who are in all sorts of different career capacities, but bringing those lessons back home and trying to really update their communities, update their families and make them aware of what these issues are. So I do think we'll start to see probably a lot more citizen activism in that way to encourage countries to move along, even if it's move along nationally, or perhaps even subnational. Because otherwise the alternative is that we do let it go unchecked and the shorelines continue to be more polluted, more overburdened waste management systems, which means at a certain point, many of them will break, which then gets to a question of if you're a small island state, for example, and you are at your threshold for waste management for plastic, what do you do with the plastic that you can't process? Many people will answer, well, ship it somewhere else. 

That is very costly. And then it also has implications from what happens when it goes to the next spot. What will happen to that? How do we handle that type of plastic overflow? So if we're not seeing some type of more positive national, regional and subnational work, then we will see, unfortunately, a great more visible daily reminders of the pollution that we are encountering with plastic. 

And then I think as we come to refine a lot more of the scientific knowledge, we'll also start to see people understanding that it is, as you mentioned, it is in our bodies, it is in our air, it is in the soil, it has passed through to our placenta from mother to child. So it really is quite at the beginning of life in a way that likely will become much more concerning for people as they really start to understand that. Yeah, thanks for explaining that, Alex. 

And Chris, I wonder if you wanted to add anything. What are the concerns that you think business leaders and our listeners really need to hear when it comes to the risks if we don't come to a solution about plastic production, plastic use, plastic recycling? So I think, you know, from my perspective, it's really difficult to try and talk about this without sounding really alarmist. But the reality is plastics are fossil fuels and we are already seeing the impacts of the climate emergency and the continued extraction of fossil fuels. 

We're seeing that in floods. We're seeing that with deadly heat waves. We're seeing that in droughts. 

So the impacts of the climate emergency are here and we know that plastics, the production of plastics in particular, is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. So our continued practise of producing plastics, it's an exacerbator of the climate emergency. So there is a major risk here if we don't address the unchecked production of plastics and the related emissions. 

So I think that's the first thing that's really important to note. The second thing I would say is that the growing body of evidence about the health impacts of plastics, which I think, you know, Dominic, you've given some really great examples of, this is an emerging health emergency that I think we have not really reckoned with. I think the majority of consumers, you know, your mom, your dad, whomever, I don't think they're aware that the plastics that we're bringing into our homes are full of toxic chemicals that we're giving our children toys to play with that can contain hazardous properties which are dangerous to their health and that the fact that plastics we're wearing in our clothes that we're breathing, these are all having, for example, impacts on neurological disorders, on reproduction, sperm counts, etc. 

So a kind of failure to act on health grounds I think is extremely concerning for society as a whole. When you take the climate emergency and you take the emerging health crisis, I think we have two very strong impetuses to act there. I think failure to act is potentially catastrophic for society and for human health into the future. 

And what we already know, you know, the reason that we agreed in the first place to negotiate a plastics treaty is that the status quo is not working. We have decades of failed industry action, missed targets based on voluntary commitments that companies have made. And in some cases, that's just because they kind of don't want to meet those targets. 

And in other cases, you know, those targets are impossible to meet without an enabling regulatory framework that can support the delivery of those targets. So this kind of patchwork, this fragmentation that we see each country going it alone, it's not working. This is a global problem that calls for a global response. 

And those countries that are most impacted in the global South, in small island developing states are unable to solve this problem alone. So the big risk is that those countries for which plastic pollution and the climate emergency and the health crisis are existential threats, I'm talking about countries like Tuvalu, already has high sea level. These are more populations that are at the front line of this crisis, we have an obligation to support those countries in doing something meaningful. 

So I think there's a meta level threats, but then there's very personal risks that I see to my health, my ability to procreate, the ability to guarantee that things that I'm bringing into my home are safe, they've been tested and proven to be safe. And I think that's a right that we all have the right to know that what we're bringing into our homes is safe. So that's a range of different things. 

But I think they're all really, really important. And I just don't know that in terms of public awareness, we're quite there yet in recognizing the severity of of the challenges that we face.

Thanks for explaining that, Chris. And thank you, Chris and Alex, for coming on the International Risk Podcast today.

It's my pleasure.

Thank you so much, Dominic.

Well, that was a great conversation with Christina Dixon. She's the Ocean Campaign Leader at the Environmental Investigation Agency and Alexandra Harrington. She's an international law expert and chair of the Plastics Pollution Task Force at the World Commission on Environment Law of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Please remember to go to the International Risk Podcast website and subscribe to our newsletter to get our updates in your inbox every second week. Today's podcast was produced and coordinated by Anna Kummelstedt. I'm Dominic Bowen, your host. Thanks very much for listening. We'll speak again next week.