Fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists have descended on UN plastics treaty negotiations in record numbers, as delegates from over 180 countries attempt to forge a global agreement to stem the tsunami of plastic pollution drowning the planet.

According to a new analysis by the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL), at least 234 lobbyists representing fossil fuel and chemical interests are attending the talks in Geneva, exceeding the combined delegations of the European Union and its 27 member states. 

Industry representation, which has steadily increased since talks began in 2022, now outnumbers expert scientists by three to one and Indigenous representatives by four to one. Nineteen of the lobbyists are registered as members of national delegations, including those of Egypt, Kazakhstan, China, Iran, Chile and the Dominican Republic.

“We have decades of evidence showing the fossil fuel and chemical industries’ playbook: deny, distract, derail,” said Ximena Banegas, CIEL’s lead campaigner on plastics and petrochemicals. “After obstructing climate negotiations for years, why would anyone expect them to act in good faith at the plastics treaty talks?”

CIEL cautioned that its estimate likely underrepresents the scale of lobbying, as some participants may not openly declare industry affiliations. The figure also omits representatives from adjacent sectors such as consumer goods and waste management, as well as informal advisers and lobbyists active in the inter-sessional rounds held since the collapse of talks in Busan, South Korea, last December.

“Involving the very corporations that profit from harm in shaping the path forward guarantees one thing: a treaty that protects their bottom line—not the public or the planet,” Bengas added.

Over 99 per cent of plastics are derived from oil, gas or coal, creating a near-total overlap between fossil fuel and petrochemical interests. Many of the same companies have also sought to influence international climate negotiations, with fossil fuel lobbyists numbering 1,773 at COP29 in Dubai. 

“The treaty meant to stop plastic pollution is being shaped by those who profit from it,” said Dylan Kava, communications lead for the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network. “You cannot solve a crisis by putting its primary cause at the decision-making table. And you cannot speak of justice while sidelining the very communities fighting for survival.”

Industry-aligned countries, including China, Russia, Iran and the US are pushing for a treaty centred on downstream measures such as recycling, circular economy principles and waste management. Yet less than 10 per cent of plastic waste is recycled globally, despite decades of investment and research.

“It is now clear that the world cannot recycle its way out of the plastic pollution crisis,” a landmark study in The Lancet, published on the opening day of talks, concluded.

More than 100 countries, including EU member states and the Alliance of Small Island States, support a legally binding cap on plastic production, reiterated at the UN Oceans Conference in Nice, France, in June. Many others have backed proposals to phase out harmful polymers and chemicals of concern.

“We need to get a solution to this problem. Everybody wants it. I’ve yet to meet somebody who is in favour of plastic pollution,” Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, told delegates. “Plastic pollution is already in nature, in our oceans and even in our bodies. If we continue on this trajectory, the world will drown in plastic, with grave consequences for planetary, economic and human health.”

“But this does not have to be our future,” Andersen said. “It is in your hands to ensure it does not happen. It is in your hands to protect us all, the environment and future generations.”

Intimidation by design

The petrochemical industry’s tactics extend beyond influencing treaty language or embedding lobbyists within national delegations.

Ahead of the Geneva talks, The Guardian reported on a coordinated campaign of intimidation, surveillance and obstruction by fossil fuel and petrochemical representatives targeting scientists and negotiators.

Bethanie Carney Almroth, a professor of ecotoxicology at the University of Gothenburg and member of the Scientists’ Coalition, described repeated instances of harassment, verbal abuse and invasive monitoring by industry figures at negotiations, unofficial side events, academic conferences and emails.

“I have a privacy screen protector on my phone because they walk behind us and try to film what’s on our screens—what notes we’re taking or who we’re messaging,” Almroth told The Guardian. “I would never open my laptop in a public space without knowing who is behind me. It’s a high-vigilance, high-stress environment.”

The UN Environment Programme, which oversees the treaty process, has faced repeated criticism since negotiations began in 2022 over a perceived lack of safeguards against conflicts of interest. Similar allegations have dogged the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in its handling of industry access to climate COPs, including last year’s COP30 in Baku. 

Greenpeace wrote to UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen on Tuesday, warning that the “once in a lifetime” opportunity to address the plastics crisis risks being “fatally undermined” by unchecked industry interference.

“There is clear precedent for action to prevent conflict of interest,” the letter stated, citing the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which explicitly excludes tobacco industry representatives. “The companies profiting from plastic pollution must not be allowed to shape the treaty meant to stop it.”

Ahead of the talks, a University of Cambridge study coined the opposition to the treaty the “petrochemical historical bloc,” finding the bloc is “driving up plastics production, externalizing the costs of pollution, distorting scientific knowledge and lobbying to derail negotiations.”

“There’s a fundamental, irreconcilable conflict of interest between the companies producing plastics and all of us who want to end plastic pollution,” said Rachel Radvany, head environmental health campaigner for CIEL.

“We have been calling on Member States since the beginning, and even more as we’ve seen the negotiations progress, to put strong conflict of interest policies in the treaty text and in the future COPs,” Radvany added. “This is not normal, and this should not be the way it works.” 

Organised resistance

Organised resistance to a global plastics treaty centred on production caps has been led by Saudi Arabia, supported by Russia, Iran and China since talks began in 2022. Under President Donald Trump, the United States has now joined their ranks.

This week, Reuters reported that the US delegation circulated letters urging countries to oppose treaty provisions targeting plastic production limits and chemical restrictions. These were described as “red lines” for the administration.

“We will not support impractical global approaches such as plastic production targets or bans and restrictions on plastic additives or plastic products – that will increase the costs of all plastic products that are used throughout our daily lives,” the memo, seen by Reuters, reads.

Limiting hazardous chemicals is a core demand from public health advocates. More than 16,000 chemicals are used in plastics, over 4,200 of which are considered “highly hazardous” to human health. An additional 5,000 compounds are classified as “unknowns,” with no public data on their safety or long-term impacts.

The Health Crisis That Could Make or Break the UN Plastics Treaty

While the previous US administration opposed production limits throughout much of the negotiation process, President Joe Biden made a notable policy reversal ahead of the last round of talks, dropping objections to caps on plastic production. 

However, following Trump’s victory ahead of the December negotiations in South Korea, the Biden administration largely abstained from participation in that final round in Busan. Industry representatives hailed Trump’s return to office as “an answered prayer” for US plastic producers.

The new administration first signalled its opposition at an informal meeting in Nairobi, where it stated: “We support an agreement that focuses on efforts that will lead to reducing plastic pollution, not on stopping the use of plastics.”

Speaking to E&E News as talks resumed in Geneva, a spokesperson said the US approach would reflect “the Trump administration’s America First foreign policy,” adding: “The United States supports an agreement that respects national sovereignty and focuses on reducing plastic pollution without imposing onerous restrictions on producers that would hinder US companies.”

With consensus required for the treaty to advance, the firm alignment of the US with the petrochemical bloc has dealt a heavy blow to hopes of a strong agreement.

“They’re basically going full MAGA,” a source close to the talks told The Guardian. “They’re clearly coordinating with Saudi Arabia, Russia and others, because they’re using the same language.”

Production surge as industry seeks a lifeline

The diplomatic resistance of petrostates to a strong treaty has unfolded in parallel with a rapid expansion of their global petrochemical infrastructure.

The global petrochemical industry was valued at $638 billion in 2023 and is expected to reach $838bn by 2030. The broader oil and gas sector, responsible for supplying the fossil fuel feedstocks for plastic production, is valued at $6.9 trillion, making it one of the largest industries in the world.

Global plastic output has grown more than 250-fold since 1950, from less than two million tonnes to 475 million tonnes in 2022. At current rates, plastic production is projected to triple by 2060, according to the OECD. 

Today, plastics production already releases more than 2 gigatons of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases annually. If the plastics industry were a country, it would be the world’s fifth-largest greenhouse gas emitter, behind only China, the US, India and Russia.

If plastics production triples as expected, it would account for roughly a quarter of the remaining carbon budget that scientists say must not be exceeded to avoid breaking the Paris Agreement target of 1.5C. 

“We know for sure that all main producers are increasing capacity: US, China, South Africa, Brazil, Iran, Saudi Arabia,” Joan Marc Simon said, founder of Zero Waste Europe, told DW. “The only place where capacity is going down slightly is in the European Union. The rest of the world is increasing.”

This shift is not incidental, but central to the industry’s long-term survival. As demand for fossil fuels in the energy sector declines amid a shift to renewables, oil and gas companies have increasingly turned to plastics as a lifeline. Industry projections suggest that plastic production could double in the next 10 to 15 years, and triple by mid-century. 

Since the treaty process began in 2022, major producers—including Dow, ExxonMobil, BASF, Chevron Phillips, Shell, SABIC and Ineos—have added 1.4 million tonnes of new plastic production capacity. Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil company, plans to channel about one-third of its oil production to plastics and petrochemicals by 2030. 

“The petrochemical industry needs plastic as a safe haven from carbon liabilities,” a 2021 report from the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) found. “Increasing plastic production offsets falling demand for its fossil fuels. Plastic waste generation is expected to rise sharply as a result.”

Follow our UN Plastics Treaty coverage: 

‘Plastics Crisis’ Costs Trillions, Kills Hundreds of Thousands Each Year, Lancet Finds

Image Credits: UNEP, UNEP, White House , UNEP.