Trade measures key to the success of global regulation to curb plastic pollution
Key Takeaways:
Plastics, across its lifecycle, is a globalized, interconnected market, so a lack of strong trade provisions would limit the effectiveness of the objectives of the proposed binding agreement.
Primary plastic polymers are a key driver of fossil fuel demand. Strong trade provisions would help signatories meet decarbonization goals.
Current regulations and provisions are not enough to govern the intricacies of the plastics lifecycle.
Given that the polymer market is likely in a state of secular decline, it would be financially wise for governments to avoid depending on plastics to drive their country’s economy.
As the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) of the United Nations Environment Assembly continues negotiations ahead of a final August 2025 meeting, it is essential that the full lifespan of plastic products be taken into account. Plastics and its raw materials are a highly globalized market, and a treaty that fails to address trade will likely have a limited impact on global production and consumption, according to an Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) briefing note.
The briefing note focuses on monomers and polymers that make the most problematic—single-use plastics (SUPs). SUPs are the single largest category contributing to plastic pollution. The UN has identified their indiscriminate use as a driver of the triple planetary crisis consisting of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss.
“Our research shows that petrostates lead trade in ethylene polymers—one of the largest categories of polymers contributing to the production of single-use plastics.,” said Swathi Seshadri, IEEFA energy specialist, petrochemicals and co-author of the briefing note.
“Some countries import the monomer or polymer and convert them into higher end polymers or end use plastic products, which are then traded,” she added. “A global regulation of plastic pollution without trade measures will only end up being circumventing the problem without addressing it.”
The analysis of economic and climate implications for just nine polymers has demonstrated the need for their trade to be regulated. Unlike downstream impacts such as waste management, upstream legislation of polymers – include trade – is severely inadequate.
“An assessment of the existing laws to regulate plastic pollution demonstrates an inadequate legal framework to phase out primary plastic polymers,” said Abhishek Sinha, an IEEFA energy finance analyst and co-author of the briefing note. “The few regulatory laws in existence are at the national level—a global regulation is needed to prevent petrochemical companies from keeping plastics in circulation.”
The analysis also finds that the unmitigated plastics trade could lead to significant emissions leakage, undermining countries’ environmental commitments.
“If parties manage to secure rigorous trade enforcement provisions, they will drive decarbonization in the process,” said co-author Connor Chung, an IEEFA energy finance analyst. “Petrochemicals are a major driver of global fossil fuel demand, so a plan to address their consumption and production will be essential to the broader success of states’ climate goals.”
With the petrochemical industry facing prospects of a secular decline, the sector is likely to pursue new products and markets aggressively to help boost business. If the production, trade and consumption of primary plastic polymers is not regulated and a proposed international legally binding instrument only focuses on product design and waste management, it will only transform the nature of the beast rather than eliminating it.
