Plastic hegemony and the UN Global Plastics treaty

Global plastic production has experienced an enormous expansion, rising from 2 million tonnes in 1950 to over 390 million by 2021. Projections indicate that plastic production and waste are likely to triple by 2060 under existing policies. This growth exacerbates planetary boundary transgressions and ecological crises. While research has historically sidelined non-energy uses of hydrocarbons, this report introduces the concept of a ‘petrochemical historical bloc’ to explain the power structures sustaining plastic dominance in contemporary consumer capitalism.

The petrochemical historical bloc

The ‘petrochemical historical bloc’ represents an alliance of diverse social forces, including industry members, state institutions, non-governmental organisations, private finance, and consultancy firms. These actors collectively maintain ‘plastic hegemony’, which refers to the structural, discursive, and institutional arrangements that normalise dependence on plastics while marginalising or co-opting alternatives.

Fossil capital under challenge

The fossil fuel historical bloc faces material pressures as electrification and renewable energy challenge hydrocarbons. In this context, firms are pivoting toward petrochemical-plastic production to hedge against declining fuel demand. Petrochemicals now hold the hope of the oil industry, serving as a crucial diversification strategy to maintain incumbency in the global political economy.

The foundations of the petrochemical historical bloc

The industry’s rise was reinforced by close ties between productive capital and policymakers in countries such as the US, Germany, and Japan. Post-war industrial policies and the Marshall Plan accelerated growth, making petrochemicals a core component of Fordist capitalism. By the 1960s, the industry was bolstered by subsidies and preferential treatment for state-owned enterprises, embedding synthetic materials into global cultural economies.

The recent expansion of the petrochemical historical bloc

The bloc is expanding significantly through market creation in the Global South, particularly in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Petrochemicals are currently the main driver of growth in oil demand, a trend expected to continue until 2050. Investments in petrochemical technologies and infrastructure are estimated to exceed $300 billion by 2030, much of it directed toward developing countries via direct loans and corporate bonds. This expansion has also produced a rise in waste, half of which was generated over the past 15 years.

Challenges to the petrochemical historical bloc: strategies and responses

In response to mounting regulatory demands and environmental activism, bloc members have sought to safeguard their interests by co-opting circular economy discourses. They promote ‘technical fixes’ such as chemical recycling and waste management rather than production cuts. This framing depicts plastic pollution as an ‘end of pipe’ problem solvable through incremental fixes, thereby deflecting calls for systemic reform.

The petrochemical bloc and the UN Global Plastics treaty

Background

In 2022, 175 nations adopted a resolution to negotiate a legally binding instrument on plastic pollution. Negotiations have been characterised by contestation between a ‘high ambition’ coalition seeking production cuts and a petrochemical bloc pushing for a weak treaty focused on voluntarism and downstream measures. Multistakeholderism has become the default mode of global governance in this process, allowing corporations to shape the treaty’s agenda.

Plastic partnerships

Alliance to end plastic waste

Launched in 2019, the Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW) pledged US$1.5 billion to reduce ocean plastic waste. It now includes 70 members, including ExxonMobil, Shell, and Dow. The AEPW frames the issue as a waste management problem rooted in inadequate collection systems in the Global South. However, its impact has been limited; by 2022, the AEPW had achieved only 0.04% of its recycling and recovery target, while its members significantly increased production. Critics have labelled the alliance ‘barely credible’, accusing it of sophisticated greenwashing.

Global plastics action partnership

The Global Plastics Action Partnership (GPAP) is a World Economic Forum-led initiative supported by the World Bank and funded by northern governments including the UK and Canada. GPAP presents itself as a platform to ‘unlock financing’ for the circular economy. While it recognises reuse models, its concrete actions have focused on recycling and waste infrastructure. An evaluation by the UK government found limited evidence of tangible outcomes or progress toward environmental and social impacts.

Trasformismo and the political economy of plastics

The report concludes that the AEPW and GPAP deploy a ‘trasformismo’ strategy to protect plastic hegemony. This involves assimilating potentially dangerous ideas, such as transformative interpretations of the circular economy, and rendering them compatible with continued expansion. By focusing on downstream recovery, the bloc reinforces individual responsibility and justifies continued production growth, rendering global responses centred on reducing production as ‘implausible’.

Conclusion

The future of plastic governance remains open, with counter-hegemonic alternatives retaining traction despite the material and institutional power of the petrochemical historical bloc. Pursuing transformative change requires confronting the industrial interests and cultural norms that normalise plastic use and disposability within contemporary consumer capitalism.