The Right to Break Free from the Carbon Lock-in of Plastics | Geneva Rights and Climate Talks & Beat Plastic Pollution Dialogues

About this Event

In her report to the 59th session of the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/59/42), the UN Special Rapporteur on climate change, Elisa Morgera, stresses that the increasing production of plastics and petrochemicals is embedding dependence on fossil fuels in our economies within and beyond the energy sector, regardless of continued contributions to climate change and other human rights harm. In addition, plastics and petrochemicals cause their own host of severe human rights impacts, worsening climate change, biodiversity loss and toxic pollution, and thereby compounding negative impacts on the rights to life, health, an adequate standard of living and a healthy environment and on cultural rights.

The UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights, Marcos Orellana, in his 2021 report to the UN General Assembly, had also examined the current and future negative implications of the various stages of the plastics cycle for the enjoyment of human rights. The ever-increasing plastics production, incineration and waste dumping only aggravate such detrimental implications.

Taking place one month before countries meet in Geneva to continue negotiating a global treaty to end plastic pollution, this event, organized in the margins of the 59th session of the Human Rights Council, in the framework of the Geneva Rights and Climate Talks and the Geneva Beat Plastic Pollution Dialogues, highlighted the importance of integrating human rights in the future instrument.

Speakers

By order of intervention.

Walter SCHULDT

Minister, Permanent Mission of the Republic of Ecuador to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva

Elisa MORGERA

UN Special Rapporteur on climate change

Dharmesh SHAH

Consulting Senior Campaigner (Plastics Treaty), Environmental Health Program, Center for International Environmental Law

Frankie ORONA

Executive Director, Society of Native Nations, Co-Facilitator for the UNEP Indigenous Peoples Major Group & OHCHR Indigenous Fellow

Kartik VERMA

Children and Youth Major Group to UNEP | Youth Plastic Action Network (YPAN)

Yves LADOR

Representative of Earthjustice to the United Nations in Geneva | Moderator

Diana RIZZOLIO

Coordinator, Geneva Environment Network

Highlights

Video

Summary

Welcome

• This last Geneva Rights and Climate Talk organized in the margins of the 59th session of the Human Rights Council of is part of the Geneva Beat Plastic Pollution Dialogues, the series of events that the Geneva Environment Network and the co-conveners launched two years before the adoption in 2022 of the historic resolution at the United Nations Environment Assembly, setting up the path to a global treaty to end plastic pollution. The intergovernmental negotiating committee to develop the international legally binding instrument that was set up following the adoption of the resolution, will be resuming its fifth session next month in Geneva, at the Palais des Nations, at the heart of multilateral Geneva.
• Reflecting on the background image chosen for this event—an artwork entitled Perpetual Plastic Machine—this powerful installation by artivist Benjamin Von Wong, created in collaboration with Greenpeace, vividly illustrates the toxic relationship between fossil fuels and plastic production. The piece was conceived as a striking visual call to action, advocating for a legally binding treaty that not only caps and phases down virgin plastic production but also ensures a just transition for workers in the plastics sector. Unveiled in Paris during the second session of the INC, the artwork sets a poignant tone for urgent environmental reform. Benjamin Von Wong did art installations in the margins of other INC sessions and of the United Nations Environment Assembly. His artworks are visual reminders of the urgency of the plastics crisis, the relentless plastic production and the importance of a human rights approach.
• Benjamin Von Wong will be back in Geneva in August with an artwork illustrating the urgency to end inaction.

Opening

Walter SCHULDT | Minister, Permanent Mission of the Republic of Ecuador to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva

• Scientific evidence and official reports clearly show that plastic pollution has direct impacts on a wide range of human rights, including the rights to a healthy and sustainable environment, water, health, and even access to information. These impacts extend beyond the environment and ecosystems, affecting human well-being at multiple levels. Plastic pollution is also closely linked to climate change, as highlighted in reports such as those by the Special Rapporteurs.
• For Ecuador and the chairmanship of the INC, it is essential that the final phase of negotiations, especially those concluding in August, deliver comprehensive solutions. This is not only due to the evidence of wide-ranging impacts but also because of the mandate in Resolution 5/14, which calls for actions specifically aimed at ending plastic pollution.
• A comprehensive approach is needed, one that addresses the full life cycle of plastics, from design and manufacturing to transportation, processing, disposal, and even certain recycling processes. At each stage, numerous human rights are at risk, starting with the emissions from fossil fuel extraction used in plastic production, and continuing through the impacts of mismanaged waste and plastic degradation.
• These risks highlight the importance of incorporating life cycle thinking into solutions. The urgency of the situation is clear, and while there is still optimism, there is also a strong sense of responsibility. Progress requires pragmatism and the ability to find common ground, despite persistent divergences among delegations.
• Recent discussions, such as those in Nairobi, reveal that some participants still question the very premise of an international regime on plastics, echoing debates from the earliest negotiation stages. In particular, some push back against the idea that a majority of countries should adopt measures that could affect the economies of the top five plastic-producing countries. Nonetheless, moving forward with effective and equitable measures remains essential.
• The vast majority of the global population, including future generations, should not have to suffer the consequences of inaction, especially when it is well-established that plastic pollution harms both human rights and the environment. Scientific evidence confirms the presence of microplastics in human bodies, including in the blood, brain, and lungs, and links them to a growing number of diseases.
• The urgency of the issue is clear, but the challenge now lies in how to address it effectively. The solution must build on existing measures from other international frameworks such as the Basel Convention, Minamata Convention, and the climate regime, and bring these together through specific provisions within the new plastics treaty.
• These provisions should go beyond mere recognition of harm (as seen in instruments like paragraph 11 of the Paris Agreement) and establish entry points for action. These include ensuring a just transition, health protections, education and awareness, access to information and respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Although the treaty may not be able to fully develop all these areas immediately, establishing these entry points would lay the groundwork for future programs of work and responsibilities for the upcoming scientific and technical body, including chemical and product listings, phase-out or phase-down measures for substances proven to be highly dangerous to human health and the environment.
• Drawing from the experience of climate change negotiations, the process may be slow and complex, but must be pursued with optimism. Geneva offers a strong platform for progress, given its concentration of expertise, financial actors, academia, civil society, and international organizations; all of which can help drive the final push toward a meaningful, effective treaty.

Keynote

Elisa MORGERA | UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and climate change

• The latest report clarifies key aspects of the evolution and projected growth of fossil fuel production, aiming to provide the Human Rights Council with a more holistic understanding of the root causes of climate change. It questions whether current responses, spread across various international environmental agreements, including those still in development, are truly aligned and effective in addressing these root causes.
• Despite increasing scientific and political recognition of the need to phase out fossil fuels to mitigate climate change, the data shows a troubling reality: fossil fuel extraction and production continue to expand and are expected to grow further. This trend starkly contrasts with progress made in decarbonizing the energy sector, highlighting a major inconsistency between commitments and actual developments.
• Fossil fuel companies are expanding production, particularly in sectors beyond energy, with plastic production emerging as a key growth area. This trend has been highlighted by academic research and civil society as a critical blind spot in the climate regime.
• The focus on decarbonizing the energy sector, while important, is not sufficient. The concept of “defossilization”, moving away from fossil fuels entirely, not just in energy—becomes essential. Scientific literature on plastics underscores that even a fully decarbonized energy sector would not eliminate the climate, biodiversity, toxic, and human rights impacts driven by fossil fuel use in plastic production.
• A particularly under examined issue is the role of subsidies for plastic production, which often overlap with or reinforce fossil fuel subsidies, further entrenching harmful economic models. These subsidies contribute to the systemic embedding of fossil fuels in national economies, locking some countries into fossil-dependent development pathways.
• The broader understanding of fossil fuel use, beyond energy, is necessary to fully grasp the scope of environmental and human rights risks, and to design effective, future-proof climate and sustainability strategies.
• The report also finds that the expansion of fossil fuel production for plastics not only continues to drive climate change, but also exacerbates its negative impacts on human rights and the environment. This expansion further undermines both human resilience and the Earth’s life-supporting systems, weakening their ability to regulate the climate and compounding the already severe intergenerational human rights consequences of climate change.
• Plastic production is not just a climate issue, it is also a pollution issue, particularly affecting ocean ecosystems. Extensive evidence shows how plastics harm the ocean, which is vital to maintaining a stable climate and upholding human rights. The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to a healthy environment previously emphasized this link in a report on the ocean, underscoring how a healthy marine environment is essential for the realization of all human rights.
• Plastic pollution has severe and multilayered human rights impacts, especially through its degradation of ocean health, which is essential for climate stability, biodiversity, and human well-being. A polluted ocean undermines rights related to food, health, and livelihood for millions who depend on it.
• Plastics also affect food systems, disrupting food value chains, harming water and soil quality, and reducing agricultural yields. The FAO has issued strong warnings about plastic contamination in agriculture, which adds yet another dimension to the environmental and human rights crisis.
• These impacts accumulate across various domains—nutrition, physical and mental health, and the spread of vector-borne diseases, and they affect vulnerable populations disproportionately, especially children, including in utero. Moreover, the economic structures and subsidies supporting plastic and fossil fuel industries perpetuate a dependency that continues to lock societies into a harmful model, often without public awareness.
• Given the extensive evidence and the emphasis in the report on the urgent need to defossilize economies, several concrete recommendations are made in relation to the ongoing plastic treaty negotiations, focused on four key areas:
• Restricting primary plastic production and plastic waste exports: the treaty presents an opportunity, and a human rights imperative, to limit the primary production of plastic as a means to support defossilization, and to restrict the export of plastic waste, which contributes significantly to climate change and related human rights harms.
• Establishing science-based design criteria free from conflicts of interest. It’s critical that the treaty includes robust design standards based on international scientific processes that are independent and free of industry influence. This responds to concerns about the fossil fuel industry’s role in undermining access to scientific information and capturing decision-making spaces — a dynamic highlighted in the report’s section on disinformation and obstruction tactics.
• Addressing the limits and harms of plastic recycling. Building on the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics, the report stresses the inherent limitations and health risks linked to current plastic recycling methods. It warns against false solutions that promote recycling as a sustainable pathway, as such narratives perpetuate fossil fuel dependence.
• Ensuring remedies and inclusive Just Transition. The treaty must also establish mechanisms for compensation and remedy for the harms caused by fossil fuels and plastics, both in terms of climate impact and direct harm to communities and workers, including those in the informal waste sector. A just transition must fully involve affected communities, workers, and relevant knowledge holders to ensure equity and effectiveness.

Panel Discussion

Dharmesh SHAH | Consulting Senior Campaigner (Plastics Treaty), Environmental Health Program, Center for International Environmental Law

• Plastics and petrochemicals are part of the fossil fuel problem. Fossil fuels are not just an environmental threat, but also a public health emergency, a human rights crisis, and an economic dead end, even from the point of good economics. Plastics are not only a threat to ecosystems but also a direct assault on people, especially those who face the brunt of the problem in petrochemical corridors of the US, China, and India, at extraction sites like Alberta and Nigeria, and where plastic ends up as garbage or waste in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia.
• In each of these situations, communities are trading their health for someone else’s convenience. Plastic production, use, and disposal across its life cycle violates numerous human rights — including the rights to life, health, water, food, housing, cultural identity, and a clean environment.
• These harms are deeply intersectional, layered by race, caste, gender, and geography. In countries like India, caste plays a major role. The waste trade also exposes a racist, geographically unequal system. This structural inequality is not accidental — it is part of the design of the petrochemical economy, and deeply embedded within it.
• Plastics are fossil fuels, made from oil, gas, and coal. Plastic production now emits more carbon than the aviation sector, and the industry plans to quadruple production. Plastics are a way for the fossil fuel industry to stay alive in a world transitioning toward renewable energy.
• Plastics are the fossil fuel industry’s Plan B — as the world shifts toward renewable energy, fossil fuel companies are investing heavily in plastics and petrochemicals to stay viable. Demand is expected to grow, yet plastics have no viable decarbonization pathway. Processes like cracking and polymerization require intensive heat and fossil fuel feedstocks, making decarbonization extremely difficult.
• There is no way to make plastics clean and safe, since chemicals are an inherent part of plastic manufacturing. The only climate-aligned path is dramatically less plastic.
• A production-oriented treaty could set a powerful precedent: if countries agree to a legally binding reduction in plastic production, it would be the first global environmental treaty to regulate fossil fuel demand in a non-energy sector. This would send a strong signal that production controls are essential to achieving climate, environmental, and health targets, including on chemicals, biodiversity loss, and human health.
• The right to health is central to this issue. Defossilization is not only necessary for the climate, but also to prevent mass illness, premature deaths, and toxic injustice. Microplastics and harmful chemicals are now present in everyone’s bodies, underscoring the urgency.
• Everyone is impacted by the plastic economy. Watching the plastic treaty negotiations can often feel like UNFCCC déjà vu, where a few petrochemical-aligned states block consensus while the world faces escalating crises.
• Still, there is hope, at the last INC, 100 countries called for caps on production. Yet, a handful of countries continue to delay and dilute progress, not because of science, which is very clear, but because of profit motives.
• Another UNFCCC-style process can not be afforded, marked by procedural paralysis, lack of enforcement, and lack of ambition. What is needed is an ambitious treaty, grounded in bold decision-making, to effectively address the plastic crisis.
• Civil society is not a side character but is at the conscience of the process. Civil society has pushed for ambition, justice, and science, and many governments have acknowledged that their presence increases accountability.
• However, access is shrinking, and voices are being sidelined, a trend that is not just undemocratic, but dangerous. Civil society continues to fight for a seat at the table, or even just to observe negotiations, but is often excluded from key discussions.
• A treaty without the participation of affected communities is not a treaty built on justice. Groups like Indigenous peoples, informal workers, frontline communities, and youth are rights holders with legal claims, yet they are being grouped together with harm-causing corporations under the label of multistakeholderism. This approach is not true inclusion, it is a form of institutionalized injustice. As practiced today, multistakeholderism creates a false symmetry between the powerful and the harmed, and this must be challenged.

Frankie ORONA | Executive Director, Society of Native Nations, Co-Facilitator for the UNEP Indigenous Peoples Major Group & OHCHR Indigenous Fellow

• Indigenous Peoples and frontline communities have long resisted extractive industries, well before plastics became a global crisis. As negotiators prepare for INC 5.2 in Geneva, the rights to life, health, culture, and clean environments hang in the balance.
• Plastics are not just litter or single-use items; they are fossil fuels encased in molecules and toxic chemicals. 99% of plastics are made from fossil fuel feedstocks, contributing 3–8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, potentially rising to 13% or more of the remaining 2050 carbon budget if current production continues.
• Communities around the world, from coastal, Arctic, desert, forest, island, and riverine regions, have suffered for generations. In Fiji, plastic-clogged shores prevent fishing. In the Arctic, plastic chemicals contaminate food sources like walruses and seals, threatening health and culture. Extraction of petrochemical feedstocks often occurs on Indigenous lands, causing displacement, poisoning, and the disruption of entire ways of life.
• This is described as ecological colonialism; where lands, bodies, and communities are treated as sacrifice zones for plastic production. From the Gulf South of Turtle Island to the Pacific Islands, and from the Arctic to the Amazon, Indigenous communities are among the most impacted and the least heard.
• Plastics poison water, disrupt food systems, displace people, and desecrate sacred places. Children are being born with petrochemical toxins in their blood. Entire food chains and knowledge systems are under threat because the ecosystems that sustain them are being destroyed.
• This is the plastic trap: a system of dispossession, pollution, and exclusion. Indigenous peoples have been systematically excluded from the plastics treaty negotiations. In Basan, they had to raise their fists just to ask for two minutes to speak. Their demands are clear: not just a cap, but a reduction in plastic production, a ban on all toxic additives, and the protection of their distinct rights.
• Indigenous people’s lived experiences, traditional ecological knowledge, and worldviews must shape the treaty outcomes. Without this, the treaty will reflect fossil fuel interests, not justice and human rights for all.
• To break free from the current lock-in, a system-wide change is needed, including the reduction and phase-out of plastics and a rejection of false solutions. Strong governance is needed, as well as the enforcement of bans on harmful chemicals, and accountability for plastic-producing countries.
• A true non-toxic circular system must be community-led, draw on traditional materials, and prioritize safeguards for human health and the environment.
• The treaty must follow a rights-based approach, centering the rights of Indigenous Peoples as enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It must also adopt a full life cycle approach, addressing plastic pollution from its roots; starting at extraction, not just production and waste.
• Indigenous people were not meant to inherit plastic-choked lands, rivers, and oceans, but to live in balance, protecting all creation. Negotiators are urged to embed a rights-based, justice-oriented approach centered on reducing plastic production. Civil society is called to amplify Indigenous voices and ground their positions in the lived realities of frontline communities.
• When the web of life breaks, it must be rewoven. Ending the carbon lock-in of plastics is not only climate action; it is the restoration of rights, culture, and justice. The treaty must serve as a ceremony of repair, honoring ancestors and future generations, healing lands, and securing a future where children live free from the harm of plastics.
• Indigenous peoples are not victims, but protectors, defenders, and innovators. A just treaty must be co-created with Indigenous communities; not for them or about them, but with them.
• The womb, as the first sacred home, is now contaminated by plastics, petrochemicals, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Children are entering the world already exposed to toxins. Recognizing this truth should guide decisions toward justice, safety, and shared responsibility.

Kartik VERMA | Children and Youth Major Group to UNEP | Youth Plastic Action Network (YPAN)

• Youth have been actively engaged in the negotiations since the beginning, including during the adoption of the resolution at UNEA. Ahead of INC-5, the Children and Youth Major Group (CYMG) outlined ten key priorities, calling for a treaty that addresses the full life cycle of plastics, reduces primary plastic polymers, bans toxic chemicals, and upholds human rights and a just transition.
• However, once INC-5 began, the pace of progress slowed significantly, and the emergence of INC-5.2 was not originally on the agenda. In response, youth released a statement and a non-paper on the Chair’s text, emphasizing three major points:
• The need for global ambition to ensure strong national implementation. A weak or delayed treaty without proper engagement mechanisms would be ineffective.
• Inclusive engagement must be prioritized; intergenerational, intersectional, and multistakeholder participation is essential for legitimacy and equity.
• Avoiding a hollow treaty, which would unfairly burden youth and future generations with the consequences of environmental degradation, health risks, and economic fallout.
• Youth demand a treaty that is both ambitious and practical. Further delays are unacceptable. The urgency is not only scientific but moral and human; children are being born already contaminated by plastics, without even understanding what plastic is.
• This treaty must be for the people and the planet; and those most affected must be heard. Despite funding barriers preventing some youth, including the speaker, from attending in person, their message remains clear: the time for action is now.
• Participation, clear objectives, and a strong shared commitment are fundamental to achieving a meaningful treaty. There is no alternative, the treaty must deliver. Drawing a comparison to the delays and procedural challenges of the COP process, the speaker highlights a similar risk in the plastics treaty negotiations.
• One major concern is how engagement is handled. Civil society and observers are often only given the floor at the very end, when the room is empty, reducing their contributions to formality rather than meaningful inclusion. True participation must go beyond symbolic gestures; it must be integrated into the dialogue and negotiations.
• The CYMG held consultations with young people on key elements of the Chair’s text, with strong attention to crucial articles like Article 2 (objectives), Article 3 (definitions), and provisions on finance and human rights — though many of these are still in brackets, subject to negotiation. The treaty cannot remain bogged down in indecision and bracketed text. It needs an ambitious, inclusive, and definitive language that centers people, communities, and human rights throughout the entire plastics life cycle.
• As mentioned in the Carbon Lock-in Plastics report, 96% of carbon emissions associated with plastics come from production and extraction, not waste; underscoring that the problem lies upstream. Plastic pollution is visible and pervasive, from agricultural fields to human bodies: it cannot be ignored.
• Two essential elements are critical for a successful treaty. Without them, the meaningful inclusion of civil society remains uncertain:
• Greater youth engagement in the process
• A clear, formal mechanism in the treaty to ensure ongoing civil society participation, including in future COPs and treaty implementation.

Closing Remarks

Elisa MORGERA | UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and climate change

• It is crucial to think more deeply about how embedding human rights into the plastics treaty is key to achieving true transformation. Discrimination and a logic of sacrifice are not side effects—they are built into the very design of the fossil fuel-based economy. This has already been identified by the former UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism as a systemic human rights violation, especially in the form of racial discrimination. Preventing this must be treated as a matter of juscogens—a peremptory norm of international law. But beyond race, all forms of discrimination must be actively addressed through the treaty’s provisions. Without this, we will neither protect human rights nor achieve the systemic change we urgently need.
• This connects directly to the health evidence available to us: from harm observed in children in the womb, to early childhood development, to impacts on women, the elderly, and marginalized groups. Health science reveals the disproportionate burdens of plastics and petrochemicals across the full life cycle, from extraction to disposal, exposing deeply rooted systemic discrimination. This must be confronted if we are serious about safeguarding life and environmental integrity.
• Human rights is a space for co-creation and restoration—both legal and ecological. This includes the right to self-determination, and the urgent need to reclaim ways of living in harmony with nature. This treaty should be a space for healing and reimagining—where alternative, life-affirming economies and societies can take root.
• The right of children to a healthy environment must be at the center. The General Comment No. 26 by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child gives a transformative framework. If the full spectrum of children’s environmental rights is protected, substantive, procedural, and intergenerational; we inherently move away from short-term, profit-driven models that fuel both plastic production and planetary breakdown.
• Prioritizing children’s rights offers not only a compelling moral imperative but provides one of the strongest human rights lenses for guiding systemic change. It helps move toward a safer climate, and a rewoven web of life that upholds human rights for current and future generations.

Walter SCHULDT | Minister, Permanent Mission of the Republic of Ecuador to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva

• There is a false dilemma suggesting that recognizing the universality of human rights is incompatible with acknowledging countries’ differing capacities to implement related measures. However, universality and the right to development are not mutually exclusive. Progressivity must be recognized as essential, given the varied capabilities of countries.
• Differences between states must be acknowledged, and a balanced approach is needed—one that aligns the measures of the proposed regime with the need for gradual, effective implementation. Recognizing these differences does not undermine human rights or their interconnectedness.
• The rights of specific groups, such as Indigenous peoples and children, must be fully recognized within a framework that upholds universality, urgency, and the need for transformation across social, cultural, economic, and environmental dimensions. This transformation requires support, especially given current complex geopolitical and financial conditions, including a global liquidity crisis.
• Despite this crisis, significant resources continue to flow into activities like arms production and banking bailouts. At the same time, there is a critical need to ensure that resources are redirected and aligned with the commitments being made, commitments necessary for both people and the planet. Addressing this challenge requires creative and coordinated approaches.
• Subsidies must be linked to the recognition of human rights, as resources often exist but are allocated in ways that do not serve the interests of humanity. Redirecting these resources requires the involvement of all stakeholders, including the private sector. Business and human rights must be addressed not only when violations occur, but also in preventing systems that perpetuate or worsen human rights risks.
• States are advised to actively involve their full delegations, particularly those familiar with human rights and the relevant reports, when participating in negotiations. Many delegates come from capitals with limited exposure to human rights work, but Geneva provides a unique opportunity to bridge that gap. Including well-informed team members will enrich the negotiation process and improve the effectiveness of the final agreement, particularly in addressing the goal of protecting and restoring planetary health from plastic pollution.

Links

• Road to Geneva | Plastic Pollution INC-5.2
• Plastics Treaty INC-5.2
• Geneva Beat Plastic Pollution Dialogues
• Geneva Rights and Climate Talks
• Environment @ 59th Session of the UN Human Rights Council

Photo Gallery

Photo Credit

Benjamin Von Wong | Perpetual Plastic Machine – a colossal 15-foot-tall art installation I created in collaboration with Greenpeace