In 1862, British chemist Alexander Parkes invented a revolutionary material he called Parkesine. This was something he did by dissolving cotton fibers in a cocktail of nitric and sulfuric acids mixed with a bit of vegetable oil.

Parkesine wasn’t just a fancy invention. It addressed a pressing issue at the time. Before its invention, everyday items like combs, billiard balls, and piano keys were made from valuable animal materials like ivory and tortoise shells. This came at a cost to elephants and certain species of tortoises that were in danger of extinction. So Parkesine offered a cheaper, cruelty-free alternative that would both lighten wallets and save wildlife. It’s considered the world’s first manufactured plastic.

As industries grew, fully synthetic plastics came onto the scene. Bakelite emerged in the early 1900s. It was a wonder material used in telephones, radios, and even art decorations. For a while, it seemed like there was really no need for anything else.

Then, something unexpected happened at Britain’s Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI). They were trying to combine two chemicals and turn them into a new industrial material. Although the experiment failed, it led to a surprising discovery. Some oxygen leaked into the mixture, creating a white waxy substance that would later become known as polyethylene, or the most widely used plastic in the world today.

Polyethylene has transformed industries, appearing in everything from plastic bags to food containers and even medical implants like artificial hip and knee joints.

But here’s the thing. What was once created to solve one problem has now become a major problem in its own right. Plastic has become a major source of uncontrollable pollution, so much so that the world is now working on something called the Global Plastic Pact to put an end to it.

You see, plastic production is turning into a time bomb for our planet. Between 2000 and 2019, plastic production doubled to 460 million tonnes. By 2040, it could exceed 700 million tons—70% more than 2020 levels.

That’s not even the worst part. Less than 10% of this plastic is recycled. The rest is either incinerated improperly or dumped in landfills and water bodies. In fact, nearly a truckload of plastic enters our rivers, lakes, and oceans every minute. Over time, this plastic breaks down into smaller particles, entering almost every aspect of our lives.

Just this month, a plastic dump in the Democratic Republic of Congo shut down a hydroelectric dam and caused power outages. Plastic is also responsible for around 4% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As if that wasn’t disturbing enough, microplastics have been found in human placentas, arteries, semen, and even breast milk. This is a harsh reality we can’t ignore.

Doing nothing about it could make matters worse. Mismanaged plastic waste could increase by 50%, while recycling rates could drop to just 6%. So imagine a world where we literally built houses on piles of plastic waste.

That’s why around 70 countries, including Norway and the UK, are pushing for a global agreement to reduce plastic production, regulate the harmful chemicals used to make them, and phase out single-use plastic items like cutlery. While the detailed demands are still being finalised, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) is proposing the most stringent plan: limit plastic production to 500 million tonnes by 2040, increase recycling rates to over 40%, and ensure that any increase in plastic use comes from recycled materials, not new production.

This could reduce mismanaged plastic waste by 97% compared to 2040 projections, and prevent 70 million tonnes of plastic from entering rivers and oceans. It could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to plastic by 40%.

But does this apply to every country?

This excludes oil and gas producers like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia. These countries’ economies are dependent on fossil fuel and plastic production. They argue that the problem is not the production of plastic itself, but how we use and dispose of it. Their point is simple. Plastics are lighter than alternatives like metals or glass, making them essential for transporting goods. Lighter materials mean less weight, which reduces fuel consumption and cuts carbon emissions. So instead of limiting production, they are pushing for better waste management.

This dilemma is what is currently holding up the Global Plastics Pact, which countries are trying to negotiate in Busan, South Korea.

So what’s the way out, you ask?

It’s actually more complicated, because Iran and its allies aren’t entirely wrong. Think about it. Reducing plastic production means finding alternatives. It’s not as easy as it sounds. First, most plant-based plastics are molecularly identical to fossil fuel-based ones and last just as long in the environment. Other substitutes need toxic chemical additives to make them waterproof, flexible, and durable. Even fiber or paper products often require a plastic liner to prevent leaks. So simply reducing plastic production doesn’t solve much.

But what about recycling plastic?

It’s not simple either. Different plastic products use different chemicals and fillers, so you can’t recycle a PET bottle, a chip bag, and a plastic toy together. Recycling companies often can’t identify the exact materials they’re dealing with, and most plastics can’t be mixed into a single product. That requires sorting, transporting, and recycling separately, which is more costly and complicated than producing new plastic. And not every country can afford it.

So, could raising money from rich countries to help poorer countries?

That’s another tough proposition. For context, at COP29 (the United Nations Climate Change Conference), rich countries, often the biggest culprits behind historic emissions, offered $300 billion a year by 2035 to combat climate change. But that’s far less than the $1.3 trillion that developing countries are demanding. If they can’t agree on that, it seems equally unlikely that there will be a breakthrough in plastic recycling.

So the real solution could be a mix of compromise and eliminating single-use plastics. It won’t fix everything, but it’s a start. Reducing single-use plastics by 90% could prevent 280 million tons of plastic from polluting our oceans by 2050. That’s enough plastic to travel six times the distance to the sun!

So yes, maybe countries could focus on eliminating single-use plastics with enforceable rules, not just on paper. After all, bans don’t mean much without enforcement. In some countries, you can still get a plastic straw with your juice if you want, despite the fact that single-use plastics are banned by 2022. This makes things harder.

Can countries agree on something at least this basic? We’ll have to wait and see when the Global Plastics Pact talks wrap up on December 1.