FINAL PUSH — Plastic is having its Paris moment as negotiators meet in South Korea for make-or-break U.N. talks to land a deal to tackle plastic pollution. Hot on the heels of COP29, diplomats from around the world will be pushing to meet a year-end deadline in the fifth and final scheduled round of discussions. To reach an agreement, they’ll need to answer thorny questions including which products and chemicals should be restricted, how to design plastics to be more easily recycled, who should pay to help developing nations manage waste, whether production should be capped, and whether any of this should be binding or voluntary. Progress has been slow since negotiations began two years ago, with a group of more than 60 countries pushing for binding production limits vehemently opposed by oil-rich countries and the petrochemical industry. That divide is the biggest remaining obstacle to a global agreement, your host and Leonie Cater report. We’re watching for procedural maneuvering by the so-called high-ambition nations to navigate around obstructions, conversations that have reached the ministerial level, negotiators told POLITICO. It’s difficult to pin down exactly what the U.S. wants out of all this, Ellie Borst and your host report. And it’s becoming increasingly clear how difficult it will be for the U.S. to thread the needle even within its own constituencies. The U.S. put forward its most detailed list to date of some of the chemicals and plastic products that countries should at least consider restricting, even though the proposal doesn’t require any government action. But it’s already receiving blowback from both sides: Some environmental groups say it doesn't go far enough and doesn’t keep pace with industry’s plastics expansion plans, while the American Chemistry Council representing Dow, Exxon and Shell argues that it goes too far. And Republican senators warned President Joe Biden this month that they would not support a treaty with production restrictions. Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers, said in a statement that the proposal “would create a process to regulate chemicals via the plastics agreement using a global list of chemicals, based on open-ended criteria and a vague decision-making process” and would “undermine the prospects for bipartisan support” of the agreement. Back in August, the Biden administration seemed to have revised its previous approach advocating for a flexible instrument with “national action plans” to call for plastic production limits. But that announcement, from the White House Council of Environmental Quality, was never made official. And now some green groups are questioning whether the U.S. has walked back that position by clarifying that it doesn’t support production caps. That muddled messaging seems to in part stem from a back-and-forth over who is setting and executing on the U.S. policy — CEQ, or the State Department. “You can feel the tension in that,” said Erin Simon, vice president at World Wildlife Fund and co-lead of a business coalition advocating for a strong treaty. That tension has caused confusion among U.S. stakeholders — and an unease within the U.S. delegation. The August shift wasn’t necessarily an easy pill to swallow for the diplomats who spent years staking out positions and building relationships with countries around those points. “It is the White House's decision on how much to try and achieve. Do I think that will make it harder for the U.S. to be engaged as soon? Yes, I do,” said a former top U.S. negotiator granted anonymity to speak candidly. “But clearly that's a trade-off that the White House is willing to make. And you go and do your best job as the State Department in the negotiation." Donald Trump’s election victory adds yet another dose of uncertainty. On one hand, the president-elect’s imminent return to the White House might spur negotiators to complete a deal before he takes office in January — though chances of U.S. ratification and implementation would be unlikely in any event. On the other hand, the looming U.S. shift could give countries like Saudi Arabia a Trump card to play. They could try to stall negotiations to await the arrival of a leader in Washington more sympathetic to their viewpoints.
| 
