Plastic Pollution: Toward a Global Health, Environmental, and Economic Epidemic

Bharat Luthra (Bharat Bhushan)
Date: 09-04-2025

Introduction

Plastic has become an integral part of modern life, but its unchecked proliferation is now driving a global crisis. In recent years, scientists and policymakers have sounded alarms that plastic pollution is escalating into one of the greatest threats to planetary and human health. The President of the 2022 UN Environment Assembly warned that “plastic pollution has grown into an epidemic", underscoring the urgency of action. From microplastics permeating our air, water, and food to toxic additives disrupting human hormones, the impacts of plastics are mounting.

This paper argues that plastic pollution is poised to become an unprecedented global health, environmental, and economic catastrophe in human history unless a robust international treaty is established to ban non-essential plastics and mandate the transition to biodegradable alternatives (such as PHA-based plastics). We draw on recent data (2018–2024) about skyrocketing plastic production, the spread of microplastics in the environment and human tissues, and emerging health risks (neurodegenerative disease, respiratory illness, endocrine disruption) to demonstrate the escalating scale of the crisis. Case studies of successful plastic restrictions and innovations in bioplastics illustrate feasible solutions. Finally, we make the case that a binding global treaty—akin to past pacts like the Montreal Protocol—is not only urgent but inevitable if we are to avert a plastic-induced public health and environmental disaster.

Escalating Plastic Production and Global Pollution

Global plastic production has continued to rise at an alarming rate in recent years, feeding a corresponding surge in waste and pollution. Table 1 provides recent figures on annual plastic output:

Table 1: Global Plastic Production by Year (2018–2022)

Year	Plastic Production (million metric tons)
2018	359
2019	376
2020	367
2021	390.7
2022	400.3

Despite growing awareness of plastic pollution, worldwide production climbed from about 359 million tones in 2018 to over 400 million tones by 2022 (an ~12% increase) The only interruption was a brief 2% decline in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupting economic activity but production rebounded strongly in 2021–2022. This relentless growth means more plastic waste is generated each year. In 2019 alone, an estimated 376 million tones of plastic were produced, of which roughly 35% were single-use items (mostly packaging) that quickly become waste Alarmingly, the vast majority of plastic waste is not recycled—only about 9% is recycled globally, while the rest is incinerated, landfilled, or mismanaged in the environment . Mismanaged plastic waste (plastic that is littered or poorly disposed of) often finds its way into natural ecosystems. An estimated 1–2 million tones of plastic enter the oceans each year, and even more pollutes soils, rivers, and beaches. Unless significant action is taken, these trends are projected to worsen: one analysis projects that annual plastic production could rise to 712 million tones by 2040 under business-as-usual, a 66% increase from 2019 levels (. This would nearly double the amount of mismanaged plastic pollution (from ~110 million tones in 2019 to 205 million tonnes in 2040). In short, plastic pollution is growing exponentially, setting the stage for a pollution epidemic on a planetary scale.

Plastic debris and microplastics now contaminate virtually every corner of the environment, illustrating the global reach of the problem. Once discarded, plastics break down into tiny particles (micro- and nano plastics) that are transported far and wide. Researchers have found microplastics in the most remote locations on Earth, from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest ocean trenches.

These particles are carried by wind and weather; studies show that microplastics are present in the atmosphere worldwide, falling onto even pristine polar environments. For example, atmospheric monitoring has detected airborne microplastic concentrations up to 5,700 particles per cubic meter of air in some locations. Microplastic fallout is now effectively “raining” plastic—one study noted that even the Pyrenees mountains receive about 365 microplastic particles per square meter each day via atmospheric deposition

During pandemic lockdowns (when traffic and industrial activity briefly waned), scientists observed a sharp drop in microplastic deposition rates, indicating how human activity directly drives microplastic pollution of the air. Over time, airborne microplastics settle into oceans and soils or are inhaled by living organisms, creating an ever-expanding cycle of contamination.

No ecosystem is spared: plastic debris clogs rivers and coral reefs, and floating plastic accumulates in massive ocean “garbage patches.” Studies estimate that marine microplastic concentrations could double by 2030 if current trends continue The ubiquity and persistence of plastic pollution in the environment underscore that we are on the cusp of an environmental crisis of historic proportions. As UNEP stated in 2022, these worrying trends mean plastic pollution is truly “an epidemic” that demands a global cure.

Widespread Environmental Degradation

The environmental damage wrought by rampant plastic pollution is profound and escalating. In the world’s oceans, plastics have become a deadly threat to marine life. Large plastic debris (like discarded fishing gear, bags, and packaging) entangles and kills marine animals including seabirds, turtles, and marine mammals. Many species also ingest plastic mistaken for food: studies have found plastic fragments in the stomachs of ~90% of seabirds and in a growing list of fish and shellfish species

This ingestion can cause internal injuries, starvation, and exposure to toxic chemicals, threatening biodiversity and entering the food chain. Microplastics are now pervasive in marine ecosystems from plankton to whales. These particles can adsorb chemical pollutants and then be eaten by small organisms, potentially bioaccumulating up the food web and affecting predator species. Even in freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems, plastic debris is causing havoc – blocking waterways (and contributing to flooding in cities), degrading soil quality, and harming wildlife that encounters it. For example, improperly disposed plastic bags have choked livestock and wildlife in many developing regions, and plastic litter reduces agricultural productivity when it accumulates in soils.

Plastic pollution is also tightly interwoven with climate change and air pollution, compounding environmental harms. Most plastics are derived from fossil fuels, and the plastic sector is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In 2019, the production and incineration of plastics generated an estimated 5.3% of total global CO₂ emissions – roughly equivalent to the emissions of 300 coal-fired power plants. If current production growth continues, annual emissions from the plastics lifecycle are on track to double or even triple by 2050, significantly undermining efforts to meet climate targets. Moreover, the open burning and substandard incineration of plastic waste (common in regions lacking proper waste management) release toxic air pollutants and greenhouse gases, creating health hazards and climate forcers. Tiny plastic particles in the atmosphere may even influence climate systems directly: recent research suggests airborne microplastics can affect cloud formation and weather patterns . In sum, plastic pollution is not only an ecological blight but also an environmental hazard with multi-faceted impacts – contaminating oceans and land, driving biodiversity loss, and intensifying air pollution and climate change. The longer we allow plastic waste to accumulate in our environment, the more irreversible damage we commit to ecosystems that support life and to the stability of our climate.

Human Health Implications

Plastic pollution is increasingly recognized as a grave and growing threat to human health. Over the past few years, scientists have documented microplastics inside the human body – in virtually every compartment they have looked for it. Tiny plastic particles (and the chemicals associated with them) have been detected in human blood and circulation, where they can latch onto red blood cells (, and in placental tissue and breast milk, raising concerns about exposure even to fetuses and infants . They have been found in human lung tissue and deep in the respiratory tract, likely from inhalation of polluted air. Most alarmingly, in 2022 scientists reported finding microplastics in human brain tissue – revealing that some particles are able to cross protective barriers and enter the brain. Recent post-mortem analyses suggest that the human brain and other organs are accumulating plastic at increasing rates. Microplastic concentrations in human brain tissue were found to be significantly higher in samples from 2024 compared to those from 2016, mirroring the exponential rise of plastics in our environment. Researchers observed an approximately 50% rise in brain microplastic levels between 2016 and 2024, and detected plastic in 100% of the samples examined. The human body is now widely contaminated: micro- and nanoplastics have been documented in the bloodstream, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, kidneys, liver, spleen, placenta, and even the bone marrow and testes). This unprecedented internal exposure has raised urgent questions about potential health effects.

Microplastic concentrations in human tissues are rising. The median microplastic load in human brain tissue (measured in micrograms of plastic per gram of tissue) was dramatically higher in 2024 (blue bar) compared to 2016 (green bar). Significant increases were also observed in the liver and kidneys over this period. This reflects the rapid accumulation of micro- and nano plastics in the human body as environmental contamination has intensified.

Early evidence indicates that plastics exposure is linked to a host of adverse health outcomes. The physical presence of microplastics in tissues can trigger inflammation, oxidative stress, and cellular damage. Laboratory studies show that micro- and nanoplastic particles can induce oxidative stress and inflammatory responses in human cells. Chronic inflammation is a known pathway in many diseases, suggesting that long-term buildup of plastics in organs could contribute to conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, or autoimmune disorders. Indeed, epidemiological research is starting to find associations: for example, higher blood microplastic levels have been linked to cardiovascular events like strokes and heart attacks. Inhaled microplastics and plastic fibers in the lungs may lead to respiratory problems; doctors have raised concerns that airborne microplastics could exacerbate asthma and allergic airway diseases. There is also worry about neurotoxic effects – a recent animal study found that nano-plastics could penetrate the blood-brain barrier and cause brain inflammation and behavioral changes in mice. Notably, in human brain samples, researchers found microplastic concentrations were six times higher in individuals with dementia compared to those without, though it is not yet clear if plastics play a causal role (Levels of microplastics in human brains may be rapidly rising, study suggests | Plastics | The Guardian). These findings underscore an urgent need to investigate links between microplastic exposure and neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s.

Beyond the particles themselves, plastics carry a toxic chemical load that threatens human health. Plastics are complex mixtures of polymers and additives; over 13,000 chemicals are associated with plastics and plastic production, and many of these are known to be hazardous. In particular, numerous common plastic additives are endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that interfere with hormones. These include substances like phthalates (used to soften plastics) and bisphenol A (BPA) (used in polycarbonate plastics and can linings), among others. EDCs are linked to reproductive abnormalities, developmental defects, metabolic disorders, and cancers. For instance, studies have connected prenatal phthalate exposure to increased risk of preterm birth and to disruptions in insulin function (implicating these chemicals in diabetes). BPA and similar compounds can mimic estrogen and thyroid hormones, potentially contributing to infertility, breast and prostate cancer, and neurodevelopmental delays in children. These chemicals leach out of plastic products throughout their life cycle – contaminating food, water, and even the air as plastics degrade. The combined exposure to microplastic particles and plastic-derived chemicals has led some researchers to characterize it as a “silent” public health crisis While we are only beginning to understand the full scope of health impacts, the evidence already “paints an increasingly concerning picture” that should motivate swift regulatory action on plastics.

Importantly, the health burdens from plastic pollution are not just theoretical future risks – they are already materializing. A recent study in the journal Environment International estimated that exposure to chemicals released by plastics (through pollution and product use) contributes to 1.8 million premature deaths worldwide each year. These deaths are attributable to diseases such as cancers, lung disorders, heart disease, and other conditions linked to plastic-associated pollutants. Additionally, the spread of plastic in our food and water raises food safety concerns: a person who regularly eats seafood is likely ingesting thousands of microplastic particles per year, which could carry pathogens or toxins. And as humans literally breathe plastics, the respiratory exposure is significant – it’s estimated that an average person inhales about 22 million microplastic particles per year (Breathing Plastic: The Health Impacts of Invisible Plastics in the Air - Center for International Environmental Law), a chronic exposure that scientists compare to an “invisible air pollution” problem. If plastic pollution continues unchecked, we could see surges in related health problems (from certain cancers to neurodegenerative diseases and immunological disorders) in the coming decades. In summary, plastic pollution’s impact on health is multi-faceted – encompassing physical particle effects, chemical toxicity, and even microbial vectors – and it is escalating. This warrants treating plastic pollution as not only an environmental crisis, but also a public health emergency on par with other global health threats.

Economic Impacts of Plastic Pollution

The economic toll of plastic pollution is enormous and rising, affecting diverse sectors and imposing costs on governments, businesses, and healthcare systems. One of the most direct impacts is the loss of ecosystem services and damage to industries such as fisheries and tourism. Marine plastic pollution alone is estimated to cause a 1–5% annual loss in marine ecosystem services, equal to a global economic loss of about $500 billion to $2.5 trillion per year (First in Science: The Economic Impacts of Plastic Pollution | National Caucus of Environmental Legislators). This staggering figure includes losses to commercial fishing and aquaculture (as fish stocks decline or are tainted by plastics), tourism losses (as beaches and coastal waters are polluted, deterring visitors), and the diminished natural value of oceans and coasts. For instance, coastal communities spend millions each year on beach cleanups, and the presence of litter can drive away tourism revenue. Fisheries are also hit hard: not only can plastic debris damage boats and gear, but the contamination of fish with microplastics and associated toxins threatens seafood safety, which in turn can reduce market demand and prices. Developing countries, in particular, face steep costs as plastic waste clogs urban drainage (leading to costly flooding damage) and burdens municipal waste management systems ill-equipped to handle the volume – effectively taxing city budgets and infrastructure.

Public health impacts from plastics translate into significant economic burdens as well. The health care costs and productivity losses associated with diseases linked to plastic-related exposures are already substantial. In the United States alone, health costs from plastic-associated diseases were estimated at $249 billion in 2018. This includes medical expenses and lost productivity from conditions such as asthma, cancers, and neurodevelopmental disorders that researchers have connected to chemicals like phthalates and flame retardants in plastics. Globally, if one factors in the potential contribution of plastics to disease and mortality (e.g. the 1.8 million annual deaths cited earlier), the health-related economic costs likely run into the hundreds of billions of dollars per year in medical treatment and lost economic output. There are also less direct health costs – for example, if microplastics in air contribute to respiratory illnesses, that increases healthcare utilization and sick days.

Moreover, the opportunity costs of the plastic crisis are significant. The planet is essentially accumulating an enormous waste liability that future generations will have to pay to clean up. Reports have attempted to quantify the long-term damage: one analysis estimated that if no action is taken, the cumulative global cost of plastic pollution to society (including environmental degradation, climate effects, and health costs) could reach as high as $19 trillion per year by 2040 under worst-case scenarios (Reducing plastic production: Economic loss or environmental gain?). Even under more moderate assumptions, trillions of dollars in GDP could be lost as a result of degraded ecosystems, climate impacts, and health burdens. In essence, plastic pollution externalizes costs onto society that are not reflected in the cheap price of plastic products. A throwaway plastic bag or bottle may cost pennies to produce, but the downstream costs of cleaning up that item from the ocean, the harm to wildlife, and the potential health risks from microplastics far exceed that. A 2022 OECD report underscored that without drastic changes, plastic waste and pollution will impose ever-growing economic drains, from higher municipal waste management budgets to losses in key economic sectors.

Conversely, tackling plastic pollution can yield significant economic gains by avoiding these damages. Studies suggest that investing in better waste management, recycling, and alternative materials now could save governments and industries many billions in the long run. For example, every dollar spent on preventing plastic from entering the ocean is estimated to save several dollars in avoided cleanup and health costs. In summary, the economic dimension of the plastic epidemic is a compelling part of the case for action: inaction will cost far more than action. The current path is economically unsustainable, with plastic pollution acting as a drag on development, a threat to livelihoods (like fishing communities), and a heavy burden on health systems. A global strategy to curb plastic pollution is not only environmentally and ethically necessary, but economically prudent to prevent a massive financial strain on the world economy in coming decades.

Case Studies: Policy Successes and Bioplastic Innovations

While the plastic pollution crisis is global, there are encouraging examples of governments and innovators taking action to reduce plastic use and pioneer sustainable alternatives. These case studies demonstrate that meaningful progress is possible – and provide models that a global treaty could build upon or scale up. Below are several notable examples of successful plastic restrictions and innovations in biodegradable plastics:

Rwanda – Banning Single-Use Plastics: Rwanda is a leading example of decisive policy action. In 2008, Rwanda became one of the first countries to ban single-use plastic bags (and later expanded the ban to other disposable plastics). The Rwandan government aggressively enforced the ban – travelers entering the country have plastic bags confiscated at the border, and carrying a plastic bag can incur fines. These measures, alongside nationwide clean-up campaigns, have had a dramatic effect. Rwanda’s capital, Kigali, is now acclaimed as one of the cleanest cities in Africa largely free of plastic litter. The ban eliminated an environmental nuisance that was clogging drains and harming agriculture, and it spurred local entrepreneurs to produce paper bags and other alternatives, creating green jobs. Rwanda’s success shows that strict plastic bans, coupled with public engagement, can swiftly reduce pollution. The country has become a global leader in the fight against plastic pollution, even co-founding the High Ambition Coalition calling for a bold global plastics treaty.
European Union – Phasing Out Single-Use Plastics: The European Union enacted a landmark Single-Use Plastics Directive in 2019, which took effect across all member states in July 2021. This policy bans a range of common single-use plastic items for which alternatives exist, including plastic plates, cutlery, straws, drink stirrers, cotton bud sticks, and expanded polystyrene food containers and cups. These items (among the most frequently found in litter and beach cleanups) can no longer be sold in the EU, forcing a switch to paper, bamboo or other biodegradable substitutes. For other plastics like bottles, the EU has set targets for collection and recycling (e.g. 90% collection of plastic bottles by 2029) and design requirements (plastic bottles must incorporate 25% recycled content by 2025). The EU-wide ban is significant not only for its scale (a market of 450 million people) but also for its comprehensive approach – it places responsibility on producers to fund cleanup and waste management, and it seeks to shift the market toward a circular economy. Early evidence indicates the directive is making an impact: several major retailers and restaurants across Europe have eliminated plastic straws and utensils, and the use of plastic bags had already plummeted due to prior regulations (by over 70% in some countries after small fees were imposed). The EU’s coordinated action demonstrates how policy can drive innovation and change consumer behavior across multiple nations simultaneously, providing a possible template for global rules.
Biodegradable Plastics Innovation – PHA Alternatives: On the industrial and technological front, bioplastics offer a promising part of the solution, and numerous companies and cities are beginning to implement biodegradable plastic alternatives. One of the most exciting developments is in PHA-based plastics (polyhydroxyalkanoates). PHAs are biopolymer plastics produced by microbes from renewable resources; they are biodegradable in a wide range of environments – including soil and marine settings. This means a PHA bottle or straw can naturally break down and not persist as long-term pollution. In the last few years, investment in PHA has surged. For example, the startup RWDC Industries in Singapore and Georgia (USA) is producing PHA for use in drinking straws and food containers, and in 2021 it attracted high-profile investors for its potential to “stop making the mess” of plastic waste.

These examples, among many others, illustrate growing momentum at local, national, and regional levels to combat plastic pollution. Over 100 countries worldwide now have some form of ban or restriction on single-use plastic bags, and dozens have extended regulations to other single-use items. Importantly, public support for strong measures is overwhelming: surveys find that about 85% of people globally favor banning unnecessary single-use plastics and believe such action is key to addressing the pollution crisis. This bottom-up pressure has created an enabling environment for international action. The successes in places like Rwanda and the EU show that plastic use can be dramatically curbed through policy, and innovations in bioplastics show that alternatives are ready to be deployed. The challenge now is to leverage these lessons and scale up action through a coordinated global framework.

Toward a Global Treaty: An Urgent and Inevitable Response

The evidence is clear that piecemeal efforts, while valuable, are not enough to stem the plastic tide. Plastic pollution transcends national borders – plastics and microplastics circulate through air and water currents globally, and the plastic supply chain is international (with raw materials, manufacturing, and waste trade linking all countries). No single nation can solve this crisis alone. This reality has driven calls for a comprehensive international treaty on plastics, akin to the successful global agreements that addressed ozone-depleting chemicals and other environmental threats. As early as 1987, the world recognized the need for concerted action to stop a planetary catastrophe in the making – the result was the Montreal Protocol, which mandated the phase-out of harmful chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to protect the ozone layer. The Montreal Protocol is often hailed as “perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date”, having eliminated 98% of ozone-depleting substances and set the ozone layer on a path to recovery by mid-century. Crucially, it showed that a global ban on dangerous materials, paired with the adoption of safer alternatives, can work on a large scale. We must now apply similar ambition to plastic pollution.

Momentum is rapidly building toward a Global Plastics Treaty. In a historic step, 175 nations at the UN Environment Assembly in March 2022 agreed to start negotiations on a legally binding international agreement to “End Plastic Pollution” with a target completion by 2024 (Historic day in the campaign to beat plastic pollution: Nations commit to develop a legally binding agreement). This resolution explicitly recognizes that the plastic crisis has become a systemic threat – it calls for addressing the full life cycle of plastics, from production and product design to waste management. The treaty process (currently underway) is tasked with considering measures such as global production caps or reductions, the phasing-out of particularly hazardous or avoidable plastic polymers and chemical additives, design standards to make plastics reusable or recyclable, and mechanisms to funnel technology and financing to countries in need. Notably, a coalition of high-ambition countries (including Rwanda, Norway, the EU, and others) is advocating for bans on unnecessary single-use plastics and harmful additives worldwide – precisely the kind of measures needed to eliminate non-essential plastics and foster safer alternatives. Public opinion strongly backs this: a 2024 IPSOS/WWF global poll found 85% of respondents want a treaty to ban single-use plastics and 90% support banning toxic additives in plastics. There is a palpable sense that a robust treaty is inevitable given the scale of the problem and the consensus emerging among scientists, citizens, and many governments that only coordinated action will suffice.

What might a successful global plastics treaty entail, and how would it avert the looming health/environmental epidemic? Drawing on expert recommendations, a treaty would likely include: (1) Ban the most problematic plastics – for example, single-use packaging and plastic products that are non-essential or easily replaceable with existing alternatives (much like the Montreal Protocol banned specific chemicals). This would directly cut off the source of a huge volume of plastic pollution. (2) Strict controls on plastic production – No, non essential plastic should be produced with virgin polymers (3) Requirements to develop and use safer substitutes – the treaty could incentivize or mandate the use of biodegradable materials (such as PHA-based plastics, compostable materials, or other innovations) for certain applications, and promote research into new materials that can replace conventional plastics in healthcare, food packaging, and other critical domains. (4) Financial and technical support mechanisms – similar to the Montreal Protocol’s Multilateral Fund, a plastics treaty would likely include provisions to help developing countries manage plastic waste, develop recycling infrastructure, and jump-start local production of alternatives, ensuring an equitable transition. By implementing such measures internationally, a treaty would prevent “pollution leakage” (whereby plastic industries might simply relocate to lax jurisdictions) and set a level playing field for industry transformation.

The Montreal Protocol model offers a hopeful precedent. When the world banned CFCs, industry initially resisted but soon innovated safer refrigerants; the economy adapted and thrived, and an environmental disaster was averted. Likewise, banning and replacing non-essential plastics could spur innovation and create new economic opportunities in biodegradable materials and reuse systems. Importantly, the cost of inaction on plastics far exceeds the cost of action, as outlined earlier. A global treaty can encode the true costs of plastic into international rules – for instance, by assigning a “social cost of plastic” (analogous to a carbon price) to hold producers accountable for pollution impacts. It can also learn from other agreements: for example, the Paris Climate Agreement relies on national action plans, whereas a plastics treaty might mix both obligatory targets (for production reduction) and flexible implementation (nations decide how to meet targets, whether through bans, taxes, etc.), supported by global coordination.

Crucially, treating plastic pollution as a global epidemic elevates it to the level of other pressing international health and environmental challenges. The framing of plastics as not just litter, but a pervasive contaminant in our bodies and ecosystems, highlights that nothing short of a concerted global response will protect public health and the environment. As one UN Environment Assembly delegate stated, “Against the backdrop of geopolitical turmoil, the world’s unity against plastic pollution is a triumph... With today’s resolution we are officially on track for a cure”. The coming years will be critical: if negotiations yield a strong treaty by 2024/2025, implementation in the subsequent decade could flatten and reverse the plastic pollution curve, preventing millions of tons of waste and averting untold health crises. Future generations may well look back on a global plastics treaty as the moment humanity turned the tide on one of its most pervasive pollutants – just as the Montreal Protocol is remembered for saving the ozone layer.

Conclusion

Plastic pollution’s trajectory – surging production, global dispersal of microplastics, mounting health risks, and vast economic costs – makes it abundantly clear that we are edging toward a self-inflicted disaster. If current trends continue, plastic pollution will rank among the worst epidemics in history, with billions of people and all ecosystems affected. However, this fate is not sealed. Just as the world came together to tackle past environmental emergencies (from ozone depletion to acid rain), we have the knowledge and tools to confront the plastic crisis. The evidence presented – from the discovery of plastic in our blood and brains to the trillion-dollar toll on our oceans – should serve as a rallying cry for bold action. Banning non-essential, single-use plastics and rapidly scaling up biodegradable and non-toxic alternatives is not a far-fetched idea, but a rational course supported by science and precedent. The successful case studies in Rwanda, the EU, and innovation sectors show that dramatic reductions in plastic pollution are achievable and even beneficial in the short term. What remains is to universalize these successes.

A global treaty to end plastic pollution is the logical and necessary culmination of these efforts. Such a treaty would synchronize policies worldwide, drive innovation, and ensure no country is left behind in the transition away from polluting plastics. It would also send a powerful signal to markets that the age of disposable plastics is coming to an end – unlocking investments in sustainable materials and systems at a scale never seen before. While negotiations continue, the writing is on the wall: the status quo is untenable, and delay will only magnify the harm. In the face of an impending plastic pandemic, the nations of the world must unite in action as they did for the ozone crisis. This is a defining opportunity to safeguard public health, protect our planet’s biodiversity, and save countless dollars in future costs by acting proactively today. The choice before us is stark: continue on the current path and witness plastics create a legacy of disease and environmental collapse, or forge a new path through collective action and innovation. The latter is not only possible – it is our responsibility to future generations. In conclusion, the case for a robust international plastics treaty is overwhelming. It is a solution commensurate with the scale of the problem, and it offers hope that we can halt this man-made epidemic before it truly defines our era. Humanity has solved great environmental challenges before; with urgency and unity, we can and must do so again with plastic pollution. The health of our planet and ourselves depends on it.