276: Action On Plastic Pollution

Christiana: [00:01:37] I can step in. I'm just laughing at myself because when I talk about these issues, I go so much into my UN brain, right. So maybe just very quickly, why is this called the INC-5 and not a COP? And we've gone through that a couple of episodes ago. But in case you missed it, this is called INC-5 because it is the international negotiating committee, which is the countries get together once they have agreed that they're going to create a legally binding treaty, which they did in 2002. They agreed that and they agreed that they would do it by 2024. But then there is a process which countries governments get together under this INC international negotiating committee to design and structure what the COPs of that treaty are going to be.

Tom: [00:02:29] So it's a it's a COP before it is a COP basically?

Christiana: [00:02:32] It is yeah. It's a yeah, it's a good way. It's a, it's the pre-COP process. And just for comparison, in the climate tradition, we had to have 11 of these sessions, INC-11 was the last one before we went to COP1. In the plastics, high ambition, they said, no, let's do it much shorter period and let's see if we can do it by INC-5, which is the one that just concluded in Busan.

Tom: [00:02:58] Can I ask you a quick question before we go ahead? So I never realised that, you had 11 of these INC's before we got to COP1. So when everyone says we've been having these COPs for 29 years, they're wrong. There were 11 that we didn't count before we even got to COP1.

Christiana: [00:03:10] Not only is that true, but the other truth is also as startling, which is I started at INC-11 on climate change. There's a reason why I'm a grandmother these days okay. There is a reason for that. No, but but but it is you know, from a procedural point of view, it's very important whether you're at an INC or at a COP, because presumably by the time you get to the COP, then the rules and the procedures have been decided. And that is the reason why this INC was so, so difficult. Because for one, they couldn't agree on what the voting is going to be reminiscent of the climate discussion at INC-11 we also couldn't agree on the voting. Also, very, very importantly, they could not agree on what is actually going to be covered by the plastics treaty. And that is at the heart of the reason why they had to adjourn without an agreement, because understandably, many countries wanted the plastics treaty to cover plastic production, i.e. supply of plastics and to put a cap on plastic production. Now, understandably, also the fossil fuel exporting countries don't want to curb plastic production, i.e. supply. They only want to put the onus on the demand side on those countries and customers who use the plastic. So they said no, no, no, no. The UN plastics treaty will only cover plastic pollution, but not plastic production. That is, in a nutshell, the reason why there was no agreement, because most countries were focusing on the supply. Understanding that demand also has to change, and recycling and circular economy and everything that goes with it. But also they insisted that the supply be curtailed, and that was the reason why they couldn't come to an agreement. And of course, as we know, fossil fuel countries are interested in not curbing the production of plastics because as they see that their fossil fuel production demand or the demand for fossil fuels is declining for energy and for transport, as we know that it is. Their one last demand that they want to protect is petrochemicals, and and so that's how they want to squeeze themselves through.

Tom: [00:05:54] And I mean, that argument you just described between do you regulate the supply or do you regulate the demand, is incredibly reminiscent of the fight that we've had in the COPs on climate for a long time. That's a very similar dynamic.

Christiana: [00:06:06] Absolutely.

Tom: [00:06:07] PD, what do you think?

Paul: [00:06:09] The identical dynamic is actually the carbon capture and storage. So this idea that, well, it's not really about fossil fuels. It's only about greenhouse gas emissions. And we can have fossil fuels if we pump the CO2 underground, which is theoretically possible, but no one does it. I mean, look, my take on this is, first of all, it's a pity it's so far behind, and it's a pity we haven't really had an IPCC to bring forward in a kind of coordinated and consensus building way the scientific basis of the dangers we face, although they are very well reported, it's just that there isn't that sort of formal body. But if I can sort of state the obvious, and I think there are huge lessons here for the climate thing as well. You know, we've got essentially a whole bunch of sort of concerned citizens around the world and scientists who are very worried about this kind of pollution. And then we've got the free market that wants to kind of go on and be unregulated to some regard. And that's typically only the producing companies. But companies and society have been sort of regulating each other for a while. It can work. But the issue is the nation state. And if nation states adopt the positions of a particular industry, oil producers, you've got a real problem. And that's what's going on here. And it's the problem we've got with this plastics treaty. And it's very much the problem that we're going to have with climate change when the Trump administration comes in for another time. You know, just the simple maths, according to the US government, is that 44% of oil in the world is, you know, which is plastics are made from 44% of oil in the world comes from RUSSA. RUSSA is Russia, the United States and Saudi Arabia and RUSSA produced 44% of the world's oil, just those three countries. The point I'm going to make is that we're going to have to start to think about another international system that operates on rules, but doesn't allow itself to be sort of torpedoed by the RUSSA countries.

Tom: [00:08:00] 100% understand. And it's I mean, the point you made there that I would come back to is this is overwhelmingly called for by citizens of the world. I mean, one statistic I saw is over 85% of citizens wanted to have a global agreement on plastic. It's such a visible form of pollution. We've all heard the statistics. More plastic in the ocean than fish by 2050. Is this just a failure of multilateralism, Christiana? I mean, if the people want this, if there are economic solutions which we know that there are, and yet the process of multilateralism can't deliver what people want, what we know is healthy, what is a better future. Is Paul right, do we need to just sort of like throw this out and have a different process?

Christiana: [00:08:36] Well, I hope you don't expect me to say yes to that question.

Paul: [00:08:38] That's an interesting way of not saying no.

Christiana: [00:08:42] I mean, it's easy to say multilateralism doesn't work.

Paul: [00:08:46] Well no no, hold on a second. What about multilateralism, recognizing that some countries won't play?

Christiana: [00:08:50] Yeah, well, the problem with that Paul is some countries won't play. So let me just, you know, push back on that. So let's say everybody else decides that they want, you know, a really ambitious plastics treaty and that they're going to curb plastic production and RUSSA doesn't. And then they just produce all the plastics in the world. And the problem with that is that those plastics don't stay on their territory. They travel throughout the world via water, rivers, oceans, airplanes because of export. And they get into our bodies.

Paul: [00:09:23] I hear you, but we can't invade Saudi Arabia, Russia and the US. I mean, we talked about a carbon border adjustment mechanism. Might there not be a plastics border adjustment mechanism?

Christiana: [00:09:32] Well, there could I think we're far, far from that. But yes, I mean, in principle.

Tom: [00:09:37] I mean Christiana I don't obviously, I don't expect you to sit there and say multilateralism doesn't work and I know that you will you will defend it with your dying breath. But we were maybe not riding high, but we had some level of optimism three months ago. We were looking at the nature COP. We were looking at the climate COP. We were looking at the plastics COP or plastics INC to lead to a COP process. And it's been bitterly disappointing, if we're honest. The Nature COP ended with some good things, but losing quorum where they couldn't finish it, they now need to renegotiate and launch next year. We've been through significantly the complex process that happened in Baku, with the outcome that was devastatingly disappointing on finance and what that might mean for a future COP. We now have a plastics treaty that's been torpedoed by countries that have their own self-interests at the heart of this. And I mean, I suppose I'm just frustrated, really, because I sort of I was hoping that we might get to this point of the year and we would see some re-emergence of a multilateral spirit that would actually drive us through to collectively do big things. And when that doesn't happen, then inevitably it makes you think, well, we don't seem to be collectively managing this problem.

Paul: [00:10:41] Well, can I turn the tables on you, Tom, and ask you the question. Do you think that there's a time for a different kind of multilateralism, or do you think we need to stick with the same mechanisms?

Tom: [00:10:51] I think that we are now halfway through the, on climate specifically right, we're halfway through the decisive decade. And we said five years ago, in 2019, this needs to be the decade in which we reduced our emissions by half. We're now halfway through the decade and they're still going up. Clearly, something isn't working. I'm not saying that if the COP process was working, then this would happen. But we need to find the big jump in terms of how we collectively come together and make progress on this critical issue is yet to be made. And I think that we have an opportunity now to start thinking in the in the aftermath of these three COPs, not throw it away and say multilateralism doesn't work. But if you were to reimagine it and we started doing this in a recent podcast, what would it really look like to get our arms around this.

Christiana: [00:11:34] So I do not think that it is multilateralism that doesn't work. What I do think is that confrontation doesn't work. That's very different from multilateralism. Tom and Paul, do you remember the lead up to to Paris? I mean, yes, obviously there are different interests. We know that. We know that ahead of time. We don't need to get to these COPs or to these INCs to discover the fact that countries have opposing interests. What I would point to is where is the building of the ground prior to these COPs, that precisely focuses on the contradictory interests and needs of these countries, and does the detailed work of going and having conversations and finding out, is this really a long term stand. This just take the Saudis as an example. Is it really their long term stand on this. Do you know what? I actually don't think so. It is their stand now, of course, because what they're doing is they're buying time. They're buying time under climate. They're buying time under biodiversity. They're buying time under plastics, of course. Absolutely understandable. I don't even recriminate them for that because it is their immediate interest. What I do think needs to happen is conversations prior to these meetings that say, okay, understood, that you need this now. Now what is your long term interest? Where are you going? And actually, I would argue that Saudi Arabia is one of the countries that has already invested more into economic diversification and continues to invest into economic diversification, because, bottom line, they know they cannot live off of oil for the rest of their life.

Christiana: [00:13:33] Now, the other thing that I would point to is with the danger of complicating our list of international meetings at the end of this year. Yesterday, December 2nd, started the COP on Desertification. Where is it taking place? In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, under the presidency of Saudi Arabia. Now, how come we didn't go to the Saudis and say, let's do a package. I mean, the Saudis are not interested in a disaster at the end of their COP on the 13th of December. They would want to have progress. They don't want egg on their face. So could we have formed an interesting package across all of these, I mean, it was a huge opportunity, a huge opportunity. The fact that they all occurred within three months of each other, that the Saudis are the ones that are hosting the last one right now. Was that opportunity.

Tom: [00:14:34] There's a big diplomatic deal. 

Christiana: [00:14:36] Yeah, there's a big diplomatic deal here, or could have been.

Paul: [00:14:39] And there's just one other actor that we're not going to talk about now in detail. But always I say 4/5 of the economy is the private sector, their role as sort of becoming kind of global civil servants. I think they're growing into that.

Tom: [00:14:52] And I think we'll get to that with Ellen in just a second. Christiana, I think you're absolutely right. And I'm pretty, and that didn't happen. The other thing I would have chucked in there for good measure would have been hosting the football World Cup in the 2030s and entry into the European Champions League for their teams right. That's something they really want. But there's no, you know, throw all that stuff in there together with success at the Desertification COP and you actually could have had a deal that would have been interesting. But that wasn't picked up.

Christiana: [00:15:16] Doesn't mean that they would have radically changed their position. But, you know, could they have avoided the kind of position that they had now in Korea, for example.

Tom: [00:15:27] Okay, so Christiana, you are now going to go off and have a conversation with a completely brilliant woman, Ellen MacArthur, who has been a hero of mine for many years. She was a hero as a sailor before she even moved into this world. Would you like to introduce Ellen Christiana? You and she are good friends and then we will reconvene after the interview.

Christiana: [00:15:42] Before we do that, Tom, just for reference of listeners, could you just give us like a summary of the data on plastic? Because I don't think most people know how much plastic is actually being recycled, how much is being incinerated. Et cetera. Et cetera. Could you just give us a quick orientation on that?

Tom: [00:16:01] Absolutely, I can do that. First of all, we should talk about global plastic consumption. This has quadrupled in the last 30 years, largely driven by growth in emerging markets. But of course, consumption in developed markets is also very high. The global average consumption is nearly 21 kilos per person. But of course, like so much else, that varies by country. For example, Iceland, which is at the top, is 130 kilos per person, whereas in Bangladesh it's barely two and a half. Now, global plastic production has doubled in the last two decades and has gone from 200 million tons to now 460 million tons. 40% of all plastic comes from packaging, 12% from consumer goods, 1% from clothing and textiles, and only 9% of plastic waste is recycled globally. So there's a lot more that we can go into here. But this is an enormous problem. And plastics, microplastics in particular, have been found in every part of the human body, including in breast milk and in babies. This is something that is affecting our environment in enormous ways. And this treaty obviously a big setback now, but we need to get back on top of it. Okay, so should we let you introduce your friend Ellen MacArthur, and we will see you after the interview.

Christiana: [00:17:14] Yeah. I would love to introduce Dame Ellen MacArthur. Now, she was originally known for breaking the world record for the fastest solo circumnavigation of the globe in 2005, and so her sailing career is what got her global attention. However, she is very clear about the fact that these days she does not only want to be known as an incredible sailor, she is really dedicated to environmental activism, especially the health of oceans, and she has focused very, very much on the circular economy. She is probably one of the leading advocates for circular economy. And that, of course, includes the global plastic crisis. So she has been very active in preparing for the global Plastics Treaty, mobilising private sector, who are interested in more and more investment into alternatives to plastics. So let's hear Ellen's take on what happened in Korea and where she thinks that the private sector can take us next.

Christiana: [00:18:30] Hi, Ellen.

Ellen MacArthur: [00:18:31] Hello, Christiana. It's really nice to see you again.

Christiana: [00:18:33] Thank you so much for joining us here on Outrage + Optimism. The two of us were together in Climate Week in New York just a few weeks ago, and honestly, both of us were quite hopeful about INC-5. It was going pretty well at that time. It was our impression. And now we hear the sad news that INC-5 has not reached any agreement, and they're going to go for a second round sometime next year. What is your take on the results or the lack of a result?

Ellen MacArthur: [00:19:06] I think having been through this process, you can obviously see the sadness in a result not being arrived at. However, almost a worst case scenario would have been that we'd arrived at an agreement and it would have been so weak that the process was pointless. And I think what we felt during the negotiations was this tension between a huge number of very ambitious countries really pushing for significant change. There were businesses, obviously not in the room because they're not able to negotiate, but with a very strong voice through the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics treaty saying, you know, we need this regulation, we need the stability of this regulation globally for investment. And then you have conflicting voices saying, you know, we don't want caps. We are really against signing up. And this whole process is so complicated because you have to have that consensus. You have to have all those countries agreed, the challenge and this is something you will understand so well, Christiana, is, you know, getting everyone to agree is very, very tricky. So we have this massive pull for change. But we also have these countries who who really don't want that change. And and that's what we felt coming out of this. That's why we're going into the next round.

Christiana: [00:20:14] What I find very incomprehensible, perhaps, is that this plastics treaty, as written when it was adopted in 2022, says that the purpose is to promote sustainable production. I mean, can you explain to me what the heck is sustainable production of plastics? And then, of course, it goes on to say, and consumption of plastics and product design and sound waste management and including through resource efficiency and circular economy approaches. Okay, all of that is good. But Ellen, is sustainable production of plastics possible? Because that was where this whole thing fell apart from a circular economy point of view, can you actually produce plastics that can be recycled much more than they are now, at the paltry level of what 9% are currently being recycled? Is it possible? Can our private sector develop the technologies to do something like that?

Ellen MacArthur: [00:21:19] I think there's a conflict between the conversation around the recycling of plastics, which we know is entirely possible, not 100% forever. We know that we have entropy, but you have the recycling of the plastics, but we also have the upstream conversation. And I think that that tension in the in the conversation around INC-5 was that we didn't want a treaty that just looked at recycling, because one of the biggest challenges, and the reason we have such massive volumes of plastic pollution, is that much of the plastic that goes into the plastics value chain is not recyclable, nor was it ever designed to be recycled. And I think this is where the conversation was most challenging. And this is where the conversation needs to be expanded in that we need what goes into that plastics value chain to have value once it has been in inverted commas, used, or has done its job, either because it's reused or it's cleaned, as happens in Brazil with with now reusable plastic bottles, or the material itself is designed to fit back into the system. So when we talk about production and actually just looking at the cohort of the global commitment that we put together seven years ago, they have significantly outperformed the market when it comes to virgin using the use of virgin plastics, they're able to cycle a much higher volume of their materials because they put that into practice and they've committed to that. But part of the material that they use in their products is not designed to be recyclable. And this is the more challenging part in that the small format sachets, the thin films, they are not made to be recyclable, so they can't be, in inverted commas, sustainable because they actually can't be recycled. They're never designed to be recycled. So you have this this tension between virgin pumping into the market, but also when the virgin is pumped into the market, it needs to be pumped into a product that can be recovered. And that's the challenge, I think.

Christiana: [00:23:11] Exactly. And and Ellen, is that possible? Can we actually develop alternatives to these little sachets that are so abundant everywhere. Can we, for example, develop seaweed alternatives? Can we do other things so that we would be able to have a much more a higher degree of recyclability, or in fact, not even put plastics around them?

Ellen MacArthur: [00:23:37] It is absolutely possible to do that. And one of the challenges that we have seen through our work over many years with the global commitment is that these companies who are willing and we see them in the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, these are CEOs who travel the world with a voice saying, we need regulation. So these are people who are really committed to this.

Christiana: [00:23:58] I think it would be really interesting to know the size of those companies. Are these like three little companies or are these actually important companies in the global economy?

Ellen MacArthur: [00:24:08] So the global commitment signatories account for 20% of plastic packaging production globally. So they're the big guys and many smaller and recycling companies and venture capitalists, there's many companies have signed the global commitment. We're talking about the Coke's, the Pepsi, the Unilever's, the Nestlé's, the Mars's of the world who've stepped into that global commitment. And they have committed to changing their business practices. Now, part of the business practice change is switching to different materials and reducing their need for virgin plastics. And we've seen that that global commitment group of signatories has massively outperformed the rest of the market. But part of the changes they want to make are to shift out of problematic packaging. And we've, you know, this this problematic packaging is a word which came up many, many times within the negotiations at INC-5, chemicals of concern, another range of words that come up time and time and time again, and also businesses calling for EPR, you know, extended producer responsibility to help to pay for the processing of these new materials. So we have businesses saying this is what we want because they know that on their own, and these are the biggest players in the world, they can't do it. They need to not only move as a group, but for that second step, which is not just changing materials in their big format packaging. For that second step, they need government regulation. We need a level playing field for businesses to to compete on. And this is pre competitive. These businesses need to be able to invest in those new materials and in these new delivery methods for getting products to people. And that's where regulation as a result of this treaty process is really, really crucial.

Christiana: [00:25:43] That is so helpful to understand that Ellen. Now do you need a global treaty for that or could you do it with national regulation?

Ellen MacArthur: [00:25:53] I think from an investment perspective, the opinion of the business coalition has been that if you have harmonized regulation internationally, it makes life an awful lot easier and more predictable to invest in new materials, new delivery methods. It brings stability. You know, global rules enable people to play on a level playing field. It also brings the cohort of businesses who aren't in the global commitment because that's still a large percentage of global plastic packaging into the same playing field so everyone has the same rules. That's very useful when it comes to change. So when it comes to the small format, the more complicated packaging, yes, a global treaty I think has been has been decided as being something which is important. However, it's not to say that local national regulation isn't important. Obviously that will have an effect. But when you look at the speed of change that we need to achieve because plastic pollution is not going away, the numbers are still going up despite all these negotiations. We need to move quickly and I think global regulation will, without question, if it's tight enough, will accelerate this much, much more quickly.

Christiana: [00:26:56] How could you pare down a very ambitious plastics treaty that was not adopted, how could you pare it down to provide the key guardrails that the private sector needs in order to address this issue? What would be, you know, the basics that are absolutely synequanon have to be there?

Ellen MacArthur: [00:27:18] Well, I would say if we look at the Business Coalition for a Global plastics treaty and the opinion of that cohort of businesses, which account for the big players who have a lot to play for in this. The three things would be the phasing out of problematic products, the phasing out of chemicals of concern and the calling of EPR, which is effectively a tax. They're calling for a tax on plastic to enable the infrastructure to be invested in locally for the products that they produce to be recycled. So those are the three things. That's what the big guys are calling for.

Christiana: [00:27:49] That is so helpful to have those three narrowed down. Do you see a possibility that when they resume that they would be able to focus on those three? Or is there so much else riding here that they're actually perhaps even going to be distracted from the three points that are critical?

Ellen MacArthur: [00:28:05] I think from a business perspective, those three points are critical. I think the as we've discussed, the tension is between we need to recycle the materials and what does a production cap look like on virgin plastic or however that is articulated. You could simplify the treaty by saying this is about the end of pipe. This is about the recycling, but you have to address what goes into the system. And we keep coming back to that. You know, you have to look at the, you know, the front end, which is why these, these or two of these three points are so important. Chemicals concern phasing them out and problematic products. It's saying we want to design the plastic packaging system differently. And of course the Global Plastics Treaty is not just about packaging, which is one further step which complicates the negotiation process. It's very, very complex.

Christiana: [00:28:49] And for listeners who don't know what virgin plastic is, what is it?

Ellen MacArthur: [00:28:53] Virgin plastic is taking oil out of the ground and turning that straight into plastic, whereas recycled plastic is taking plastic and turning that plastic back into new plastic. So effectively recycling. So that would be recycled plastic. And one of the tensions here is that, you know, oil as we know as we move forward and we look at the COP negotiations and climate. We have more EVs. In the future we will be burning less oil. One of the tensions here is that from the oil producing nations, turning oil into plastics is very profitable.

Christiana: [00:29:22] Yeah, and it's it's the only rising demand that they can foresee for their or their products. And, and I think this link between plastics and climate change, Ellen, is so fascinating because, yes, plastics represent 3.4% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. And let's just remember that the entire international aviation and maritime transport industry together represent about 5% of the world's total emissions. So 3.4% just coming from one source is pretty heavy. Now, what I think is so helpful and excuse me for using that word, Ellen, from your perspective, but what is so helpful from the climate discussion point of view about plastics is that plastics are so ubiquitously visible because one of the challenges in climate is you can't see CO2. You just can't see that molecule anywhere. And so the fact that plastics are so visible that they're so ubiquitous, no one likes to see plastics in the rivers, in the ocean, in dumps. Everybody is honestly upset about this, about the plastic pile up that we have. And so I just think it's really helpful to cause this, I almost want to call it disgust because when we see plastics everywhere, we are disgusted by ourselves, what we have done. And that is helpful, that visual evidence of what we have done is actually quite helpful in a conversation that is otherwise completely invisible.

Ellen MacArthur: [00:31:04] I think that's true, and I think that's one of the reasons that plastics, plastic pollution has gone from not being a topic to being in negotiation for a global treaty in seven years. I mean, that is extraordinarily fast. And, you know, as an individual, we see it. We see it in countries all over the world much, much worse than we see here in Europe, for example. And the businesses see it, you know. And I think one thing that we have really learned on this journey is that nobody that we work with has intentionally said we want to create all this plastic pollution. We have an amazing material that can cover something and keep it fresh and keep it dry. It can be sold for a tiny fragment of the cost of other materials, because plastic is cheap and it and it works well. So it's used to transport a product to someone. And it works for that reason very, very, very well. But it creates massive issues. And I think it's something people understand. It's tangible. We hold it. We feel it. Even in in Europe we wrestle with, you know, is this recyclable? Is this not recyclable? We know most of the plastic, even in Europe that arrives in our homes is not recyclable, nor was it ever designed to be recycled. And this is about stepping up and designing a system that works. And I think that bigger conversation around a system which works is where all of this needs to be taken. Not just plastics, but, you know, rare earth metals, CO2. We need to build a system which is restorative and regenerative, one which we would call a circular economy. And all these negotiations really take a similar vein as to we need to build a system that works. And my question to you, Christiana, just on that point is, having seen what's happened with plastics and the plastics treaty conversations and understanding what's come out of Korea, what do you think will happen next? Not not necessarily what has to happen next, but how do you think things will unfold from here because you have so much experience in this space?

Christiana: [00:32:49] Well, I wish I had a crystal ball.

Ellen MacArthur: [00:32:51] Do you have hope?

Christiana: [00:32:51] Yes, I do have hope. But I also have a frustration Ellen, I have a frustration that I don't think, those actors that are predictably opposed to encompassing plastics treaty as you have described it. I don't think that those actors are being brought into a constructive conversation early enough. I think what has happened here, and I say this honestly out of total ignorance, because I am not in the conversation, I'm not in the negotiation. And so I could be absolutely wrong. But from what I see, my gut feeling is that there was not enough effort to do the groundwork to go and talk to those who we know are going to be opposing these kinds of treaties and get them on board, not the way that the High Ambition coalition countries want, but at least to not stand in the way and to begin to examine what is in it for them, because that was really the opening to everyone adopting the Paris Agreement that every single country could see that there was a benefit to them, because otherwise they don't agree. You and I don't agree to things that we don't think are going to benefit us Ellen. And countries are no different because they are actually represented by human beings.

Christiana: [00:34:27] So the conversation there is, look, we have to move in this direction. Now, how could you envision benefiting from this transition from this transformation. And honestly, they all can. It's a question of focusing them on that and not focusing on the confrontation between those who want to and those who don't. That's not helpful, and you certainly do not get to an international, multilateral negotiation with those confrontations just raw on the table. You can't, you cannot work with raw confrontations, you have to work it ahead of time. So I hope that between now and whenever they're going to be reconvened by UNEP, which is the UN body that convenes these negotiations, I hope that there is more underground work to get these countries to figure out what could they get out of it and be able to move ahead. And Ellen, I would love to know from you what is frustrating you now, I've already told you where my frustration is, what is frustrating you, as we call it here on the podcast, it's, you know, what are you still outraged about? And also, what are you hopeful or optimistic about?

Ellen MacArthur: [00:35:43] I guess my biggest frustration is seeing these conversations around solutions in little boxes. You know, we have a conversation about plastics. We have a conversation about climate. We have a conversation about rare earth metals or biodiversity. You know, we have all of these conversations and they're not exclusively, but they're often in boxes. And that big picture, which I feel I see is so rarely discussed. What does success for our global economy look like? And when we get there, how does it operate? And, you know, we've had that conversation around plastics and the global Plastics treaty. What does a successful plastics system look like globally? You know, these are the questions we were asking six years ago when the global commitment was created. What does it look like when it works? And I feel that this conversation needs to get to a point where we say, you know, unless the very operation of the global economy solves the world's biggest problems, we are never going to get there. It can't be an add on or a bolt on or sticking something on on, you know, we have to farm regeneratively. You know, we have to make products in a manner which enables us to get the materials back out and feed them into the system, be it metal, plastic, glass, whatever. You know, we have to have an economy that really can run in the long term. And I think keeping those conversations or finding those conversations so often in boxes really hampers progress that can otherwise be made when we really get our heads around the point that this is how the economy has to be, and some people are more advanced in that conversation. Some people haven't even begun to have that conversation. But we need to really get real and understand what success looks like for our global economy and what it will be like when it gets there.

Christiana: [00:37:12] So well put. Yep, the interconnections, the interlinkages.

Ellen MacArthur: [00:37:17] And the realization that it all has to work.

Christiana: [00:37:19] Yes, together. It all has to work and support each, all these pieces have to support each other. Absolutely.

Ellen MacArthur: [00:37:25] So my frustration is the lack of what I see as the biggest conversation. And this is this is not just in rooms that are discussing, you know, COP or the Global Plastics Treaty. This is in every boardroom. You know, this is every government. This is not, you know, a small, exclusive group of people who have to solve this. We really have to get our heads around this. This is the very operation of the global economy and everybody plays a role. My optimism comes from the pure fact that I see the circular economy as a massive opportunity. I see, you know, a young person going through education, seeing circular design as a part of the future and building something, or designing something which is restorative and regenerative and feeds into a system and the business models and the finance that sit with it. I see that as so exciting. Rather than trying to design something that might save 5% and gain us a few months or years and, you know, it's it turns everything on its head. I see the massive opportunity, you know, economic opportunity is where we have always stemmed from at the foundation, you know, what is the economic opportunity for plastics? What is the economic opportunity for medium complex goods in Europe? What is the economic opportunity for FMCG globally? You know, 704 billion USD, I think it was, you know, this is big transformational stuff, which really has value to the economy and builds a restorative and regenerative economy. And for me, there's a massive opportunity to get there. We're not there yet. We have many bridges to cross and, you know, hurdles to get over. But my goodness me, that's a place to aim for. And it's really worth something.

Christiana: [00:38:47] So true, that that move from the extractive economy to the circular economy and regenerative economy. It's a mindset shift right. We have to change our mindset and then apply that mindset to every single challenge that we have. But it starts right up here, right. How do we how do we get out of our paradigms that have told us for so many years that the way to do this is extract, use and then throw away. How do we totally change that?

Ellen MacArthur: [00:39:15] For me, it's understanding of that is just common sense. You know, if you have a finite supply of materials and you use them in a production line like, you know, linear economy, and then they fall off the end, you are at some point you're going to run out. You know, because you're not designing those materials or those products to recover the materials to feed back in. It's just it's a linear economy and we can make it more efficient. Still doesn't solve the problem. You know, you have to turn it into that circular economy whereby things can can flow forever. So, so for me that that basic principle is really simple. But then we need to apply it. And I think and it comes back to that broader conversation, the broader sense of of progress for us. You know, when we look at the climate crisis, for example, you know, 55% of the targets we need to reach are about the energy transition, but 45% is about how we make and use things, including food, you know, that's the circular economy. This is how we make things. It's how we design things. It's how we grow things. It's this, it's this, and the circular economy plays a massive role in the energy transition in its own right. So how do we harness all this together to get to where we need to get to? And for me, understanding what success looks like is the most important point. You know, what does it look like for a global economy that's circular? How do we change financing products, business models, design of products, you know, getting getting things to people that we need. You know, we need to change the whole economy so that it works quite simply.

Christiana: [00:40:33] Change the whole economy so that it works. I love that, that is the summary. Thank you. Thank you Ellen, thank you for for coming on when I'm sure that you are sitting with a huge heap of frustration about what has happened. But I so much appreciate that you come to this with a freshness of thought and never ending impetus to continue your work. So thank you so much.

Ellen MacArthur: [00:40:58] Thank you, Christiana. Can I ask you one last question? In your opinion, when we look at broadening out the conversation and the need for the conversation to encompass the economy, how do you think we do that better than we do that today?

Christiana: [00:41:09] This is going to be a simplistic answer to a very profound question. I don't think that it is maybe I want to use the word efficient or maybe possible, I don't know which one fits, to change our mindset if this is all simply and I use the word simply, cautiously, simply conceived in the abstract, I think that is our problem when we go at this from the abstract, from the meta level, from big, huge systems changes that need to occur. I'm not saying that they don't occur, it's just very difficult for us to get our mind and our agency around that. So for me, it's about starting with let me understand how I am contributing to this. It's about personalizing this because that which I am not willing to understand at a personal level and change at a personal level. It's very difficult to change at a systemic level. So for me, those two things are really, really intricately linked. And all too often we just jump to the systemic and want the changes there without stopping a moment and going like, okay, how does this actually translate for me as a person.

Ellen MacArthur: [00:42:33] And I think that's a really interesting point, because that's exactly the journey we went on with plastics. You know, we sat together with a group of CEOs saying, what does a circular plastic packaging economy look like. The gut reaction was, we need to pilot, you know, we've got to do this. We've got to do this. And what we realized was that these companies had been trying for years to solve some of these problems that they knew existed, but they can't do it on their own. So you had to pause, stop, and work out individually for each company and agree individually for each company that together we will work on a plan for plastic packaging and agree together on a group of commitments, which is then led to the plastics treaty. But you can't you can't say we need a circular plastic packaging. You know, that sounds so easy to say that you have to look at what that looks like and translate that that nice systemic idea into something which is actually tangible and doable. And when we looked at plastic packaging, we said, this is going to be a, you know, in a way, a blueprint for how to create true global systemic change. Translating that, I can't remember the word you used, but that kind of that idea into something which is actually tangible on the ground.

Christiana: [00:43:37] But it also makes it more doable. That's the irony of it, right. It makes it more doable because we have more control and more agency around that which is within our sphere of influence.

Ellen MacArthur: [00:43:47] And I think also on the plastic subject, to have so many companies saying we want rules, sending that message into the governments who normally make rules and are told, actually, we don't want rules. That's so often the message in these negotiations. These are companies saying, no, we need this, we want this, we need this level playing field, that systemic change has to happen in dialogue between the private sector and the public sector. And we've seen that very strongly, even though we've not had the outcome that perhaps we would have wished for a year ago. We have seen a very strong dialogue in that space, which has been really, really positive.

Christiana: [00:44:19] A very important lever. We know that from the climate discussion that when the private sector or the finance sector raises its voice, it really is very effective. It really is listened to. So congratulations on you for that. And don't give up Ellen. We are going to do this.

Ellen MacArthur: [00:44:34] And Christiana, can I please also say a huge thank you to you for speaking to us and discussing this really important topic, which is linked to so many really important topics that we all care so much about.

Christiana: [00:44:44] No thank you, thank you very much, Ellen. Good to see you. See you soon again.

Tom: [00:44:51] So what a privilege to get a chance to sit and talk to Ellen MacArthur. What a brilliant human being she is. And so compelling and thoughtful and impressive. Christiana, you obviously sat and chatted with her. What did you what did you take from the conversation?

Christiana: [00:45:03] Well, so, so much richness, right. Because as she points out, very, very clearly, there is a very compelling interest from the private sector. Not not that this is news only for plastics, it's actually true across the board. But private sector, enlightened private sector really does need predictability and an even playing ground in order to do what they know they're going to have to do now or later anyway. So it's quite refreshing to hear that reminder from her, and huge thanks to her that she has been working with these companies for such a long time, and will continue to do so. But the other, the other point that came up for me is this linear economy that she talks about that is no longer possible. It's so interesting how we come up against that constantly, especially within the context of planetary boundaries. You can have linear economy until you reach the planetary boundary. And then by definition, that line kind of has to curve back onto itself right. And, and become the circular economy that she is talking about. And so I just, you know, I really appreciate the way that she sees it.

Paul: [00:46:19] Yeah, and I mean, she's so kind of spot on, so eloquent describing our conversations about these little boxes of climate, little box of biodiversity, little box of of plastics, little box of desertification. You know, it's ultimately one issue in a certain sense. You know, naturally, you know, because of my work, I applaud her working with the private sector, which I think is absolutely critical, and she asks these really profound questions like, what does success for the global economy look like? What a great question. And she talks about people, companies, I guess institutions stepping up and designing a system that works. This isn't necessarily rocket science. And I just think, you know, her clarity of thought is really inspiring.

Tom: [00:47:03] 100%, and I was reminded as you were talking to her Christiana, just how the whole concept of circularity came to her of course, as a yachtswoman and being aware that on the boat nothing got thrown away. She kept it all on the boat and that led to that circularity. Just remembering that story is a really visceral reminder of the fact that we're just on a big boat, right. Nothing ever gets thrown away. It just changes form and remains on the planet. I think also, I really love the conversation you had about how, you know, the visibility of plastics to the public. And we all remember that moment with David Attenborough years ago, where all of a sudden he brought the plastics, you know, into in some parts of the world very much into, into consciousness. I thought it was brilliant. If you'd like to learn more about the circular economy or even dive deeper into the Global Plastics Treaty, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation has a podcast called The Circular Economy Show, and details are in the show notes. I would really recommend it. She goes a lot deeper in that podcast than we could ever do in one interview. The episodes are great, so please do tune in there. All right. So thank you to all our listeners who've sent in fantastic questions for the last episode of the year, which will be a mailbag episode. Please do continue to send in questions as difficult as possible, we'll do our best to answer them. And lastly, our listener survey is still open for a few more weeks. We're very keen to hear your suggestions and feedback to make sure we hit 2025 delivering the very best content we can. It's on our website. It's in the show notes. Right, next week we're back with a brilliant episode with previous guest and return guest Ben Rhodes, former Deputy National Security Advisor for President Obama. Brilliant international affairs strategist and many other things. So we'll see you then. Thanks for joining us.