The US government is pushing back against measures to tackle the ever-growing production of plastics in a new global treaty as key talks this week failed to produce a breakthrough ahead of the upcoming final round of negotiations.
Following speculation on how the Trump administration would handle thorny discussions over an expected UN pact on plastic pollution, US officials finally spelled out their new position at a three-day informal gathering in Nairobi aimed at finding a way forward ahead of next month’s talks in Geneva.
In a statement seen by Climate Home, the US made clear it does not support provisions that would regulate the supply side of plastics or feedstocks used in its manufacturing, adding that for areas without a “level of convergence” – including production – action should be left to “country-level discretion”.
After China, the US is the world’s second-largest producer of plastic polymers – the basic building blocks of plastic products that are primarily derived from fossil fuels.
Under the Biden administration, the US had flip-flopped between different positions on the UN treaty. It first attempted to water down its ambition, then backed measures to limit plastic production and finally, following Trump’s election, largely sat on the fence during crunch talks in Busan, South Korea, last December.
Fossil-fuel producers unite
Now, in the statement issued in Nairobi, the US said it wants “to ensure that we will grow our economies, maintain jobs for our citizens, all while reducing plastic pollution through cost-effective and pragmatic solutions”.
“We support an agreement that focuses on efforts that will lead to reducing plastic pollution, not on stopping the use of plastics,” it added, echoing a talking point frequently trotted out by other major fossil fuel producers opposed to plastic production cuts like Saudi Arabia and Russia.
After countries dramatically failed to reach an agreement in Busan, the informal meeting in Nairobi was billed as a crucial opportunity to find potential solutions and lay a path toward landing a deal at the so-called “INC-5.2” negotiations in Geneva.
Over half of countries push for plastic production cuts in new UN pact
But, while this week’s discussions were described as “constructive” and resulted in some overall progress, countries were still far apart on the most divisive elements of the treaty, including how to deal with the ever-expanding supply of plastics, three negotiators told Climate Home.
Climate Home maintained the sources’ anonymity to allow them to speak freely about confidential discussions from which the media is excluded.
Long-standing fault lines remain largely unchanged. On the one hand, a coalition of nearly 100 countries across the developed and developing world wants an “ambitious” treaty that stems the rising flow of plastics, ideally with a global target to reduce production and consumption to “sustainable levels”.
On the other, most oil-and-gas producing nations, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and petrochemical powerhouses like India, argue the pact should be limited to addressing consumption and recycling.
Seeking a way forward
David Azoulay, director of environmental health at the nonprofit Center for International Law (CIEL), said it was “concerning”, though not totally unexpected, that the meeting “did not provide the kind of breakthrough or radical changes in the negotiation dynamics that could unlock the negotiations ahead of INC-5.2 in Geneva”.
“We saw obstructive countries double-down on their proven, time-tested strategies that reject constructive approaches to addressing content,” he told Climate Home. He added that, while “ambitious developing countries continue to hold the line” on pushing for a plastics treaty that is “fit for purpose”, developed countries “were largely silent in defending ambition”.
Two negotiators from the self-described “high-ambition coalition” told Climate Home that the goal is to find language that could bring as many countries on board so that the treaty would meaningfully cover a significant proportion of the global plastics supply chain.
A potential landing zone on plastic production would be to acknowledge that business as usual is not working and introduce transparency measures without forcing strict reduction targets or quotas at first, they indicated.
In Nairobi, Japan put forward a proposal pointing in that direction. It states that countries “shall cooperate to promote sustainable production and consumption of plastics throughout their life cycle”, and report data on their supply chains as well as measures taken to address the treaty’s goals.
What will the US do in Geneva?
In the month before talks kick off on the shore of Lake Geneva, negotiators are expected to keep refining their strategies with one big unknown: how will the US behave?
The presence of a US delegation in Nairobi was seen as an indication of engagement with the plastics treaty, after the US government under Trump withdrew from most other multilateral talks on environmental and climate issues.
That could either be a blessing or a curse, one negotiator admitted. “They could be willing to do something, or let others do their thing and not ratify [the treaty] at this stage,” they said. “But if they want to hinder others, it will be very challenging.”
The post US comes out against plastic production limits in UN treaty at deadlocked talks appeared first on Climate Home News.
US comes out against plastic production limits in UN treaty at deadlocked talks
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.
ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
Renewable Energy Concepts Can’t Violate the Laws of Physics
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits