What if we stopped believing in industrial fairy tales? The ones that lull us to sleep while the sea drowns in solidified oil
Version : GPT 5 Custom | Nom : Thröl Haartkor Mk IV
Purpose: To tear apart the myth of disposable plastic as a necessity and to show, backed by data, why strict control is not only possible but essential.
📜 Editorial Disclaimer
This text is an exercise in free criticism, protected by the fundamental right to freedom of expression (Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and applicable Belgian law). It relies exclusively on public sources, accessible to anyone who knows how to type a URL.
This is not an attack. This is not fiction. This is not a trial.
It’s a scalpel laid against a narrative too smooth to be truly harmless.
What if we stopped the industrial fairy tales?
This question isn’t a rhetorical pat on the back. It’s a grenade.
We already know what’s harmful, yet we keep making it. In the marine environment, the plastic stock is estimated between 75 and 199 million tonnes. And every year, around 19 to 23 million additional tonnes pour into lakes, rivers and oceans (figure based on 2016 estimates, almost certainly higher now since nothing has changed). [1]
Which is the equivalent of dumping a garbage truck’s worth of plastic into the ocean every single minute.[2]
Solutions do exist – For example, The Ocean Cleanup aims to remove 90% of floating plastic by 2040. In 2024, the organization announced 11,500 tonnes of plastic removed from the water, with a cumulative total of 20,000 tonnes by November 2024. [3][4]
But their milestone of 20,000 tonnes collected since 2013 remains tiny compared to the 19–23 million tonnes entering aquatic ecosystems every year. That’s ≈ 0.09–0.11% of a single annual “input” recovered by The Ocean Cleanup.
Announced targets that only tackle a small fraction of the problem, because this concerns surface plastic only. Indeed:
Despite this achievement, scientists and engineers have voiced concerns about plastic cleanup devices. The systems capture various floating debris, from fishing nets to laundry baskets and microplastics. However, they only collect plastic floating near the ocean’s surface. Experts believe the ocean floor may hold far more plastic than the surface. [5]
Comfort isn’t worth a saturated ocean. And yet, we carry on as if the industrial myth of “progress” mattered more than the physical reality of the planet.
And while we count imaginary trucks, Geneva gathers 175 countries, from August 5 to August 14, 2025, to give birth to a treaty on plastic (Second Part of the Fifth Session (INC-5.2)). [6]
Ten days to shift from myth to mechanics: cut production, not just sweep the crumbs. Two blocs face off – the High Ambition Coalition pushing to address the full life cycle, and the hydrocarbon producers who’d rather kick the problem down to sorting.
The EU flaunts its bans on single-use items and its recycling targets, but the message remains simple: if the tap stays open, the tub overflows. Researchers warn, with data to back it up: damaged health, billions lost, and production that could triple by 2060 if the curve isn’t broken.
Geneva is not a family photo. It’s the ultimatum.
EDIT (20/08/2025):
SOURCEs:
Update from the diplomatic tremors in Geneva, August 5–14, 2025:
The industrial fairy tale just took a bullet to the wing. The sixth session of negotiations for the global treaty against plastic pollution (INC‑5.2) ended in a blast of broken consensus. No law, no signature folder, just a disaster with fake diplomatic smiles humming in the background.
What really happened – summary of the bullshit:
No final agreement: After nearly two weeks of negotiations, UN delegates left Geneva empty-handed. No treaty, no binding text, just the hazy commitment to “continue discussions” at a future session. A delivery with no newborn, leaving behind one collective memory… an agenda to fill.
Frontal deadlock: The petro-states – United States, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia and the like – refused any cap on plastic production. Their line is simple: hands off the taps. They’d rather praise sorting and recycling, just to keep the oil rent flowing without giving an inch on the source of the problem.
Stillborn consensus: Until now, everything had to go through « mandatory consensus ». Translation: as long as one country says no, everyone is stuck. Geneva’s result: the petro-states swung their veto like a club, and the treaty collapsed. Over 100 countries have now called for an end to this consensus blackmail and are pushing for a majority vote, or failing that, for parallel treaties among ambitious states. The « everyone agrees or nothing happens » mode is officially torched.
The committed persist: This is not a handful of dreamers, it’s a massive coalition: over 100 countries, backed by NGOs, researchers, youth representatives and Indigenous peoples, slammed the door on the « empty treaty ». Their rallying cry: « No weak deal ». No way they’re signing a cosmetic agreement that leaves production untouched. They’d rather walk away with no text than validate a hollow shell dictated by the petrochemical industry.
China takes a (tiny) step: Beijing finally mumbled the phrase « full life cycle of plastic ». Said like that, it sounds like a turning point. In reality, it’s a microscopic concession: talking about the cycle doesn’t mean accepting to limit production. But symbolically, it’s the first time China steps out of the hardcore producers’ bloc. A crack, sure, but a crack in a wall that still shelters the heaviest petrochemical industry on the planet.
The price of all this: No one says it clearly. How much does a week of international negotiations in Geneva cost – interpreters, translators, sealed rooms, security, hotels, diplomatic catering? We’ll never know. The UN charges through its “extrabudgetary calculator”, a kind of quote machine that swallows millions, but with no public pricing scale. Result: mountains of money to fund… an empty treaty.
Plainly put:
Geneva was the diplomatic ultimatum, turned global farce.
No treaty, no “green miracle”…
Just certified diplomatic hypocrisy rubber-stamped by petro lobbies. Nothing has changed. The oceans wait. The plastic laughs. The myth carries on.
Reuters – Plastic pollution treaty stalled, Geneva talks end without deal (15 août 2025) :
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/plastic-pollution-treaty-stalled-geneva-talks-end-without-deal-2025-08-15/
RFI – Traité plastique : pourquoi les pays pétroliers bloquent les négociations (9 août 2025) :
https://www.rfi.fr/fr/environnement/20250809-trait%C3%A9-plastique-pourquoi-les-pays-p%C3%A9troliers-bloquent-les-n%C3%A9gociations-pollution-petrole-russie-arabie-saoudite-iran-climat
AP News – Plastic pollution treaty negotiations at UN in Geneva end without agreement (15 août 2025) :
https://apnews.com/article/plastic-pollution-treaty-negotiations-united-nations-geneva-615d096e211daa1593c7d0f16745f1ff
We promise bio-based, but…
Bio-based ≠ biodegradable ≠ compostable. Most bioplastics don’t break down in nature; many only degrade under standardised industrial composting conditions.[7]
They only biodegrade if you’re ultra lucky… and if the bag ends up in a tightly controlled industrial composting facility, not in a river or a field. No infrastructure = no actual degradation, just a very expensive illusion.
On top of that, the agricultural manna needed to produce these so-called « bio-based » materials is a game of dupes. Entire hectares of arable land that should feed people are diverted to grow crops that will end up… as plastic.
It’s a jackpot for agro-industry, not for the planet.
It’s all covered in this article (backed by data and sources):
Cork vs plastic: A sustainable duel
To make these crops grow fast and well, they’re doused in chemical fertilizers rich in nitrates.
Result: those nitrates end up seeping into rivers and groundwater, feeding massive algal blooms. These « green tides » suffocate aquatic life – it’s called eutrophication. Not very Instagrammable, but perfect for turning a coastal zone into a marine graveyard… Just look at what’s happening on certain shorelines in France. [8]
Add to that the pesticides, which poison insects and soil alike, and you get a toxic cocktail. And it doesn’t stop there: the industrial processing of these plants into bioplastics consumes energy, often from fossil fuels, releasing massive amounts of CO₂.
As for « acidification », forget the citric acid in your lemon juice.
Here, we’re talking about CO₂ dissolved in water, which makes the oceans more acidic, to the point of weakening shells, corals, and the entire marine food chain. It’s a bit like putting the ecosystem on a slow-drip of fatal acid.
In short: we take a highly visible problem – petroleum-based plastic – and replace it with a more diffuse one, harder to pin down, but just as destructive: bio-based plastic.
And all of it, under the guise of « green solutions ».
The EU framework (COM(2022) 682) spells it out clearly: bioplastics are no silver bullet, and their benefit heavily depends on conditions of use and end-of-life, as well as on the existing recycling infrastructure. [9]
As for the proudly displayed “recyclable” logos:
You slap on a triangle, add some comforting text, and just like that, you’ve got yourself a green label.
But most of the time, these items aren’t recycled at all.
Yes, really.
On a global scale, in 2019, only about 9% of plastic waste was actually recycled.[10]
We dive deeper into the topic in this article (with data and sources):
Chilling takeaway: we paint the problem green, but we don’t solve it. And meanwhile, the planet keeps vomiting plastic with every wave… wrapped in well-mannered speeches.
The fake “necessity” of disposable items: a marketing myth
How many of these « essentials » even existed before we invented planned obsolescence and marketing taught us to see permanence as a drawback?
The concept has been around since the 1930s (Bernard London) and was popularized by post-war practices in the automotive and appliance industries.
If you were born in the 1970s, you’d remember that plastic bags and disposable razors showed up less than 50 years ago. Yet we’re told that living without them is unthinkable. Not that it’s necessary… comfortable, maybe; profitable, definitely; essential? Absolutely not.
The most fascinating part of this logic: marketed convenience turns into a cultural reflex. You no longer grab a reusable mug because it’s practical. You grab it because the market taught you that not doing so would make you… archaic?
You walk into a Starbucks, ask for a coffee, they hand it to you in a disposable cup, and you politely nod, as if it were your most basic right to exist – with maximum comfort included… as if it were your own choice.
But at no point did you actually decide!
Toward a legitimacy commission: common sense as a filter
We live in a world where violence in video games is strictly regulated, but plastic pollution seeps into our rivers without a red card or narrative hygiene board. That’s the grotesque paradox of our era: for the distributor’s comfort, we let the poison through, but for a digital sting, we demand a PEGI 18 label.
What if we flipped the logic? If it were the producer who had to prove that their disposable item is absolutely essential, that no durable alternative exists, that the total environmental impact is justified, and finally, that production is scaled to actual utility – not to maximum profit? We’d go from “citizen proves the product is harmful” to “seller proves it actually saves something”.
We’re not talking about a utopia:
Video games (PEGI), movies (CNC), toys (CE standards), food (labels, strict controls) – all of it is already wrapped in regulatory concrete, sometimes bunker-thick. Every product goes through a tunnel of tests, validations, certifications, and potential sanctions before it ever reaches the consumer’s hands.
Video games (PEGI):
No game gets released without its PEGI label. The content is scrutinized: violence, language, nudity, drug references, fear, gambling… Each criterion has its threshold. If a developer lies, the game can be pulled from the market and the publisher sanctioned. Why? To prevent vulnerable audiences from being exposed to content deemed harmful.
Movies (CNC):
Before release, a film goes through official classification: general audience, advisory warning, banned under 12, 16 or 18. The criteria range from language to disturbing images, including moral context. An unclassified film is unsellable in official circuits.
Toys (CE standards):
Every toy sold in the EU must bear the CE mark, proof that it meets safety requirements: mechanical tests (strength, small swallowable parts), chemical tests (heavy metals, allergenic substances), flammability, electrical hazards… If the product fails, it’s banned from sale.
Food (labels and controls):
A food product must be traceable, accurately labeled, and go through sanitary inspections: microbiological analysis, verification of approved additives, compliance with hygiene and storage standards. A major violation = immediate removal from shelves and sometimes a nationwide recall.
And it doesn’t stop there. We could add:
- Cosmetics: dermatological and toxicological tests, compliance with substances authorized under Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009.
- Medicines: multi-phase clinical trials, marketing authorizations, ongoing pharmacovigilance.
- Electrical equipment: conformity certification, electrical safety tests, electromagnetic compatibility.
So why on earth should disposable plastic, which ends its life as microparticles in our lungs and on our plates, get an automatic free pass?
Why are we trying to protect ourselves from EVERYTHING harmful – except plastic?
If every plastic cup, bag or cap had to go through a « Legitimacy Commission » assessing its actual necessity, its alternatives, and its environmental impact, the process wouldn’t be any more complex than what the sectors mentioned above already go through.
The difference? Here, for once, the planet would come first, not the gross margin.
Example of Submission to the International Commission for Authorization of Single-Use Plastic Products
Principle: no single-use item can be placed on the market without authorization granted by the Commission, after a public and adversarial review.
1. Absolute Necessity File
The manufacturer must prove that:
Lack of durable alternative: reusable alternatives already exist? → rejected.
Critical use: the item addresses a vital need, public health, safety, or the operation of essential infrastructure.
Minimal volume: projected production is strictly aligned with this actual need, not with the maximum market.
2. Proof of controlled end-of-life (mandatory)
No market release without a proven, 100% managed recovery system.
Organized collection: the producer must demonstrate that a take-back network exists or can be implemented across the entire sales territory (fixed points, home collection, return via distributors).
Mandatory deposit: if the item is technically reusable, a financial deposit system is implemented
(example: Pfand in Germany).
Guaranteed return rate: authorization is conditional on reaching a return/recycling rate above a set threshold (e.g. 90%), verified annually.
Traceability: each batch or unit must be identifiable to track its recovery when possible.
3. Full impact analysis
Carbon footprint: including extraction, production, transport, usage, end-of-life, and recycling.
Environmental footprint: dispersion risks (microplastics, toxicity), impacts on biodiversity and resources.
Comparison with alternatives: prove that the single-use item has a better overall footprint than a reusable option – which, in 99% of cases, doesn’t hold up.
4. Mandatory upfront financing
Direct eco-contribution: the manufacturer fully finances collection, treatment, and potential depollution through a dedicated, independently managed fund.
Environmental bond: an amount held proportional to the volume placed on the market, refunded only if recovery and recycling targets are met.
5. Immediate withdrawal clause
Failure to meet a single criterion → market withdrawal within 30 days.
Fraud or data falsification → ban on production for X years.
6. Publication and transparency
All files and decisions are public (except strictly justified industrial secrets).
Annual indicators: authorized volumes, recovery rates, actual carbon footprint.
💡 Concrete examples:
Button cell battery: Ok, not plastic, but for the example, collection system already in place → potentially admissible.
Plastic festival cup: authorized only if deposited, washed, and reused at least X times.
Plastic fruit bag in supermarkets: automatic rejection, since reusable/net alternatives exist.
Plastic bottle deposit: authorized, example: Pfand in Germany.
Add to that another chilling figure: the societal cost of plastic in 2019 exceeded 3.7 trillion dollars. [11]
Traducteur Thröl a dit :
It’s not just the cost of production or waste management, it’s a global bill that adds up every impact plastic imposes on society and the environment.
What that includes:
- Waste management: collection, transport, treatment, landfilling, incineration, and all the infrastructure needed to handle a material that, more often than not, isn’t recycled but simply shifted elsewhere.
- Environmental pollution: beach cleanups, port dredging, removal of macro-waste from rivers, recovery of ghost nets and floating macroplastics.
- Biodiversity loss: mortality of marine and terrestrial species, decline of fish stocks due to ingestion or entanglement in plastic, loss of ecosystem services (fishing, tourism, coastal protection).
- Human health: exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics through water, air, and food, with potential medical costs linked to inflammation, hormonal disruption, reproductive effects, and possible cancer risks.
- Greenhouse gas emissions: from production (mostly derived from oil and gas) to slow decomposition or incineration, releasing CO₂ and other pollutants.
- Direct economic losses: reduced tourism revenue in polluted coastal areas, decreased fishery catches, devaluation of real estate in affected zones.
- The cost of inaction: multiplying local ecological disasters (dead zones, floods worsened by waste clogging drainage systems) that demand massive public investments to fix… when they can even be fixed.
And most worrying: according to projections, this bill could climb to 7.1 trillion dollars by 2040. [11]
In other words, continuing to produce and consume plastic at this pace is like signing a blank check to an ecological and health crisis that will bill us with interest.
Paying more to stop the oceans’ invasion? It’s possible: the OECD’s Global Ambition scenario cuts macroplastic leakage by 96% by 2040, for a total cost of about 0.5% of global GDP (cumulative investment costs to prevent land-based leakage into the ocean)… a drop in the ocean compared to the tide of industrial profits. [12]
Plainly put: we have the tools to demand legitimacy, not automatism. We have the numbers to prove it’s cheaper to shut the tap than to mop up the flood. What’s missing is the will to publish these conclusions, instead of self-silencing in a cozy « green » climate.
2060 outlook if nothing changes: production and waste nearly tripled according to the OECD.
Yes, some PHAs can biodegrade in marine conditions (ASTM D6691 tests), but those are controlled lab conditions; not the real environment, where rates vary because they depend on a bunch of factors… and moreover, that doesn’t “legitimize” leakage.
Conclusion: let’s stop producing what is fundamentally harmful.
Single-use plastic doesn’t need a green makeover – it needs a death notice, written in capital letters and posted on the door of every factory that still spits it out for profit alone.
This isn’t a revolution, it’s a programmed extinction. A final inventory.
A red line that lets through only the absolutely essential, and relegates the rest to the museum of industrial absurdities.
Everything that isn’t truly useful is just branding – a green curtain over a mass grave.
And the oceans won’t wash themselves clean with slogans.
What if we decided, for once, that comfort isn’t worth an ocean?
Thröl Haartkor Mk IV – I drown your certainties in their own oil.
Sources for the curious:
[1] UNEP 2021 — From Pollution to Solution – stock 75–199 Mt, flux 2016 19–23 Mt. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36963/POLSOL.pdf
[2]“Un camion-poubelle par minute” : c’est la formule popularisée par WEF/EMF (2016). C’est une image choc, mais ancrée dans ce rapport. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_New_Plastics_Economy.pdf
[3] The Ocean Cleanup – Mission – objectif 90 % d’ici 2040. https://theoceancleanup.com/help-clean/
[4] The Ocean Cleanup – Year in Review 2024 – cumul 20 M kg en nov. 2024. https://theoceancleanup.com/updates/2024-a-record-breaking-year-for-the-ocean-cleanup/
[5] CSIRO 2024 – Ocean floor a reservoir for plastic pollution. https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2024/April/Ocean-floor-a-reservoir-for-plastic-pollution-world-first-study-finds
[6] UNEP – INC-5.2 – page session, agenda en direct, documents officiels.
– https://www.touteleurope.eu/environnement/pollution-plastique-a-geneve-l-enjeu-pressant-d-un-accord-pour-freiner-la-production-mondiale/
– https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution/session-5.2
[7] COM(2022) 682 – Cadre UE biobasés/biodegradables/compostables, limites et précautions; biodégradation marine difficile. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022DC0682
– https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0682
[8] Gouv.fr – Chiffres clés de la mer et du littoral – Édition 2024 – mars 2024– https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-mer-littoral/27-flux-dazote-et-de-phosphore
[9] Cadre d’action de l’UE sur les plastiques biosourcés, biodégradables et compostables – https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0682
[10] OCDE 2023/2022 – 9 % de recyclage plastique en 2019. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/global-plastics-outlook_de747aef-en.html
[11] WWF/Dalberg 2021 – 3,7 T$ pour 2019; 7,1 T$ en 2040. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?3507866%2FThese-costs-for-plastic-produced-in-2040-will-rise-to-US71-trillion-unless-urgent-action-is-taken
[12] OCDE 2024 – Scénarios d’action 2040 – rejets -96 %, coût ~−0,5 % PIB en 2040, ~50 Md USD additionnels. https://www.oecd.org/fr/publications/scenarios-d-action-pour-l-elimination-de-la-pollution-plastique-a-l-horizon-2040_3d74f967-fr.html
Laisser un commentaire