Aydın Tiryaki (2026)

The struggle against plastic pollution has evolved far beyond local “bag fee” debates into a complex global diplomatic war. As of 2026, it has become evident that the chasm between national environmental policies and the public’s demand for convenience has turned the plastic crisis into an insoluble knot.

1. Diverse Global Approaches: Prohibitionists vs. Systematizers

There is no single “magic formula” for plastic waste worldwide. Different regions have established their own lines of defense based on their unique economic and social dynamics:

Region / Country	Implementation Model	Core Philosophy
Africa (Rwanda, Kenya)	Radical Prohibition	Completely eliminate bags; impose heavy fines or imprisonment for non-compliance.
Europe (EU, UK)	Economic Deterrence	Charge fees for bags and invoice producers for “waste collection costs” (EPR).
Asia (S. Korea, Japan)	Disciplined Sorting	Allow bags but impose taxes on every gram of waste thrown away (Pay-as-you-throw).
USA (Certain States)	Free Trade Lobby	“Ban the bans.” Prioritize consumer freedom and convenience above all else.

2. The Global Plastic Treaty and the “1 to 19” Paradox

The deadlock in the UN Global Plastic Treaty negotiations (INC-5) as of 2026 is rooted in our aforementioned “1 vs. 19” ratio.

• 1 Unit (Waste Management): Developed nations and major plastic-producing states favor an agreement focused solely on “collection and recycling.” They view the problem as merely managing the trash at the doorstep.
• 19 Units (Production Caps): The opposing front argues that the actual mass—”primary polymer production” (petrochemicals)—must be restricted at the source.

The summary of the conflict is this: While the world agrees on controlling bags (1 unit), it is not yet ready to relinquish the massive 19 units of raw material power that protects food, simplifies logistics, and drives industry.

3. The “NIMBY” Syndrome: Don’t Touch My Comfort!

The primary sociological obstacle behind the global crisis is the “NIMBY” (Not In My Back Yard) mindset. Everyone wants the oceans to be clean, but no one wants to sacrifice the freshness of their food, the convenience of accessing any packaged product in any season, or the ease of a “grab-and-go” lifestyle.

By paying a small fee for a bag, societies ease their “environmental conscience,” while exporting the massive packaging load—the other 19 units—to developing nations, essentially saying, “Let someone else deal with the problem.”

4. Conclusion: Is Pollution Moving or Being Solved?

In 2026, clean streets in the Western world do not mean the plastic crisis is solved. As long as the heavy food packaging (19 units) that is difficult to recycle is loaded into containers and shipped to other continents, pollution is merely changing its address.

The real solution lies not in banning bags, but in tracking those 19 units of heavy packaging with a “digital identity and economic value” from production to recycling. What will save the world is not necessarily abandoning our individual comfort, but ensuring the material that provides that comfort—plastic—is never left unclaimed.

---

A Note on Methods and Tools: All observations, ideas, and solution proposals in this study are the author’s own. AI was utilized as an information source for researching and compiling relevant topics strictly based on the author’s inquiries, requests, and directions; additionally, it provided writing assistance during the drafting process. (The research-based compilation and English writing process of this text were supported by AI as a specialized assistant.)