Our research, in collaboration with the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) with grant funding from the Minderoo Foundation, examines the scale of subsidies for primary polymer production (PPP) and models the potential impacts of removing these subsidies on global polymer production volumes and on prices of various consumer products containing plastic.
In August 2025, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC) convened to advance a Global Plastics Treaty aimed at tackling plastic pollution. Among the measures under consideration is the phase-out of PPP subsidies, which currently lower production costs and incentivise investment in virgin fossil-based polymers.
In 2019, global polymer consumption reached 460 million tonnes, with the vast majority derived from fossil-based sources.
To better understand this dynamic, our study examined a wide range of subsidy types, including support for feedstocks, process energy, grants, in-kind contributions, tax expenditures, and below-market financing.
We modelled two scenarios across 71 economies and seven major polymers (HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE, PP, PET, PVC, and PS). These included a baseline scenario in which subsidies continue at average levels, and a full subsidy removal scenario in which all estimated support is eliminated. The impact of full subsidy removal on monomer and polymer production volumes was assessed relative to the baseline scenario, for the years 2024 and 2050.
Under the baseline scenario, global production of commodity polymers is estimated at 305 million tonnes in 2024, rising to 590 million tonnes by 2050. Total PPP subsidies are estimated at USD 80 billion in 2024 and increase to USD 150 billion by 2050.
Encouragingly, our analysis shows that full subsidy removal would lead to substantial reductions in polymer production, particularly in economies with high subsidy levels. Meanwhile, the impact on consumer prices is minimal. For fast-moving consumer goods such as bottled water, the average price increase is estimated between just 0.14% and 0.90%.
The report presents the third phase of our research, supplementing findings of earlier phases (one and two) by examining a broader range of subsidy types to not only include feedstock and energy subsidies but also a wider range of other government support measures.
