An antitrust paradox lies at the heart of private-sector climate commitments. On the right, state attorneys general have warned that they may challenge these collaborations under antitrust laws. On the left, antitrust enforcers in the Biden Administration asserted that these actions will not receive preferential treatment even if they address societal ills that are not being addressed by governments. This Article asks what antitrust law is willing to consider: if prosocial goals are framed in terms of economic harms, should antitrust law view climate action as violating that standard?

The negotiations for the Global Plastics Treaty (GPT) that collapsed on December 2, 2024, were meant to be a step toward a plastics future informed by sustainable development principles. Given that no agreement has yet been reached, this Comment will discuss two broad issues that future GPT negotiating sessions must confront to produce an effective plastic life-cycle governance instrument. Part I reviews the fragmentation in current plastic waste-related governance instruments and institutions, and describes opportunities for the GPT to find synergies with those instruments.