SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"This plastic crisis is rooted in the overproduction of single-use plastics, building for us and future generations a very toxic legacy," said one Indonesian youth activist.
With the fifth and final round of global plastics treaty negotiations set to begin Monday in Busan, South Korea, an estimated 1,500 people took to the city's streets and nearly 3 million more signed a petition calling for a legally binding pact "to drastically reduce production and use, and protect human health and the environment."
The Saturday march at the Busan Exhibition and Convention Center was led by the global Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) movement and local allies from the Uproot Plastics Coalition. They want the treaty to include targets to slash production.
"Mandatory targets to reduce plastic production are essential to combat the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and toxic pollution," BFFP's Semee Rhee said in a statement. "Failure to check the untrammeled production of primary plastic polymers would mean allowing the plastic pollution crisis to persist and perpetuate social and environmental injustices for generations to come."
Indonesia youth activist Aeshnina Azzahra Aqilani stressed that "this plastic crisis is rooted in the overproduction of single-use plastics, building for us and future generations a very toxic legacy. Waste created today will poison all children and the planet through toxic plastic emission and microplastic exposure along the plastic life cycle."
"Safeguard the health and survival of future generations by advocating for a legally binding global plastic treaty—a treaty that encompasses ambitious goals for a reduction in plastic production, with accountability placed on corporations for reuse and refill solutions in its place," the campaigner urged. "The world is watching. The future is waiting. Make the right decision."
The first session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) was held two years ago in Uruguay. Since then, there have been meetings in France, Kenya, and Canada. The latest lobbyist-dominated round of talks concluded in April with no clear path to curbing production, which civil society and frontline groups have argued is a "nonnegotiable" component of the treaty.
The Busan meeting is scheduled to run from Monday through next weekend, on the heels of the United Nations climate summit that just wrapped up after running into overtime in Baku, Azerbaijan. Plastic production is not only a waste problem but also a contributor to the climate emergency, because 99% of it is made from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels.
"As the host country of INC-5 and the world's fourth-largest producer of plastic raw materials, the South Korean government bears a significant responsibility in addressing plastic pollution," said Sammy Yu of Green Korea United. "Despite its passive stance during INC-4, the Korean government must take a decisive position on 'reducing production' at the fifth round of negotiations and advocate for it strongly."
"Moreover, negotiations are not confined to the conference room," Yu asserted. "To effectively push for a production reduction stance in these discussions, the government must first restore its domestic resource circulation policies, which have regressed over the past two years, and align them with its negotiation position."
Sunryul Kim of Greenpeace Seoul office said that "the people are speaking with one voice, demanding that the negotiators ensure that the plastics treaty will ensure cuts in production and end single-use plastic."
"We are at the most critical part of creating this agreement and what will come out of this negotiation will affect our future for generations to come," Kim continued. "As the host country and a member of High Ambition Coalition (HAC), the South Korean government must listen to its citizens and lead the way for strong production reduction targets at the negotiating table."
Greenpeace, BFFP, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) collected 2,899,202 petition signatures, which were delivered during a Sunday event in Busan to U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), sponsor of the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, and Rwanda Environment Management Authority Director General Juliet Kabera, whose country co-chairs the HAC with Norway.
Politicians receive nearly 3 million petition signatures calling for an end to the age of plastic before treaty talks in Busan, South Korea on November 24, 2024. (Photo: Sungwoo Lee/Greenpeace)
"These signatures reinforce what is already commonly known—that a legally binding global treaty that regulates plastics across the entire life cycle and eliminates harmful plastic products and chemicals is the only way our leaders can deliver on their promise to end plastic pollution," said Eirik Lindebjerg, WWF global plastics policy lead and head of delegation to INC-5.
"We simply cannot achieve this goal through fragmented and voluntary actions which have dominated our collective response for so many years," Lindebjerg added. "At INC-5, governments can and must create the treaty people are demanding, one which decisively and definitely protects people and nature now and for generations to come."
Also on Sunday, hundreds of activists with Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) and its South Korean arm made a human sign spelling out "End Plastic" on a beach near where over 175 governments are set to meet for the final round of negotiations.
"We are united in our call for a strong treaty that tackles the plastic pollution crisis head-on, demanding action that cuts plastic production at its very source," said FOEI chair Hemantha Withanage. "The urgency of the plastic issue can no longer be understated. Every day, the equivalent of 2,000 garbage trucks full of plastic are dumped into the world's oceans, rivers, and lakes, choking ecosystems and communities."
Activists with Friends of the Earth International made a human sign spelling out "End Plastic" on a beach near the final round of treaty negotiations in Busan, South Korea on November 24, 2024. (Photo: FOEI)
Speaking with The Guardian ahead of the talks, Norwegian Minister of International Development Anne Beathe Tvinnereim warned that the world will be "unable to cope" with plastic waste a decade from now unless there is a deal reached to cut production.
"We are not going to land a perfect treaty. But we need to get further. And I think we will. I choose to be hopeful," Tvinnereim said. "With High Ambition Coalition countries, we will continue to demonstrate that there is a big group of countries that sticks to its ambitions. The world desperately needs some leadership now, and some good news."
Despite what was and was not agreed in Baku, meaningful climate action will only become more urgent than ever.
After extra time of exhausting negotiations, the 29th U.N. Conference on Climate Change is over.
First, a quick refresher of what COP29 was meant to achieve: dubbed a ‘finance COP,’ countries were expected to come to Baku, Azerbaijan ready to present in good faith various finance deals to strengthen the global response to climate change.
Signs call for for the Global North to "pay up" during a COP29 action in Baku, Azerbaijan. (Photo: Marie Jacquemin/Greenpeace)
The final agreement
After two slow-moving weeks of climate talks, COP29 ended with a woefully inadequate agreement on a new annual public climate finance goal of US$300 billion by 2035, a dismaying offering. The final agreement overall also included disappointing loopholes on carbon markets and little climate action, but no backsliding on the COP28 decision to transition away from fossil fuels. The final outcome in Baku removed the references to the Make Polluters Pay principle at the last hour, further disheartening civil society and countries already bearing the brunt of the climate crisis.
A Greenpeace projection Photo Booth in the Civil Society Hub at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan with portraits and images of climate impacts sends a message to country delegates that the time for action is now. (Photo: Marie Jacquemin/Greenpeace)
COP29 was an opportunity to agree on a significant climate finance goal and follow up on what was promised at COP28 and the Biodiversity COP16. But that did not exactly happen. Despite what was and was not agreed in Baku, meaningful climate action will only become more urgent than ever.
A moment of hope
Not all is lost though. The final outcome fell short of what was hoped for, and what is needed to battle the climate crisis. But the people power in Baku made its presence felt. Navigating tight guidelines and pushback on peaceful protest for a third year in a row, civil society got creative to still make its demands heard, and will return even more determined next year. The time for debate is over; decisive action is the demand of the hour.
A close-up of hands with "pay up" written on them at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. (Photo: Marie Jacquemin/Greenpeace)
What comes next for climate action
COP30 will return next year, in the Amazon city of Belem, Brazil, with high expectations for renewed climate action.
A sign of "persistir," Portuguese for "to persist," sends a signal that the work must continue onto COP30 in Brazil. (Photo: Marie Jacquemin/Greenpeace)
But climate justice will only be delivered when there is adequate, and then some, finance for climate-vulnerable communities, and not just distributed for loss and damage, but for adaptation and mitigation too. A future with climate justice means the production and consumption of oil and gas has been ended, forests protected, and polluters paying for the damage, destruction, and deaths the climate crisis is causing.
Baku might have stumbled on climate justice, but we will persist in the fight for our future.
Critics of the "COP of false solutions" said that instead of much-needed funding, developing nations got "a global Ponzi scheme that the private equity vultures and public relations people will now exploit."
It was early Sunday by the time the United Nations climate summit wrapped up in Baku, Azerbaijan after running into overtime to finalize deals on carbon markets and funding for developing countries that were sharply condemned by campaigners worldwide.
"COP29 was a dumpster fire. Except it's not trash that's burning—it's our planet," declared Nikki Reisch of the Center for International Environmental Law. "And developed countries are holding both the matches and the firehose."
Recalling last year's conference in the United Arab Emirates, Oil Change International global policy senior strategist Shady Khalil highlighted that "the world made a deal at COP28 to end the fossil fuel era. Now, at COP29, countries seem to have been struck with collective amnesia."
"With each new iteration of the texts, oil and gas producers managed to dilute the urgent commitment to phase out fossil fuels," Khalil said. "But let's be clear: Rich countries' failure to lead on fossil fuel phaseout and to put the trillions they have hoarded on the table has done more to imperil the energy transition than any obstructionist tactics from oil and gas producers."
This year's conference began November 11 and was due to conclude on Friday, but parties to the Paris agreement were still negotiating the carbon market rules, which were finalized late Saturday, and the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) on climate finance.
"The carbon markets in Article 6 of the Paris agreement were pushed through COP29 in a take-it-or leave-it outcome," said Tamra Gilbertson of Indigenous Environmental Network, decrying "a new dangerous era in climate change negotiations."
As Climate Home Newsreported, they establish two types of markets: "The first—known as Article 6.2—regulates bilateral carbon trading between countries, while Article 6.4 creates a global crediting mechanism for countries to sell emissions reductions."
The outlet pointed to expert warnings that "the rules for bilateral trades under 6.2 could open the door for the sale of junk carbon credits—one of the weaknesses of the previous crediting mechanism set up by the U.N. known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)."
Jonathan Crook of Carbon Market Watch said in a statement that "the package does not shine enough light on an already opaque system where countries won't be required to provide information about their deals well ahead of actual trades."
"Even worse, the last opportunity to strengthen the critically weak review process was largely missed," he continued. "Countries remain free to trade carbon credits that are of low quality, or even fail to comply with Article 6.2 rules, without any real oversight."
As for Article 6.4, “much lies in the hands of the supervisory body" that's set to resume work in early 2025, said Crook's colleague, Federica Dossi. "To show that it is ready to learn from past mistakes, it will have to take tough decisions next year and ensure that Article 6.4 credits will be markedly better than the units that old CDM projects will generate."
"If they are not, they will have to compete in a low-trust, low-integrity market where prices are likely to be at rock bottom and interest will be low," Dossi added. "Such a system would be a distraction, and a waste of 10 years worth of carbon market negotiations."
Some campaigners suggested that no matter what lies ahead, the embrace of carbon markets represents a failure. Kirtana Chandrasekaran at Friends of the Earth International said that "the supposed 'COP of climate finance' has turned into the 'COP of false solutions.' The U.N. has given its stamp of approval to fraudulent and failed carbon markets."
"We have seen the impacts of these schemes: land grabs, Indigenous peoples' and human rights violations," Chandrasekaran noted. "The now-operationalized U.N. global carbon market may well be worse than existing voluntary ones and will continue to provide a get out of jail free card to Big Polluters whilst devastating communities and ecosystems."
Chandrasekaran's colleague Seán McLoughlin at Friends of the Earth Ireland was similarly critical of the conference's finance deal, asserting that "Baku is a big F U to climate justice, to the poorest communities who are on the frontlines of climate breakdown."
"COP29 has failed those who have done least to cause climate change and who are most vulnerable to climate breakdown because the process is still in thrall to fossil fuel bullies and rich countries more committed to shirking their historical responsibility than safeguarding our common future," he said. "Now it's back to citizens to demand our governments do the right thing. We must keep demanding the trillions, not billions owed in climate debt and a comprehensive, swift, and equitable fossil fuel phaseout. The struggle for climate justice is not over."
Campaigners and developing nations fought for $1.3 trillion in annual climate finance from those most responsible for the planetary crisis. Instead, the NCQG document only directs developed countries to provide the Global South with $300 billion per year by 2035, with a goal of reaching the higher figure by also seeking funds from private sources.
The deal almost didn't happen at all. As The Guardiandetailed Saturday: "Developed countries including the U.K., the U.S., and E.U. members were pushed into raising their offer from an original $250 billion a year tabled on Friday, to $300 billion. Poor countries argued for more, and in the early evening two groups representing some of the world's poorest countries walked out of one key meeting, threatening to collapse the negotiations."
While Simon Stiell, executive secretary of U.N. Climate Change, celebrated the NCQG as "an insurance policy for humanity, amid worsening climate impacts hitting every country," Chiara Martinelli, director at Climate Action Network Europe, put it in the context of the $100 billion target set in 2009, which wealthy governments didn't meet.
"Rich countries own the responsibility for the failed outcome at COP29," Martinelli said. "The talk of tripling from the $100 billion goal might sound impressive, but in reality, it falls far short, barely increasing from the previous commitment when adjusted for inflation and considering the bulk of this money will come in the form of unsustainable loans. This is not solidarity. It's smoke and mirrors that betray the needs of those on the frontlines of the climate crisis."
Also stressing that "it's not even real 'money,' by and large," but rather "a motley mix of loans and privatized investment," Oxfam International's climate change policy lead, Nafkote Dabi, called the agreement "a global Ponzi scheme that the private equity vultures and public relations people will now exploit."
"The terrible verdict from the Baku climate talks shows that rich countries view the Global South as ultimately expendable, like pawns on a chessboard," Dabi charged. "The $300 billion so-called 'deal' that poorer countries have been bullied into accepting is unserious and dangerous—a soulless triumph for the rich, but a genuine disaster for our planet and communities who are being flooded, starved, and displaced today by climate breakdown."
Rachel Cleetus from the Union of Concerned Scientists, who is in Baku, took aim at not only rich governments, but also the host, saying that "the Azerbaijani COP29 Presidency's ineptitude in brokering an agreement at this consequential climate finance COP will go down in ignominy."
Cleetus' group is based in the United States, which is preparing for a January transfer of power from Democratic President Joe Biden to Republican President-elect Donald Trump, who notably ditched the Paris agreement during his first term.
"The United States—the world's largest historical contributor of heat-trapping emissions—is going to see a monumental shift in its global diplomacy posture as the incoming anti-science Trump administration will likely exit the Paris agreement and take a wrecking ball to domestic climate and clean energy policies," Cleetus warned. "While some politically and economically popular clean energy policies may prove durable and action from forward-looking states and businesses will be significant, there's no doubt that a lack of robust federal leadership will leave U.S. climate action hobbled for a time."
"Other nations—including E.U. countries and China—will need to do what they can to fill the void," she stressed. "Between now and COP30 in Brazil next year, nations have a lot of ground to make up to have any hope of limiting runaway climate change."
Ben Goloff of the U.S.-based Center for Biological Diversity called out the departing Biden administration, arguing that it "should be going out with at least a signal of its moral climate commitment, not copping out ahead of the Trump 2.0 disaster."