SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
global plastics treaty
Major Plastic Polluters Win as UN Treaty Talks Conclude Without Agreement
"Every day that governments allow polluters to continue flooding the world with plastic, we all pay the price," said one campaigner.
Dec 01, 2024
Environmental groups on Sunday decried the conclusion of a United Nations summit designed to secure an international treaty to combat plastic pollution after powerful oil- and gas-producing nations refused to agree to production limits and other more aggressive measures to curb pollution.
Failure to reach an agreement means the talks—known as the INC-5 round that took place in Busan, South Korea—will be extended to another round, but campaigners said the sabotage of a far-reaching treaty by fossil fuel interests is wasting precious time that the world's ecosystems, wildlife, and people can no longer afford.
"Every day that governments allow polluters to continue flooding the world with plastic, we all pay the price. This delay comes with dire consequences for people and the planet, ruthlessly sacrificing those on the frontlines of this crisis," said Graham Forbes, Greenpeace's Head of Delegation to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations.
Reutersreports that the "most divisive issues included capping plastic production, managing plastic products and chemicals of concern, and financing to help developing countries implement the treaty."
"It is unjust that those who bear the greatest burden of plastic pollution are being denied the opportunity to forge a solution among themselves by those profiteering off the unregulated production and consumption of plastic."
Powerful oil producers, both private companies and governments of oil-producing nations, were seen as the key impediment to a deal. As the New York Timesreported:
Saudi Arabia, Russia and other producers of petroleum, which is used to make most of the world’s plastic, have pushed back against measures that would address plastic pollution by placing curbs on excessive plastic production. The Saudis and their allies have also said they oppose any treaty that would start to list and phase out chemicals present in plastic that are thought to be harmful to health.
In closed-door negotiations late Saturday, Saudi Arabia, along with other nations, was pushing to delete entire paragraphs from the treaty text on who should finance the costs of implementing the agreement, according to a delegate with direct knowledge of the proceedings.
"Civil society, Indigenous people, waste pickers and affected peoples were locked out of the negotiations for days," said Sam Cossar-Gilbert of Friends of the Earth International.
At the same time, Cossar-Gilbert added, "220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered to attend INC-5, the highest at any of the Plastics Treaty negotiations. The process is under attack by corporate power and a small minority of countries intent on nothing but blocking, weakening and delaying."
Eirik Lindebjerg, global plastics policy lead for the World Wildlife fund, said a "week of hard-fought and frustrating negotiations" in Busan ended "with governments no closer to agreeing on a solution to the worsening plastic crisis. It has now been over 1,000 days and five negotiation meetings since governments agreed to establish a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. Over this time, more than 800 million tonnes of plastic has been produced, over 30 million tonnes of which have leaked into our ocean, harming wildlife, poisoning ecosystems and destroying lives, to say nothing of the plastic that has been sent to landfill or burnt."
As did others, Lindebjerg pointed the finger at powerful nations that benefit from the plastics industry as the chief culprits to progress.
"For too long, a small minority of states have held the negotiation process hostage. It is abundantly clear that these countries have no intention of finding a meaningful solution to this crisis and yet they continue to prevent the large majority of states who do," he said. "It is unjust that those who bear the greatest burden of plastic pollution are being denied the opportunity to forge a solution among themselves by those profiteering off the unregulated production and consumption of plastic."
Campaigners say the following round of talks, which will conclude the treaty effort, must not follow the same path as what occurred in South Korea.
"As we move forward with the Chairs non-paper which was approved by member states at INC-5 as a basis for future negotiations," said Cossar-Gilbert, "we demand a democratic, transparent and inclusive process for an ambitious Plastics Treaty."
And Lindebjerg added that it is now "increasingly clear that the majority of states that are committed to securing a meaningful agreement with the necessary binding measures to end plastic pollution must be ready to vote or adopt a treaty-of-the-willing. If INC-5 has shown us anything it's that we are not going to find the solution we desperately need through more of the same. The crisis demands more. People and wildlife demand more. And it is our governments' job to deliver."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Latest Plastics Treaty Draft 'Far From What We Need' as Talks Near Deadline
"Despite the majority support of promising proposals for global product and chemical bans, the latest draft treaty text offers nothing of use," one advocate said.
Nov 29, 2024
As negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty enter their final stretch in Busan, South Korea, environmental and human rights advocates warned Friday that national delegates are "sleepwalking into a treaty that will not be worth the paper it will be written on."
The current treaty draft text, shared with delegates on Friday, excludes key civil society demands, such as a clear and binding limit on plastic production and a ban or phaseout of the most dangerous plastics and chemicals.
"Despite the majority support of promising proposals for a strong and binding treaty on plastic pollution, what we have currently in this text is far from what we need," Erin Simon, WWF vice president and head of plastic waste and business, said in a statement.
"A weak treaty based on voluntary measures will break under the weight of the plastic crisis and will lock us into an endless cycle of unnecessary harm."
A majority of the countries gathered for the fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to advance a plastics treaty supports bans on the most dangerous plastics and chemicals, binding rules on production design to ease a transition toward a circular economy, sufficient financial support to make the treaty a reality, and a robust mechanism to strengthen the treaty over time. They are backed by nearly 3 million people in more than 182 countries who signed a petition ahead of the last round of negotiations calling for an ambitious treaty.
Since negotiations began on November 25, however, progress has been stymied by oil-and-gas-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia, which called capping plastic production a red line, according toThe Associated Press. At the same time, plastics industry lobbyists together make up the largest single delegation at the talks.
"It's very simple: To end plastic pollution we need to reduce plastic production," Simon said. "To do that we need binding global bans on specific harmful plastic products and chemicals. Despite the majority support of promising proposals for global product and chemical bans, the latest draft treaty text offers nothing of use."
In order to bridge the gap on limiting plastics production before negotiations conclude on Sunday or Monday, Panama put forward a proposal on Thursday that would not set a numerical plastics production limit at this time, but would entrust signatories to do so at a later meeting. This proposal was backed by over 100 countries and was included in the draft text shared on Friday, alongside an option to eliminate the article on production.
Juan Carlos Monterrey, the head of Panama's delegation, saw the inclusion of the country's proposal as a step in the right direction.
"This is great! This is great," Monterrey told the AP. "It is a big show of force, of muscle, for those countries that are ambitious. And also this shows that consensus is still possible."
However, Monterey acknowledged to Reuters that his offering was a compromise.
"Most of the countries... came here with the idea of including a numeric target (of plastic reduction), but... we have put forth a proposal that not only crosses but stomped our own red lines... So we're seeking all the other delegations that have not moved a centimeter to... meet us halfway."
Environmental advocates and civil society groups warn that delegates should not chase consensus at the expense of ambition.
Graham Forbes, who leads Greenpeace's delegation, told the AP that the draft was a "weak attempt to force us to reach a conclusion and get a treaty for treaty's sake," though he considered the inclusion of Panama's proposal the one bright spot in the text.
In addition to the question of binding production limits, another sticking point is a ban on particularly harmful plastics and additives, which currently has not made it into the treaty language.
"What we have right now isn't a treaty with common rules at all. It's a list of measures so broad that they're effectively meaningless," WWF's Simon explained. "For example, we don't have bans, we have suggestions. We have lists of products and chemicals but no one is compelled to do anything of substance with them. Without political will to bind those articles, we would have zero chance of ending the plastic crisis, which is what we came to Busan to do."
Some countries as well as plastics industry representatives argue that the treaty is not the proper vehicle to regulate chemicals.
"At this point the progressive majority has a decision to be made," Simon argued. "Agree to a treaty among the willing even if that means leaving some countries that don't want a strong treaty or concede to countries that will likely never join the treaty anyway, failing the planet in the process."
WWF's global plastics policy lead Eirik Lindebjerg added: "We are calling on countries to not accept the low level of ambition reflected in this draft as it does not contain any specific upstream measures such as global bans on high risk plastic products and chemicals of concern supported by the majority of countries. Without these measures the treaty will fail to meaningfully address plastic pollution. High ambition countries must ensure that these measures are part of the final treaty text or develop an ambitious treaty among the willing."
On Friday, a coalition of observing civil society groups held a press conference in which they issued a statement making a final call for an ambitious treaty.
"Contrary to their excuses, ambitious countries have the power and the pathways to forge a treaty to end the global plastic crisis," the statement, signed by groups including WWF, Greenpeace, Break Free From Plastic, and Friends of the Earth, said. "What we are severely lacking right now, however, is the determination of our leaders to do what is right and to fight for the treaty they promised the world two years ago."
It continued: "A weak treaty based on voluntary measures will break under the weight of the plastic crisis and will lock us into an endless cycle of unnecessary harm. The clear demand from impacted communities and the overwhelming majority of citizens, scientists, and businesses for binding global rules across the entire lifecycle is irrefutable."
The signatories also said that ambitious nations should be willing to walk away and craft their own, stronger treaty rather than compromise on a weak document.
"In these final throes of negotiations, we need governments to show courage. They must not compromise under pressure exerted by a small group of low-ambition states and hinge the life of our planet on unachievable consensus," they concluded. "We demand a strong treaty that protects our health and the health of future generations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
President Biden Must Not Retreat on Plastics
Backtracking on promises to support plastic production reduction in the final months of his presidency would be a stain on his record.
Nov 28, 2024
United States environmental policy has not been a consistent straight line; that much, everyone can agree on. As national leadership oscillates between Democrats and Republicans, policies have switched from embracing fossil fuels to supporting the clean energy transition and back again and again.
One recent switch on environmental policy within the soon-to-concluded Biden administration took place in April, when the U.S. endorsed global limits on plastic production, which are desperately needed to protect people from toxic chemicals and climate change. And then, following political defeat, the administration backtracked with no real explanation, abandoning the millions of Americans and people around the world who are desperate for change.
In a moment when the U.S. and the world are confronting exponential uncertainty, now is not the time for the Biden administration to go quietly into the night.
In this final push, the Biden administration must support measures to limit plastic production, prioritize a human-rights approach, and reduce or eliminate toxic chemicals in plastics.
As we approach the end of the final round of negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty—which represents one of the most significant opportunities of our lifetime to protect human health and end plastic pollution—the urgency has never been clearer. This is our chance to confront the plastic crisis head-on.
With a new administration on the horizon—one that has shown hostility toward science and an affinity for corporate polluters—the Biden-Harris administration must, as one of its final acts, stick to its word and champion a robust treaty that cuts plastic production.
Plastics are making the climate crisis worse—99% of plastics are made from fossil fuels and corporations keep making more. To date, it is estimated that only 9% of all the plastic ever produced has been recycled globally, and production is projected to increase in the years to come. We will never be able to solve this crisis with just waste management and cleanups.
In the lead-up to the presidential election, Americans witnessed the devastating effects of climate change firsthand: Florida and North Carolina were battered by unprecedented storms, droughts parched vast regions of the country, and wildfires raged uncontrollably. This past summer was the hottest on record, with global temperatures soaring 2.25°F above the long-term average.
Scientists warn that we need to cut plastic production by at least 75% to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change. The United Nations has echoed this urgency, stating that global climate action is lagging and that immediate, dramatic efforts are essential to meet international temperature targets.
Plastic is also harmful at every step of its life cycle, from sourcing raw materials (like oil, gas, and coal) to production, transportation, usage, recycling, burning, and disposal. The chemicals in plastic have been linked to death, illness, and disability.
More than 3,200 identified chemicals found in plastics have been associated with severe health concerns, including cancer, nervous system disorders, and hormonal imbalances. These chemicals have been implicated in the development of diseases such as cancer, heart conditions, and obesity.
In addition to the immediate dangers of oil and gas-fueled climate chaos, countless Americans unknowingly face a silent crisis: plastic pollution. They consume food and water contaminated with microplastics and harmful chemicals that pose serious health risks. Communities located near plastic production and disposal facilities suffer the most, breathing air laden with toxins that lead to cancer, diabetes, neurological disorders, and other health issues. This public health crisis comes with an estimated annual cost of $250 billion to our healthcare system—a toll exacerbated by the plastic industry's recalcitrance to stop runaway plastic production.
Yet, as we close out 2024 and brace for an uncertain future under an administration that openly denies science, headed by a president who has often dismissed climate change and its impacts, there remains much that President Joe Biden can do. After all, he has built his career on a commitment to public service; backtracking on promises to support global controls to reduce plastic production, in the final months of his presidency, would be a stain on that record. Now is the time to serve all Americans by rising to this challenge, and securing a greener, more just world for generations to come.
We stand at a pivotal moment: the Busan talks—the fifth and most critical stage of negotiations for the Global Plastics Treaty. World leaders must rise to the occasion and take bold action to curtail plastic production and end single-use plastics. A weak treaty is a failure; we need a strong, ambitious agreement that protects our health, our communities, our climate, and our planet.
In this final push, the Biden administration must support measures to limit plastic production, prioritize a human-rights approach, and reduce or eliminate toxic chemicals in plastics. We call on him to champion our planet, our communities, and our health for generations to come. The time for action is now. Our future depends on it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular