recycling
Ahead of Treaty Negotiations, Hundreds March to 'End the Plastic Era'
"As adults who come to Ottawa to negotiate the plastic treaty, you must protect our rights to live in a healthy and safe environment," one young activists said.
Days before national delegates gather for the fourth and penultimate negotiations to develop a Global Plastics Treaty in Ottawa, Canada, around 500 Indigenous and community representatives, members of civil society and environmental groups, and experts and scientists gathered for a "March to End the Plastic Era" on Sunday.
The protesters, organized under the banner of Break Free From Plastic, called for a treaty that significantly reduces plastic production and centers the frontline communities most impacted by the plastics crisis.
"Delegates must act like our lives depend on it—because they do," Daniela Duran Gonzales, senior legal campaigner with the Center for International Environmental Law, said in a statement. "Our climate goals, the protection of human health, the enjoyment of human rights, and the rights of future generations all rest on whether the future plastics treaty will control and reduce polymers to successfully end the plastic pollution crisis."
"Short-sighted business interests must be out of the room because the only way to achieve equitable livelihoods is when we have a healthy planet."
The official meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to craft a "international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment," will run from April 23 to 29 in the Canadian capital.
Break Free From Plastic called the negotiations a "make or break" moment for the treaty, which is supposed to be completed in late 2024 in Busan, South Korean. However, civil society groups have expressed concern that oil-producing countries and the plastics industry will water down the agreement and steer it toward waste management and recycling, which has been revealed to be a false solution to plastic pollution knowingly promoted by the industry for decades.
The last round of negotiations concluded in late 2023 in Nairobi, Kenya, with little progress made after 143 fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists attended.
Salisa Traipipitsiriwat of Thailand, who is the senior campaigner and Southeast Asia plastics project manager for the Environmental Justice Foundation, said ahead of Sunday's march that it was "crucial for world leaders to step up and put the people and planet at the forefront."
"Short-sighted business interests must be out of the room because the only way to achieve equitable livelihoods is when we have a healthy planet," Traipipitsiriwat added.
On Sunday, marchers gathered for a press conference at 10:30 am ET before marching at around 11:30 am from Parliament Hill to the Shaw Center, were negotiations will begin on Tuesday. Crowds began to disperse around 1:30 pm. Participants carried large banners with messages including, "End the plastic era," "End multigenerational toxic exposure," and pointing out that 99% of plastics came from fossil fuels. The gathering featured live music and art, including a giant tap pouring out plastics and a "Plastisaurus rex" with the message "Make single-use plastic extinct."
(Photo: Break Free From Plastics)
"Now's the time to be bold and push for a treaty that cuts plastic production and holds polluters accountable," Julie Teel Simmonds, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a pre-march statement. "I'm inspired to be joining so many advocates in Ottawa, standing up against the enormous harm the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries are causing to people's health and the planet. I hope to see countries showing ambition this week, and I urge them to remember what's at stake for future generations."
Civil society groups have compiled several demands for an ambitious and effective treaty. These are:
- Centering human rights, especially those of Indigenous communities, young people, and workers most impacted by plastic pollution;
- Protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples throughout the treaty process;
- Dealing with plastics across their entire lifecyle;
- Reducing production as a "nonnegotiable" part of the treaty;
- Eliminating toxic chemicals and additives from plastics;
- Bolstering reuse systems for plastics that are non-toxic;
- Prioritizing first prevention, then reuse, recycling, recovery, and disposal when managing plastic waste;
- Ending "waste colonialism" by strengthening regulations for trading plastics;
- Guaranteeing a "just transition" for people employed across the plastics lifecycle;
- Including "non-party" provisions in the treaty;
- Establishing a mechanism to fund countries so they can fully implement the treaty; and
- Enshrining conflict-of-interest policies as a protection against plastics industry lobbying.
The coalition emphasized the need to tackle the problem of plastic from cradle to grave.
"Plastic doesn't just become pollution when it's thrown away," said Jessica Roff, the U.S. and Canada plastics and petrochemicals program manager for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. "Plastic is pollution, from the moment the fossil fuels are extracted from the ground to the eternity of waste it spawns."
Chrie Wilke, global advocacy manager for the Waterkeeper Alliance, said "Clearly the crux of the plastic pollution crisis is too much plastic being produced. There is no way to recycle our way out of this. We must face the fact that plastic and petrochemicals, at current production levels, endanger waterways, communities, and fisheries across the globe. Cutting production and implementing non-plastic alternatives and reuse systems is essential."
(Photo: Ben Powless/Survival Media Agency)
Activists also emphasized the environmental justice implications of plastic pollution, and how some communities and groups are more burdened than others, both from the dangers of the production process and from waste disposal.
"Children and youth like me suffer the most and are recognized as a vulnerable group," said Aeshnina 'Nina' Azzahra, the founder of River Warrior Indonesia. "My playground and my future are at risk. We all want our environment to be plastic-free, but please don't put your burden on the other side of the world—this is NOT fair. As adults who come to Ottawa to negotiate the plastic treaty, you must protect our rights to live in a healthy and safe environment."
Jo Banner, co-founder and co-directer of The Descendants Project, said:"Frontline community members, such as myself, are participating in these treaty negotiations with heavy hearts as our communities back home are struggling with sickness and disease caused by the upstream production of plastic."
"Although our hearts are heavy, they are full with passion urging negotiators to aim for an ambitious treaty that caps plastic production," Banner added. "Areas such as my hometown, located in the heart of Louisiana's Cancer Alley, need a strong treaty now. There is no more time to waste."
Biden Must Choose—People or Plastic
As the penultimate round of negotiations for the Global Plastics Treaty begin in Ottawa, Canada, the U.S. must back a strong agreement that protects our health, our communities, and the planet.
Plastic pollution has become an omnipresent threat, infiltrating every corner of our planet and leaving a trail of devastation in its wake. From endangering human health to exacerbating social injustices, decimating biodiversity, and intensifying the climate crisis at every turn, the urgency to address this crisis cannot be overstated.
In just a few days, world leaders will convene in Ottawa, Canada, for the fourth round of negotiations to develop a Global Plastics Treaty. Mandated as a critical tool in the fight against pollution, the treaty's significance is underscored by the resounding support it receives from the global public.
In a recent Greenpeace International poll spanning 19 countries, an overwhelming 82% of respondents called for reducing plastic production to halt pollution, 75% backed a ban on single-use plastics, and a staggering 90% advocated for a transition to reusable packaging. This groundswell of support reflects not only a commitment to safeguarding our environment but also a deep-seated concern for the health and well-being of our loved ones. With 80% expressing worry about the health impacts of plastic on their families and 84% concerned about its effects on children, the call for action is undeniable. The world is ready for change, and the time to act is now.
We must seize this moment to turn the tide on plastic pollution and safeguard our planet for this and future generations.
Yet, at each of the three previous rounds of negotiations, the plastic industry, together with a small minority of governments, have tried to water down the treaty's ambition, stripping it of its power to deliver the outcomes that science and justice demand. Despite the efforts of at least 143 industry lobbyists working to drop measures to limit production, ban dangerous chemicals, and eliminate single-use plastics, representatives from Pacific Island and Latin American countries held the line.
At this pivotal juncture, everything we need to end the plastic crisis is still on the table. We cannot afford for this meeting to be another failure, where low-ambition countries and industry interests hijack the negotiations and thwart substantive progress. At this penultimate round, the fate of the treaty hangs in the balance, and we must hold decision-makers accountable to deliver solutions that match the scale of the crisis we face.
Plastic recycling, once thought to be the answer to plastic pollution, is now debunked as little more than an industry scam. Less than 9% of plastic produced globally gets recycled, while the industry continues to churn out more plastics annually and is set on tripling plastic production by 2050.
So, at this decisive moment, we must ask ourselves: Is the plastic industry’s profit-driven version of ‘convenience’ worth the sacrifice of our health? Are we willing to mortgage the future of children for the fleeting ease offered by the billions of tons of single-use plastics the industry produces? Is it worth risking our lives for single-use and corporate profits?
The answer is clear; the time for half-measures is over. We must seize this moment to turn the tide on plastic pollution and safeguard our planet for this and future generations. The clock is ticking, and we refuse to be silenced. We refuse to have any more mothers face the prospect of their unborn children being exposed to toxic chemicals in their placenta. We refuse to normalize climate chaos—floods, heatwaves, fires, and storms—driving us out of our homes. We refuse to have to bury any more of our loved ones from cancer and other diseases caused by toxic plastic chemicals.
The Global Plastics Treaty stands as our beacon of hope. But to deliver on its mandate to break free from the deadly cycle of runaway plastic production, it must begin with bold targets: reducing plastic production by at least 75% by 2040; ensuring a just transition away from virgin production and toward a low-carbon, zero-waste economy; eliminating single-use plastics; and prioritizing sustainable livelihoods, empowering workers, and championing Indigenous Peoples' rights. The treaty must also be rooted in a human rights-based approach that not only prioritizes human health and justice but also ensures fair representation for those disproportionately affected by the plastic pollution crisis. Above all, to be truly effective, the Global Plastics Treaty must create binding global rules that apply to all countries rather than a voluntary global agreement where governments can choose whether or not to take action.
Right now, millions of people around the world are demanding solutions to this global crisis. As we stand on the precipice of change, President Joe Biden must choose—people or plastic. If the U.S. continues to support only those measures that have already been adopted in federal law, the treaty will not be successful. We call on Biden to show true leadership and take a stand for a strong Plastics Treaty that protects our health, our communities, and the planet. We call on him to heed the voices of the people and embark on a transformative journey toward a plastic-free future for generations to come.
Big Oil, Plastics Industry Led 'Campaign of Deception' to Push Recycling Fraud
"The oil industry's lies are at the heart of the two most catastrophic pollution crises in human history," one advocate said.
The petrochemical industry—including major oil companies like ExxonMobil—knew for decades that recycling was not a sustainable solution to the problem of plastic waste, yet continued to promote it in order to avoid regulation and deceive consumers into continuing to buy and use their products, a report released Thursday by the Center for Climate Integrity reveals.
The report, titled The Fraud of Plastic Recycling: How Big Oil and the Plastics Industry Deceived the Public for Decades and Caused the Plastic Waste Crisis, includes newly disclosed industry documents proving that companies and trade groups knew that plastics could not be recycled indefinitely in the 1980s and 90s even as they launched a massive public relations campaign to sell voters and policymakers on the process.
"This evidence shows that many of the same fossil fuel companies that knew and lied for decades about how their products cause climate change have also known and lied to the public about plastic recycling," Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) president Richard Wiles said in a statement. "The oil industry's lies are at the heart of the two most catastrophic pollution crises in human history."
Plastic pollution is a major environmental and public health crisis. If current trends continue, plastics are expected to outweigh fish in the ocean by 2050, and the toxic fumes from plastic production facilities and incineration are a major environmental justice hazard for frontline communities. Humans in general also ingest an estimated credit-card's worth of plastic each week, with unknown but potentially serious health impacts.
Recycling is often touted as a solution for keeping plastic out of the environment, but this has proven to be ineffective and insufficient: More than 90% of the plastics disposed of between 1950 and 2015 were either burnt, sent to landfills, or dumped into the environment. There are several technical and economic reasons why plastic recycling doesn't work at scale. Plastics lose quality as they are recycled and can only really be reused once or potentially twice. The decline in quality also means that recycled plastics are more likely to leach toxins added during production or picked up from other waste items. Economically, it is cheaper to produce new plastics than recycle older ones, and only two types of plastic—PET and HDPE—actually attract markets that will recycle them.
The industry has long been aware of these limitations. In 1969, the American Chemical Society declared, "It is always possible that scientists and engineers will learn to recycle or dispose of wastes at a profit, but that does not seem likely to happen soon on a broad basis."
"We are committed to the activities, but not committed to the results."
Despite this, petrochemical companies and their trade groups began to push plastic recycling in the 1980s and 90s as a response to growing public concern over plastic waste, and the threat that this would lead to bans on plastic products.
"No doubt about it, legislation is the single most important reason why we are looking at recycling," Wayne Pearson, the executive director of industry front group the Plastics Recycling Foundation and a DuPont marketing director, said in 1988.
The plastics industry used various strategies to sell the public on recycling, according to the report. These included:
- Funding front groups to promote recycling;
- Running ad and PR campaigns;
- Investing in recycling research to convince the public that it was taking action;
- Setting unrealistic internal recycling goals;
- Writing educational material promoting recycling to school children;
- Advocating for "advanced recycling," a term for breaking plastics down to chemical components that can theoretically be reused but are not in practice; and
- Claiming, against evidence, that recycling can be part of a "circular economy."
For example, a report from the Vinyl Institute trade group concluded in 1986 that "recycling cannot be considered a permanent solid waste solution, as it merely prolongs the time until an item is disposed of."
In 1994, Exxon Chemical Vice President Irwin Levowitz told employees of the American Plastics Council that "we are committed to the activities, but not committed to the results."
CCI argued that the petrochemical industry should face legal consequences for its "campaign of deception" similar to suits brought against tobacco and opioid companies.
"When corporations and trade groups know that their products pose grave risks to society, and then lie to the public and policymakers about it, they must be held accountable," Wiles said. "Accountability means stopping the lying, telling the truth, and paying for the damage they've caused."
CCI vice president of legal and general counsel Alyssa Johl added: "Big Oil and the plastics industry's decades-long campaign to deceive the public about plastic recycling has likely violated laws designed to protect consumers and the public from corporate misconduct and pollution."
"Attorneys general and other officials should carefully consider the evidence that these companies defrauded the public and take appropriate action to hold them accountable," Johl said.