Can countries agree to “end the global plastic pollution crisis”? Blogging Sole

Delegates from 175 countries gathered this week in Busan, South Korea, to try to negotiate a legally binding treaty to combat global plastic pollution. This gathering marks the fifth and final phase of the multi-year negotiations of the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC-5), with a decision expected on a treaty at the end of the summit on Sunday.

“We are at a historic moment to end the global plastic pollution crisis and protect our environment, our health and our future,” Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, told participants at the start negotiations of the week, calling it a “moment of truth” for the delegations, and for the planet.

The discussions were marred by a wide gap of opinions between delegations from small, often developing, countries and more advanced economies – and some large global companies whose presence is, in itself, controversial.

The nonprofit Center for International Environmental Law said Wednesday that fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists at INC-5 collectively formed the largest delegation. The 220 registered corporate lobbyists at the summit outnumber all the delegates representing European Union countries combined.

“Their strategy is designed to safeguard the financial interests of countries and companies that put their fossil fuel profits ahead of human health, human rights and the future of the planet,” said Delphine Levi Alvares, responsible for CIEL’s global petrochemical campaign.

What is the objective of INC-5?

The aim of the summit is to finalize a legally binding treaty to reduce the amount of plastic pollution entering the environment and already combat the scourge of waste. clogging the world’s waterways and landfills and contaminating everything, from the the food and water we consume has our arteries.

CNI-5 delegations were tasked with setting reduction targets, determining how to regulate hazardous waste and chemicals, and defining criteria for managing the entire life cycle of plastics, from production to disposal. .

If they reach an agreement and ratify a new treaty, it will be adopted on Sunday and the group’s next meetings will take place to ensure that the signatory countries comply.

What is at stake?

There is no doubt that something needs to be done to combat plastic pollution, but how to achieve this remains controversial.

One solution discussed this week was a possible cap on plastic production, but the idea has proven deeply unpopular among countries whose economies still rely heavily on the production of essential plastics and fossil fuels. in the manufacture of plastic, notably China and Russia. , Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Another topic under negotiation is whether to impose an outright ban on certain chemicals used in certain plastics, which are known to be toxic to the environment and dangerous to human health. There is historical precedent for such targeted bans, including the decades-old ban Montreal Protocolwhich saw the production of ozone-depleting chemicals, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), universally banned.

Island nations and developing countries are – just as with climate change – among the countries most directly affected by plastic pollution, but least responsible for waste production.

Some of these countries say a plastic pollution treaty is vital to preserving their fragile ecosystems and public health.

Speaking on behalf of the group of small island developing states during the negotiations, Penivao Moealofa of the small Pacific island nation of Tuvalu said that “managing our own plastic waste was already a challenge, and this is an injustice to us to continue to do so.” manage other people’s plastic waste, especially when we contribute less than 1.3% of the world’s total plastic waste.

If policies are not implemented to change things, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development said “Annual production, use and waste generation are expected to increase by 70% in 2040 compared to 2020,” when the world produced around 480 million tonnes of new plastic products.

What is the position of different countries on plastic pollution?

A group of 68 countries or blocs, including Canada, the EU, Mexico and Australia, are now known as High Ambition Coalition (HAC). Their leaders have supported the goal of preventing all new plastic pollution from entering the environment by 2040, and they say the countries that create the most plastic, including the United States, should pay for it. The global economy no longer depends on new plastics.

In a joint statement for INC-5HAC highlighted the importance of creating global rules to ensure products are designed with circularity in mind. Circularity is the sustainability concept of repurposing and repurposing products, rather than using them and then throwing them away, to reduce the amount of waste.

The petrochemical industry has largely supported a treaty, but it strongly opposes production caps and would prefer to rely on other solutions, such as recycling. But like CBS News previously reportedrecycling many plastics is incredibly difficult, expensive, and has not been scaled up to a level that would make it a viable solution to the problem.

Scientists have suggested that, given the rate at which new plastic products are manufactured, recycling alone will not combat its impact and reducing production should be the first priority.

In August, Reuters reported a shift in U.S. government policy to support a global treaty calling for a reduction in plastic production, but three months later, nonprofit news site Grist reported the Biden administration was backtracking on this support before INC-5.

THE US Department of State has called for a deal to “end plastic pollution entering the environment by 2040,” but U.S. policy relies heavily on recycling and circularity as the primary mechanisms to achieve this goal – solutions supported by the oil and chemical industries.

Another factor weighing on the minds of many delegates in Busan this week is the fact that the US delegation was sent by the Biden administration, about to leave. There are fears that any commitments made by Washington could be abandoned by the new Trump team.