At the fourth – and penultimate – round of talks, negotiators did not agree to continue formal discussions on how to cut plastic production before a final session in the Korean city of Busan set for November, making it less likely that curbs will be included in the pact.

Peru’s negotiator said his country was “disappointed”, while the nonprofit Center for International Environmental Law said governments had sacrificed “ambition for compromise”.

“The pathway to reaching a successful outcome in Busan looks increasingly perilous,” said Christina Dixon, ocean campaign leader at the Environmental Investigation Agency.

Big Oil’s plan B

While some governments led by a self-described “High-Ambition Coalition” have pushed for measures to reduce plastic production – which is expected to nearly double in G20 countries by mid-century – major oil and gas-producing states like the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran have favoured an emphasis on recycling over producing less.

The members of the self-described “High-Ambition Coalition” are in light blue (Photo credit: CREDIT)

Plastics are made from oil and gas, and their production accounts for 3% of greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil fuel companies are betting that as demand for oil and gas for energy use falls, they can compensate by selling more of their products to plastic manufacturers.

The Ottawa talks were marred by complaints from scientists and campaigners that plastics industry delegates were harassing and intimidating them, while secretively-funded, pro-plastics adverts were placed around the venue by a right-wing Canadian lobby group.

‘Unsustainable’ plastic use

The governments of Rwanda and Peru have been leading the push for a strong global deal to rein in plastic pollution, winning international approval for the talks to craft a treaty at the United Nations Environment Assembly in 2022.

In Ottawa last month, they asked governments to give their backing to formal negotiations on how to reduce the production and use of plastics, with support from the 65 member states of the High-Ambition Coalition.

While recognising that “this is an issue characterised by divergent views”, Rwanda’s negotiator told delegates “there is at least a convergence on the desire to develop an instrument that is fit for purpose guided by science – and to do so, the question we must ask is what are sustainable levels of production and consumption?”

“Science tells us that current and projected levels of plastic consumption and production are unsustainable and far exceed our waste management and recycling capacities. Moreover, these levels of production are also inconsistent with the goal of ending plastic pollution and limiting global warming to 1.5C,” she added.

‘More than a number’: Global plastic talks need community experts

But governments including Russia, Saudi Arabia and India are opposed to focusing on production curbs. The Ecuadorian chair of the talks, Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso, did not include production in the list of topics to be officially discussed further before the final negotiations in South Korea.

Instead, he proposed expert groups on how to fund efforts to tackle plastic pollution and on criteria for identifying types of plastic product “of concern”. Governments accepted this, finishing their discussions at 3am on Tuesday.

Compromise welcomed

Peru expressed disappointment at the decision not to focus on production – but Russia’s negotiator welcomed it, saying that issues like the design of plastics and recycling are the “cornerstone of the future agreement” and so the talks should focus on them.

India’s delegate said the negotiations should be conducted in “a realistic manner and with consensus”, adding that “plastics have played an important role in development of our societies”.

Saudi Arabia’s negotiator praised the talks’ chair for “looking into those topics that bring convergence”, while many countries including China, the US and the European Union said the Ottawa outcome was a good compromise.

Southern Africa drought flags dilemma for loss and damage fund

Late on the last night of the talks, the EU had proposed holding another full session of negotiations before Busan, but that was blocked by Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

David Azoulay, an observer for the Center for International Environmental Law, accused developed countries that style themselves as leaders on plastics of giving up the fight “as soon as the biggest polluters look sideways at them”.

In response to the lack of progress on production curbs, a group of countries led by the Pacific island nation of Micronesia put out a statement promising to continue talking informally about the issue and to keep it on the agenda. Thirty-two countries signed the “Bridge to Busan” initiative, including Nigeria, France and Australia, and more are expected to join later.

Micronesian negotiator Dennis Clare told Climate Home that its signatories “recognise that we cannot achieve our climate goals, or our goal of ending plastic pollution, without limiting plastic production to sustainable levels”.

Delays, intimidation and harassment

The four rounds of talks held since 2022 have been marked by delays, which some observers say are deliberate tactics by countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia.

At the second session in Paris last May, negotiators spent two days discussing voting rules, an issue which many thought had already been resolved.

And the third round in Nairobi in November failed to agree on intersessional work leading to Ottawa, after opposition from Russia and Saudi Arabia.

In Ottawa, the meeting was marred by complaints of intimidation and harassment from campaigners and scientists against some of the 196 lobbyists from the plastic and fossil fuel industry present in the halls.

Tensions rise over who will contribute to new climate finance goal

Bethanie Carney Almroth, a ecotoxicology professor at the University of Gothenburg who co-chairs the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, wrote a formal complaint to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the body that organises the talks.

She said she had been “verbally harassed, yelled at and subjected to unfounded accusations” by a male delegate from a plastics company, who interrupted her remarks to criticise an aspect of scientific research on plastics which he falsely said she was involved in.

In a separate complaint to UNEP, Almroth said plastics industry delegates had eavesdropped on scientists’ conversations, aggressively surrounded them and criticised their work, and “harassed and badgered several of our younger scientists”.

Marcos Orellana, the UN special rapporteur on toxics and human rights, said on X that it was “extremely worrying to hear about intimidation and harassment of scientists by industry”, adding “there should be zero tolerance for industry misconduct”.

Pro-plastic ads

Almroth told Climate Home that delegates were also faced with pro-plastic adverts at Ottawa airport, as well as on buses and taxis. “The entire city of Ottawa has been completely blanket-wallpapered in propaganda and pro-plastic and anti-UN campaigns,” she said.

Photos of these adverts seen by Climate Home show that some do not declare who paid for them, while others say they are sponsored by a right-wing lobby group called the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada (CCMBC).

I’m at #INC4 in Ottawa, reporting on the #PlasticsTreaty. The conference itself is plastic-free (food sold at the venue is wrapped in paper), but these ads are plastered in the hotel next door where events are being held pic.twitter.com/Bu8b6jawqG

— Lisa Song is @lisalsong.bsky.social (@lisalsong) April 24, 2024

The CCMBC’s president, political activist Catherine Swift, drove a van around the conference centre with pro-plastics adverts on it. In an interview next to the van with Rebel News, she claimed that plastics are “almost infinitely recyclable” and that recycling is the solution to plastic pollution. Passers-by tell Swift and Rebel News in the online clip that the adverts are “kind of weird” and that “plastic is killing the planet”.

The CCMBC does not systematically declare its donors. But videos from its 2023 gala dinner reveal that its sponsors include oil and gas companies like NuVista, TC Energy and plastics company Husky, whose CEO John Galt has appeared on the CCMBC’s Youtube channel.

“This is big money. This is high stakes,” said Almroth. “Plastics is the fossil fuel and the petro-chemical industry’s plan B. As we shift away from fossil fuels as an energy source, they’re putting their bets on plastics and we’re a threat to them.”

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Hopes fade for production curbs in new global pact on plastic pollution appeared first on Climate Home News.

Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, who will host the talks in Ottawa starting on April 23, said in an interview with Climate Home that all governments had “agreed collectively that we wanted an ambitious treaty to fight plastic pollution and to eliminate it by 2040”.

But, he added, “unfortunately some countries seem to have forgotten that’s what we agreed upon [at the United Nations Environment Assembly] almost two years ago. I’m going to make it my mission in life in the coming weeks to remind everyone that this is our collective agreement.”

He did not specify which countries appear to be backtracking, but noted that some “are in more of a hurry than others” to get a deal – “which is why you have a high-ambition coalition”.

That coalition is pushing for a strong accord to end plastic pollution and includes all large developed countries except the United States, plus some developing nations.

The members of the self-described “high-ambition coalition” are coloured in light blue.

Guilbeault was speaking during the latest UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) in Nairobi last month, where some governments tried to water down anti-plastics language.

David Azoulay, from the Center for International Environmental Law, told Climate Home “a number of countries” had tried at this year’s UNEA to “get around or away” from the mandate to set up a plastics treaty.

They did not propose a rival resolution, he said, “probably because they saw there was very little appetite for it”. But that did not stop them from attempting to use the assembly to influence the plastics treaty negotiations, he added. The talks are organised by the United Nations Environment Programme.

In submissions to the UNEA, the US tried to delete the words “legally binding” in reference to the plastics treaty, Iran wanted to remove “ambitious”, and Saudi Arabia attempted to cut a reference to accelerating the treaty talks.

Russia’s ambassador to Kenya, Dmitry Maksimychev, told the UNEA that Russia is an “active participant” in the talks and “we do not support shifting emphasis to restrictive measures of a productive or commercial nature”.

Plastics support fossil fuel demand

Over the last two years, government negotiators have gathered for three rounds of talks on setting up the treaty to tackle plastic pollution.

The fourth round will be held in Ottawa this month, and the fifth and supposedly final session will be in the South Korean city of Busan in November. The agreement should then be adopted officially at a diplomatic conference in 2025.

BP expects the share of oil demand from non-combusted (grey) sectors like plastic to rise in the next few decades. (Photo: BP/Screenshot)

Plastics are made from oil and gas, and their production causes 3% of greenhouse gas emissions. The fossil fuel industry predicts that as demand for oil and gas for energy falls, they can make up for it by selling their products to plastic manufacturers.

New estimates from the US-based Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory show plastic production emits as much carbon pollution each year (2.24 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2019) as 600 coal-fired power plants.

A study published by the lab on Thursday, supported by Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Beyond Petrochemicals campaign, warned that carbon pollution from plastic production could triple by 2050.

And even if global power grids shift over to clean energy, the plastic industry’s share of the global carbon budget could rise from just over 5 percent now to more than 20 percent by mid-century, based on conservative projections for industry growth, it added.

Plastic litter also makes flooding – already exacerbated by climate change – worse.

In Zambia, Lwenga Mulela, whose company converts plastic waste into useful products like paving and plant pots, told Climate Home plastic bottles pile up in drainage channels in the nearby capital Lusaka and stop rain escaping down the drain, causing flooding on the streets.

Lwenga Mulela shows plastic wrappers which she turns into products like paving on March 12 24. (Photo: Joe Lo)

During a brief rainstorm in Lusaka’s Central Business District in March, Climate Home saw cars slowing to a crawl to pass through puddles and pedestrians jumping over water to stay dry.

Money talks

The UN treaty negotiations have so far been divided on whether to focus on the production of plastic, potentially through targets to reduce it, as the “high-ambition coalition” and climate campaigners want.

The alternative is to limit its scope to expanding recycling of plastic, as the industry itself and the US, Saudi Arabia and others are calling for.

Asked if plastic production should be in the treaty, Canada’s Guilbeault said: “We have to look at every element of plastic pollution.” But asked about the biggest remaining divides, he pointed to finance.

Many countries, particularly small islands, “receive an incredible amount of plastic pollution that they’re not responsible for, and there should be an international mechanism to help them deal with the problem,” he said.

Activists clean up a beach in Fiji in 2016 (Photo: Kurt Peterson/Greenpeace)

“Right now with the economic situation internationally – high interest rates, high inflation – it’s a difficult conversation but it’s a necessary conversation nonetheless,” he added.

This was highlighted by Madagascar’s representative at the UNEA who said his country backed a plastics treaty and was “insisting on the need to prepare global countries of the south and support them in this regard”.

In Zambia, entrepreneur Mulela also called for finance for developing countries to develop waste disposal and recycling systems. She said the companies that produce the plastic should provide that funding, as should richer nations.

“I think they have an obligation,” she said. “It’s a global village, so what is affecting one part of the world is also affecting every other part of the world.”

Approval by consensus or vote?

If governments do not unanimously agree on a text in November, a treaty could be endorsed through a two-thirds majority vote – but, for many negotiators, that would be a last resort.

Jyoti Mathur-Filipp, head of the secretariat responsible for the talks, told Climate Home “there is no wish on any member state’s part to actually have a vote on substance… so for us, we hope that we will adopt this treaty with consensus, without a vote.”

But, for campaigners like Greenpeace’s Graham Forbes, the apparent unwillingness to vote could end up weakening or delaying the treaty as he argued that a process based on consensus has enabled low-ambition countries to “undermine substantive progress”.

“Voting would enable member states that are serious about addressing the issue to negotiate a treaty that actually gets at the core of the issue: reducing plastic production and use,” he said.

Guilbeault took the middle-ground, noting that not every country has to agree to something for it to be adopted by consensus.

He wants the new treaty “to have as much buy-in as possible from as many countries as possible but, at the same time, I don’t think the world should be held hostage to the interest of a few countries – that’s not consensus either.”

The talks in Ottawa are tasked with narrowing down the draft text for the treaty. Guilbeault said he hopes to see 75-80% of it agreed this month, but added that the thorniest issues will be left to Busan in November.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

This article was amended on April 23, 2024 to clarify that Steven Guilbeault is the host of the plastics treaty talks in Ottawa – not the chair, as previously stated. The role of chair is currently held by Luis Vayas Valdivieso, Ecuador’s ambassador to the UK.

The post Canadian minister vows to fight attempts to weaken plastic pollution treaty appeared first on Climate Home News.

The first draft of the new United Nations plastics treaty contains options where governments commit either to stop their plastic production rising above a certain level or to commit to a global target.

Another option is for governments to promise to “take the necessary measures” to cut plastic production, without committing to a target.

UAE pitches itself as Africa’s carbon credits leader

The three options will be discussed when government negotiators gather in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi in November, for the third set of talks on setting up the new treaty.

The draft says the targets could be met through regulation, the removal of subsidies for plastics and “market-based measures” like taxes.

As well as polluting land and sea, plastics are responsible for an estimated 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions through their lifecycle.

They are made from oil and gas, potentially offering a lifeline to the sector as climate action curbs demand for fossil fuels as an energy source. Targets to cut plastic production pull the lifeline away.

BP expects the share of oil demand for non-combusted (grey) uses like plastic to rise in the next few decades. (Photo: BP/Screenshot)

The European Union and a group of nations calling themselves the “high ambition coalition” support targets while major oil and gas producers like the US and Saudi Arabia are keeping quiet.

Reduce vs recycle

The plastics industry is lobbying to keep the focus of the treaty on recycling and waste management, not limiting production.

The American Chemistry Council, whose board includes representatives of Shell and Total, said in May that “restricting the production of plastic materials essential to delivering clean water, renewable energy, and sanitary medical and personal care products is the wrong approach.”

The members of the self-described “high-ambition coalition” are in light blue (Image credit: High Ambition Coalition)

Reacting to the draft treaty’s release this week, campaigners were more pleased than the industry.

Greenpeace’s Graham Forbes said it “includes necessary provisions” while Tanzanian campaigner Ana Rocha said it “sets a positive baseline” and Yvette Arelano from Texas said it “takes a step in the right direction”.

On the other hand, the chair of the World Plastics Council Benny Mermans said he was “concerned at the absence of options to accelerate and scale a circular economy for plastics”. A circular economy is one where materials like plastic are recycled.

Green debt swaps, explained

Mermans, an executive from the Chevron Phillips chemical company, added: “We look forward to continuing our engagement with governments to find practical solutions to help eliminate plastic pollution.”

The draft also offers two options for the objective of the treaty. One is to “protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution”. The more radical option is to “end plastic pollution”.

The draft says a fund will be set up to help developing countries tackle plastic pollution. This will either be an entirely new fund or a fund “within an existing financial arrangement”.

The post Draft UN plastics treaty threatens Big Oil’s plan B appeared first on Climate Home News.

After years of work to “preserve and protect the health, land, and lives of the Black descendant community located in Louisiana’s River Parishes” through their non-profit, The Descendants Project, they were one step closer to halting decades of plastic, petrochemical, and industrial pollution inflicted on their community.

This last stretch of undeveloped land in the 85-mile long chemical corridor–known as Cancer Alley–was placed on a list of “endangered sites” by the National Trust of Historic Preservation, due to its rare cultural and historical significance. Once a site makes it on this list, it is likely to be preserved for generations to come.

While celebrated, this progress came with some trepidation. The Banner sisters know that without a unified movement to put people over pollution, local victories will be short-lived if we lose the global battle for climate action.

From the Mississippi River to Paris

This week, the Banners are joining me and other members of the Beyond Petrochemicals campaign at the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations in Paris.

This is the second meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) where 175 world leaders will hammer out a solution to address the plastics crisis. If done right, the plastics treaty could be one of the most significant environmental agreements in history.

Row over veto powers holds up Paris plastic treaty talks

Today, one-third of plastic production is devoted to making single-use plastics, specifically plastic packaging. We all know what spaghetti looks like, so why do we need the little plastic window on every box?

These “pointless plastics” are difficult to recycle so the majority end up in landfills, rivers, lakes, and ultimately the ocean.

Recycling not the answer

Only six percent of plastic in the U.S. is recycled. Any improvements in recycling rates and capacities will be outpaced by continued rapid growth in plastics production, which is projected to double by 2040.

We are not going to recycle our way out of this problem.

Ninety-nine percent of plastics are made from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels, contributing to the climate crisis.

Petrochemicals are known carcinogens including chloroprene, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde and benzene, which poison the air, water and land of communities near industry facilities, deemed “fenceline communities”.

An oil refinery along the Mississippi River in Louisiana. Photo: Louisiana Trust for Historic Preservation

While people in fenceline communities experience the most acute exposure to toxins from these plants, petrochemicals impact everyone.

Drinking from a disposable water bottle, putting on makeup, or ordering takeout, nearly every aspect of our daily lives intersects with petrochemicals. It is no surprise that every one of us ingests a credit card’s worth of plastic each week.

Petrochemical expansion

The petrochemical industry’s impact on climate progress is staggering. It is the third-highest emitter of greenhouse gases and rapidly becoming the largest driver of global oil demand.

A report by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) found that “emissions from the plastics sector rose 15 percent from 2012 to 2018”. In 2019 alone, plastic production equaled the emissions of 189 large coal plants.

Japan joins anti-plastic coalition ahead of Paris treaty talks, leaving US isolated

From Cancer Alley in Louisiana to the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, the pollution and other dangers from these facilities are concentrated in places the oil and gas industry deems “sacrifice zones”: low-income, Black and Latino communities.

The fossil fuel industry is planning a massive build-out to increase production of single-use plastics. More than 120 new or expanded petrochemical plants are expected in the U.S. alone. This is a threat to public health, precious natural resources, and any progress we’ve made on climate change.

The time to act is now.

Low ambition

In the first round of plastics treaty negotiations last November, the US presented a proposal to achieve “the sustainable production and consumption of plastic”. It wants to achieve that by incentivizing chemical recycling, facilitating reuse, and strengthening demand for more recycled content.

This does not include the most meaningful action we could take: capping the production of plastics. For this and other reasons, the US was relegated to a category of so-called “Low Ambition” countries.

Climate movement must switch on to UAE threat

Since then, the Biden Administration has made strides in environmental justice with its Justice 40 Initiative, new EPA pollution rules that acknowledge the communities hardest hit with petrochemical pollution, and ensuring disadvantaged cities and towns are first in line for investments to create new clean energy jobs.

We need our policy leaders to bring that same energy to the international stage and set a global tone of environmental justice for all.

Plastic production cap

The Beyond Petrochemicals campaign is helping support the activists, organizers and academics who are standing up to the petrochemical industry. We are in Paris to advocate for a cap on plastic production and pollution so we can stop digging the deep hole we find ourselves in.

Our campaign is a collage of communities where we live, work, play and pray. Communities that experience the impacts of plastic and petrochemical pollution day in and day out. Communities where we have lost friends and loved ones, but where babies continue to be born, and where we all want something better for the next generation.

It is the voices of these communities that push us to Paris and with the urgency of ten generations of ancestors poisoned by toxic water, air, and land.

We’re showing up from cities on the frontlines to stake a claim in the City of Lights – for environmental justice, for climate action and for putting people over pollution. We hope the US delegation joins us.

Heather McTeer Toney is the Executive Director of the Beyond Petrochemicals campaign, which aims to halt the expansion of the petrochemical industry. 

The post How a local victory against petrochemicals can spur global action on plastics appeared first on Climate Home News.

Plastics are produced with oil and gas and, as the world begins to move to green electricity, the industry sees them as a lifeline for their business.

According to the official timetable, discussions on the rules of procedure were supposed to be wrapped up in one morning at the second set of talks on setting up the new treaty at the Unesco headquarters in Paris.

The United Nations Environment Programme (Unep), which is running the talks, thought that governments had already agreed on how voting would work, at least until the treaty is signed, at the first set of talks in Uruguay last December.

Japan joins anti-plastic coalition ahead of Paris treaty talks, leaving US isolated

Their report of that meeting said governments had agreed to try and reach a consensus on decisions but, if that was not possible, to see if there is a two-thirds majority among nations.

Consensus risks

This would avoid a small number of governments blocking, or threatening to block, wording that most governments agree to. That has happened or nearly happened, several times in climate talks.

At Cop26 in Glasgow in 2021, Papua New Guinea threatened to block a deal if they did not get their way over rainforest carbon credits although they later backed down.

At Cop27 in Sharm el-Sheikh in 2022, a handful of oil and gas producers like Saudi Arabia successfully stopped the conference from agreeing to phase out fossil fuels. 

At plastics talks, negotiators from the USA, EU, Senegal and Nigeria also thought that the voting system had been decided.

The Swiss negotiator said re-opening the debate was “concerning” while the EU said “two-third majority rule is essential to secure progress”.

The Swiss negotiator speaking at the plastic treaty talks on Tuesday

But a group of emerging economies including India, Russia, China and Argentina said they were wrong to say that had been agreed. 

‘Trust misplaced’

Saudi Arabia’s negotiator said they had trusted the talks’ chair in Uruguay to include objections to majority voting but “it seems right now that our trust was sorely misplaced”. She was already angered by not being called to speak and her microphone’s failure.

The Saudi negotiator speaking at the plastic treaty talks on Tuesday

India’s lead negotiator said “there might have been other reasons” for Unep leaving out governments’ objections to two-third majority voting but did not explain what they were.

Saudi Arabia, China and India threatened to stop the talks going forward until the plenary had not agreed how to hold votes.

“Before we conclude and adopt the rules of procedure, we are not going to open substantive discussions of any matters in the elements paper,” said China’s representative.

“It is not fair and just to continue with proceedings without resolving this issue,” said India’s negotiator.

‘Stop scaring each other’

But speaking immediately after, Senegal’s negotiator said “we should stop trying to scare one another – some words are being bandied about and they’re quite strong – that we will not move forward etcetera etcetera – we have to avoid that kind of language”.

Senegal’s negotiator speaking at the plastic treaty talks on Tuesday

At the end of the second day of talks in Paris though, the issue was still holding up discussions on how to reduce plastic pollution.

The negotiator from Rwanda, a leader in reducing plastic pollution, expressed frustration. “Colleagues, we came to negotiate a draft treaty that will drive the world to reduce plastic pollution,” she said, “Two days down and we are not yet there”.

Closed-door meetings to break the deadlock began at 7pm on Tuesday and, according to one source with knowledge of negotiations, dragged on until at least half past midnight.

At 11am the next morning, the chair of the talks announced governments had agreed to deal with the issue later, just noting that “there are differing views”. The voting rules will have to be agreed upon before a treaty can be signed, which governments want to happen next year.

They’ve agreed overnight to this text. A glossary:

INC: These talks about setting up a treaty:

Rule 38.1: Whether decisions can be taken by a 2/3 vote or if every nation has to agree.

INC1: The last set of talks in Uruguay. pic.twitter.com/OfObJ4wE7V

— Joe Lo (@joeloyo) May 31, 2023

Greenpeace East Asia campaigner Li Shuo said it was “hard to imagine that voting will be accepted” and there are arguments in favour and against voting by majority.

Consensus ensures broad participation but can allow a few states to “hold talks hostage” at the expense of ambition, he said.

Holding to ransom

But Christina Dixon, a campaigner from the Environmental Investigation Agency, said the possibility to vote “is a critical tool for driving ambitions in negotiations”. She added that this would avoid being “held to ransom by a few unambitious countries”.

FSC’s rehab scheme for forest destroyers under fire after fresh allegations

If votes are to be held, another issue still to be resolved is how much power the European Union will have. 

The EU wants to be able to vote on behalf of its 27 member states but governments like the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia have pushed against this.

A joint US-EU proposal at the last set of talks suggested the US wanted the EU to only be able to vote on behalf of the member states present at the talks, making it harder for them to have their 27 votes.

The European Union represents a large chunk of the members of the high-ambition coalition against plastic pollution, which want to reduce the production of plastics and not just recycle more.

The Hac’s members include all G7 countries but the US

Big fossil fuel producers like the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia are not part of the coalition and have not supported production cuts.

The issues which have yet to be addressed include whether the treaty should have binding measures or be based on voluntary commitments like the Paris climate agreement.

The post Row over veto powers holds up Paris plastic treaty talks appeared first on Climate Home News.

The self-proclaimed “high ambition coalition against plastic pollution” (Hac) already includes the other G7 countries, with the exception of the United States.

To lengthy applause and whistles from the UN officials, ministers and campaigners in the room, Takeshi Akahori from Japan’s foreign ministry told a Hac briefing: “Japan is pleased to attend this event today in Paris as a new member of the high-ambition coalition. We do so because we share the ambition of the high-ambition coalition.”

Campaigners celebrated the announcement. The Environmental Investigation Agency’s Chris Dixon told Climate Home that it was a “significant position shift” as Japan is a ” high producer, consumer and exporter of plastic waste, with a track record in investing in incineration as a solution to dealing with plastics”.

Andres Del Castillo, from the Center for International Environmental Law,  also welcomed the move but added that he hoped it was “in good faith and we will closely be monitoring their engagement”.

The Hac’s members (light blue) include all G7 countries but the US

US isolated

The move leaves the USA as the only big wealthy country outside of the coalition as government negotiators gather for the second round of talks on setting up a treaty to tackle plastic pollution. Its official Jose Hernandez spoke as a guest at the HAC briefing.

While the USA and Saudi Arabia favour measures to encourage plastic recycling, the high-ambition coalition wants “binding provisions” to “restrain and reduce the production and consumption of primary plastic polymers”.

Hernandez said the US agrees with the Hac in several areas but did not mention reducing the production of plastic.

UN advises against offsets for carbon removal technologies

As the use of oil and gas to make electricity and power cars is forecast to decline, the oil and gas industry hopes that more of its product is turned into plastic.

Plastics are responsible for an estimated 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions through their lifecycle.

Plastics industry’s position

Joshua Baca is vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade association whose board includes representatives of oil and gas companies Shell and Total.

He said: “We continue to believe that an ambitious agreement that ends plastic pollution is the right approach. However, restricting the production of plastic materials essential to delivering clean water, renewable energy, and sanitary medical and personal care products is the wrong approach.”

UK sued over plan to import more polluting Australian beef

Freedom of information requests from Unearthed and Climate Home News show close coordination between the ACC and the US’s plastics negotiators at the Environmental Protection Agency, including before the previous round of plastics treaty talks in Uruguay.

An official from the Environmental Protection Agency agreed to check in with a lobbyist from the plastics industry ahead of plastics treaty talks in Uruguay a few months ago, my FOIA request shows. pic.twitter.com/60Yd5xx0nv

— Joe Lo (@joeloyo) February 16, 2023

Dividing lines

In Paris next week, talks will centre on whether the treaty should be bottom-up, like the Paris Agreement on climate, or top-down with more binding measures.

Voting rules will also be debated as the European Union is facing attempts to weaken its power to vote on behalf of its member states in treaty negotiations.

As with climate talks, finance will be a key issue, with developing countries asking for money and technology from richer nations in order to tackle plastic pollution.

Governments aim to set up a treaty by 2024 and begin holding annual Cop-style talks between treaty members after that.

The post Japan joins anti-plastic coalition ahead of Paris treaty talks, leaving US isolated appeared first on Climate Home News.

In their submissions to talks taking place in Paris in May, the majority of European and African countries push for cuts to the supply of plastic while the US and Saudi Arabia focus instead on tackling plastic pollution.

The European Union’s submission says: “While measures on the demand side are expected to indirectly impact the reduction of production levels, efforts and measures addressing supply are equally needed, to cope with increasing plastic waste generation.”

It suggested several options to cut plastic production, including global targets to cut a certain percentage by a given year or nations putting forward their own targets.

The UK calls for governments to adopt legally binding targets to “restrain” plastic production and consumption while the African group lists restraining plastic production and use as an objective.

A group of countries calling themselves the “high-ambition coalition” echo the EU’s suggestion of a global target to reduce production.

The US is not one of the members (light blue) of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution (Photo credit: High Ambition Coalition/Screenshot)

Production taboo

But major oil and gas producers like the USA and Saudi Arabia did not call for cuts in plastic production.

They focus on tackling plastic pollution through recycling and waste disposal.

The US says the treaty should be “country-driven”, “flexible” and that its preamble could include “the beneficial role of plastic, including for human health and food safety”.

In its submission, China – the world’s largest plastic producer – said “a variety of economic and market tools could be adopted in an integrated manner to reduce production and use of plastic products”.

The coalition of small islands (Aosis), many of whom are particularly vulnerable to climate change, did not call for production cuts in their submission either.

UAE minister calls for “phase out” of oil and gas

Their legal adviser Bryce Rudyk told Climate Home that small islands’ focus was reducing the amount of plastic that ends up in the sea.

He said islands were concerned that reductions in plastic production “may actually increase the cost of the plastic that small islands would utilise”.

“We have to think of it as an environmental, economic, social, political problem,” he added. “Kind of like climate change, this is not just a wholly environmental problem”.

Campaigners enthused

Environmental campaigners praised the EU’s proposals. Andres Del Castillo from the Center for International Environmental Law told Climate Home it was a “strong step”. He added that “if the plastics treaty is to meaningfully address plastic pollution, it will be critical for more countries to adopt similar positions that address the early stages of the plastics life cycle”.

Christina Dixon, who follows plastics treaty talks for the Environmental Investigation Agency, said it sent “a clear signal that the EU member states are leaders who are not willing to play with a Paris-style agreement like some of the lower ambition countries have indicated in their submissions”.

But she warned that, as in climate talks, the question of who finances action on plastics is key.

“First step”: Reformers react to World Bank plan to free up climate spending

The EU must support a dedicated multilateral fund to finance action in developing countries, she said.

“It’s great to have targets but if there’s no money for implementation you’re setting up to fail”, she added.

Fossil fuel lifeline

As well as polluting land and sea, plastics are responsible for an estimated 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions through their lifecycle.

If plastics were a country, they would be the fourth biggest polluter after just China, the USA and India.

They are made from oil and gas, potentially offering a lifeline to the sector as climate action cuts demand for fossil fuels as a source of energy.

Dividing lines

At the last set of talks in Uruguay last year, nations were divided along similar lines.

A group calling itself the “high-ambition coalition” argued for a top-down treaty that binds all to certain measures while the US, Saudi Arabia and most of Asia wanted a bottom-up treaty like the Paris Agreement.

The European Union is facing attempts to weaken its power to vote on behalf of its member states in treaty negotiations.

Governments aim to set up a treaty by 2024 and begin holding annual Cop-style talks between treaty members after that.

The post Less plastic or more recycling – nations split ahead of treaty talks appeared first on Climate Home News.

Major oil and gas producers like the USA and Saudi Arabia, along with most of Asia, want the proposed treaty to be “bottom-up” like the Paris Agreement on climate change. This means countries can make their own plans and set their own targets.

A “high ambition coalition” covering roughly a quarter of UN member states including several European countries is calling for a top-down treaty that binds all to certain measures. This could include bans on certain types of plastics.

Nations are split on whether to emphasise recycling and waste management or whether to reduce the production of plastic. A key tactical debate concerns how much voting power the EU should get.

Neil Tangri, from the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, said: “The US is calling for a treaty with no binding obligations and no requirements to achieve its goal, such as bans on toxic polymers or a reduction in overall production. Every country just does what it wants to. I think that’s a terrible idea.”

He added: “It’s not going to get us where we need to go. It’s not going to restrain plastic production. It’s not going to get the toxics out of plastic. It’s not going to arrange a just transition for workers especially waste pickers. It’s going to be a lot of fancy words with no substance.”

The US is not one of the members (light blue) of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution (Photo credit: High Ambition Coalition/Screenshot)

Big Oil’s plan B

As well as polluting land and sea, plastics are responsible for an estimated 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions through their lifecycle. They are made from oil and gas, potentially offering a lifeline to the sector as climate action cuts demand for hydrocarbons as a fuel source.

But awareness of plastic pollution is rising and in March, governments agreed to negotiate a legally binding UN treaty on the issue. They aim to land a deal by 2024 and, in Uruguay this week, held their first official committee meeting on the scope of the talks and the rules of procedure.

Cop27: Late-night fossil fuel fight leaves bitter aftertaste

At the start of the week, Saudi Arabia launched an impassioned defence of plastic in the plenary hall in Punta del Este. Its negotiator said: “We cannot deny the importance of plastics for humanity. Plastics have contributed to development and global commercial and economic prosperity, promoting the achievement of the [sustainable development goals].”

He added: “Plastic products are part of every part of our lives. They are present in manufacturing as well as renewable energy and food security. Plastics also play an important role in socioeconomic development in several countries and therefore the instrument must ensure that no-one is left behind by focusing on the priorities of developing countries”.

Bahrain’s negotiator said “plastics play an important role in our society” and are important for “sustainable development” while the Asia-Pacific group argued “our task is ending plastic pollution, not necessarily plastics themselves”.

The high ambition coalition, which counts the EU, Australia, Canada, small islands and a handful of African and Latin American states among its members, argued for an agreement which covers the whole lifecycle of plastics. That includes their production.

Antigua and Barbuda’s negotiator Asha Challenger, speaking on behalf of small islands, said that old models of international agreement are “not up to the task”.

EU mandate

In UN climate talks, the EU negotiates as a bloc on behalf of its 27 member states. Under the rules of procedure drafted by the UN Environment Programme (Unep), they would do the same in the plastics treaty talks.

While UN climate talks work on consensus, meaning any country can block an agreement, Unep proposed a voting system, under which numbers matter.

At a preliminary meeting in Dakar, Senegal, in June, the EU’s mandate to vote on behalf of all its members was questioned. In one alternative proposal, each member state would need to have a representative in the room for their vote to count.

On Friday in Punta del Esta, that question had not been settled. In the absence of an agreed voting procedure, decisions require consensus, which campaigners warned could lead to weaker outcomes.

At the Cop27 climate talks last month, a call by more than 80 countries to phase out fossil fuels was not put to open debate because a handful of oil and gas producers objected. At Cop26 the year before, the US denied developing countries – the overwhelming majority of parties – a steady flow of income to adapt to climate change impacts.

Carroll Muffett, CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law, told Climate Home: “Thirty years of experience with the [UN climate change talks] demonstrates the critical importance of parties to these negotiations having the ability to vote on complex issues, take a decision and move forward.”

The post Battle lines drawn in talks on new plastics treaty appeared first on Climate Home News.

In Nairobi, governments agreed the scope of talks on a legally binding plastics treaty, which is likely to curtail the production of plastics as well as encouraging recycling and anti-litter measures.

Use of oil and gas for energy needs to fall rapidly in the next few decades to halt climate change and oil companies had hoped that demand for their products to make plastics would go some way to make up for it.

Until recently, the website of fossil fuel firm BP said “the strong link between economic development and the use of plastics means the use of oil as a feedstock for plastics continues to grow over the next decade”. Shortly after the plastics agreement was signed, the link to the article stopped working and can only be accessed through an independent web archive tool.

BP expects the share of oil demand from non-combusted (grey) sources like plastics to rise in the next few decades. (Photo: BP/Screenshot)

Krista Halttunen researches oil company strategies at Imperial College London. She said these firms are having an “existential crisis” as they face reducing demand for their products for energy. They see plastics as “a bit of a lifeline”, she said, “something that would allow [them] to continue as a viable business into the future when we hopefully have decarbonised”.

Politicians have used plastics to justify oil production projects.  Defending a proposed oil pipeline recently, Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni tweeted: “Some people are worried that our crude oil could Kudiba (not have a market), impossible! I have a shirt that is 65% polyester.”

He added: “When talking about phasing out petroleum, they are referring to fuel for cars, but petroleum will be used for many other things like polyester, etc.”

Some people are worried that our crude oil could Kudiba (not have a market), impossible! I have a shirt that is 65% polyester. When talking about phasing out petroleum, they are referring to fuel for cars, but petroleum will be used for many other things like polyester, etc. pic.twitter.com/zzD1ZI2QAq

— Yoweri K Museveni (@KagutaMuseveni) February 1, 2022

But on 2 March, after a series of late night talks, governments agreed to set up two years of talks on a legally-binding plastics treaty which will have provisions “to promote sustainable production and consumption of plastics”.

Pakistan’s delegation was led by climate minister Malik Amin. He told Climate Home: “Our collective addiction to plastics has to end and the $500bn-plus global plastic production industry will need to readjust to this new reality.”

Going into the talks, there were two main rival proposals. One sponsored by Rwanda and Peru wanted the treaty’s international negotiating committee (INC) to cover production of plastics while Japan’s proposal focussed mainly on how to stop plastic getting into the sea.

The talks were chaired by Norway’s environment minister Espen Barth Eide who used a recycled plastic gavel. (Photo: UNEP/Cyril Villemain)

Environmental Investigation Agency plastics campaigner Christina Dixon said Japan’s proposal “could [have led] us down a path where we don’t get to talk about things like plastic production”.

“At the moment, waste management capacity is already completely overwhelmed due to the huge volumes of plastic that we’re producing,” she said. “It’s like mopping the floor without turning off the tap.”

Greenpeace plastics campaigner Graham Forbes said the oil and plastics industries favour a “focus on the idea that recycling and seeing this as a waste problem is really how we address it”.

He said “it diverts attention away from the absolutely fundamental need to stop building plastic production facilities around the world which they are significantly investing in”.

These industries have funded anti-littering campaigns in the US and Europe.

China plans huge wind and solar power rollout in Gobi desert

There was a broad consensus at the UNEA in favour of Rwanda and Peru’s approach and they won out when their text was combined with Japan’s. Countries in favour of their approach included European, African and small island states.

The treaty will be legally binding. India had sought a voluntary agreement but settled for “national circumstances and capabilities” to be taken into account. They and other developing countries are expected to push for extensive finance from rich nations.

Nandini Harihar, a researcher for the India-based Council on Energy, Environment and Water, told Climate Home this money could be spent on measures like recycling facilities and awareness raising campaigns.

Forbes said that, as in climate talks, the issue of finance was likely to be “highly contentious”. But he said he’d been encouraged by European countries’ progressive stance at the talks and thought that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine meant the world was “desperate for examples of multilateralism working”.

He added that he would be looking out for resistance to an ambitious treaty from major plastic producers like the US, China and India.

Talks on the treaty will be held under the INC, which every government can participate in. It is aiming to reach a deal by 2024.

The post Plastics resolution tees up battle over oil industry’s plan B appeared first on Climate Home News.