Will companies cut down on microplastic pollution?
Microplastics range in size from 5 mm to microscopic levels, and there is scientific evidence that they contaminate soil – which can harm agriculture – and that leakage into waterways and the sea leads to ingestion by animals, including fish, which in turn are consumed by humans.
According to some scientific studies, the inadvertent consumption of microplastics can pose health risks, such as reduced fertility and cancer. The public is aware of these dangers and wants the bloc to adopt stricter measures.
'I heard that microplastics can even penetrate the cerebral cortex, a part of our brain. When they enter our bloodstream, they seriously impact reproductive health,' said a resident of Athens (Greece).
©
Euronews
'I believe that the European Union could decide to use less plastic, both in industry and in our daily consumption,' said another resident of Brussels (Belgium).
The institutions have just reached an agreement on a new regulation that sets obligations for companies that store plastic pellets on their premises and for those that transport them.
"Large companies that move more than 1,500 tonnes per year will have to obtain certification from an independent third party. Small companies that move more than 1,500 tonnes per year will have to obtain a single certification. Small companies that move less than 1,000 tonnes and micro-enterprises will have to issue a self-declaration of conformity," said Gregoire Lory, who covers the issue for Euronews.
©
Euronews
Why and how will non-EU operators comply?
Each year, the equivalent of up to 7,300 truckloads of plastic pellets are lost to the environment. The European Commission estimates that the new rules should reduce plastic pellet losses by up to 74%. To achieve this, the rules will also apply to non-EU operators.
'Companies from outside the EU that work on our territory must have an authorised representative who explains how they comply with European standards to each competent authority in the Member States,' said César Luena, one of the European Parliament's lead negotiators.
Some non-governmental organisations are against the exemptions and delays on implementation, with particular criticism of the more lenient rules for small businesses.
'SMEs actually represent the vast majority of the plastics supply chain, accounting for 98% in conversion and 97% in transport and storage,' said Gregoire Lory.
Maritime transport will have three rather than two years, as do other companies, to comply with the rules, despite the high level of pollution in the sea. Pressure has come from some member states with significant maritime economic activity.
'Cyprus, Greece, Malta and Croatia were among the countries that asked for three years because they needed more time to adapt,' the parliamentarian confirmed.
Violations of the new rules on the storage and transport of plastic pellets could lead to fines of at least 3% of a company's turnover in the EU. Governments can also initiate criminal proceedings in cases of serious contamination.
Watch the video here!
Journalist: Isabel Marques da Silva
ADVERTISEMENT
Content production: Pilar Montero López
Video production: Zacharia Vigneron
Graphism: Loredana Dumitru
Editorial coordination: Ana Lázaro Bosch and Jeremy Fleming-Jones
ADVERTISEMENT
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
4 hours ago
- Euronews
Trump and Putin wrap up Alaska meeting with no mention of ceasefire
As Donald Trump hosted Vladimir Putin for a historic summit in Alaska, Ukraine and Europe held their breath for what the meeting could bring. For the US president, the summit represented an unprecedented opportunity to establish himself as a peacemaker and push Russia to a ceasefire. For Putin, this was a chance to change tack despite his unwillingness to engage in direct negotiations with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Ukraine's president was invited to the summit at the US military Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage on Friday. Still, Trump hopes he will be present for the next round of talks. Following the Trump-Putin press conference after the meeting, it is increasingly likely that there will be a second meeting after the negotiations in Alaska. Review the latest information and analysis on the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska as Euronews journalists around Europe brought you the latest developments on Friday night in the blog below:
LeMonde
6 hours ago
- LeMonde
Sylvie Kauffmann: 'Putin can pretend to negotiate and engage in endless talks that never lead anywhere'
A bilateral meeting lasting under three hours, followed by a 12-minute joint press conference with no announcements: The Friday, August 15, summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska left many questions unanswered. By Saturday morning, as European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky began reacting, Le Monde columnist Sylvie Kauffmann spoke with readers during our live coverage of the war in Ukraine. Pierre: Diplomacy is sometimes a theater, with each side seeking to claim success and assign blame in case of failure. Trump had gotten us used to breaking with tradition. Today, he is acting out a classic scenario. Isn't that already a sign that this summit has failed? Sylvie Kauffmann: Calling the summit a failure depends on what was expected of it. If people were hoping Vladimir Putin would commit to a serious ceasefire, then yes, it was clearly a failure. But I do not think that was a reasonable expectation. At this stage, with no results announced, it is neither a success nor a failure. We will have to judge based on the reactions of Europeans, so far very cautious, and the Trump-Zelensky meeting on Monday. There is, however, a significant risk, well known to Europeans: Putin can buy time by pretending to be ready to negotiate and engage in endless talks that never lead anywhere, while his army continues to gain ground and bomb Ukraine. That was essentially the tactic he used after the annexation of Crimea and the first invasion of Ukraine in 2014, during the Minsk negotiations with France, Germany and Ukraine. Let's discuss: How should we interpret the welcome given to President Putin as he came off his plane – with the red carpet, applause and a show of military strength featuring American jets in the background? S.K.: Trump is fascinated by Putin as a figure – he generally gets along well with "strongmen," but he is particularly interested in the Russian leader. He calls him by his first name, Vladimir, which he never does with Zelensky. All of this staging, on a US military base, was meant both to demonstrate American power to Putin and to treat him as the leader of another major power, worthy of every honor. This treatment is all the more ironic since Putin is not only the aggressor of an independent country, in violation of international law, but also subject to an arrest warrant for war crimes. Dodochampion: On the Russian side, did this summit have any other ambitions beyond relaunching Russia's international trade? S.K.: Putin's goal at this summit was first to gain respectability and second to buy time. On both counts, he succeeded: The welcome by the US president on American soil, with great ceremony, rehabilitated him on the international stage, even if he is a pariah in Europe. Furthermore, by engaging in this form of dialogue with Trump, he managed to get the ultimatums and the threat of further sanctions against Russia lifted – at least for the time being: Trump said on Fox News that the issue of sanctions was off the table for two or three weeks. That matters to Putin because the Russian economy is showing serious signs of weakness. And in the meantime, he can keep bombing Ukraine and continue his offensive in the east of the country. On the other hand, Putin failed to turn this meeting into a major Russo-American summit on economic and trade relations or on strategic dialogue regarding arms control. Nice: The statements from Trump and Putin were devoid of substance, suggesting there was no progress. On the US side, shouldn't this lead to a North Korea scenario – that is, the United States losing interest in the matter (and leaving it to the Europeans)? S.K.: Yes, that's possible. Several American experts have drawn a parallel with the 2018 Trump-Kim Jong-un meeting, in which Trump invested a great deal (with the difference that he also wanted to invite Kim to ride with him in The Beast, the presidential limousine, but at the time his advisers convinced him not to – which was not the case with Putin...). Then he lost interest in the North Korea issue after there was no progress. If Trump decides to lose interest in the Ukrainian issue, it will be up to the Europeans to handle it alone. The question then is what level of American military assistance they can still count on, particularly in intelligence and satellite reconnaissance. But they now know that under Trump, the US will disengage from Europe. Vice President JD Vance stated clearly last week that the US would no longer fund Ukraine's defense. So the dynamic is clear. Patrick: Don't you think Trump's attitude puts the US in a position of weakness? It's obvious Trump is afraid of Putin, which puts the latter in a position of strength, with the likely consequence of destabilizing the West for Russia's benefit. What cards does the West have left to ensure its own survival and that of Ukraine? S.K.: You raise a crucial point, but first, speaking of "the West" raises the question of whether that concept still exists under Trump. Clearly, the fate of Ukraine does not have the same meaning or importance for the current Washington administration as it does for the majority of Europeans. For Europe, Ukraine's survival as a sovereign and independent state is existential; for Trump's America, it is not. Yes, the American president is impressed by Putin, and that may seem like a weakness to us, but he sees Putin as a "strong" leader of another major power that, incidentally, has "a lot of land, a lot of rare earths and oil," and with whom he believes he can do "great things," as he has said. The cards the Europeans can play are unity and firmness, particularly in defense, a field where they have a lot of ground to make up, but which they have started to address. That will require significant political effort.
Euronews
10 hours ago
- Euronews
European leaders to support trilateral meeting following Alaska summit
European leaders have said they are "ready to work with US President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy towards a trilateral summit with European support," in a statement issued by the European Commission on Saturday. "It will be up to Ukraine to make decisions on its territory. International borders must not be changed by force," the statement read, which was released a few hours after the conclusion of a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The statement was signed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and European Council President António Costa. They said they "welcomed President Trump's efforts to stop the killing in Ukraine, end Russia's war of aggression, and achieve just and lasting peace," following the US President's meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska. The leaders insisted on "ironclad security guarantees" for Ukraine, with "no limitations" on Ukraine's armed forces. "Russia cannot have a veto against Ukraine's pathway to EU and NATO." The statement also reiterated a pledge to continue to impose sanctions on Russia "as long as the killing in Ukraine continues". Zelenskyy calls for 'real peace' Zelenskyy echoed the European statement in a post on X, calling for "real peace" and "not just another pause between Russian invasions." He added that he told Trump "sanctions should be strengthened if there is no trilateral meeting or if Russia tries to evade an honest end to the war." He also reiterated the importance of involving European leaders, who also were not present at the summit. Other European leaders responded more fiercely to the outcome of Friday's summit in Alaska. Norwegian Foreign Minister Espend Barth Eide told reporters in Oslo Putin's talking points were "code for the Russian justification for the illegal invasion of Ukraine." Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala said in a statement that "Putin is still only interested in the greatest possible territorial gains and the restoration of the Soviet empire." EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said 'the harsh reality is that Russia has no intention of ending this war anytime soon,' noting that Moscow's forces launched new attacks on Ukraine even as the delegations met. 'Putin continues to drag out negotiations and hopes he gets away with it. He left Anchorage without making any commitments to end the killing,' she said.
