Something Is Better Than Nothing – Why US Business Has A Vested Interest In A Plastic Pollution Treaty
Agricultural commissioners from nearly a dozen conservative states last week called on the Trump Administration to defund international organizations that promote 'net-zero' climate policies, according to The Hill, arguing that reducing carbon emissions would hurt American farmers, ranchers and consumers. The commissioners from states including West Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi targeted several longstanding United Nations bodies, including the United Nations Environment Program.
'These programs that require compliance with a radical climate agenda undermine American farmers and ranchers, threaten to drive up costs for consumers, and weaken food security for working families,' said Will Hild, executive director of Consumers' Research, which backed the commissioners' letter. 'It's time for these groups to align with President Trump's commitment of restoring common sense to environmental policy or stop receiving any federal funding.'
The Risks of an All-or-Nothing Approach
The problem with this all-or-nothing approach is that UNEP establishes global standards on some of the most pressing sustainability issues of our time, from forest preservation to plastics and chemical pollution. Stripping it of federal funding would do exactly what the commissioners want to avoid: hurt American farmers, ranchers and consumers by pulling their seat from the table of high-stakes negotiations.
The commissioners may want the U.S. to pay attention to UNEP's upcoming INC–5.2 treaty negotiations around plastic production and pollution in Geneva next month, which will have a huge impact on American business's bottom line. Of course, we are one of the world's largest plastic producers, and the negotiations planned for August in Switzerland will invariably reshape U.S. business operations, sourcing strategies, supply chains and compliance costs across industries such as packaging, petrochemicals and consumer goods. Any outcome will have major implications for the broader economy.
"Since day one, U.S. business leaders - from sectors ranging from leading consumer brands to global raw material producers - have invested time and resources to engage in these highly technical negotiations and are all united in wanting agreement on a Treaty in August," said my colleague at the US Council for International Business, Agnes Vinblad, Director, Environment & Sustainable Development.
It could also be an opportunity for the current administration to sway international policy after President Joe Biden shifted away from being a bridge builder between divergent interests in environmental negotiations to taking a more uncompromising stance. At UNEP's INC-5.0 plastic treaty negotiations in Korea last year, the Biden Administration took what some saw as an extreme approach by aligning itself more closely with the High Ambition Coalition — a group of more than 60 countries advocating for strict measures to address plastic pollution — and supporting binding production limits and bans on problematic plastics.
Environmental groups lauded this reversal from the U.S.'s earlier stance, which favored voluntary national targets and focused on recycling and waste management versus mandatory production caps. Industry groups (along with oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia and China) criticized the move as detrimental to manufacturing and innovation.
Unsurprisingly, no deal was reached last year due to the lack of consensus and the U.S. shift, and UNEP kicked the negotiations to a later date. Almost all parties agreed at the time that incremental changes would have been preferable to a stalemate – after all, some progress is better than none.
INC-4 chairman Luis Vayas Valdivieso speaks during the fourth session of the UN Intergovernmental ... More Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution in Ottawa, Canada, on April 23, 2024. (Photo by Dave Chan / AFP) (Photo by DAVE CHAN/AFP via Getty Images)
The Strategic Importance of Staying at the Table
After these previous talks ended in stalemate, all eyes are on the U.S. to see whether we can reclaim our reputation as a pragmatic leader and help broker a compromise at INC-5.2. But only by engaging with UNEP can we effectively push back against harmful policies to farmers, consumers, and businesses.
Walking away entirely from UNEP would put us at a disadvantage. Contrary to what the commissioners have stated, taking away funding would make our economy less secure — not only against traditional adversaries, but against allies in the European Union whose excessive regulations at times threaten American business.
Recent Success Stories Prove Engagement Works
Just this past May, the Trump Administration sent USG negotiators to UNEP's Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, which makes decisions on hazardous chemicals and waste management. Our presence was instrumental in blocking proposals that would have had large-scale detrimental effects on U.S. aerospace and chemical manufacturing companies. Without it, the outcome would have undoubtedly been very different.
Recent reports indicate that we will, in fact, send a delegation to the plastic treaty negotiations next month, and many are hopeful that we will become the rational, consensus-building voice that guides other countries toward tangible progress.
As Benny Mermens, chair of the World Plastics Council and Vice President Sustainability of CP Chem (a USCIB member) said via email last week, 'I have been struck by the shared commitment to ending plastic waste in the environment realising that whilst significant issues remain, there is already a clear consensus on issues such as the need to invest in sustainable waste collection and management infrastructure, and to simultaneously transition towards a circular global plastic system.' He went on to add, 'We recognise the challenges, but if we focus on what unites us rather than on what divides us an ambitious and effective Treaty is within reach.'
The Cost of Walking Away
If we completely pull out of UNEP negotiations, we lose the opportunity to set the agenda on our terms, and to provide at least some progress on an important issue that affects everyone from U.S. businesses to consumers to environmental groups.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nasdaq slides again as AI jitters rattle tech investors
NEW YORK (Reuters) -Tech stocks are leading declines on Wall Street, with worries about AI spurring debates about its future. The Nasdaq Composite is down around 2.4% over the last two days, the worst two-day fall since April. The semiconductor index was down 1.5%, while the information technology sector was the second biggest decliner in the S&P 500, dropping 1.1% on Wednesday. Market participants attributed the selloff to a range of factors including a technical pullback after driving much of the stock market's recovery in the weeks after April 2nd "Liberation Day." Analysts also cited deepening concerns of government interference with companies, as the Trump administration looked into taking equity stakes in chip companies such as Intel in exchange for grants under the CHIPS Act. COMMENTS: ART HOGAN, MARKET STRATEGIST, B. RILEY WEALTH MANAGEMENT, BOSTON: "Technology in general is up 40% from its April lows, and the group clearly got ahead of itself. Also, if there's anything to the market consensus that we'll see a Fed rate cut, then there will be room for other things to work as well – and there are 493 other stocks in the S&P 500 that are lagging the Mag 7 right now. So I think there's a bit of a rotation." "I don't know how long it will last, but if it does keep going, well, August and September (are) the weak period seasonally in which it could do so. Also, there are some people who are beginning to question the pace at which we need to be chasing AI capital spending. If you put all this together: when technology stocks take a breather, this is what it looks like. Nvidia and other blue chips in the group are seeing relatively steady drawdowns, but things on the speculative edge are clearly seeing more selling pressure. Palantir has gone from trading at 200 times sales to 150 times its sales, for instance." MICHAEL ASHLEY SCHULMAN, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, RUNNING POINT, EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA: "Tuesday' s U.S. technology stock swoon and its continuation today looks like multiple compression meeting a little margin math, but the timing makes it hard to ignore the new elephant in the server room. Names that had been sprinting on AI dreams pulled back hard, with Nvidia, AMD, and Palantir Technologies among the drags." "DeepSeek's update landed on Tuesday represents a serious cocktail of capability and availability and traders well remember the original harsh tech-market pullback DeepSeek caused when it was first broadly recognized in January of this year." BRIAN JACOBSEN, CHIEF ECONOMIST, ANNEX WEALTH MANAGEMENT, BROOKFIELD, WISCONSIN: "When you go from rally to rout, it shows how vulnerable the names were to even a scent of bad news. It could have been (Sam)Altman's valuation warning and then Meta restructuring its AI division threw fuel on the fire." PHIL BLANCATO, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LADENBURG THALMANN ASSET MANAGEMENT, NEW YORK: "It's much more about profit-taking and temporary rebalancing here. If you get a Federal Reserve cut or a mention of it on Friday, this will reverse pretty quickly, but this is a lot to do with names pushed up to really lofty levels and profit taking across the board." SETH HICKLE, PORTFOLIO MANAGER, MINDSET WEALTH MANAGEMENT, INDIANAPOLIS: "I think we are starting to see a little bit of rotation. It's always healthy to see a little bit of a pullback to that way, the markets can kind of get re-oriented." "To me, tech was overbought. Maybe it was justified, but it could have been kind of a buy on the rumor, sell it on the news type of thing where we had tech runup into earnings. We had really good earnings, and now it's kind of natural for the market just to sell some of that good news." "I wouldn't be surprised if we see a little bit of rotation into some smaller cap or into healthcare names, or consumer staples. And to me, that's kind of a healthy rotation. But honestly, I don't believe it will be a longer-term trend. It'll probably be a shorter-term trend. I think we'll see money flow back into tech in the next couple months." STEVE SOSNICK, CHIEF STRATEGIST, INTERACTIVE BROKERS, CONNECTICUT "The tech-led selloff that we saw yesterday resumed this morning. That said, dip buyers stepped in around 11am EDT and we've now recovered about half our losses. It's somewhat inevitable to expect them to arrive promptly, though it did take a bit longer than usual." "I believe that some of the early declines are related to profit-taking and risk squaring ahead of (Fed Chair Jerome)Powell's speech on Friday. That is merely rotation and relatively benign, though it gets magnified because of megacap tech stocks' heavy weighting in key indices. But some of the ferocity of the early drop was related to the President's calls for Lisa Cook's resignation." "Note that futures broke through their pre-market lows shortly after he posted on Truth Social. Markets were not perturbed that there are inquiries into the propriety of her personal mortgage applications. She gets a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, like any other person. But when the President weighed in even before the process began, then it raised the specter of politicization. That put markets on the wrong foot early, and negative momentum ruled again – at least for a couple of hours." ADAM SARHAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, 50 PARK INVESTMENTS, NEW YORK: "To see a little pullback here after a big move up is perfectly normal and healthy. If the selling gets worse then you'll see a rotation out of tech and into undervalued areas of the market like biotech stocks or healthcare stocks or small cap stocks because those areas have not participated this year." Sign in to access your portfolio
CNN
10 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump administration expands ‘good moral character' requirement to become naturalized citizen
The Trump administration is expanding the requirement for immigrants who are hoping to become US citizens to display 'good moral character,' in a move that some immigration lawyers denounced as a troubling change that adds uncertainty to the naturalization process. US Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security that administers the country's legal immigration system, directed its officers in a memo last week to more heavily consider both positive and negative 'attributes or contributions' of people going through the naturalization process to become US citizens. The memo, which was sent to USCIS officers on Friday, requires them to take a more 'holistic approach in evaluating whether or not an alien seeking naturalization has affirmatively established that he or she has met their burden of establishing that they are worthy of assuming the rights and responsibilities of United States Citizenship.' The agency said in a statement that the new policy is intended to ensure its officers are accounting more heavily for an immigrant's positive attributes, rather than simply the 'absence of misconduct,' to reflect their character. 'U.S. citizenship is the gold standard of citizenship—it should only be offered to the world's best of the best,' USCIS spokesperson Matthew J. Tragesser said in a statement. The standard to show good moral character has long been part of the naturalization process in the US. But immigration attorneys told CNN that the memo is designed in a way that places additional burdens on people going through the process. Emily Ryo, a professor of law and sociology at Duke University whose research focuses on immigration, said the 'mandate is likely to introduce a great deal of uncertainty, unpredictability, and administrative burden.' 'What does it mean to require that a noncitizen 'affirmatively' establish that they are 'worthy' of US citizenship?' Ryo said in an email. 'What kind of documentation will noncitizens be required to provide to make this affirmative showing, and how exactly are the officials to weigh and verify such evidence?' Susan Ramos, an immigration attorney based in Arizona, described the policy change as 'troubling' and said it 'appears to effectively change the substantive requirements for naturalization without notice and comment, just by policy.' 'It creates a new subjective standard without providing the analysis that will be performed in adjudicating an application for naturalization,' Ramos said. 'For example, how much volunteer work is enough to tip the scales in favor of the applicant? Who decides that formula, and using what analysis? What will USCIS consider sufficient achievement for someone who doesn't work?' And because the directive is broadly written, it makes it more difficult to challenge an individual officer's decision on whether the character standard has been met, said Kathrin Mautino, a California-based immigration attorney. 'Generally, it will give individual officers more authority to ask about private lives,' Mautino said. But the memo does contain some more concrete and stringent requirements for potential new citizens. Previously, immigrants who owed overdue taxes were required to only show they were participating in a payment plan with the IRS to meet the character standard, Mautino said. But the new memo now requires the 'full payment' of overdue taxes, as well as other obligations including child-support payments. USCIS said in the memo this is to make sure immigrants 'who have engaged in wrongdoing are properly rehabilitated and reformed.' People who have multiple traffic tickets can now be found to lack good moral character, as well as people who engage in 'harassment or aggressive solicitation,' though it is not clear what the memo means by that. The updated policy is just one way the Trump administration is more heavily scrutinizing the lives of people applying for citizenship or for the right to live, work or study in the United States. In late May, the US State Department ordered embassies to pause visa interviews for international students so they could more heavily scrutinize students' social media. The pause was lifted after the State Department told embassies to screen for 'hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.' On Tuesday, USCIS announced that type of vetting will expand to seek out 'anti-American' attitudes in those seeking immigration-related benefits such as the right to live or work in the US.
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump administration expands ‘good moral character' requirement to become naturalized citizen
Immigration FacebookTweetLink The Trump administration is expanding the requirement for immigrants who are hoping to become US citizens to display 'good moral character,' in a move that some immigration lawyers denounced as a troubling change that adds uncertainty to the naturalization process. US Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security that administers the country's legal immigration system, directed its officers in a memo last week to more heavily consider both positive and negative 'attributes or contributions' of people going through the naturalization process to become US citizens. The memo, which was sent to USCIS officers on Friday, requires them to take a more 'holistic approach in evaluating whether or not an alien seeking naturalization has affirmatively established that he or she has met their burden of establishing that they are worthy of assuming the rights and responsibilities of United States Citizenship.' The agency said in a statement that the new policy is intended to ensure its officers are accounting more heavily for an immigrant's positive attributes, rather than simply the 'absence of misconduct,' to reflect their character. 'U.S. citizenship is the gold standard of citizenship—it should only be offered to the world's best of the best,' USCIS spokesperson Matthew J. Tragesser said in a statement. The standard to show good moral character has long been part of the naturalization process in the US. But immigration attorneys told CNN that the memo is designed in a way that places additional burdens on people going through the process. Emily Ryo, a professor of law and sociology at Duke University whose research focuses on immigration, said the 'mandate is likely to introduce a great deal of uncertainty, unpredictability, and administrative burden.' 'What does it mean to require that a noncitizen 'affirmatively' establish that they are 'worthy' of US citizenship?' Ryo said in an email. 'What kind of documentation will noncitizens be required to provide to make this affirmative showing, and how exactly are the officials to weigh and verify such evidence?' Susan Ramos, an immigration attorney based in Arizona, described the policy change as 'troubling' and said it 'appears to effectively change the substantive requirements for naturalization without notice and comment, just by policy.' 'It creates a new subjective standard without providing the analysis that will be performed in adjudicating an application for naturalization,' Ramos said. 'For example, how much volunteer work is enough to tip the scales in favor of the applicant? Who decides that formula, and using what analysis? What will USCIS consider sufficient achievement for someone who doesn't work?' And because the directive is broadly written, it makes it more difficult to challenge an individual officer's decision on whether the character standard has been met, said Kathrin Mautino, a California-based immigration attorney. 'Generally, it will give individual officers more authority to ask about private lives,' Mautino said. But the memo does contain some more concrete and stringent requirements for potential new citizens. Previously, immigrants who owed overdue taxes were required to only show they were participating in a payment plan with the IRS to meet the character standard, Mautino said. But the new memo now requires the 'full payment' of overdue taxes, as well as other obligations including child-support payments. USCIS said in the memo this is to make sure immigrants 'who have engaged in wrongdoing are properly rehabilitated and reformed.' People who have multiple traffic tickets can now be found to lack good moral character, as well as people who engage in 'harassment or aggressive solicitation,' though it is not clear what the memo means by that. The updated policy is just one way the Trump administration is more heavily scrutinizing the lives of people applying for citizenship or for the right to live, work or study in the United States. In late May, the US State Department ordered embassies to pause visa interviews for international students so they could more heavily scrutinize students' social media. The pause was lifted after the State Department told embassies to screen for 'hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.' On Tuesday, USCIS announced that type of vetting will expand to seek out 'anti-American' attitudes in those seeking immigration-related benefits such as the right to live or work in the US.
