Global plastics treaty negotiations fail to reach a consensus — again
What was supposed to be the final round of negotiations for a legally binding global treaty to end plastic pollution has failed to reach a consensus.
After delegates spent 10 days in Geneva, Switzerland, trying to address plastic pollution, the session was adjourned, with no immediate plans to resume efforts to reach a treaty.
The World Wildlife Fund called on ambitious states to pursue a separate deal, with the hope of getting plastics-producing nations on board later.
"Consensus is dead, it's clear that it's not working," Björn Beeler, the international co-ordinator for the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), told CBC News.
This was the sixth time countries had convened as part of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, which was supposed to come to an agreement by 2024.
Representatives from 183 countries and 400 organizations showed up, and the stakes were high.
Around 7,250 megatonnes of plastic pollute the planet, according to The Lancet Countdown on health and plastics, which was published in Health Policy earlier this month. And plastic production is on course to triple by 2060.
Anthony Merante, senior plastics campaigner for non-profit organization Oceana Canada, says imposing limits on plastics production was at the heart of the disagreement.
"It is unfortunate that some of the largest countries in the world want to stand on the path that leads us to making more plastic and to continuing the pollution crisis that we have," he told CBC News from Geneva on Friday. "But we're happy to see Canada stand on the right side of this."
Flawed process, say attendees
Consensus decision-making paralyzed the talks, Erin Simon, an expert on plastics and packaging at the World Wildlife Fund, told The Associated Press back in December.
Consensus means that every nation must agree for there to be a legally binding treaty.
"Each country has a veto card," said Simon. "They have no incentive to come up with a plan and we've seen that time and time again in these negotiations."
At negotiations in Busan, South Korea, in December 2024, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India and other countries that produce plastics and oil and gas pushed for a treaty focused on better waste management and recycling — not plastic production caps. This remained the case in Geneva.
WATCH | Why it's so hard to end plastic pollution:
Why it's so hard to end plastic pollution
1 year ago
"Issues like production are very, very hard to move," IPEN's Beeler told CBC News on Monday, halfway through the negotiations. IPEN is a global network of more than 600 organizations in 131 countries that conducts research to help influence global policy.
"It's clear [many plastic-producing countries] do not want a treaty. It's clear the only thing that they would tolerate would be an agreement that addresses plastic waste management, and even there, they're difficult,"said Beeler.
Beeler says a focus on waste management and recycling pushes the responsibility onto the general public.
Big divide on certain topics
Production limits and ways to address chemicals used in plastic products were removed from a draft of the treaty presented on Wednesday, which was supposed to be the second-to-last day of negotiations.
When the countries reconvened Wednesday night, Colombia's delegation said it wouldn't accept the new draft as the basis for negotiations, calling the text unbalanced and lacking the ambition and global obligations needed to end plastic pollution.
Canada and many other delegations agreed — including Panama, Mexico, Chile, Ghana, Norway, the United Kingdom, the European Union and the group of small island developing states. They are all part of the High Ambition Coalition, a group of ambitious countries committed to ending plastic pollution by 2040.
"Let me be clear — this is not acceptable for future generations," said Erin Silsbe from Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Fiji delegate Sivendra Michael said it would be like "mopping the floor without turning off the tap."
Almost 100 countries wanted to limit plastic production, as well as tackle waste cleanup and recycling. Instead, the draft of the treaty centered on the redesign of plastic products so they can be recycled and reused, and improving waste management.
It also didn't impose global, legally binding rules, instead asking nations to make their own commitments to ending plastic pollution.
What this means for Canadians
Canada had been part of the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution since its inauguration in 2022.
"Plastic pollution knows no borders, global rules are essential to protect ecosystems, coastal and Indigenous communities, and to address transboundary threats," Kennan Nembhard, a press secretary with Environment and Climate Change Canada, told CBC News in a statement on Thursday.
Canada generates 4.7 million tonnes of plastic waste per year and only recycles about eight per cent, according to Oceana Canada.
"If you want to fight plastic pollution effectively, you need to do so at the source, because we've been making plastic for over five decades now and recycling has never hit double-digits efficiency numbers," said Merante from Oceana Canada.
"We have seen plastic wash up on our shores, fill our oceans, fill the stomachs of wildlife like whales and seabirds and dolphins. We have seen the devastating effects of this and now we're learning the human health effects of this."
Merante says that without a treaty, there aren't clear next steps for Canadians. He hopes the government will pass new legislation to provide some guidance, but says businesses need to be on board for things to change.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
The final eclipse of the Truman Doctrine, a cornerstone of American foreign policy
A posse of European leaders came to Washington this week to praise the United States' role in the world, but they ended up witness to the burial of a vital part of it. What the members of the delegation who rushed to join the Ukraine negotiations saw was the decline of the continent-wide confidence that came with a cornerstone of American foreign policy for generations, a doctrine so durable that it has persisted through the decades though it bears the name of a president – Harry S. Truman – who governed decades before most Americans were born. The hours-long White House talks to bring an end to the war in Ukraine may be remembered for marking the final eclipse of the Truman Doctrine, which the 33rd president promulgated a year before Donald Trump was born, and which governed American diplomatic and military strategy through nine presidencies, from the period just after end of the Second World War until the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. It was a period that began with perhaps the greatest military achievement of the United States – Mr. Trump himself this spring cited V-E Day as one of the signal events of the country's history – and ended with what Russian President Vladimir Putin has called the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.' 'These negotiations over Ukraine are an important bellwether,' said David Greenberg, a Rutgers University historian. 'This is a moment of American reluctance to carry through the principles of the Truman Doctrine that we were all so shaped by.' Analysis: Trump's Ukraine talks show how the global order is changing The Truman Doctrine was born at a joint session of Congress on March 12, 1947, amid worries that communist insurgencies were threatening to spread in Europe, especially in Greece and Turkey. Then president Harry Truman stood at the rostrum of the House of Representatives' chamber and declared, 'It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.' That sentence prompted congressional approval of US$400-million in military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey as part of the struggle to halt the march of Communism through Europe and is regarded as the founding statement of the Cold War. In some ways, too, it was the precursor to the Marshall Plan, known formally as the European Recovery Program, which was unveiled three months later at the commencement exercises at Harvard University and was motivated in large measure by the effort to oppose the spread of communism in Europe. By any measure, the resistance of Ukraine to the Russian incursion that began three and a half years ago is an example of Truman's 'free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by . . . outside pressures.' The Soviet Union is gone, but Russia remains, and so does its expansive inclinations. The tentative peace plan floating around world capitals does call for the United States to route US$90-billion in weapons through Europe, but that is a sale, not a grant–reflecting the arm's distance from Ukraine that the Trump team wants. The Truman Doctrine has been much challenged as policy – in 1977 Jimmy Carter spoke of the 'inordinate fear of communism' – and regarded as the geopolitical approach that led to the now-discredited 'domino theory.' Nonetheless it persisted, even past the détente of the Richard Nixon years and the multiple arms-control agreements Mr. Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan signed with aging Soviet leaders. Additional pacts were signed by George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Analysis: Truth will likely be the last casualty of war in Ukraine The Truman Doctrine's precept of supporting freedom among oppressed peoples, moreover, was applied to the nation-building undertakings of more recent presidents, especially George W. Bush in Iraq. All that is regarded with disdain in the Trump White House. 'Trump seems willing to normalize Putin's aggression and erase any clear delineation between free democracies and aggressors,' said Melvyn Leffler, a history professor at the University of Virginia and author of A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War. 'These negotiations are a repudiation of the Truman Doctrine.' While the flattery flowed this week, deep worries swirled beneath the surface. Some Republicans reverted to the party's traditional posture of skepticism, if not outright distrust, of all things Russian. Some conservatives fretted that Mr. Trump's avowed lust for a Nobel Peace Prize rendered him too eager to forge an agreement to bring the conflict to an end. There is also concern that warmer U.S.-Russian relations may free Moscow to divert attention to cultivating Beijing. And European leaders are wary about the entire undertaking, with President Emmanuel Macron of France saying, 'I am not convinced that President Putin also wants peace.' Mr. Macron may have inadvertently been channelling an earlier French leader – Georges Clemenceau, who was prime minister between 1906 and 1909 and again from 1917 to 1920. Of Alsace-Lorraine, a onetime French territory was under German control, Mr. Clemenceau said: 'The fate of a land can be decided, for a time, upon a battlefield, but not the mastery of souls, which escape the might of the sword.'
Globe and Mail
8 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
War or peace? For oil markets, the Ukraine outcome is insignificant
U.S. President Donald Trump's high-stakes diplomacy to resolve the war in Ukraine is unlikely to jolt oil and gas markets, no matter the outcome. Russia has faced multiple rounds of western sanctions and restrictions since its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which have dealt severe blows to the country's giant oil and gas industry, sapping Moscow of vital revenue and reshaping global energy markets. Russian gas now accounts for just 18 per cent of European imports, down from 45 per cent in 2021, while the bloc's oil imports from Russia have fallen to 3 per cent from around 30 per cent over that time. The European Union plans to fully phase out Russian energy by 2027. Meanwhile, India has increased its share of Russian crude to 38 per cent of total imports from 16 per cent in 2021, according to Kpler. China and Turkey have also notably ramped up their Russian oil purchases. The war in Ukraine has left over a million dead or wounded, so its conclusion would be welcomed by many. Energy markets, however, are not apt to register much of a reaction unless there is a full ceasefire along with the lifting of all U.S. and European sanctions. And that is long shot. Given the more probable set of scenarios, oil and gas markets are unlikely to be rattled by the fallout from either last Friday's disappointing summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin or the U.S. president's meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders on Monday. Full peace in Ukraine remains highly improbable. Trump's apparent support for a comprehensive settlement, rather than a ceasefire, has widened the gap between America, Ukraine and Europe. At the same time, his suggestion of U.S. post-settlement security guarantees for Ukraine is likely to face resistance from Moscow. In other words, don't bet on a full normalization of relations between Russia and the West any time soon. Trump might pressure Zelensky into accepting a temporary or partial halt in fighting. But even then, Europe is unlikely to resume Russian energy imports while Putin remains in power. Before 2022, Europe accounted for nearly half of Russia's 4.7 million barrels per day of oil exports and 75 per cent of its gas exports, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The Trump administration could attempt to ease some sanctions unilaterally, but this could face opposition in Congress, including from Republicans, unless a broad peace deal is reached. Perhaps the more likely scenario – Trump failing to broker a deal – also shouldn't have a major impact on energy markets. The U.S. could tighten sanctions, particularly by targeting buyers of Russian energy, as Trump has already threatened. But the U.S. president said on Friday that he would delay so-called 'secondary sanctions' on China due to what he described as 'successful' talks with Putin. Of course, India already faces secondary tariffs over its Russian oil purchases. Earlier this month, Trump announced a 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods, citing the country's continued oil imports from Russia. The new tariff, effective August 27, will bring total tariffs on Indian imports to 50 per cent. But even though Indian buyers already appear to be reducing their Russian oil purchases, the impact on global supplies has been minimal as China has increased its intake of Russian crude. Ultimately, China matters far more in this story, and it's unlikely to significantly curb its Russian oil imports, not least because it considers its relationship with Moscow to be strategic. Chinese and Russian oil producers, refiners and traders have already built a sprawling network of tankers and insurers to circumvent Western sanctions on Venezuela, Iran, and Russia. Additionally, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods already average 55 per cent, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Additional tariffs could raise costs for U.S. consumers, and Beijing could retaliate, potentially by withholding rare earths or other critical minerals, all outcomes Trump would want to avoid – and Beijing knows this. In short, Trump appears to have little stomach for the potential consequences, and even if he were to tighten sanctions, this likely wouldn't materially affect China's ability to import oil. Crucially, oil and gas markets appear to be entering a period of oversupply, meaning any possible disruption in Russian volumes can easily be offset. The IEA expects oil supply to exceed demand by 1.76 million barrels per day in 2025 and by 3 million bpd in 2026, driven by rising output from OPEC+ and the Americas. Global liquefied natural gas (LNG) markets are also expanding rapidly, with new supply coming online in the coming years across the U.S., Qatar, Canada, and elsewhere. LNG capacity is projected to grow from 500 million tons per year in 2024 to 800 mtpa by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency. While Trump's foreign policy remains unpredictable, a few things seem clear. He can't, as he once claimed, end the Ukraine war in one day, and what he can do is unlikely to have much of an impact on oil and gas markets. Be smart with your money. Get the latest investing insights delivered right to your inbox three times a week, with the Globe Investor newsletter. Sign up today.
CBC
9 hours ago
- CBC
What can security guarantees to Ukraine do to prevent a Russian invasion?
U.S. President Donald Trump has said he would back European security guarantees for Ukraine, but he stopped short of committing U.S. troops to a collective effort to bolster Ukraine's security. Gabrielius Landsbergis, Lithuania's former foreign affairs minister, says he's 'cautious' when people say they're approaching security guarantees for Ukraine because those are tied to the 'fundamental issue' of whether European countries are willing to fight alongside Ukrainians in case of a Russian attack.
