EU environment Commissioner ready to do plastic pollution deal ‘but not at any cost'
With just over two days left to strike a global accord in talks at the UN in Geneva, Jessika Roswall said it was "time" to clinch a deal between oil-producing countries and more ambitious nations, including EU countries.
Five previous rounds of talks over the past two and a half years have failed to seal an agreement, including a supposedly final round in South Korea late last year.
The current talks in Geneva opened a week ago but are due to close on Thursday.
"The EU is ready to do a deal but not at any cost," Roswall told reporters.
"We do like plastic... and we will continue to need it. However, we don't like plastic pollution and it's time to end plastic pollution as quickly as possible," the commissioner said.
She said any treaty should give businesses the certainty of a clear global framework in which to operate.
Stalled Geneva talks threaten landmark plastic pollution treaty
The first week of talks in Geneva fell behind schedule, producing no clear text as countries remained split on step one: the treaty's purpose and scope
A cluster of mostly oil-producing states calling themselves the Like-Minded Group – including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia and Iran – want the treaty to focus primarily on waste management.
The EU and others want to go much further by reining in plastic production – which on current trends is set to triple by 2060 – and by phasing out certain especially toxic chemicals.
Drama in the pipeline
Danish Environment Minister Magnus Heunicke admitted that the "wide gap" between the rival camps was making negotiations a challenge but said the work of tackling plastic pollution "will only get harder the longer we wait. So now's the time".
"There's going to be a whole lot more drama in the days to come," he said, "but our goal is this drama should end up in a deal", he said, speaking alongside Roswall at the United Nations.
He said all parties, including the EU, had to re-examine their red lines and see where they could tweak them in the interests of landing a deal by Thursday.
"If we all stick to our red lines then a deal is impossible," he said.
"So we have to look at those red lines and we have to negotiate and compromise -- because we will be worse off if we don't succeed in making a deal.
"That's not me saying 'a deal at any price': Not at all. But a deal that is legally binding and has strong text and lays the ground for our work in the years ahead in order to tackle plastic pollution."
(cp)
Plastic promises: EU enters tough talks with petrostates over global treaty
No result will be achieved without shifts in position from all sides, an EU official said
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euractiv
3 hours ago
- Euractiv
The EU's moral collapse
Sven Kühn von Burgsdorff served as the European Union Representative to the occupied Palestinian territory, based in East Jerusalem, from January 2020 until his departure in July 2025. Prior to his role in Jerusalem, he served as a Senior Advisor on Mediation within the European External Action Service. The EU likes to think of itself as a normative power – a community of values, committed to upholding international law, promoting peace, protecting civilians, and building a rules-based global order. These are not just lofty ideals; they are enshrined in EU treaties and Council conclusions. But when it comes to the brutal destruction of Gaza and the continued occupation of Palestine, these principles seem to have become hollow rhetoric. Worse, they are being actively undermined by the craven inaction of the EU's institutions and the obstructionism of governments like Germany, Italy, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. While Germany undoubtedly has a historic responsibility to protect Jewish life and the security of the Jewish people, this does in no way justify placing Israeli government actions above international law. If the German government were serious about securing Israel's future and preventing another 7 October from happening, it would have to work tirelessly to end the occupation of Palestine and the ongoing military campaign in Gaza that, in my view, blatantly violates international humanitarian law. The European Commission has also been shamefully absent. Only as a result of recent pressure by many member states did it eventually propose the most tepid of measures by suspending access for Israeli SMEs under a dual-use innovation window of Horizon Europe. Even this minor proposal by the Commission is being blocked by spoiler governments. While tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians have reportedly been killed, maimed and starved, and nearly the entire population of Gaza displaced, the EU dithers. The ICJ has issued provisional measures towards Israel for what it sees as the risk of genocide in Gaza – warnings the Netanyahu government has flatly ignored – and declared that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. The UN, human rights organisations, and many former Israeli top military and intelligence officials have sounded the alarm about Israel's actions in Gaza and its policies in the West Bank. The EU has ample tools at its disposal to pressure Israel to end its brutal war in Gaza, dismantle the occupation, and move towards a viable two-state solution, with an independent and democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel. If the EU remains unable to muster political will for collective action, then the moral, political and legal burden falls on individual Member States. Countries like Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia have already taken encouraging steps in recognising the state of Palestine and demanding accountability. But much more is needed now. European countries that claim to support human rights and uphold international law must start acting within their own prerogatives to bring their influence to bear. For starters, this would mean u nilaterally suspending or revoking arms export licenses to Israel under their own national export control laws, including for dual-use equipment and technology. Individual countries can also stop funding national co-financed projects involving Israeli entities, or withdraw from joint research agreements with Israeli institutions. They can impose their own national sanctions regimes on human rights grounds, including visa bans and asset freezes. While some Nordic countries have such laws, others could use counterterrorism laws to freeze assets. S ettlement-linked companies can be excluded from public procurement and state investment funds. On top of this, state-owned enterprises or sovereign wealth funds can divest from settlement-linked companies, and national authorities can ban port calls or airspace use for Israeli military vessels and aircraft. Finally, member states with universal jurisdiction provisions can prosecute suspected Israeli and Palestinian war criminals if they enter their territory, or in some cases even in absentia. All member states are of course obliged to support the ICC in arrest warrants and investigations. Individual countries should establish coalitions of the willing that take matters into their own hands as long as the EU remains frozen. Europe's image as a principled, reliable, and rules-based actor is being destroyed – not by autocratic Russia and China, or other adversaries with dictatorial regimes, but by its own refusal to enforce international law when the perpetrator is an ally. At the heart of this disgraceful paralysis are governments that have chosen to side with impunity. The EU spoiler governments are not acting in the interest of peace between Israel and Palestine. They are undermining European unity and damaging the EU's global credibility and partnerships. They are also complicit in prolonging the suffering of millions of Palestinians, endangering Israel's security. The EU's inaction is not just a strategic blunder – it is an appalling moral failure as it enables Israel's impunity and entrenches a conflict that will continue to fuel instability, radicalisation, and despair for generations in the Middle East. Palestinians deserve freedom, dignity, and self-determination. Israelis deserve peace and security within internationally recognised borders. Both peoples deserve leaders – and international partners – who spare no effort in working towards peace and justice, not a never-ending cycle of violence and perpetual domination.
Euractiv
19 hours ago
- Euractiv
OpenAI wants US-wide AI rules with an eye on Europe's rulebook
The company says it wants federal AI rules to avoid 'a patchwork of state rules' Euractiv is part of the Trust Project Maximilian Henning Euractiv Aug 13, 2025 15:00 2 min. read News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. OpenAI is urging California, a trendsetter in US regulation, to align its AI rules with existing national or international frameworks, including the EU's, to avoid conflicting regulations across the country. The EU passed its AI Act last year and introduced a voluntary Code of Practice for providers of large AI models, a non-binding framework signed by almost all major US and European companies, including OpenAI. In a letter to California Governor Gavin Newsom, OpenAI said the state should treat AI companies as compliant with its own rules if they have signed up to the EU's code, or if they work with the US's federal AI Centre. In the letter, OpenAI's chief lobbyist Christopher Lehane recommended policies 'that avoid duplication and inconsistencies' with those of similar democratic regimes. In a blog post accompanying the letter, the company warned the US must choose between setting clear national standards for AI and 'a patchwork of state rules', adding: 'Imagine how hard it would have been to win the Space Race if California's aerospace and tech industries had been tangled in state-by-state regulations'. At a US Senate hearing in May, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said having 50 different regulatory regimes would be 'quite bad' and warned that adopting the EU's approach to AI regulation would be 'disastrous', instead calling for a 'light touch' federal approach. California, the most populous and wealthiest US state, often seeks to set an example for others through its regulation. But tensions over AI rules between Washington and state capitals have been brewing for some time. At the start of July, the US Senate scrapped a decade-long ban on state-level AI laws from President Donald Trump's broad budget bill. Weeks later, the Trump administration published an AI Action Plan seeking to block federal funding for AI in states with 'burdensome AI regulations'. (de)
Euractiv
a day ago
- Euractiv
Deadlocked plastics treaty talks ‘at cliff's edge'
AFP Aug 13, 2025 14:39 2 min. read News Service Produced externally by an organization we trust to adhere to journalistic standards. Negotiators from 184 countries remained riven Wednesday on how to curb plastic pollution, less than 36 hours before they were slated to deliver a binding global treaty. Diplomats are "at the edge of a cliff," said one official observer. Dozens of ministers have arrived in Geneva to try to break the deadlock as the 10-day talks hurtle towards a close, but widely divergent positions have made the search for a so-called landing zone "very difficult", according to Danish Environment Minister Magnus Heunicke. A new draft of the treaty text, streamlined by the talks chair, is expected later Wednesday, noted several sources. A plenary meeting to take stock of where things stand is scheduled for 19:00. The debate continues to pit the so-called "Like-Minded Group" of chiefly oil-producing countries that refuse restrictions on the production of plastic – a derivative of oil – or certain chemicals thought to be harmful to health against a much larger "high ambition" bloc that favours such measures, which includes the EU. David Azoulay, director of the environmental health programme at the Center for International Environmental Law group, said he expects the new summary text to be "very weak" and a "lowest common denominator", falling short of the treaty's purpose: resolving the global plastic pollution crisis. "Negotiators are at the edge of a cliff," said Pamela Miller, co-chair of the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), which has official observer status. The World Wide Fund for Nature's Eirik Lindebjerg fears last-minute compromises will result in a "bad deal". WWF has identified "more than 150 countries in favour of a ban on certain plastics and toxic products, and 136 keen to strengthen the treaty over time," he said. Graham Forbes, head of the Greenpeace delegation, echoed this sentiment, saying that "ministers must reject a weak treaty". Other observers, however, suggested there was not enough attention given to the industrial transformations required in producing countries for the talks to succeed. "Some are approaching the issue from the perspective of industrial policy, international trade and market access but are not being listened to, while on the other side they are talking about regulation, the environment and health," said Aleksandar Rankovic from The Common Initiative think-tank. "It can't work." (cp)
