logo
Global plastics treaty talks collapse in Geneva, future negotiations uncertain

Global plastics treaty talks collapse in Geneva, future negotiations uncertain

GENEVA: After three years of negotiations, global efforts to finalise the world's first legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution collapsed without agreement in Geneva on Friday. Delegates from nearly 180 countries failed to reach consensus on a draft treaty, revealing deep divisions over the scope of the deal, decision-making procedures, and whether the treaty should address plastic production itself.
Despite night-long discussions and a chaotic final plenary session that stretched into the early hours, negotiators were unable to bridge the widening fault lines. A revised draft text presented by the Chair lacked consensus, and by dawn, a weary room of delegates conceded there would be no deal.
At the heart of the breakdown were conflicting visions. The High Ambition Coalition, made up of over 100 countries including the European Union, African nations, and small island states, pushed for a robust agreement with binding measures to reduce plastic production, phase out single-use items like cutlery and cups, and strengthen reuse and recycling systems. They also called for majority voting rules at future Conferences of the Parties (COP), arguing that consensus-based decision-making could paralyse the treaty.
Opposing them was a bloc of oil-producing nations, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia, which dubbed itself the 'Like-Minded Group'. Backed by India, this coalition resisted any regulation of upstream plastic production and insisted the treaty should focus solely on waste management. They also opposed any move away from consensus decision-making.
India's position was outlined in detail by Neelesh Kumar Sah, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Speaking during the closing plenary, Sah argued that the treaty's scope must align strictly with the original 2022 UNEA 5/14 resolution, meaning it should focus on plastic pollution, not production.
'We look at the treaty as addressing plastic pollution unambiguously, and not to delve into regulating the production of primary plastic polymers,' Sah said. He also rejected the idea of globally mandated phase-outs for specific products or chemicals, and firmly reiterated that all treaty decisions should be made by consensus.
On financing, India warned against any mechanisms that could place an undue burden on developing nations, stressing the need for technology transfer to be mandatory, not voluntary. 'A financial mechanism not based on the Rio Principles will put undue burden on developing countries, defeating the very purpose of fighting plastic pollution,' Sah added.
The final hours of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) were marked by confusion and disarray. The plenary was adjourned near midnight on what was supposed to be the last day, only to be abruptly reconvened at 5:30am, a move that left smaller delegations unprepared and under-resourced. A final draft was only released hours earlier.
Civil society groups voiced strong criticism of the process. 'No treaty is better than a bad treaty,' said Ana Rocha of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). 'Once again, negotiations collapsed, derailed by a chaotic and biased process that left even the most engaged countries struggling to be heard.'
Swathi Seshadri, a petrochemical analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), said that despite the collapse, the urgency remains. 'There is hope, as negotiations will continue in a resumed session. But member states must act quickly. The polymer industry is already facing slower growth, lower margins, and reduced profitability, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, where most expansion is expected. Delay will only deepen the economic and environmental cost,' she said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

In France, Sweltering Is a Climate Virtue
In France, Sweltering Is a Climate Virtue

Hindustan Times

timean hour ago

  • Hindustan Times

In France, Sweltering Is a Climate Virtue

Most of France has been sweltering under a heat wave this week, so naturally air conditioning has become the latest flash point in climate politics. The climate scolds want to prod the public into adopting what they call 'energy sobriety,' and the French are discovering that in practice this means less AC. This summer the French government suggested air conditioning should be used mainly by those 'who are very sensitive to heat (elderly people, etc.),' or who can't open the window at night because it's too loud outside. The advisory urges the rest of the public to opt for a fan instead, draw the blinds, and limit heat emissions from ovens, computers and game consoles. The government added that if you must use AC, don't set it below 78 degrees Fahrenheit, and air condition only one room. While it may be 'tempting to set your air conditioning to a very cool temperature to cool down quickly,' the French state said that's a green faux pas that 'results in excess electricity consumption.' That suggestion may become a mandate. The European Union has issued a goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and this year France issued one of its periodic plans for getting there. The report envisions 'intelligent building control systems' that ensure nobody's setting the temperature lower than authorities want. Meanwhile, the French Education Ministry has promoted a 'passive thermal comfort' guide for schools that includes encouraging children to 'wet their skin' to cope with the heat, among other palliatives. The real cold splash of water is the public's realization that climate obsessions come at a cost, and they'll be the saps sweating under its burden. Marine Le Pen of the insurgent-right National Rally said this summer that she'd support an air-conditioning equipment initiative for the French. She's right to see a hot political opportunity.

No Ukraine Cease-Fire From Putin
No Ukraine Cease-Fire From Putin

Hindustan Times

timean hour ago

  • Hindustan Times

No Ukraine Cease-Fire From Putin

President Trump tried to put the best spin he could Friday on his summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, and the mutual pleasantries were effusive. But the substantive news from the meeting seems to be that Mr. Putin refuses to end his war in Ukraine, and he won't even agree to a temporary cease-fire. The killing that Mr. Trump rightly abhors will apparently continue. Mr. Trump was full of praise for Mr. Putin and said the two 'made some great progress today,' though 'we didn't get there' to an agreement. He offered no details about the 'progress' and announced no end to hostilities. He said they agreed on many things but not on the biggest areas, which presumably means a cease-fire and any compromises on Mr. Putin's war aims. There will be some cautionary relief in Europe that Mr. Trump didn't announce a deal with Mr. Putin that he would present to them as a fait accompli. Instead Mr. Trump said he would call European allies and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky to brief them on what happened in Alaska. There's no deal, he said, until there's a final deal, which suggests he is at least listening to what Ukraine needs to feel secure if an armistice is reached. Mr. Putin for his part gave nothing away on Ukraine. He offered his familiar line that the 'root causes' of the war must be addressed before it can end. By this he means blaming Ukraine for wanting to determine its own future as part of the European Union with security help from NATO countries. It was notable that Mr. Putin spent most of his soliloquy in front of the press flattering Mr. Trump, endorsing the U.S. President's view that the war would never have happened if Mr. Trump had been in office in 2022, and extolling the possibilities for U.S.-Russia business ties. With his economy struggling, Mr. Putin wants financial relief. In that sense the Russian achieved one of his major goals from the summit, which is the start of his rehabilitation as a world leader. The summit ended his isolation from the West, and he gave up nothing for it. He also appears to have gained more time to continue bombing Ukrainian cities and slowly taking more territory. It isn't clear what Mr. Trump gained. He had told the press that he would be angry if no cease-fire emerged from the parley, but Mr. Trump showed no pique afterward. Perhaps there was some quiet concession Mr. Trump will take back to Ukraine, and if so we will know that soon enough. If there was nothing but niceties and a Putin stonewall, then Mr. Trump will have to decide if he will follow through on the red lines he has drawn. On Wednesday he had promised 'very severe consequences' if Mr. Putin didn't agree to end the war. Will he now move to impose sanctions on such buyers of Russian oil as China and Turkey as he has India? Or will he agree to a second summit, as Mr. Putin seems to want, in hope that next time will be different? Mr. Trump's desire to be a peacemaker is laudable, but in Vladimir Putin he is dealing with a hard man who has his eyes fixed on conquering Ukraine sooner or later. Mr. Putin will only bend from that goal if he sees a unified West determined to deny him that victory and willing to impose severe costs if he continues his march of death in Ukraine.

Danish PM says Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has become a ‘problem'
Danish PM says Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has become a ‘problem'

The Hindu

time3 hours ago

  • The Hindu

Danish PM says Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has become a ‘problem'

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said on Saturday (August 16, 2025) that Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu has become a 'problem', adding she would try to put pressure on Israel over the Gaza war as her country currently holds the European Union (EU) presidency. 'Netanyahu is now a problem in himself,' Ms. Frederiksen said in an interview with the Jyllands-Posten daily, adding that the Israeli government was going 'too far.' The centre-right leader slammed the 'absolutely appalling and catastrophic' humanitarian situation in Gaza and the new settlement project in the occupied West Bank. 'We are one of the countries that wants to increase pressure on Israel, but we have not yet obtained the support of EU members,' she said. Ms. Frederiksen added that she wanted to consider 'political pressure, sanctions, whether against settlers, Ministers, or even Israel as a whole', referring to trade or research sanctions. Also read: 146 countries now recognise a Palestinian state 'We are not ruling anything out in advance. Just as with Russia, we are designing the sanctions to target where we believe they will have the greatest effect,' added Ms. Frederiksen, whose country is not among those who have said they will recognise the Palestine. The October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Gaza's Hamas rulers resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of official figures. Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed more than 61,430 Palestinians, mainly civilians, according to figures from Gaza's Hamas-run Health Ministry, which the United Nations considers reliable.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store