Global deal to tackle plastic pollution fails again
The talks were convened in 2022 in response to the mounting scientific evidence of the risks of plastic pollution to human health and the environment.Despite the benefits of plastic to almost every sector, scientists are particularly concerned about potentially toxic chemicals they contain, which can leach out as plastics break down into smaller pieces.Microplastics have been detected in soils, rivers, the air and even organs throughout the human body.Countries had an original deadline to get a deal over the line at the end of December last year, but failed to meet this. The collapse of the latest talks means they fall further behind. Speaking on behalf of the island states, the northern Pacific nation of Palau, said on Friday: "We are repeatedly returning home with insufficient progress to show our people.""It is unjust for us to face the brunt of yet another global environmental crisis we contribute minimally to," it added.
The core dividing line between countries has remained the same throughout: whether the treaty should tackle plastics at source – by reducing production – or focus on managing the pollution that comes from it.The largest oil-producing nations view plastics, which are made using fossil fuels, as a vital part of their future economies, particularly as the world begins to move away from petrol and diesel towards electric cars.The group, which includes Saudi Arabia and Russia, argue that better waste collection and recycling infrastructure is the best way of solving the problem, a view shared by many of the producers themselves."Plastics are fundamental for modern life - they go in everything," said Ross Eisenberg, president of America's Plastic Makers, a trade association for the plastic production industry in the United States."Focusing on ending plastic pollution should be the priority here, not ending plastic production," he added, warning that attempts to substitute plastics with other materials could lead to "unintended consequences".But many researchers warn that this approach is fundamentally flawed. Global recycling rates are estimated at only about 10%, with limits on how far that can rise."Even if we manage to boost that over the next few decades to 15, 20, 30%, it would remain a substantial amount that is polluting the environment and damaging human health," said Dr Costas Velis, associate professor in Waste and Resource Engineering at Imperial College London."Therefore, we do need to improve recycling… but we cannot really hope that this is going to solve all the aspects of plastic," he added.Plastic production has already risen from two million tonnes in 1950 to about 475 million in 2022 – and it is expected to keep rising without extra measures.Nearly 100 countries, which include the UK and EU, had been pushing for curbs to production in the treaty and more consistent design globally to make recycling easier. This could be as simple as requiring plastic bottles to be one colour - when dyes are used the products only fetch half the value of clear bottles.This approach was supported by major plastic packagers, including Nestle and Unilever, who are part of the Business Coalition headed up by the Ellen McArthur Foundation.The Coalition also said countries should better align their schemes to add a small levy on plastic products to help pay for recycling efforts, known as extended producer responsibility. The group estimates that could double revenues for countries to $576bn (£425bn) between now and 2040.
Talks were due to end on Thursday but countries continued to negotiate into the night in the hopes of breaking a deadlock.The chair, Luis Vayas from Ecuador, did produce a new text which seemed to align more closely with the request of the UK group.Speaking at the final meeting the EU delegation he said: "We see the outcome of this session as a good basis of future negotiations."However, the oil states remained deeply unhappy. Saudi Arabia said it found the process of negotiating "problematic" whilst Kuwait said its views were "not reflected".But many environmental groups, reacting to the collapse, railed against what they see as prioritisation of profit by oil states over the health of the planet.Graham Forbes, Greenpeace head of delegation to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, said: "The inability to reach an agreement in Geneva must be a wakeup call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head on."The vast majority of governments want a strong agreement, yet a handful of bad actors were allowed to use process to drive such ambition into the ground."
Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to keep up with the latest climate and environment stories with the BBC's Justin Rowlatt. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
38 minutes ago
- Spectator
Unesco status is killing Bath
Last month, the Trump administration announced that the United States would once again withdraw from Unesco, the Paris-based UN cultural agency responsible for World Heritage Sites, education initiatives, and cultural programmes worldwide. The official line? Unesco promotes 'woke, divisive cultural and social causes' and its 'globalist, ideological agenda' clashes with America First policy. Predictably, the Trump administration framed it as a culture-war grievance. But, set aside the politics, and it soon becomes clear that Trump might not be entirely wrong. Unesco – founded in 1945 with the lofty mission of promoting peace and global cooperation through culture, education, and science – has devolved into something far less edifying. Once led by artists, architects, and scholars, Unesco's World Heritage Committee has become the Fifa of culture: a fiefdom of bureaucrats, political journeymen and international grifters who drift between departments, NGOs and consultancies with no accountability, while the list of sites has ballooned to 1,248. Its $1.5 billion annual budget fuels a self-perpetuating treadmill of capacity-building workshops, unread reports and relentless reputation polishing. The consequences are not merely abstract for Bath, a Unesco World Heritage Site since 1987. Some World Heritage Sites are a single chapel, a medieval bridge, or a protected ruin; Bath's listing covers the entire city – all 94,000 residents, its suburban sprawl, its industrial remnants, and its everyday working streets. The designation treats the Georgian crescents and Roman baths as inseparable from the supermarkets, car parks, and 1970s infill, meaning almost any change anywhere must be weighed against the city's 'Outstanding Universal Value.' At the same time, the city is grappling with a record housing crisis: house prices are more than 13 times annual earnings, social housing demand is soaring, and temporary accommodation has reached a 20-year high. Homelessness services like Julian House's Manvers Street hostel operate far beyond capacity, providing nearly 97,000 bed spaces last year alone while struggling to secure their own roof. But Bath's heritage status means it is almost impossible to get anything built. Although Unesco status carries no direct legal force in the UK, it is woven into planning policy through the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, which bars development deemed harmful to the 'qualities justifying the inscription' or its setting. In practice, this gives opponents of change a powerful rhetorical weapon: they need only invoke 'Outstanding Universal Value' to wrap their case in the prestige of an international mandate. The result is a permanent, low-level threat – that almost any proposal, however modest, might be cast as an affront to world heritage and fought on those grounds. In 2024, residents were warned that the city's Unesco status was 'at risk' after the council approved the replacement of former industrial units on Wells Road with 77 'co-living' apartments. The planning committee split four to four, with the chair casting the tiebreaker vote in favour. Councillors raised concerns about the building's bulk and potential 'cumulative impact' on the World Heritage Site, with one declaring the city was 'sailing close to the wind with Unesco.' It is extraordinary: a city struggling to house its own people, yet officials can menace its international status over a modest block of flats. Meanwhile, residents in nearby Saltford – whose own Grade II* Saltford Manor dates to the 12th century and is thought to be Britain's oldest continuously inhabited house – watch as Bath's tight planning restrictions push the housing burden outwards. With 1,300 new homes proposed for its green belt, the village faces development on a scale it can't sustain, without the infrastructure or political protection to resist it. Phil Harding, head of the Saltford Environmental Group and a resident for more than 30 years, recently made headlines when he spoke out about the impact of Bath's World Heritage status on neighbouring communities. 'I'm not against new housing, I'm against putting housing in the wrong place,' he says. Bath, he notes, is already a fantastic city that draws tourists in its own right, and Unesco status 'makes no difference.' The real problem, he adds, is that World Heritage designation makes it 'incredibly hard to build in Bath,' pushing development into nearby villages. Much of the employment for new arrivals will still be in Bath, leaving Saltford to shoulder the burden – green belt land lost, congestion rising, local services stretched – without enjoying the benefits. 'Bath doesn't need World Heritage Status,' he concludes. 'It distorts planning priorities, forcing the city to preserve appearances while shifting the real costs onto neighbouring communities.' It may sound unthinkable, but losing that status is hardly fatal. Liverpool provides the example: once celebrated for its maritime mercantile cityscape, it was stripped of Unesco recognition in 2021 after the agency judged that recent and planned developments had caused an 'irreversible loss' of the site's Outstanding Universal Value. Among the contested projects was Everton FC's new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, which required filling in part of the historic dock to accommodate a 52,000-seat arena. Even the Guardian acknowledged it as 'the most striking, ambitious addition to the waterfront since the Three Graces were built in the early 1900s.' The £800 million stadium formed part of a broader £1.3 billion regeneration plan, projected to create over 15,000 jobs and attract more than 1.4 million visitors annually. The city did not crumble: regeneration pressed ahead, docks were revitalised, neighbourhoods transformed and tourism continued to flourish. The lesson is plain – Unesco's imprimatur is not the secret ingredient of urban vitality, and its objections can just as easily hinder development as they can protect it. If Unesco were merely symbolic, that would be one thing. But the status is far from meaningless: it exerts moral and political pressure, informs planning guidance, and lends weight to the opinions of advisory bodies like Historic England. For Bath, this translates into a city where development proposals are scrutinised through the lens of 'Outstanding Universal Value,' with councillors warned that new flats or infrastructure might unsettle international sensibilities. The result is a city frozen in amber, preserved more for the approval of tourists rather than for the people who actually live and work there. So when the America First brigade lashes out at Unesco, it is tempting to roll our eyes. But there is a logic to that disdain. World Heritage labels are increasingly badges for the international jet set, not the local people. The US may be leaving for its own vanity, but the reasoning – that Unesco is corrupt, politicised, and more interested in theatre than preservation – hits the mark. For cities like Bath, the real question isn't whether Unesco might disapprove, but why on earth they should care.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Vladimir Putin will be laughing all the way back to the Kremlin
'There's no deal until there's a deal' and 'we didn't get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there.' Speaking at his press conference with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Donald Trump was probably trying to convey optimism about the trajectory of the negotiations to bring the war in Ukraine to an end. Instead, his words encapsulated the shallowness of the first US-Russia presidential summit in four years. The Alaska summit was a highly predictable failure. During the immediate build-up to the talks, Russian forces seized 10km of territory around Pokrovsk. Ukraine responded by firing drones on Russian oil giant Rosneft's Syzran refinery in Samara. Russian state media outlets accused Ukraine of instigating provocations to derail the talks. Yuriy Shchygol, a Ukrainian Brigadier General, vowed to continue drone strikes until Russia ended the war.
Sky News
4 hours ago
- Sky News
What we expected from the Trump-Putin summit - and what actually happened
A warm handshake, big smiles, and a red carpet - this was the welcome for Vladimir Putin as he touched down on US soil for critical negotiations on the war in Ukraine. There had been much build-up to the summit in Anchorage, Alaska,not least from Donald Trump himself - with the US president having threatened "severe" consequences for Russia should it not go well. But more than two-and-a-half hours of talks resulted in just a brief news conference with little detail given away - and ultimately, no talk of a ceasefire and no deal on Ukraine reached yet. Here is what was expected from the meeting - based on information from the White House, Mr Trump and the Kremlin beforehand - and what happened on the night. One-on-one turned into three-on-three It was thought this would be a one-on-one meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Putin. Instead, the US president was joined by US secretary of state Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff, while the Russian leader was supported by his foreign affairs advisor Yuri Ushakov and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov. The change seemed to indicate the White House was perhaps taking a more guarded approach than during a 2018 meeting in Helsinki, where Mr Trump and Mr Putin met privately with interpreters. The US leader then shocked the world by siding with the Russian leader over US intelligence officials on whether Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential campaign. Mr Putin was given the kind of reception typically reserved for close US allies, belying the bloodshed and the suffering in the war he started. The two men greeted each other with a handshake and a smiling Mr Trump even applauded the Russian president as he approached him on the red carpet. Our international affairs editor Dominic Waghorn, in Kyiv, gauged the Ukrainian reaction to the arrival - and said people were furious at the welcome extended by the Trump team. Images of US soldiers on their knees, unfurling the red carpet at the steps of the Russian leader's plane, went viral, he said, with social media "lit up with fury, anger, and disgust". He added: "There are different ways of welcoming a world leader to this type of event, and Trump has gone all out to give a huge welcome to Putin, which is sticking in the craw of Ukrainians." Any questions? Plenty. But no one was really given a chance to ask. Ahead of the talks, cameras were allowed inside for just a minute - and while this was enough time for a few journalists to shout some questions, these were ignored by the two leaders. "President Putin, will you stop killing civilians?" one shouted. In response, Mr Putin put his hand up to his ear as if he could not hear. In their brief media conference after the talks, Mr Putin spoke for almost nine minutes, while Trump took just three-and-a-half to say what he wanted to say. The two men then did not stay to answer questions from reporters. Before the event, the Kremlin said it could last between six and seven hours, but the whole visit lasted about four-and-a-half hours. 'Severe consequences' Ever since his inauguration in January, Mr Trump had been threatening serious consequences for Russia should a deal on Ukraine not be reached soon. Just two days after the ceremony, he took to social media to declare there could be "high levels of taxes, tariffs and sanctions" and called for an end to the "ridiculous" war. In February, he held what he described as a "productive" call with the Russian leader, and about two weeks later he infamously berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a visit to the Oval Office - this one taking place in front of the world's media. In July, he started to set deadlines for an end to the war - first giving Mr Putin 50 days and later reducing this to "10 or 12 days", before announcing the summit last week. Yesterday, Mr Trump insisted his Russian counterpart was "not going to mess around with me". However, while both men insisted the talks were "productive", it is not clear what agreements have been reached, and whether Ukraine is any closer to finding peace. The word ceasefire was not mentioned by either leader. Instead, they praised each other, with Mr Trump describing Mr Putin's remarks as "very profound" - and there was no mention of sanctions. A meeting with Mr Zelenskyy? It was expected that after the talks, Mr Trump could set the table for the next meeting with the Ukrainian president. While he said he would call Mr Zelenskyy, he made no public commitment to a meeting during the media conference. In an interview with Fox News after the summit, he said Russia and Ukraine would set a date to discuss next steps and a potential ceasefire deal, but did not provide further details on specifics or timings. "They're going to set up a meeting now, between President Zelenskyy and President Putin and myself, I guess," Mr Trump said. He also said that European nations "have to get involved a little bit" but it is "really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done". Putin brought his own limo - but travelled in The Beast instead After shaking hands on the red carpet, the two leaders made their way towards their waiting vehicles. But despite Mr Putin arriving with his "Aurus" limousine, and it being spotted on the tarmac near the planes, he got into the American presidential limousine, known as "the Beast", to travel to the meeting location. The Russian president was seen with a wide smile on his face, while Mr Trump appeared to be waving to the crowds.
