Plastic pollution talks go into overtime as countries push for late breakthrough
GENEVA - Talks to create the world's first legally binding treaty to tackle plastic pollution went into overtime on Thursday, with talks adjourned to the following day.
Countries scrambled to bridge deep divisions over the extent of future curbs on what was meant to be the final day of negotiations at the United Nations in Geneva.
But with just 30 minutes left in the scheduled meeting, the chair of the talks of the International Negotiating Committee (INC), Luis Vayas Valdivieso, told delegates the negotiations would run into Friday.
The INC is a group established by the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in 2022 with the mandate to develop a legally binding global treaty to address plastic pollution.
Late Thursday night, countries had been awaiting a new text that could be the basis for further negotiations after delegations who want an ambitious plastics treaty threw out the one proposed on Wednesday.
States pushing for a comprehensive treaty, including Panama, Kenya, Britain and the European Union, shared frustration that key articles on the full life cycle of plastic pollution - from the production of polymers to the disposal of waste - as well as the harm to health had been removed entirely from the text.
Oil-producing nations are against curbs on the production of virgin plastics derived from petroleum, coal, and gas, while others want it to be limited and to have stricter controls over plastic products and hazardous chemicals.
'You cannot reconcile these two positions, and so I think that the chair will keep on trying. I don't know if he can, and if he can't, it will be time to seriously think about how to move forward,' David Azoulay, the managing attorney of the Center for International Environmental Law's Geneva Office, told Reuters.
EU Commissioner Jessika Roswall said a 'weak, static agreement serves no one.'
'A treaty that covers the full life cycle of plastics and can evolve with science is a vital step ... The next few hours will show whether we can rise to the moment,' she said in a statement.
Panama described Wednesday's draft text as 'repulsive' and called for a complete rewrite.
Saudi Arabia, which is resisting major curbs, said nothing could be agreed until the treaty's scope was clearly defined.
More than 1,000 delegates have gathered in Geneva for the sixth round of talks, after a meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee in South Korea late last year ended without a deal.
Advocacy groups held a banner and chanted against a 'weak treaty' on Thursday as they waited for delegates to arrive in the U.N. plenary hall in Geneva for further discussions.
The OECD warns that without intervention, plastic production will triple by 2060, further choking oceans, harming health, and exacerbating climate change.
Compromise
Norwegian Minister of Climate and Environment Andreas Bjelland Eriksen, co-chair of the High Ambition Countries group, told Reuters that all parties need to compromise.
'We are willing to discuss all articles, three, six, for example, to be able to create the package that can be good enough for everyone,' he said, pointing to potential openness to re-discussing restrictions on chemicals and production.
Ross Eisenberg, president of America's Plastic Makers, which is part of the American Chemistry Council, said he was optimistic.
'We think this can be really good for our industry, society, and for the environment,' he told Reuters.
The council, which supports a deal without limits on plastic production, warned that the U.S. might not ratify a treaty containing provisions to ban chemicals or restrict plastic production.
However, Colombian lawmaker Juan Carlos Lozada urged that no deal would be better than a watered-down deal.
Some 300 businesses, including Unilever, have pressed for an ambitious treaty that harmonizes rules globally.
'If we don't get that degree of harmonization, we risk further fragmentation ... and higher costs,' Ed Shepherd, senior global sustainability manager at Unilever, told Reuters.
Reporting by Olivia Le Poidevin and Emma Farge in Geneva; additional reporting by Alexander Marrow in London; editing by Giles Elgood, Marguerita Choy and Stephen Coates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
8 hours ago
- CTV News
Anand says Trump talks could be opportunity for allies to enact Ukraine security plan
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand, left, and Finnish Foreign Affairs Minister Elina Valtonen address the media at a press conference after a meeting with foreign ministers from Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland at the Finnish Nature Centre Haltia in Espoo, Finland Monday, Aug. 19, 2025. (Roni Rekomaa/Lehtikuva via AP) OTTAWA — Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand says Trump's talks with Russia and Ukraine could provide the opening for Ottawa and its peers to put plans into action to secure Kyiv's future. Anand says Canada and its peers have been talking about 'stable security guarantees' for Ukraine for more than two years. She says Canada and 30 other countries are in active talks about identifying structure and obligations for how they can help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty. Prime Minister Mark Carney took part in a virtual call this morning with the Coalition of the Willing, a group of nations who have offered to help fund or staff a peacekeeping force on Ukrainian territory. That call came one day after U.S. President Donald Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders at the White House, a few days after Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Alaska. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt says Trump will not have American soldiers on the ground, but says the U.S. is open to co-ordinating security for Ukraine and might provide air support. Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press
Globe and Mail
9 hours 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
12 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
How did Air Canada lose hearts and minds? Two words: ‘unpaid work'
Wait, the strike is over? Already? Weren't Air Canada and its flight attendants dug in for an epic confrontation, filled with back-to-work orders, law-breaking union leaders and so forth – labour vs. capital, red in tooth and claw? And now, suddenly, they have an agreement? What happened? What happened is Air Canada blinked. The airline had been counting on the government to have its back in any negotiations. As, for a time, it did. The day the strike began – was it only last Saturday? – the government invoked Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, referring the issue to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which duly ordered the union to return to work, pending binding arbitration of the dispute. The government probably reckoned on the backlash this would arouse among the broader labour movement. It didn't reckon on public opinion rallying to the union's side. That appears to have thoroughly spooked the government, which I suspect is why Air Canada caved. What turned the issue for the union wasn't the strike, or the back-to-work order, but two words: 'unpaid work.' A great number of people who ought to know better were persuaded that Air Canada is engaged in a kind of high-altitude slavery. Others, who did know better, preferred to pretend they didn't – I'm looking at you, Conservatives. Air Canada and flight attendants reach tentative deal. Here's what you need to know Opinion: Air Canada, the airline oligopoly and the abused consumer Contrary to much credulous reporting, Air Canada's flight attendants are not paid 'less than the minimum wage.' Median compensation runs to about $54,000 a year – considerably more, when various benefits, including heavily discounted travel, are included. New hires, it is true, make more like $20,000. But flight attendants only put in about 70-80 hours in the air a month. Not a week: a month. This is where the unpaid work argument comes in. Yes, flight attendants are only 'credited' for the 70-odd hours they spend serving passengers in-flight, but what about all the time they put in before and after: boarding, deplaning, dealing with delays, and so on? The union claims this adds up to another 35 hours a month, on average. Unpaid work! It sounds barbaric, if you don't stop to think about it for more than a second. Most jobs include some element of unpaid work. Teachers prepare lessons ahead of class. Nurses stay late to finish charting or prepare medications. Why, even journalists put in hours off the clock, transcribing interviews or travelling for a story. In all these, it's understood that working late or early is part of the business. When you're deciding whether to take a job, you look at the whole package – not only the formal hours, but the informal, and not only the salary, but the benefits. That's been the case for decades in the airline industry. It does not seem to have led to any shortage of applicants. Neither did the union see fit to make 'unpaid work' part of any of its previous collective agreements. Which isn't to say Air Canada's flight attendants should be contented with their lot. They're arguably underpaid, compared to their American cousins, especially at the higher end. The union, you might say, has some explaining to do. So in this round it appeared determined to play catchup. Problem: demand to be paid up to 50 per cent more, you might look greedy, or unreasonable. (The company had offered 38 per cent over four years.) But demand to be paid for unpaid work – so-called 'ground pay' – and the world falls at your feet. Of course, the unpaid work argument is unlikely to impress management. Unlike some people, they can do basic math: whether they're paying $30 an hour for 70 hours – plus 35 hours unbilled – or $20 an hour for 105 hours, it's all the same to them. The company has a certain number of person-hours of labour it needs done, for which it is prepared to pay a certain amount in total compensation. The only thing that will change its mind is raw bargaining power. Clearly management thought it had the power. With nearly 50 per cent of domestic flying capacity, Air Canada is not just 'too big to fail,' but 'too big to strike.' Too many people would be inconvenienced. The government would have to step in, just as it has in so many similar situations. But management is not the intended audience of the unpaid work argument. The public, the media and the politicians are. And on them, it worked like a charm. In a heavily politicized industry like air travel, that, rather than simple market share, is what determines bargaining power. Live by the polls, die by the polls.
