World plastic pollution treaty talks collapse with no deal
Global talks in Geneva to create a treaty addressing plastic pollution collapsed. Nations could not agree on key issues. Some countries wanted to curb plastic production. Others preferred focusing on waste management. The failure disappointed many nations. They expressed desires to continue negotiations. Environmental groups criticized the process. They warned of continued environmental damage.
AP Plastic items are displayed at an artwork by Canadian artist and activist Benjamin Von Wong, titled "The Thinker's Burden", during the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution, at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday, Aug. 15, 2025. Talks aimed at striking a landmark global treaty on plastic pollution fell apart Friday as countries failed to find consensus on how the world should tackle the ever-growing scourge.Negotiators from 185 nations worked beyond Thursday's deadline and through the night in an ultimately futile search for common ground.A large bloc wants bold action such as curbing plastic production, while a smaller clutch of oil-producing states want to focus more narrowly on waste management.The stalemate was a resounding failure for the environment and for international diplomacy at a time when its frailties are in the spotlight.Countries voiced anger and despair as the talks unravelled, but said they wanted future negotiations -- despite six rounds of talks over three years now having failed to find agreement.
"We have missed a historic opportunity but we have to keep going and act urgently," said Cuba.Colombia added: "The negotiations were consistently blocked by a small number of states who simply don't want an agreement."Tuvalu, speaking for 14 Pacific small island developing states, said: "For our islands this means that without global cooperation and state action, millions of tonnes of plastic waste will continue to be dumped in our oceans, affecting our ecosystem, food security, livelihood and culture."The High Ambition Coalition, which includes the European Union, Britain and Canada, and many African and Latin American countries, wanted to see language on reducing plastic production and the phasing out of toxic chemicals used in plastics.The cluster of mostly oil-producing states calling themselves the Like-Minded Group -- including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia, Iran, and Malaysia -- want a much narrower remit.These countries railed against the negotiations being based on the entire life-cycle of plastic: from the petroleum-derived substance right through to waste."Our views were not reflected... without an agreed scope, this process cannot remain on the right track," said Kuwait.Bahrain said it wanted a treaty that "does not penalise developing countries for exploiting their own resources".France's Ecological Transition Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher said: "I am disappointed, and I am angry," blaming a handful of countries, "guided by short-term financial interests", for blocking an ambitious treaty.
"Oil-producing countries and their allies have chosen to look the other way," she said. The talks in Geneva -- called after the collapse of the fifth and supposedly final round of talks in South Korea late last year -- opened on August 5.With countries far apart, Vayas produced two different draft texts on Wednesday and early Friday. The first was immediately shredded by countries, but while the second gained some traction, by sunrise, the game was up.Talks chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso said the session had merely been adjourned rather than ended.He told AFP that countries and the secretariat "will be working to try to find a date and also a place" for resuming the talks.The negotiations were hosted by the UN Environment Programme.UNEP chief Inger Andersen told AFP that the Geneva talks had fleshed out the deeper details of where countries' red lines were. "They've exchanged on these red lines amongst one another -- that's a very important step," she said.However, environmental NGOs warned that without radically changing the process to better reflect the majority view, future talks would hit the same dead end -- while plastic garbage would continue choking the environment.The Center for International Environmental Law's David Azoulay said the talks had been an "abject failure" because some countries were out to "block any attempt at advancing a viable treaty"."We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result," said Greenpeace's delegation head Graham Forbes, blaming "fossil fuel interests" and "a handful of bad actors" for exploiting the consensus-based process to skewer meaningful action.The World Wide Fund for Nature said the talks exposed how consensus decision-making "had now "outplayed its role in international environmental negotiations". More than 400 million tonnes of plastic are produced globally each year, half of which is for single-use items.While 15 percent of plastic waste is collected for recycling, only nine percent is actually recycled.Nearly half, or 46 percent, ends up in landfills, while 17 percent is incinerated and 22 percent is mismanaged and becomes litter.
The plastic pollution problem is so ubiquitous that microplastics have been found on the highest mountain peaks, in the deepest ocean trench and scattered throughout almost every part of the human body. On current trends, annual production of fossil-fuel-based plastics will nearly triple by 2060 to 1.2 billion tonnes, while waste will exceed one billion tonnes, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Five dangerous fault lines divide Trump and Zelensky
On August 18th Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, will enter the White House to meet Donald Trump and discuss ending the war in Ukraine . For Mr Zelensky it is a perilous moment. Since Mr Trump met Vladimir Putin , Russia's president, in Alaska on August 15th, the American president has put intense pressure on Mr Zelensky, stating that he could 'end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to'. The leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Finland and the European Union fear the White House will sell out Ukraine and Europe, and are rushing to Washington to support Mr Zelensky. 'Never had so many European leaders at one time,' wrote Mr Trump. 'My great honour to host them!' What are the contours of the negotiations? In the past 48 hours there has been a swirl of speculation and public comments by Team Trump. It is hard to know what the president is thinking. But five critical issues for any peace deal are likely to be discussed: sequencing, territory, security guarantees, sanctions and recognition. In each case, America will struggle to bridge the demands of Mr Putin with those of Ukraine and Europe. Map Start with sequencing, where Mr Trump has already all but folded to Mr Putin, dropping his demand that Russia should agree to a ceasefire ahead of formal peace talks. The Kremlin is keen to negotiate while the fighting still rages. On Sunday Mr Zelensky insisted that Ukraine would not begin talks with Russia 'under the pressure of weapons'. But that position—already undercut by Mr Trump's cosy bilateral meeting with Mr Putin—can probably not withstand for long American pressure to force Ukraine to the table. If the discussion moves straight to 'final' peace talks, the second issue is terrain, or what Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's envoy, calls 'land swaps'. Russia controls all of Crimea, which it seized and annexed in 2014. Mr Trump says that the peninsula will remain in Russian hands. But Russia also claims and has formally annexed four provinces in southern and eastern Ukraine which its troops do not entirely control (see map). One proposal, which Mr Witkoff hinted at on Sunday, is reportedly for Ukraine to cede Donetsk and Luhansk entirely to Russia, including the areas that it does not presently control—and which British defence intelligence suggests could require four-plus years and more than 1.9m casualties to take on present trends. In exchange Russia would freeze the front lines in Kherson and Zaporizhia. It would also withdraw from the pockets of territory that it controls in Sumy and Kharkhiv, two northern provinces. Much of this would be anathema to Ukraine. 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier,' Mr Zelensky has said. The terrain in question in Donetsk and to an extent in Luhansk, is especially important because it is heavily fortified by Ukraine's army. Without it Ukraine would find it harder to defend the rest of the country against future Russian attacks. How to make any agreement on borders binding leads to the third issue: security guarantees. America has suggested that Ukraine's membership of NATO (an aspiration the alliance promised in 2008 to fulfil and which is enshrined in the country's constitution) is off the table. Forswearing NATO membership for Ukraine has long been a key Russian demand. Yet on Sunday Mr Witkoff claimed that America could offer some kind of guarantee, modelled on NATO's Article 5, a mutual-defence clause. Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, put more emphasis on guarantees from Europe. 'It would be a very big move by the President if he were to offer a US commitment to a security guarantee. That will be his decision to make.' But the detail matters: in earlier talks, in 2022, Russia appeared to agree to international guarantees, but demanded a clause that would have given it a veto on any assistance to Ukraine. Closely related to that is the question of boots on the ground. Britain has said it could send troops to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping force. But whether a European-only force is really credible is open to question. Very few troops have been promised for such a force, despite months of discussion. If America does not take part in a credible security guarantee European countries will push hard to at least secure promises about the supply of weapons from America. Mr Putin may try to push for limits on the flow of arms to Ukraine from the West. A priority for Russia is sanctions relief, the fourth issue. Mr Trump has used both threats of more financial warfare and the promise of future business deals as negotiating tools. On the one hand, he has threatened big importers of Russian oil, such as India, with swingeing tariffs. On the other, he and his team have dangled energy co-operation in the Arctic and other business partnerships. Russia's economy, which has weathered the impact of harsh Western sanctions since 2022, is beginning to feel the strain. Officials, who warn of a recession later this year, badly want the restrictions lifted. Here, Europe has some leverage. America would struggle to ease the economic strain on Russia without the full co-operation of Europe, which has a critical role in global banking, insurance, energy and shipping markets. Furthermore roughly two-thirds of the Russian central bank's foreign reserves that the West froze in 2022— thought to be worth more than $300bn—are are held in Brussels. Europe may be reluctant to release them if Mr Trump's deal weakens Ukraine. The final critical issue is recognition of any deal. Ukraine's constitution would require any 'land swap' to be put to a referendum, in which voters would almost certainly reject it. European leaders would be reluctant to endorse any deal that permanently recognises borders that have been altered by force. Whether America would do so for the sake of a peace deal is unclear. It is possible that America could recognise Russia's claim to Crimea, but not to other areas. Another fudge is for Europe to recognise the ceasefire line as a de-facto border without renouncing its view that Ukraine's pre-invasion border is the legitimate one. Mr Trump's meeting with Mr Zelensky and Ukraine's European allies will be a high-wire act of diplomacy. The brief, separate statements that Mr Trump and Mr Putin gave on August 15th, without taking questions from journalists, suggest that their plans are fragile. Mr Trump says he wants to bring the war to an end. For Ukraine and Europe the fear is that Mr Trump tries to force them to accept bad terms on the five key issues, and then threatens to abandon or punish Ukraine and Europe if they refuse. If this is how the talks turn out, Mr Putin will be the clear winner.
India Today
2 minutes ago
- India Today
Trump interrupts talks with European leaders to call Putin: Report
US President Donald Trump interrupted a high-stakes White House meeting with European leaders on Monday to place a call to Russian President Vladimir Putin, an EU diplomat told talks are expected to resume afterward, the diplomat added, noting Trump had initially indicated the call would come only after consultations with his European interruption occurred as Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy alongside the leaders of Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Finland, the European Union, and the secretary-general of NATO. Germany's Bild newspaper first reported the 'We'll try to work out a trilateral with the US, Ukraine and Russia,' Trump had told reporters earlier in the day, adding, 'Putin really would like to do something.'The talks with Zelenskyy and European leaders were due to resume after the call. European officials are pushing Trump to secure binding security guarantees for Ukraine, while Zelenskyy has made clear that any peace deal must avoid territorial Zelenskyy and Trump expressed optimism on Monday that high-stakes White House talks with European leaders could open the door to trilateral negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin aimed at ending the war in summit followed Trump's recent meeting with Putin in Alaska, after which he suggested that the responsibility now rests with Zelenskyy to consider concessions that, in his view, could bring the conflict to an end.- Ends
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Well-mannered White House welcome for Ukraine leaves many questions
By Trevor Hunnicutt and Gram Slattery Well-mannered White House welcome for Ukraine leaves many questions WASHINGTON, - U.S. President Donald Trump gathered European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for a hastily arranged White House meeting on Monday to discuss a path to ending Russia's war in Ukraine. Here are takeaways from the talks: WARM TONE, LITTLE SUBSTANCE Seven European leaders, the Ukrainian president, their motorcades, dozens of Trump administration staff and more than 100 journalists swarmed the White House campus on Monday in anticipation of the unusual meeting. Would Trump and Zelenskiy agree on a path to peace? Or would their latest Oval Office session devolve into a bitter squabble as in February? Neither scenario occurred. Zelenskiy, chided for his appearance and manner in February, adjusted both. Wearing more formal clothing and repeatedly expressing his gratitude to Trump, he was greeted by a far more complimentary U.S. president than in the past. But, despite Trump's vow to assist in Ukraine's security after a hypothetical peace deal, there was no immediate sign that any party had substantially changed position on land swaps, security guarantees or sanctions. Instead, Trump ended with promises to host a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to address the many remaining issues. HEING PRAISE "Have you said 'thank you' once?" U.S. Vice President JD Vance asked Zelenskiy in February, accusing him of failing to show sufficient gratitude for U.S. support. On Monday, Zelenskiy made sure that was not an issue. His opening remarks in the Oval Office included eight thank-yous, mostly for Trump. "Thank you so much, Mr. President ... thank you for your attention. Thank you very much for your efforts, personal efforts to stop killings and stop this war. Thank you," Zelenskiy said. He included the U.S. first lady, who sent a letter to Putin about abducted children in Ukraine. "Using this opportunity, my thanks to your wife," the Ukrainian president said. "And thanks to all our partners and that you supported this format. And after our meeting, we're going to have leaders who are around us, the UK and France, Germany... all partners around Ukraine supporting us. Thanks them. Thank you very much for your invitation." Unlike in February, Vance this time sat largely silent. COMBAT FORMAL The stakes of the meeting could not have been higher. But one of the most-asked questions among diplomats in D.C. could not have been more frivolous: Would the Ukrainian president wear a suit? The answer: kind of. Zelenskiy showed up to the White House in what one European diplomat described as "almost a suit." His black jacket had tiny lapels and jetted chest pockets. He did not wear a tie. His attire, which split the difference between the battlefield and the boardroom, could be described as combat formal. Those sartorial details matter when it comes to dealing with the U.S. president, who was upset that Zelenskiy did not wear a suit for their February meeting. Zelenskiy passed the fashion test this time, however. When one journalist in the Oval Office said Zelenskiy looked "fabulous," Trump chimed in to agree. "I said the same thing," Trump told reporters. DIVIDE OVER CEASEFIRE The assembled European leaders, Zelenskiy included, were careful to paper over policy disagreements with Trump, keeping their comments vague and showering the U.S. president with compliments. But one point of disagreement did bubble to the surface. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told the assembled leaders and media that he wanted to see Putin agree to a ceasefire. Trump had long pushed for a ceasefire in Ukraine. But he largely jettisoned that goal after meeting with Putin last week in Alaska, a shift that was widely seen as a diplomatic defeat for Ukraine. The U.S. president now says he is fine trying to move directly to a peace deal. "To be honest, we all would like to see a ceasefire," Merz said. "I can't imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire, so let's work on that." Trump pushed back, arguing he has solved many conflicts without first reaching a ceasefire. WHOSE BOOTS ON THE GROUND? One of the great mysteries that hung over the summit was what support the U.S. would give to secure any Russia-Ukraine deal long term. Trump hasn't offered U.S. troops' "boots on the ground" to guarantee Ukraine's security from Russia, reflecting American reticence to commit to military entanglements or a head-to-head confrontation with a nuclear power. Instead, he has offered weapons sales and promised that Americans will do business in Ukraine, assurances that Ukrainians see as far less than a security guarantee. Europeans are preparing for a peacekeeping mission backed by their forces. Yet, asked explicitly whether U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine could include U.S. troops in the country, Trump did not rule it out. Instead, he teased an announcement as soon as Monday on the topic. "We'll let you know that, maybe, later today," Trump said. He said Europe was the "first line of defense" but that "we'll be involved." WHAT'S NEXT Trump said he would call Putin and set up a trilateral meeting with Ukraine at a time and place to be determined. Despite some private misgivings, the assembled leaders agreed that such a meeting was a logical next step. Still, the path forward is more complex than Trump and his allies are letting on. For one, Russia has delayed and obstructed high-level meetings with Ukraine in the past, and it was not immediately clear that Putin would actually sit down with Zelenskiy, who he frequently describes as an illegitimate leader. Additionally, it is unclear how much a principal-level meeting would actually advance the cause of peace. The gulf between the Russian and Ukrainian positions is vast. The Kremlin said on Monday the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine is a non-starter, a stance that would be hard for Ukraine to swallow. Russia is also calling for Ukraine to fork over significant chunks of territory that Kyiv controls, another proposal that Ukraine's leaders are not entertaining. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
