Nations call for strong plastics treaty as difficult talks loom
The talks collapsed in late 2024 with nations unable to agree on how to stop millions of tonnes of plastic waste from entering the environment each year.
Ahead of the next round of negotiations in August, ministers from 95 countries issued a symbolic call for a binding treaty that caps plastic production and phases out harmful chemicals.
"This declaration sends a clear and strong message: we will not give up," France's environment minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher said at the UN Ocean Conference in Nice in southern France, where the statement was issued.
"We must reduce our production and consumption of plastics."
So-called "high-ambition" nations have long pushed for the accord to include caps on the manufacture of new plastic, which is largely made from chemicals derived from fossil fuels.
An opposing group of "like-minded" countries -- mostly oil and petrochemical giants -- have rejected calls for production limits, and pushed instead for a treaty that prioritises waste management.
Mexico's environment minister Alicia Barcena said caps on plastic were critical "to send a message on the root of the plastic crisis" and recycling and waste management alone would not solve the problem.
In 2019, the world produced around 460 million tonnes of plastic, a figure that has doubled since 2000, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Plastic production is expected to triple by 2060.
But just nine percent of plastic is recycled globally and every day, the equivalent of 2,000 garbage trucks worth of plastic waste is dumped into oceans, rivers and lakes.
"We are heartened to see this demonstration of ambition from the majority of countries, who are showing a united front against the small number of petro-chemical states trying to prevent a strong treaty," said Ana Rocha from GAIA, an alliance of activist groups.
The declaration also called for the elimination of "chemicals of concern" in plastics that are harmful to human health and the environment.
A treaty lacking these elements or based on voluntary measures "would not be effective to deal with the challenge of plastic pollution", they said.
Plastic pollution is so ubiquitous that microplastics have been found atop Mount Everest, in the deepest ocean trench, and in human blood and breastmilk.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Tuesday urged nations to "confront the plague of plastic pollution" and expressed hope the treaty talks would be concluded this year.
np-aag/jxb
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
UN Commission urges Latin America to diversify markets to confront Trump's tariffs
By Diego Oré MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -The head of the U.N. commission on Latin America, Jose Manuel Salazar, urged the region's countries to diversify their export and import markets and to integrate their economies in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs. "Rather than replacing imports, I would use the word diversify," Salazar, executive secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, told Reuters in an interview Thursday evening. He said the organization is recommending that its members renew alliances both inside and outside the region, since diversification would require a long-term commitment. Salazar cited a trade agreement between Mercosur and the European Union that was finalized by negotiators in December after two decades of talks and is expected to get legislative approval soon. He also called for exploring trade and investment channels with Asian and African countries, and for deepening regional integration in Latin America. The United Nations commission supports economic development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Salazar, a Costa Rican economist, was in Mexico to attend a regional conference on women. He said progress has been made regarding women's inclusion in Latin American economies, but more still needs to be done to close the gap in labor market participation. Salazar also said that, due to aging populations and declining fertility rates in Latin America, the demand for care for older adults will increase. The commission has asked its members to allocate up to 4.7% of their GDP to invest in elder care infrastructure by 2035. He said such spending could create up to 31 million jobs over the next decade in 23 countries in the region. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Minister ‘hugely disappointed' as talks to agree UN plastics treaty fail
Environment minister Emma Hardy has said she is 'hugely disappointed' that negotiations for the world's first treaty to combat plastic pollution ended once again in failure. Delegates were seeking to complete a legally binding international agreement on Thursday after 10 days of what was meant to be the final round of UN talks in Geneva, Switzerland. But the gavel came down in overtime on Friday morning with no deal reached after negotiators struggled to break a deadlock over key issues. The biggest sticking point has been whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic or focus instead on things such as better design, recycling and reuse. In a statement later on Friday, Ms Hardy said: 'I'm hugely disappointed that an agreement wasn't reached, but am extremely proud of the way the UK worked tirelessly until the end to seek an ambitious and effective treaty. 'Plastic pollution is a global crisis that no country can solve alone, and the UK is committed to working with others at home and abroad to protect the environment and pave the way to a circular economy.' The UK was part of the 'high ambition coalition' which was calling for binding obligations on reducing production and consumption, sustainable product design, environmentally sound management of plastic waste, and clean-up of pollution. But a smaller number of powerful oil and gas producing nations including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait oppose production limits, which they consider outside the scope of the treaty. Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), said the talks had been a 'hard-fought 10 days' against the backdrop of geopolitical complexities, economic challenges, and multilateral strains. 'However, one thing remains clear: despite these complexities, all countries clearly want to remain at the table,' he said. 'While we did not land the treaty text we hoped for, we at UNEP will continue the work against plastic pollution – pollution that is in our groundwater, in our soil, in our rivers, in our oceans and, yes, in our bodies.' Over the past few days, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chairman of the negotiating committee, gathered views from the representatives of 184 countries before writing two drafts of treaty text. But countries ultimately rejected both as the basis for negotiations after they failed to bridge the major rifts between different groups of nations. Mr Vayas Valdivieso said: 'Failing to reach the goal we set for ourselves may bring sadness, even frustration. 'Yet it should not lead to discouragement. On the contrary, it should spur us to regain our energy, renew our commitments, and unite our aspirations.' Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tonnes of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70% by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production. Many have said it is also essential to address toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Once in the environment, plastic waste can entangle, choke or be eaten by wildlife and livestock, clog up waterways and litter beaches, while bigger items break down into microplastics, entering food chains. Producing plastic, primarily from fossil fuel oil, also has a climate impact, with the World in Data and OECD saying 3.3% of global emissions is down to the production and management of global plastics. Since talks began in 2022, countries have taken part in several rounds of negotiations to reach consensus on tackling the issue. The Geneva talks were arranged after what was originally meant to be the final round of talks in Busan, South Korea, similarly ended without a deal in November. It is understood another round of negotiations could be organised when the location and money for it is found. Environment campaigners, politicians and a coalition of businesses praised the high ambition countries for holding the line for a strong deal and said no treaty was better than a weak one, but they warned of the urgency to tackle the growing crisis. Graham Forbes, Greenpeace's head of delegation at the talks, said: 'The inability to reach an agreement in Geneva must be a wake-up call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head-on. 'We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. The time for hesitation is over.' UK Green Party peer Natalie Bennett said: 'The draft treaty was the product of intense lobbying by the chemical and plastics industries backed by key petroleum states. These vested interests should never have been allowed near the talks in the first place. 'An ambitious treaty, which leads to decisive action to cut plastic production, is absolutely essential and the UK Government must lead the way in closing the door on oil-producing states and fossil fuel and chemical corporations from future talks.' The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, which represents 200 companies including Nestle, PepsiCo Walmart, Tetra Pak and Unilever, said it was 'disappointed' by the lack of an agreement, but said there is 'cause for optimism'. Rebecca Marmot, chief sustainability and corporate affairs officer at Unilever, said: 'The strong alignment among governments, business and civil society groups calling for a treaty with harmonised regulations across the full lifecycle of plastics is encouraging.'
Time Magazine
11 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Make-or-Break Moment with Putin
As President Donald Trump sits down with Vladimir Putin at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson today, it will become clear if he is serious about trying to end this brutal war in Ukraine. Will he look to the leadership role the United States played in 1995 to persuade the leaders of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia to lay down their arms and forge a peace agreement as a model? Or will he channel Neville Chamberlain and capitulate to Russia's demands that Ukraine give up territory and forgo ever joining NATO, in exchange for vacuous assurances that Putin has no further ambitions in Europe? Only the first path has a chance of producing the result that Trump desires and Ukraine deserves. The second path hinges on a promise as empty as the one Adolph Hitler gave the British Prime Minister in 1938. It was 30 years ago this summer that the United States realized it had little choice but to step in and try to stop a war that threatened European security and stability—and by extension U.S. interests—after UN and European troops failed to halt Serbian aggression against Bosnia and avert 100,000 deaths. Led by Richard Holbrooke with support from President Bill Clinton, Washington secured the agreement of each warring party to fundamental principles that would form the basis for peace talks. Later that fall, the three leaders of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia sat down with U.S. negotiators at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio to begin talks. After an intense month—and more than a few sleepless nights—we hammered out an agreement. The Dayton Peace Accords were far from perfect, but they stopped the killing and preserved Bosnia's territorial integrity and sovereignty. Read More: The Real Danger of the Trump-Putin Summit As with any deal, there must be something in it for all sides, with consequences for those that fail to engage constructively. Core principles that guided the Bosnia negotiations are not dissimilar to those that can bring Moscow and Kiev to the table. The first step—which could be agreed in days—is an immediate cease-fire along current front lines, without any preconditions or promises beyond starting talks. The parties must also affirm the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and internationally recognized borders of every state in the region, acknowledging the rule (to which they are already bound) that borders can only be changed by mutual agreement. This is consistent with the President's suggestion of land swaps, provided that they are consensual, with the precise boundary—an issue that nearly derailed the Bosnia talks—decided as part of an overall settlement. The question of potential NATO membership is sensitive and should also be left for formal negotiations. Ukraine should retain the right to apply but could agree to defer it for several years or for as long as a peace agreement remains in force. During this time, Ukraine would require ironclad security guarantees from the West, likely by European forces in the first instance. This period would enable Kiev to bolster its ability to deter future Russian attacks, particularly if it opts not to join NATO, or is not admitted. Most important as the President approaches this initial meeting is that Putin is not rewarded for his aggression, for geopolitical reasons beyond the illegality and immorality of his actions. Doing so would risk greater conflict in Europe and Asia, likely dragging in the United States and undercutting Trump's desire to avoid war. Putin makes no secret of his dream of seizing all of Ukraine—which he claims is part of Russia—and regards the three Baltic Republics—now NATO members—as within Moscow's sphere of influence. Moreover, China is watching all of this closely. Any show of weakness by the President in acquiescing to Moscow's demands will fuel Beijing's ambition to seize Taiwan, as well as encourage Kim Jong Un—another Putin ally—to use force against South Korea. Moreover Russia, despite its economic challenges, has yet to feel serious economic pain. The leverage Trump utilized these past few weeks—from expressing disappointment with Putin to imposing secondary tariffs on India for continuing to buy Russian oil—has gotten the Russian leader's attention, but is not yet enough to secure a breakthrough. To get Putin to serious talks, the President will need to increase—not decrease—pressure on Moscow by being ready to announce additional measures. China, not India, for example, is the largest consumer of Russian oil. The Trump Administration should be ready to cut off that avenue, and be willing to suspend any sanction only in stages, tied to compliance with a ceasefire, troop withdrawals, and the terms of a final agreement. Read More: Why Alaska? The Symbolism of Holding the Trump-Putin Summit In The Frontier State Increasing the pace and scope of arms deliveries is another important tool Washington can ramp up. The Trump Administration has been creative in designing a strategy of European partners purchasing American weapons for Ukraine. For instance, it recently announced such a deal for Patriot missile components. But much more material support, along with tougher sanctions, will be needed to persuade Russia it is time to end this war. Washington can certainly offer incentives to Putin to cooperate, as long as they do not kick in until an overall agreement is reached. The G7 was once the G8 and, as Trump describes it, Putin was insulted by being thrown out of that group of world economic leaders. Moreover, U.S-Russia trade was never significant, but has potential. Getting both back on track, along with cooperation on energy and infrastructure projects—and even real estate deals—at the right time would make sense. While Trump's instinct is right that a solution is possible now, it won't result from trusting Putin or letting him off the hook for invading Ukraine, seizing 20% of its territory, and continuing attacks against its soldiers and civilians. And it won't happen without Ukraine and European allies in the room if serious talks do begin. As the President tries hard to bring the parties together to hash out an overall settlement, he should also remember that no deal is better than a bad deal.
