Analysis-Tough US stance casts gloom over plastics pollution deal after Geneva flop
GENEVA (Reuters) -The collapse on Friday of a sixth round of U.N. talks aimed at curbing plastic output has dimmed hopes of tackling a key source of pollution and left many advocates of restrictions pessimistic about a global deal during the Trump administration.
A three-year global push to reach a legally-binding treaty to curb plastic pollution choking the oceans and harming human health now appears adrift, participants said.
Many states and campaigners blamed the failure on oil-producers including the United States, which they said hardened long-held positions and urged others to reject caps on new plastic production that would have curbed output of polymers.
Debbra Cisneros, a negotiator for Panama, which supported a strong deal, told Reuters, the United States, the world's number two plastics producer behind China, was less open than in previous rounds conducted under Joe Biden's administration.
"This time they were just not wanting anything. So it was hard, because we always had them against us in each of the important provisions," she said at the end of the 11-day talks.
Anti-plastic campaigners saw little hope for a change in Washington's position under President Donald Trump, who in February signed an executive order encouraging consumers to buy plastic drinking straws.
"The mentality is different, and they want to extract more oil and gas out of the ground," said Bjorn Beeler, International Coordinator at International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global network of over 600 public interest NGOs.
The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment about its positions and its role in the talks. U.S. delegate John Thompson declined to respond to questions from a Reuters reporter on the outcome.
A State Department spokesperson previously said that each party should take measures according to its national context, while Washington has expressed concerns that the new rules could increase the costs of all plastic products. The Trump administration has also rolled back various U.S. climate and environmental policies that it says place too many burdens on national industry.
Earlier this week, Washington also flexed its muscle in talks about another global environmental agreement when it threatened measures against states backing a proposal aimed at reducing shipping emissions.
For a coalition of some 100 countries seeking an ambitious deal in Geneva, production limits are essential.
Fiji's delegate Sivendra Michael likened excluding this provision to "mopping the floor without turning off the tap."
For each month of delays, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) said nearly a million tons of plastic waste accumulates - some of which washes up on the beaches of island states.
'CONSENSUS IS DEAD'
Some participants also blamed organisers, the International Negotiating Committee (INC), a U.N.-established body supported by the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP).
A low point was a formal meeting an hour before the negotiations were set to conclude at midnight on Thursday which lasted less than a minute and was then adjourned until dawn, prompting laughter and jeering from delegates.
"Everyone was in shock as no one understood," said Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director for environmental group GAIA. "It's almost like they were playing with small children."
France's ecology minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher called proceedings "chaotic."
Asked what went wrong, INC chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso blamed the rift between countries and called the negotiations complex. "But we have advanced and that's important," he said.
U.N. provisional rules require all states to agree - a constraint that some see as unworkable, especially under a U.S. administration that is retreating from multilateralism.
"Consensus is dead. You cannot agree a deal where all the countries who produce and export plastics and oil can decide the terms of what the deal is going to be," said IPEN's Beeler.
Some delegates and campaigners suggested introducing voting to break the deadlock or even for the U.N.-led process to be abandoned altogether. The WWF and others called on ambitious states to pursue a separate deal, with the hope of getting plastics-producing nations onboard later.
Two draft deals emerged from the talks - one more ambitious than the other. Neither was adopted. It is unclear when the next meeting will take place, with states merely agreeing to reconvene at a later date.
One positive development was that top plastics producer China publicly acknowledged the need to address the full-life cycle of plastics, said David Azoulay, Managing Attorney of the Center for International Environmental Law's Geneva Office. "This is new, and I think this opens an interesting door."
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Global markets face shaky week ahead as US pressure mounts on Ukraine
By Naomi Rovnick and Dhara Ranasinghe LONDON (Reuters) -Defence stocks and energy markets are likely to be in focus this week, as European leaders rushed to back Ukraine in talks with U.S. President Donald Trump that may pressure Kyiv to accept a peace deal favouring Russia. Investors are watching for signs that the U.S. may move closer to Russia in a bid to exploit vast, untapped Arctic energy resources, in a major geopolitical shift that piles pressure on Europe to rapidly boost defence spending. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin ended their weekend summit in Alaska without securing a Ukraine ceasefire agreement, with the U.S. President then saying he now wanted a rapid peace deal that Kyiv should accept. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is travelling to Washington on Monday for talks that leaders of nations including Germany, the UK and France will now join. "Trump seems inclined to reduce or even end US support for Ukraine. Putin got him interested in business deals," Berenberg Chief Economist Holger Schmieding said in a note to clients. "As a result, the US may lift its sanctions on Russia and invest in Russia instead," he added. "Europe will have to spend a lot more for its own defence." DEFENCE STOCK RALLY Investors have bet on that outcome since February 2022, driving a supercharged rally in European aerospace and defence stocks with gains of over 600% for Leonardo and 1,500% for Germany's Rheinmetall. The euro has rallied 13% against the dollar this year and traded at about $1.17 on Friday. Bank of America strategist Michael Hartnett highlighted the potential for U.S.-Russia Arctic drilling projects to exploit 15% of the world's undiscovered oil and 30% of the world's undiscovered natural gas, resulting in a deep energy bear market. Brent crude, which dropped more than 1% to near $66 a barrel, on Friday, was still priced for a Ukraine peace deal, Hartnett cautioned, while Trump wanted lower energy prices for U.S. consumers. Ukraine's government bonds - key mood indicators - rallied when news of the summit emerged earlier this month but have stalled at a still-distressed 55 cents per dollar. "I would think they will be a bit weaker following the recent strength as the mood seems to favour Russia following Friday's summit," Aegon Asset Management head of emerging market debt Jeff Grills said. 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
CBS News
20 minutes ago
- CBS News
Transcript: Fiona Hill on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," Aug. 17, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Fiona Hill, former senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on Aug. 17, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face the Nation. Fiona Hill served as the Senior Director for Russia and European Affairs on the National Security Council during President Trump's first term. She joins us now from Waterville, Maine. Good morning to you. FIONA HILL: Good morning, Margaret. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Fiona, you were an advisor during that infamous Helsinki summit in 2018. You've spoken about that in the past. I wonder what you think about how this Alaska summit compared? HILL: Well, obviously quite different in many respects. Part of it was the fact that they decided to skip the one-on-one meeting and the lunch. I mean, these are usually part of the sort of set of summits like this. And the press conference, obviously, was more of an announcement, or a set of announcements- presentations by both leaders. Much more by President Putin, and more of a commentary by President Trump. So there wasn't that free-for-all of press questions, which I'm sure was a bit disconcerting for you and others who were present there, at Alaska. But the optics weren't exactly great, as Congressman crow has laid out for the United States and for President Trump, again, I mean, again, different, but although it was presented as perhaps a show of power by being at a US Air Force base with the fight passing of the B-52s and other fighter jets, it did certainly look much more like a show of appreciation for Vladimir Putin. And so, the optics were really much more favorable to Putin than they were to the United States. It really looked like Putin had set the agenda there, the narrative and, in many respects, the tone for the whole summit meeting. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, saying that, you know, the President has a team of advisers around him, and in a traditional administration, those advisers would be setting the policy, they would be planning the optics, and they would be thinking through that. Do you think that the President's team set him up for success here? HILL: Well, look, it may well have been that one of the demands, because we've heard from Secretary Rubio, which I have to say, I think was a very fair assessment of where things are. So it may well have been that one of the demands by the Russians to make any progress in moving further forward was to actually have that kind of show of pomp and pageantry, that basically marks Putin's re-entry into international affairs. Maybe the Russians said to them in Moscow, either to Steve Witkoff or to Secretary Rubio, or to anybody else, that basically they wanted to have a major US-Russia, bilateral summit appearance before they would move on to the nitty-gritty of anything else in Ukraine. That's to give them- them all the benefit of the doubt there. But, it all now depends on what comes out of this. And I think again, Secretary Rubio made it very clear that it's not going to be easy. He was certainly downplaying any expectations of a major breakthrough. But he did say that there was something that might be possible. I think that's what's going to be the proof of whether this was actually worth all the effort that they went to in Alaska or not. And as Congressman Crow said, there's a pretty high bar here, because what Putin is doing is pretty brutal, and he's not showing, right now, any signs whatsoever of giving anything up. MARGARET BRENNAN: The United Kingdom's Defense Secretary has said that they would be willing to put boots on the ground in Ukraine to help oversee a ceasefire. When you hear these security guarantees being talked about, and the Secretary said he is going to negotiate that tomorrow, what should we think- what form is that going to take? What do you think that should look like? HILL: Well, look, I think he actually laid this out, and you did too in your questions. And I think Congressman Crow made it very clear as well. It has to be a combination of all of the things that we've already heard discussed on the show today. You have to be able to have some boots on the ground. Congressman Crow that it doesn't have to be the United States. That's actually the case. But, it actually has to be some commitment from the United States to enable European forces to actually hold that territory and to provide some security guarantees for Ukraine. The United States is key in terms of its intelligence, in terms of enabling equipment, and the information and the data that we would need for all of this to make a security intervention mean something. And it's also essential in terms of all kinds of other forms of equipment and defensive weaponry. We've already heard, of course, about Ukraine needing all kinds of equipment, from javelins in the past, to patriots, now, in terms of an integrated missile defense system that Ukraine desperately needs. So there's a lot there that we all know needs to be done, and what we really need to see, I think, in these meetings that will take place on Monday and moving forward, is a real commitment to the United States, to work with Europeans, and to work with Ukraine to make this happen. Look, this is existential, also for European security. So, minimizing the real role of Europe here, be it the United Kingdom, be it Poland, be it Finland, be it France, be it Germany, is not the way to go. Europe has to have an equal say in all of this. This is about Europe's future and the future of European security, not just about Ukraine's. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about the dynamic between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. You know both men. You've written biographies of Vladimir Putin, and of course, you served under Donald Trump. In one of the FOX interviews that President Trump did, he said that he spoke about mail-in voting in the United States with Vladimir Putin, and during that press address, Putin also claimed that the war wouldn't have happened at all if Donald Trump had been President. I mean, that's a counterfactual, but that something Trump often says on the- on the trail, why would those things be discussed at all if this was about Ukraine? HILL: Exactly. Well, look, this is Vladimir Putin, as usual, trying to manipulate U.S. domestic politics. I've seen him do this over and over again, including at Helsinki when he set the president off, not in the press conference, but before that, in a whole diatribe against his political enemies, because Putin deliberately asked him about this. So Putin knows that President Trump wants to have an acknowledgement of his self-assertion that the war wouldn't have happened had he not- had he been in the presidency. And so, Putin is giving him something that plays well for President Trump in his own domestic environment. It doesn't play well in the international environment, where people know things are much more complicated, but it's basically a gift and a concession to President Trump himself. And Putin wants to sow chaos in the American electoral system ahead of the midterms. So, of course, he's led into this whole issue of mail-in voting. And President Trump asserted in his Fox News interview that there are no countries in the world that allow mail-in voting. Well, Russia allows mail-in voting, and if everybody wants to go out and look, they can look for themselves. In 2020, President Vladimir Putin signed into law Russians being able to vote by mail and also on the internet. And more than 30 other countries also allow some forms of mail-in voting. So, it's just not true that other countries, including Russia, don't use this. It's a pure, blatant piece of manipulation, and that's the kind of thing that Putin likes to do. MARGARET BRENNAN: And, of course, I don't think you would endorse the outcome of that voting system and that those elections are rigged in Russia. Correct? HILL: Of course. And I mean, basically, Putin wants to see us tie ourselves up in knots between now and the midterms. He's trying to sow chaos, and he's just basically used his time with President Trump to push that along. It's, again, it's a diversion, it's a distraction, really, from the negotiations on Ukraine, because Putin doesn't really want to give anything up, so he gives up, basically, something that plays well in the political arena for President Trump and something that actually plays very badly for the United States in its own political arena, which is the mail-in voting point that he made. MARGARET BRENNAN: Fiona Hill, always appreciate your analysis. Thank you for joining us today. We'll be right back.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Volodymyr Zelenskyy Delivers Blunt Message To Donald Trump After His Ukraine War U-Turn
Volodymyr Zelenskyy has delivered a blunt message to Donald Trump after the US president dropped his demands for a ceasefire in the Ukraine war. Trump's dramatic U-turn came after he held talks with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. In a post on his Truth Social platform, he said: 'It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' But speaking in Brussels on Sunday following talks with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, Zelenskyy – who will travel to Washington for his own meeting with Trump tomorrow – rejected that idea. The Ukrainian president said: 'We have to stop the killing. Putin has many demands, but we do not know all of them, and if there are really as many as we hear, then it will take time to go through them all. 'It's impossible to do this under the pressure of weapons, so it's necessary to ceasefire and work quickly on a final deal. Putin does not want to stop the killing, but he must do it.' Zelenskyy's comments came after it was confirmed that European leaders, including Keir Starmer, will join him at the White House for his talks with Trump. The surprise move is an attempt to provide the Ukrainian leader with support and avoid a repeat of his last visit to Washington, when he was ambushed in the Oval Office by Trump and his deputy, JD Vance. Among those who will be in attendance is von der Leyen, who delivered a warning of her own to Trump by insisting that 'international borders cannot be changed by force'. That was a reference to reports that Putin told Trump that he wants Ukraine to give up its sovereign territory as the price of any peace deal. According to the Reuters news agency, the proposed deal would see Kyiv fully withdraw from the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions in return for a Russian pledge to freeze the front lines in the southern regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Trump said after the summit that he and Putin 'has largely agreed' on land transfers and security guarantees for Ukraine. He told Fox News: 'I think we're pretty close to a deal. Ukraine has to agree to it. Maybe they'll say 'no'.' But Zelenskyy said today: 'The constitution of Ukraine makes it impossible to give up territory or trade land. ' He said any such moves would need to be discussed at a three-way summit involving him, Putin and Trump. 'If Russia refuses, then new sanctions must follow,' he added. Related... Trump Performs Major U-Turn As He Urges Zelenskyy To Do A 'Deal' With Putin To End The War Sean Hannity Asked Trump To Rate Putin Meeting 'On A Scale Of 1 To 10.' This Was His Answer. Ukrainian MP Nails How Trump Has Abandoned Her Country After Putin Summit Failure
