Latest news with #petrostates
Forbes
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Forbes
Fixing the Global Plastics Treaty at The United Nations
The latest multilateral environmental treaty being negotiated by the United Nations has just encountered a major setback in negotiations. The Global Plastics Treaty negotiations stalled when Saudi Arabia, the United States and a coalition of petrostates refused to compromise on the demand by environmentalists and like-minded states to set production targets on plastics. Negotiation theorists use a term called the 'Zone of Possible Agreement' (ZOPA) to consider what is also the 'Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement' (BATNA) for various parties. For fossil fuel producing countries, the ZOPA has always involved the freedom of production with a focus on downstream management and responsible consumption. The converse is true for environmental consensus for much of the rest of the world which sees production caps as necessary given functional inability to recover and recycle more than 70% of plastics worldwide. There has thus been no common 'ZOPA' between the fossil fuel producing countries and the rest of the world regarding the issue of production caps. Furthermore, the 'BATNA' or 'walkaway' alternative for the fossil fuel producing countries is very high. In other words, a breakdown in talks would have a relatively low impact on the fossil fuel producers and hence they are far less likely to compromise. Since such treaties are inherently consensus-driven documents, even a majority opinion in one direction does not matter. This makes the likelihood of an agreement only possible if some other creative solution is found on the consumption side by the majority contingent. With most environmental treaties, a key challenge to the consensus approach is that there are thresholds and tipping points which can lead to irrevocable change that are at odds with the timeframe or the particular stances of individual countries. Larry Susskind and I explored this challenge in our book Environmental Diplomacy more than a decade ago. The good news is that the production of plastics per se does not translate into direct tipping point thresholds on emissions which the climate change treaty, or indeed the ozone treaty entailed. The ozone treaty (which remains the only UN treaty ratified by all member states) also involved chemicals that had strong industrial lobbying support. However, thankfully, the same companies that produced those chemicals, such as Dupont, found suitable and profitable alternatives. The plastics treaty has petrochemical lobbying as a common hurdle to its success but unlike climate change, plastics production itself is not a direct tipping point agent. Indeed, the argument is often made by industry that plastics can sequester carbon from fossil fuels for the very long term, unless they are burned. Of course, plastic pollution can lead to biodiversity loss and impact other tipping points indirectly, but the situation is qualitatively different from direct tipping point impacts from emissions. Regarding concerns arounds biodiversity, another way to approach the issue is through a new protocol within the Convention on Biological Diversity. To salvage the plastics treaty itself, there needs to be a willingness to reconsider the original maximalist approach, spurred by well-intentioned but idealistic environmentalism. While many plastics are rightfully pariah products, there is little doubt that synthetic polymers (the chemical name for what we call "plastics") have in aggregate transformed our lives positively in myriad ways. From more sanitary and reliable health care products to light-weight (and hence energy efficient) infrastructure, plastics have been just as transformative in their benefits to humanity as bronze or copper or iron. Many years ago, I came across a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society which traced the history of plastics to the Mesoamerican indigenous people who found a way to string out natural rubber latex from tree sap around the sixteenth century. Rubber is a natural polymer and hence may be considered a kind of bioplastic. Subsequently, chemical innovation led to a bewildering array of synthetic polymers but let us not forget that nature has the potential to deliver us polymers too! The exclusion of bioplastics from the current treaty is in my view a serious flaw in the proposed agreement. This flagrant exclusion of such a win-win prospect largely stems from the aversion many environmental activists have of any potential solution that might lead to complacence on aggregate consumption. Much as I can sympathize with the need to change human behavior patterns with education and policy interventions, there will always be limits to regulatory absolutism in a liberal society. The Nobel laureate Amartya Sen alerted us to this many decades ago in his essay 'The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal.' While conventional bioplastics are derived from plants and could lead to more agricultural land being used, this is miniscule compared to other uses, and also in many cases the bioplastics can be made from waste material. Furthermore, it is also possible to manufacture biodegradable plastics from petroleum products which could assuage the concern of the petroleum-producing countries. Environmentalists tend to favor bans over market mechanisms because they provide more certainty of outcome. However, in a world where complete regulatory oversight and enforcement is highly difficult to achieve, we need to focus on policy evaluation data on what has worked. For example, a recent study published in Science which considered the impact of plastic bag bans versus plastic bag pricing found that the pricing was more effective in reducing coastal pollution from these products. This may have to do with the pricing leading to people valuing the bags for reuse. Fees can provide funds for cleanup activities. If the plastics treaty is to be salvaged, the United Nations Environment Programme and its affiliate organizations that are managing this process will need to have such a data-driven approach that can allow for integrative solutions beyond fear or favor of uncompromising activism.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the collapse of environmental talks: petrostates blocked a global plastics deal, but we must not despair
By ensuring the collapse of UN talks seeking the first legally binding agreement on tackling plastic pollution, blockers in Geneva have failed the next generation. Most states are willing, even determined, to act. But the US joined petrostates obstructing action. Their children too will live to regret that. To say that plastics are part of our lives from cradle to grave is an understatement: microplastics have been found in placentas, as well as blood and breast milk. While we can't yet be certain of the full impact of the substances, we know that many have been linked to health effects and that foetuses, infants and young children are highly vulnerable. Microplastics have been shown to damage human cells in laboratory experiments, and a review published this month documented how exposure is associated with increased risks of miscarriage, stillbirth, birth defects, impaired lung growth, childhood cancer and fertility problems as an adult. Yet even as our awareness of the danger to human and planetary health soars, so does plastic production, which is expected to triple – to more than a billion tonnes a year – within 35 years. Half of the plastic produced annually is for single-use items. In part, this growth is because petrostates see petrochemicals as their solution to maintaining demand given the shift towards renewables and nuclear in power generation. Three years ago, the prospect of a binding global treaty brought hope to all those concerned about the impact of plastics. But subsequent discussions failed and in Geneva this week, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others insisted that action should be limited to tackling waste – which can only have a wholly inadequate impact – not curbing production and halting the use of toxic chemicals in their manufacture. The US insisted that only voluntary measures were acceptable. Rightly, that was not enough for delegates from 'high ambition' states, which include those in the EU, Britain, Canada and most of the global south. The insistence on a consensus decision allowed a minority to prevent the action needed. It is deeply disappointing that no agreement could be reached, and that none lies in sight, though perhaps not surprising, especially when diplomacy and multilateralism are struggling more generally. Many of those attending concluded that no deal was better than a weak one which might allow the pressure for real change to dissipate. They will continue their push, though not necessarily through the same mechanism, given this second failure. Some think another UN forum might be more successful. We cannot afford to despair. Campaigners also note that it took eight years of talks to agree an amendment on hydrofluorocarbons to the Montreal protocol on ozone-depleting substances. Some hope that China could play a critical role in making a shift: it is one of the world's biggest producers of plastics, but it is less reliant on them, and Beijing could benefit from being regarded as a leader on this global environmental issue. In the meantime, countries can and must take action unilaterally, and within blocs, to reduce plastic usage. Some, like Colombia, are already taking significant steps. If the record number of industry lobbyists in Geneva was a depressing sign of the entrenched interests that all who care about this issue must battle against, it was also proof that plastics producers know that change is possible and that the case for it grows stronger by the day. They have fought it off for now, but they must not prevail.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the collapse of environmental talks: petrostates blocked a global plastics deal, but we must not despair
By ensuring the collapse of UN talks seeking the first legally binding agreement on tackling plastic pollution, blockers in Geneva have failed the next generation. Most states are willing, even determined, to act. But the US joined petrostates obstructing action. Their children too will live to regret that. To say that plastics are part of our lives from cradle to grave is an understatement: microplastics have been found in placentas, as well as blood and breast milk. While we can't yet be certain of the full impact of the substances, we know that many have been linked to health effects and that foetuses, infants and young children are highly vulnerable. Microplastics have been shown to damage human cells in laboratory experiments, and a review published this month documented how exposure is associated with increased risks of miscarriage, stillbirth, birth defects, impaired lung growth, childhood cancer and fertility problems as an adult. Yet even as our awareness of the danger to human and planetary health soars, so does plastic production, which is expected to triple – to more than a billion tonnes a year – within 35 years. Half of the plastic produced annually is for single-use items. In part, this growth is because petrostates see petrochemicals as their solution to maintaining demand given the shift towards renewables and nuclear in power generation. Three years ago, the prospect of a binding global treaty brought hope to all those concerned about the impact of plastics. But subsequent discussions failed and in Geneva this week, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others insisted that action should be limited to tackling waste – which can only have a wholly inadequate impact – not curbing production and halting the use of toxic chemicals in their manufacture. The US insisted that only voluntary measures were acceptable. Rightly, that was not enough for delegates from 'high ambition' states, which include those in the EU, Britain, Canada and most of the global south. The insistence on a consensus decision allowed a minority to prevent the action needed. It is deeply disappointing that no agreement could be reached, and that none lies in sight, though perhaps not surprising, especially when diplomacy and multilateralism are struggling more generally. Many of those attending concluded that no deal was better than a weak one which might allow the pressure for real change to dissipate. They will continue their push, though not necessarily through the same mechanism, given this second failure. Some think another UN forum might be more successful. We cannot afford to despair. Campaigners also note that it took eight years of talks to agree an amendment on hydrofluorocarbons to the Montreal protocol on ozone-depleting substances. Some hope that China could play a critical role in making a shift: it is one of the world's biggest producers of plastics, but it is less reliant on them, and Beijing could benefit from being regarded as a leader on this global environmental issue. In the meantime, countries can and must take action unilaterally, and within blocs, to reduce plastic usage. Some, like Colombia, are already taking significant steps. If the record number of industry lobbyists in Geneva was a depressing sign of the entrenched interests that all who care about this issue must battle against, it was also proof that plastics producers know that change is possible and that the case for it grows stronger by the day. They have fought it off for now, but they must not prevail.
Irish Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Irish Times
UN plastics treaty talks fail after US joins petrostates in blocking action
Countries failed to agree on the world's first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution in a final round of UN talks after three years of negotiations, dealing a blow to multilateral decision-making marked by the resistance of the US . While the majority of more than 170 countries were prepared to compromise to secure a treaty in Geneva on Friday, the US refused to agree to anything beyond voluntary measures, national delegates told the Financial Times. This followed the long-running opposition of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and a number of other petrostates that would not budge from their refusal to agree measures that address the production of plastic, rather than only waste management. Delegates from countries that were pressing for greater action to deal with plastic production, meanwhile, did not agree to a treaty based heavily on voluntary measures, which was put forward in two new drafts. The talks ended in a deadlock after two weeks, including an extended final session. READ MORE 'We were ready to negotiate and a lot of countries were,' said Danish environment minister Magnus Heunicke, on behalf of the EU, following the closing plenary on Friday morning. 'But I recognise that some countries at this point are not ready to examine how they can move on and bend their red lines. That's what they have to do.' About 100 countries sought to limit production, and many also wanted measures to address the toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Ian Fry, delegate from the island nation Tuvalu, said multilateralism had been 'smashed' by the Trump administration. 'Over 100 countries want something to happen and we are being held up by the United States. Their position was even more regressive than the Saudis,' he said. [ Plastic colonialism: 'A stream of plastic debris, stretching miles, is heading towards us' Opens in new window ] But UN Environment Programme executive director Inger Andersen held back from criticism, noting the presence of a negotiating team. 'It is very difficult in a US context to get a treaty for ratification through House and Senate. It's always been difficult ... But they are participating in good faith, which is critical, and they have not left, which is essential for us.' Agreement on how the clean-up measures would be funded was also a sticking point, with traditional donor countries less able to commit funding because of their growing defence spending commitments, delegates said. It was not clear on Friday when or where the negotiations would resume. Despite the failure of an agreement, officials said some diplomatic progress had been made during the final talks. China, one of the world's biggest plastic producers, and the EU had productive discussions, one delegate said, observing that the country had stepped up its engagement in multilateral discussions. But after the extended negotiations, which dragged into the early hours of Friday morning, delegates expressed deep discontentment that yet another round of talks had collapsed. It was the sixth in the series and had been expected to be final. 'We are frustrated by the slow progress,' said Barirega Akankwasah, the head of delegation for Uganda, which has also opposed measures that tackle plastic production. The main obstacle was that delegates were not sticking to the treaty mandate, he said. 'We still have a lot of the debate geared towards fossil fuels ... plastic pollution does not mean plastic volumes.' More than 460 million tonnes of new plastic are produced each year and about 20 million tonnes are estimated to end up in the environment, entering into the ecological system and human bloodstream. The Center for International Environmental Law's David Azoulay said it became clear during the final days of the negotiations that some countries did not come to finalise a text but to block a viable treaty. 'It's impossible to find a common ground between those who are interested in protecting the status quo and the majority who are looking for a functional treaty that can be strengthened over time,' Azoulay said. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Al Jazeera
07-08-2025
- Business
- Al Jazeera
Plastic credits: A ‘false solution' or the answer to global plastic waste?
Each year, the world produces about 400 million tonnes of plastic waste – more than the combined weight of all the people on Earth. Just 9 percent of it is recycled, and one study predicts that global emissions from plastic production could triple by 2050. Since 2022, the United Nations has been trying to broker a global treaty to deal with plastic waste. But talks keep collapsing, particularly on the issue of introducing a cap on plastic production. Campaigners blame petrostates whose economies depend on oil – the raw ingredient for plastics – for blocking the treaty negotiations. This week, the UN is meeting in Switzerland in the latest attempt to reach an agreement. But, even if the delegates find a way to cut the amount of plastic the world makes, it could take years to have a meaningful effect. In the meantime, institutions like the World Bank are turning to the markets for alternative solutions. One of these is plastic offsetting. So what is plastic offsetting? Does it work? And what do programmes like this mean for vulnerable communities who depend on plastic waste to make a living? What is plastic offsetting, and how do credits work? Plastic credits are based on a similar idea to carbon credits. With carbon credits, companies that emit greenhouse gases can pay a carbon credit company to have their emissions 'cancelled out' by funding reforestation programmes or other projects to help 'sink' their carbon output. For each tonne of CO2 they cancel out, the company gets a carbon credit. This is how an airline can tell customers that their flight is 'carbon neutral'. Plastic credits work on a similar model. The world's biggest plastic polluters can pay a plastic credit company to collect and re-purpose plastic. If a polluter pays for one tonne of plastic to be collected, it gets one plastic credit. If the polluter buys the number of plastic credits equivalent to its annual plastic output, it might be awarded 'plastic neutral' or 'plastic net zero' status. Does plastic offsetting work? Like carbon credits, plastic credits are controversial. Carbon markets are already worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually, with their value set to grow to billions. But in 2023, SourceMaterial, a nonprofit newsroom, revealed that only a fraction of nearly 100 million carbon credits result in real emissions reductions. 'Companies are making false claims and then they're convincing customers that they can fly guilt-free or buy carbon-neutral products when they aren't in any way carbon-neutral,' Barbara Haya, a US carbon trading expert, said at the time. The same thing could happen with plastics. Analysis by SourceMaterial of the world's first plastic credit registry, Plastic Credit Exchange (PCX) in the Philippines, found that only 14 percent of PCX credits went towards recycling. While companies that had bought credits with PCX were getting 'plastic neutral' status, most of the plastic was burned as fuel in cement factories, in a method known as 'co-processing' that releases thousands of tonnes of CO2 and toxins linked to cancer. A spokesperson for PCX said at the time that co-processing 'reduces reliance on fossil fuels, and is conducted under controlled conditions to minimise emissions'. Now, the World Bank is also pointing to plastic credits as a solution. In January last year, the World Bank launched a $100m bond that 'provides investors with a financial return' linked to the plastic credits projects backed by the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, an industry initiative that supports plastic credit projects, in Ghana and Indonesia. At the UN talks in December last year, a senior environmental specialist from the World Bank said plastic credits were an 'emerging result-based financing tool' which can fund projects that 'reduce plastic pollution'. What do companies think of plastic credits? Manufacturers, petrostates and the operators of credit projects have all lobbied for market solutions, including plastic credits, at the UN. Oil giant ExxonMobil and petrochemicals companies LyondellBasell and Dow Chemical are all members of the Alliance to End Plastic Waste in Ghana and Indonesia – both epicentres of plastic pollution that produce plastic domestically and import waste from overseas. But those companies are also members of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a lobby group that has warned the UN it does 'not support production caps or bans', given the 'benefits of plastics'. What do critics and affected local communities say? Critics like Anil Verma, a professor of human resource management at the University of Toronto who has studied waste pickers in Brazil, call plastic offsetting a 'game of greenwashing'. Verma argues that offsetting lets polluters claim they are tackling the waste problem without having to cut production – or profit. Patrick O'Hare, an academic at St Andrews University in Scotland, who has attended all rounds of the UN plastic treaty negotiations, said he has 'noticed with concern the increasing prominence given to plastics credits'. Plastic credits are being promoted in some quarters 'despite the lack of proven success stories to date' and 'the evident problems with the carbon credit model on which it is based', he added. Even some of the world's biggest companies have distanced themselves from plastic credits. Nestle, which had previously bought plastic credits, said last year that it does not believe in their effectiveness in their current form. Coca-Cola and Unilever are also 'not convinced', according to reports, and like Nestle, they back government-mandated 'extended producer responsibility' schemes. Yet the World Bank has plans to expand its support for plastic offsetting, calling it a 'win-win with the local communities and ecosystems that benefit from less pollution'. Some of the poorest people in Ghana eke out a living by collecting plastic waste for recycling. Johnson Doe, head of a refuse collectors' group in the capital, Accra, says funds for offsetting would be better spent supporting local waste pickers. Doe wants his association to be officially recognised and funded, instead of watching investment flow into plastic credits. They're a 'false solution', he says. This story was produced in partnership with SourceMaterial READ MORE: Ghana's waste pickers brave mountains of plastic – and big industry
