Latest news with #plasticproduction
Al Jazeera
6 days ago
- 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
Japan Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Japan Times
Trump administration memo urges countries to reject plastic production caps
The United States has sent letters to at least a handful of countries urging them to reject the goal of a global pact that includes limits on plastic production and plastic chemical additives at the start of U.N. plastic treaty talks in Geneva, according to a memo. In the communications dated July 25 and circulated to countries at the start of negotiations on Monday, the U.S. laid out its red lines for negotiations that put it in direct opposition to over 100 countries that have supported those measures. Hopes for a "last-chance" ambitious global treaty that tackles the full life cycle of plastic pollution from the production of polymers to the disposal of waste have dimmed as delegates gather for what was intended to be the final round of negotiations. Significant divisions remain between oil-producing countries — who oppose caps on virgin plastic production fueled by petroleum, coal and gas — and parties such as the European Union and small island states, which advocate for limits, as well as stronger management of plastic products and hazardous chemicals. The U.S. delegation, led by career State Department officials who had represented the Biden administration, sent memos to countries laying out its position and saying it will not agree to a treaty that tackles the upstream of plastic pollution. "We will not support impractical global approaches such as plastic production targets or bans and restrictions on plastic additives or plastic products — that will increase the costs of all plastic products that are used throughout our daily lives," said the memo. The U.S. acknowledged in the memo that after attending a preliminary heads of delegation meeting in Nairobi from June 30 to July 2, "we plainly do not see convergence on provisions related to the supply of plastic, plastic production, plastic additives or global bans and restrictions on products and chemicals, also known as the global list". A State Department spokesperson said each party should take measures according to its national context. "Some countries may choose to undertake bans, while others may want to focus on improved collection and recycling," the spokesperson said. John Hocevar, Oceans Campaign Director for Greenpeace USA, said the U.S. delegation's tactics under Trump marked a "return to old school bullying from the U.S. Government trying to use its financial prowess to convince governments to change their position in a way that benefits what the U.S. wants." A diplomatic source from a country supporting an ambitious treaty said that the treaty would be a key example of trying to preserve the multilateral system amidst a challenging global context. "Either multilateralism becomes the lowest common denominator, and we are only able to move forward on unambitious things, or we show that we are capable of having a global framework on important issues," they said. One of the world's leading producers of plastics, the U.S. has also proposed revising the draft objective of the treaty to reduce plastic pollution by eliminating a reference to an agreed "approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastics." A source familiar with the negotiations said it indicated that the U.S. is seeking to roll back language that had been agreed in 2022 to renegotiate the mandate for the Treaty. "Refusing to include plastic production in this treaty is not a negotiation stance. It is economic self-sabotage," said Juan Carlos Monterrey-Gomez, head of the delegation for Panama. "Those blocking progress are not protecting their industries. They are locking their people out of the next wave of prosperity." The U.S. stance broadly aligns with the positions laid out by the global petrochemicals industry, which stated similar positions ahead of the talks, and a number of powerful oil and petrochemical producer countries that have held this position throughout the negotiations. Over 100 countries have backed a cap on global plastic production. In the U.S., the Trump administration has numerous measures to roll back climate and environmental policies that it says place too many burdens on industry. Plastic production is set to triple by 2060 without intervention, choking oceans, harming human health and accelerating climate change, according to the OECD.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Trump administration memo urges countries to reject plastic production caps in UN Treaty
By Olivia Le Poidevin and Valerie Volcovici GENEVA/WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The United States has sent letters to at least a handful of countries urging them to reject the goal of a global pact that includes limits on plastic production and plastic chemical additives at the start of U.N. plastic treaty talks in Geneva, according to a memo and communications seen by Reuters. In the communications dated July 25 and circulated to countries at the start of negotiations on Monday, the U.S. laid out its red lines for negotiations that put it in direct opposition to over 100 countries that have supported those measures. Hopes for a "last-chance" ambitious global treaty that tackles the full life cycle of plastic pollution from the production of polymers to the disposal of waste have dimmed as delegates gather for what was intended to be the final round of negotiations. Significant divisions remain between oil-producing countries— who oppose caps on virgin plastic production fueled by petroleum, coal, and gas — and parties such as the European Union and small island states, which advocate for limits, as well as stronger management of plastic products and hazardous chemicals. The U.S. delegation, led by career State Department officials who had represented the Biden administration, sent memos to countries laying out its position and saying it will not agree to a treaty that tackles the upstream of plastic pollution. "We will not support impractical global approaches such as plastic production targets or bans and restrictions on plastic additives or plastic products - that will increase the costs of all plastic products that are used throughout our daily lives," said the memo Reuters understands was sent to countries who could not be named due to sensitivities around the negotiations. NAIROBI MEETING The U.S. acknowledged in the memo that after attending a preliminary heads of delegation meeting in Nairobi from June 30 to July 2, "we plainly do not see convergence on provisions related to the supply of plastic, plastic production, plastic additives or global bans and restrictions on products and chemicals, also known as the global list". A State Department spokesperson told Reuters each Party should take measures according to its national context. "Some countries may choose to undertake bans, while others may want to focus on improved collection and recycling," the spokesperson said. John Hocevar, Oceans Campaign Director for Greenpeace USA, said the U.S. delegation's tactics under Trump marked a "return to old school bullying from the U.S. Government trying to use its financial prowess to convince governments to change their position in a way that benefits what the U.S. wants". One of the world's leading producers of plastics, the U.S. has also proposed revising the draft objective of the treaty to reduce plastic pollution by eliminating a reference to an agreed "approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastics", in a proposed resolution seen by Reuters. A source familiar with the negotiations told Reuters it indicated that the U.S. is seeking to roll back language that had been agreed in 2022 to renegotiate the mandate for the Treaty. The U.S. stance broadly aligns with the positions laid out by the global petrochemicals industry, which stated similar positions ahead of the talks, and a number of powerful oil and petrochemical producer countries that have held this position throughout the negotiations. Over 100 countries have backed a cap on global plastic production. In the U.S., the Trump administration has numerous measures to roll back climate and environmental policies that it says place too many burdens on industry. Plastic production is set to triple by 2060 without intervention, choking oceans, harming human health and accelerating climate change, according to the OECD. Solve the daily Crossword
Reuters
6 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
Exclusive: Trump administration memo urges countries to reject plastic production caps in UN Treaty
GENEVA/WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) - The United States has sent letters to at least a handful of countries urging them to reject the goal of a global pact that includes limits on plastic production and plastic chemical additives at the start of U.N. plastic treaty talks in Geneva, according to a memo and communications seen by Reuters. In the communications dated July 25 and circulated to countries at the start of negotiations on Monday, the U.S. laid out its red lines for negotiations that put it in direct opposition to over 100 countries that have supported those measures. Hopes for a "last-chance" ambitious global treaty that tackles the full life cycle of plastic pollution from the production of polymers to the disposal of waste have dimmed as delegates gather for what was intended to be the final round of negotiations. Significant divisions remain between oil-producing countries— who oppose caps on virgin plastic production fueled by petroleum, coal, and gas — and parties such as the European Union and small island states, which advocate for limits, as well as stronger management of plastic products and hazardous chemicals. The U.S. delegation, led by career State Department officials who had represented the Biden administration, sent memos to countries laying out its position and saying it will not agree to a treaty that tackles the upstream of plastic pollution. "We will not support impractical global approaches such as plastic production targets or bans and restrictions on plastic additives or plastic products - that will increase the costs of all plastic products that are used throughout our daily lives," said the memo Reuters understands was sent to countries who could not be named due to sensitivities around the negotiations. The U.S. acknowledged in the memo that after attending a preliminary heads of delegation meeting in Nairobi from June 30 to July 2, "we plainly do not see convergence on provisions related to the supply of plastic, plastic production, plastic additives or global bans and restrictions on products and chemicals, also known as the global list". A State Department spokesperson told Reuters each Party should take measures according to its national context. "Some countries may choose to undertake bans, while others may want to focus on improved collection and recycling," the spokesperson said. John Hocevar, Oceans Campaign Director for Greenpeace USA, said the U.S. delegation's tactics under Trump marked a "return to old school bullying from the U.S. Government trying to use its financial prowess to convince governments to change their position in a way that benefits what the U.S. wants". One of the world's leading producers of plastics, the U.S. has also proposed revising the draft objective of the treaty to reduce plastic pollution by eliminating a reference to an agreed "approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastics", in a proposed resolution seen by Reuters. A source familiar with the negotiations told Reuters it indicated that the U.S. is seeking to roll back language that had been agreed in 2022 to renegotiate the mandate for the Treaty. The U.S. stance broadly aligns with the positions laid out by the global petrochemicals industry, which stated similar positions ahead of the talks, and a number of powerful oil and petrochemical producer countries that have held this position throughout the negotiations. Over 100 countries have backed a cap on global plastic production. In the U.S., the Trump administration has numerous measures to roll back climate and environmental policies that it says place too many burdens on industry. Plastic production is set to triple by 2060 without intervention, choking oceans, harming human health and accelerating climate change, according to the OECD.
Times of Oman
05-08-2025
- Politics
- Times of Oman
Can a global treaty solve the plastics crisis?
Geneva: After a failed attempt to finalize a global plastics treaty last year in Busan, South Korea, 170 countries are meeting in Geneva from Tuesday until August 14 to negotiate a binding agreement on reducing plastic waste. Delegates will decide the extent to which plastic production should be limited and also the design, disposal and waste management of plastic across its whole lifecycle. Worldwide, 413 million tons of plastic are produced annually, enough to fill over half a million Olympic swimming pools. Just 9% of this is recycled. The rest is incinerated or ends up in landfills or the ocean. Along the way, it pollutes the soil and harms wildlife and human health. Microplastics have found their way into every corner of the planet — and the human body. Plastic producers try to limit cuts Around 100 countries across Africa, Latin America, the EU and beyond — the so-called High Ambition Coalition — are pushing for a progressive agreement that includes, among other things, a significant reduction in plastic production. Plastic is produced predominantly with oil, a fossil fuel that is a main driver of human-made climate change. To achieve the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, plastic production must be cut by at least 12 to 19%, according to Melanie Bergmann, a biologist at the Germany-based Alfred Wegener Institute that specializes in marine research. Standing in the way of a meaningful reduction are plastic manufacturing countries and oil producers — including Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia — who in Geneva are banded under the Like-Minded Coalition. Florian Titze, head of international policy at environmental NGO WWF, notes that oil and plastic producers oppose including policies like single-use plastic bans in the agreement. The pro-plastics lobby argues that the plastic crisis is founded on "poor waste management" and cannot be solved by limiting demand, notes Titze. Therefore, they want an agreement that focuses on plastic collection, consumer information and higher recycling rates. However, this would not stop overproduction, which Titze believes is the actual source of the problem. Virginia Janssens, managing director of Plastics Europe, which represents plastic producers in the region, warns against "oversimplified measures such as capping global production of primary plastics." While she admits that plastic pollution is a serious problem, solutions require "system-wide collaboration, not just within our sector, but across value chains, public authorities and more broadly," Janssens told DW. Recycling will not solve the problem Although recycling and waste management are important parts of combating the plastics crisis, they remain limited without reducing the amount of plastic, explained Bergmann, who will accompany the German delegation at the treaty negotiations. "If the amount of plastic in circulation increases every year, then we will need more and more of these infrastructures [for recycling and waste management]," said the scientist. "We can already see in the richer parts of the world that our systems cannot cope, despite the huge budget that we are already allocating to this." And that is despite a nation like Germany spending around €16 billion ($18.5 million) annually on waste management, water purification and combating environmental pollution. Hypocrisy from Germany and the EU? With around eight million tons of plastic produced annually, Germany is by far the largest plastic manufacturer in Europe, followed by Belgium and France. Globally, one-third of all plastics come from China, and just under 20% from other Asian countries and North America. Meanwhile, per capita annual plastic consumption in North America and Europe is 94 kilograms (207 pounds) and 85 kilograms, respectively. In China, the figure is 58 kilograms. Some experts who are close to the talks say it is hypocritical that the most ambitious countries demanding drastic plastic production cuts are the biggest plastic consumers. "Everybody is claiming to be super ambitious. I mean, at some point, it's even becoming perverse," said Aleksandar Rankovic, the founder of the Common Initiative environmental think tank and a regular observer at the treaty negotiations. He warns against placing responsibility solely on oil-producing countries and manufacturers and doubts that a binding target to produce a "sustainable level" of plastic can be achieved since it is too vague. Meanwhile, Germany's Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety says it's necessary to reduce primary plastic production to support a circular economy approach that aims to minimize resource consumption and keep materials in use for as long as possible — in addition to recycling. Italy, Spain, and France share this view and are promoting a corresponding position in the EU. The power of the plastics lobby In addition to national negotiating teams, hundreds of stakeholders from the plastics and chemical industries are expected in Geneva. "My experience is that there has been quite a bit of lobbying and efforts to undermine science around plastics that has been increasing over the past few years," explains Bethanie Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicologist at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden who researches the harmful effects of chemicals in plastics — high ambition countries also want to reduce toxin levels in plastics. Last year, more lobbyists attended the treaty round in Busan than all the delegates from the European Union member states combined. Carney Almroth says the industry is trying to cast doubt on the credibility of science with its own biased studies. But Janssens of Plastics Europe told DW that the association and its members "recognize the importance of independent science." "Ensuring evidence-based dialogue and decision-making is critical to finding the most effective solutions," she added. Carney Almroth, meanwhile, says scientists like herself have been defamed and intimidated in emails, in the media, or in letters to the editors of scientific publications. She claims that at a conference in Canada, a representative of the packaging industry stormed into the lecture hall and accused her of spreading misinformation. After Carney Almroth filed a complaint with the UN, the man was forced to apologise. Will it remain a historic opportunity? Rankovic does not believe that a groundbreaking agreement will be adopted in Geneva, but rather a kind of framework convention, a minimum consensus that could then be built upon in the coming years. Nonetheless, with plastic production set to double in the next 20 years, time is running out. With an agreement, we have a historic opportunity to get the plastic problem under control, says Bergmann.
