The final session of the discussions mediated by the United Nations to tackle plastic pollution began in South Korea (in December) amidst considerable disagreements concerning the need to control the growing influx of plastic waste, a rift that jeopardizes a two-year effort toward a consensus.
As per the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, global plastic production is anticipated to surge by roughly 60% to reach 736 million tons annually by 2040, raising serious concerns since studies reveal the adverse effects of these materials as they accumulate in the environment and in human bodies.
ADVERTISEMENT
CONTINUE READING BELOW
Read: Plastic-eating insect discovered in Kenya
The main point of contention in the negotiations taking place in Busan centers around whether to implement binding restrictions on certain types of chemicals and plastic production or to establish a funding framework aimed at boosting waste collection and recycling initiatives.
A coalition of nearly 70 nations, including Rwanda, Norway, and the UK, is pushing for a “high ambition” treaty that would regulate hazardous chemicals and eradicate the most polluting single-use plastic items, such as cutlery.
On the contrary, representatives from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and several other petro-nations strongly reject this proposal. They contend that plastics are vital for sustainable development, highlighting their lighter weight compared to alternatives that reduce transportation fuel consumption, while arguing that plastic pollution stems from usage and disposal methods rather than the material itself.
Previous negotiation rounds have witnessed these countries opposing binding agreements and utilizing diplomatic tactics to obstruct voting within the negotiating group.
This predicament has left advocates aiming for high ambition feeling frustrated. Some are now warning that, without tangible progress toward binding restrictions, the talks may end in a stalemate.
“Addressing production is a crucial matter for numerous nations. It cannot be dismissed,” stated Anne Beathe Tvinnereim, Norway’s Minister for International Development and head of the delegation to Busan.
“If we do not confront chemicals and the most littered items, concentrating solely on waste management is pointless,” she remarked, likening it to “mopping the floor while the tap is running.”
A mound of plastic waste in Gorakshep, Sagarmatha Region, Nepal. Image: Mailee Osten-Tan/Getty Images
The mounting plastic crisis in our environment cannot be ignored. In developing nations, plastic waste is blocking beaches and waterways, putting wildlife at risk.
A massive buildup of garbage in the Democratic Republic of Congo has even led to the shutdown of a hydroelectric dam in December, causing power outages.
According to the UN, plastics account for about 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
When plastic items break down, they turn into microplastics, which have been found in human breast milk, brain tissue, and blood. Research has linked bisphenol F, a chemical found in certain plastics, to reduced IQ levels in children.
Microplastics on Mt Everest
Microplastics are ubiquitous, found in ecosystems ranging from the depths of the Pacific Ocean’s Mariana Trench to the snow atop Mt. Everest. A recent study suggested that aerosolized plastic particles might even influence cloud formation and result in increased rainfall.
Polls indicate robust public support for measures to reduce plastic pollution. An Ipsos study conducted across 32 countries this year revealed that 90% of respondents favored global regulations prohibiting hazardous chemicals in plastics. Additionally, 87% emphasized the necessity of cutting back overall plastic production.
Read: Nigeria is the world’s 2nd biggest plastic polluter …
However, substantial interests are pushing for increased plastic production. Industry advocates have been actively lobbying against production limits, stating that roughly 2.7 billion people lack access to adequate waste management systems and arguing that the focus of the Busan discussions should be on acquiring additional funding for that purpose.
Benny Mermans, chairman of the World Plastics Council and vice president of sustainability at Chevron Phillips Chemical, noted that a universal agreement should emphasize “circularity, treating used plastics as valuable resources rather than waste.”
An employee of Trex Co. stands with bales of used plastic, which the company recycles into decking material. Image: Nathan Howard/Bloomberg
Nearly half of all newly manufactured plastic items are used just once before being thrown away. Globally, a mere 9.5% of plastic gets recycled. Petrochemical companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. advocate for enhanced recycling efforts, including “advanced recycling” for products that are difficult to break down, such as candy wrappers. However, recycling plastic can be costly and polluting, and initiatives to enhance recycling capabilities have frequently encountered obstacles.
As renewable energy and electrification reduce oil demand, the growth of petrochemical production is expected to be essential in mitigating this decline, thereby making it a vital fallback for oil-exporting countries and the fossil fuel industry. Research firm BloombergNEF anticipates that petrochemicals could nearly double their share of total oil demand by 2050.
“The oil and gas sector perceives this as a backup plan or safety net amid the energy transition,” asserted Dharmesh Shah, a senior campaigner for the Center for International Environmental Law, a nonprofit organization with offices in Washington, DC, and Geneva.
ADVERTISEMENT:
CONTINUE READING BELOW
Where do the US and China stand?
The United States, being the largest global economy and top oil producer, wields considerable influence in the negotiations, yet its role in Busan remains uncertain. In August, reports surfaced indicating that the Biden administration would support a global objective to limit plastic production. Advocates welcomed this news while industry leaders criticized it.
Then came the elections. Donald Trump, who ran on promises to amplify fossil fuel extraction and withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement, clinched the presidency. Meanwhile, Republicans reclaimed control of the Senate, which must sanction the treaty with a two-thirds majority for it to become legally binding.
A week later, the US negotiating team informed nonprofit organizations advocating for stringent plastic regulations that there was “no landing zone” for tough production limits, according to members of the Break Free From Plastic coalition on the call.
The White House Council on Environmental Quality released a statement reaffirming the US’s commitment to “securing an ambitious, legally binding global instrument to tackle plastic pollution based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the entire lifecycle of plastic.”
“This position is simply unacceptable,” remarked Sarah Martik, executive director of the Center for Coalfield Justice, a Pennsylvania advocacy organization. She raised concerns that such a stance could potentially “derail” the negotiations.
The uncertainty surrounding the US’s current stance and the Republican electoral wins have led delegates to redirect their focus to other areas.
Future advancements toward a rigorous, legally binding treaty will likely hinge on the influence of emerging economies like China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, which are significant consumers of oil and natural gas.
“As a major consumer, you have the power to influence your consumption choices,” stated Juliet Kabera, the director general of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority and a pivotal negotiator at the Busan talks. “Producers will have to respond to your needs because they depend on your market.”
Volunteers spread plastic bags out to dry at a recycling centre in Rayong, Thailand. Image: Bloomberg
As the world’s largest plastic producer, China enjoys a robust trading relationship with Saudi Arabia, which supplies a considerable portion of its imported oil. Saudi Aramco, its state oil company, is making substantial investments in facilities in China capable of converting crude oil into petrochemicals.
This year, however, China’s National Development and Reform Committee issued directives emphasizing specialty chemicals while seeking to limit the establishment of small-scale plants for producing common plastics. Environmental advocates view this as evidence of China’s willingness to support a global initiative to restrain production capacity.
Competing roadmaps
As delegates gather in Busan, there are effectively two significantly contrasting drafts of the treaty. One is an extensive 70-page document filled with over 300 contentious points. The other is a concise “non-paper” presented by the negotiating committee chair, Luis Vayas Valdivieso from Ecuador, which underscores the limited areas of agreement.
This white paper has faced criticism from certain NGOs for lacking binding limits, while others regard it as the most pragmatic path forward. “It serves as a constructive starting point as no single group is entirely satisfied with it,” noted Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business at the World Wildlife Federation, mentioning that it would be “feasible to finalize” within a week of discussions.
On the first day, delegates will likely vote on whether to pursue the non-paper as opposed to the more extended draft. If they choose the latter, Simon predicts that progress will be considerably more challenging as it would reopen all discussions. Nevertheless, major hurdles remain even with the more concise document, along with the acknowledgment from various nations that enhanced waste collection and recycling, especially in the Global South, is crucial.
African countries have led the way in initiatives to limit single-use plastics, with numerous nations implementing or pledging policies to reduce consumption. A treaty could formalize these bans on an international level and establish design requirements ensuring single-use plastics adhere to consistent chemical frameworks, facilitating easier recycling.
However, the primary challenge lies in the potential regulation of harmful chemical compounds and additives in plastics, such as BPA and other bisphenols, phthalates, and PBDE flame retardants. Advocates for high ambition seek to formulate a targeted list of chemicals with a track record of environmental leaching or a high likelihood of human harm, aiming to phase them out gradually.
Clearly, these matters will not be easily resolved within a week in Busan. Some delegates remain hopeful for the best-case scenario of a binding framework for continuing discussions regarding plastic, akin to the annual COP summits focused on climate change.
“We acknowledge that we won’t secure everything we desire or everything the world needs,” Simon stated. It is essential, she emphasized, that “whatever we finalize” in Busan “can be refined over time, allowing us to build upon it.”
© 2024 Bloomberg
Follow Moneyweb’s in-depth finance and business news on WhatsApp here.
