The collapse of the latest United Nations Plastic Scheme Dialogue once again laid a mistake line in global environmental diplomacy: cutting plastic production and conflict between countries protecting industries associated with fossil fuels.
“There are small island states at one end of the spectrum, which faced with immense plastic pollution on their shores and in their seas, without making significant contribution to pollution,” Jochen Flesbert said, the Secretary of Germany for the environment. At the other end, he said, “Those countries whose economies dominate raw materials for oil or plastic.”
While the failure of reaching an agreement was widely estimated, the sixth round of talks in Geneva revealed how entry interests, especially from oil producing states and major plastic manufacturers, continue the trajectory of global efforts to curb plastic pollution.
“It is very disappointing to see some countries that are trying to block an agreement, a treaty that will give us the necessary equipment to deal with plastic pollution,” Danish Environment Minister Magnus Hillic told more than 180 nations on Friday morning, “it is a treaty that is one of the biggest pollution problems on Earth.”
No compromise on cutting plastic production
In 2022, negotiations on a binding United Nations Treaty began. After three years of talks, acquiring a decisive commitment to reduce plastic production remained a central glued point in Geneva.
Around 100 nations including Africa, Latin America and the European Union, cut into deep production, regulation of toxic chemicals and re -useful options pushed to a phase -out of single -utility plastic.
But major producers and oil states in the “equal ideology” groups, including Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States, opposed any binding boundaries. He focused on waste management, causing production to a large extent.
A modified draft presented on Friday morning admitted that the current plastic production levels are “unstable” and the trend requires global action to reverse the trend, but stop implementing binding boundaries.
The search boundaries were a red line for many countries in the blocks with equal ideology. Saudi Arabia and Kuwaiti negotiaters criticized the final proposal to address plastic production, which they consider to be out of the scope of the treaty.
Nevertheless, scientists have warned that production is necessary to curb pollution and protect water, soil, oceans and human health. Melanie Bergman, a maritime scientist at the Alfred Vegener Institute, argues that the world has already increased the range of its planets for plastic waste.
Microplastics have been found from the highest mountain to the deepest season – and in human blood, breast milk, and vital organ – stroke, heart attack and other health risk.
Fossil fuel and strong presence of chemical industry
Plastic, 99% of which are obtained from fossil fuels, contribute to greenhouse gas emissions at every stage from production to disposal.
The Paris Agreement will require a cut in plastic production from at least 12 to 19% to meet the climate goals of the Paris Agreement and to limit the temperature of the planets, yet only 9% of the plastic is recycled. The rest is burnt, landfielded, or run into the environment.
According to an analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law, observers jointly stated the fossil fuel and chemical industry, with their registered lobists and diplomatic delegations of all 27 European countries and with diplomatic delegations and European Union.
Countries were divided by legally binding control over chemicals used in plastic, in which high-saving blocks want tight regulation.
Some 16,000 chemicals are used in plastic production, which is known to be more than 4,000 toxic and most of the rest of poor studies are performed. Advocates asked for tight control over dangerous substances, strong waste management regulations and clear financing committees, which specificly for lower income countries dealing with pollution.
The further route to curb plastic pollution remains unclear
Representatives of several states including Norway, Australia and Tuvalu said that they are disappointed to quit Geneva without a treaty. Countries from countries as Peru, Colombia and islands fought strict rules with emotional statements such as Maldives and Panama.
Commenting on an old draft of the lesson, Juan Carlos Montere Gomez, Panama’s climate messenger said, “We will not sell our children’s future.”
Environment Secretary Flassbarth said that Germany and its European Union partners would continue construction of bridges and would proceed to further negotiations to reach a global agreement.
Nevertheless, the absence of political heavyweight in Geneva, so promoted double about being committed in the “high-upsight” group. While many European Environment Minister participated, Germany’s Federal Environment Minister was notable.
Germany is the largest plastic manufacturer in Europe, and home to chemical veterans like Basaf, Bayer, Merc and Henkel.
Recognizing those competitive priorities, some supervisors emphasized the need for cooperation in national and industrial interests.
Graham Forbes, head of the Greenpeace delegation, said, “There are governments that have very important economic interests in this industry, and we have to work together to resolve this crisis.”
The trade coalition for a global plastic treaty and Ellen McArther Foundation urged governments to continue efforts for an agreement on “harmonious regulation of plastic in full life cycle”.
But it is not clear whether the interaction of the United Nations Plastic Treaty will resume in their current form. Under the current rules, all countries should agree to adopt any proposal.
Luis Vice Waldiviso, president of the United Nations plastic talks, told the AFP that countries and the secretariat would “work to find a date for continuous talks and therefore trying to find a place”.
However, David Azole, director of environmental health at CIEL, said that the process of negotiation was broken and the high-ancient country shopped to create a “Treaty of interested”.
“The world does not need plastic. People know it, doctors know it, scientists know, and the market knows. The movement to eliminate plastic pollution is just beyond the treaty, and it does not end here,” Azole said.
Edited by: Jennifer Colins
