We produce more than two hundred times as much plastic as in 1950. (Micro) plastics pollute oceans, the air, soil, our body and The placentas of the unborn baby in the abdomen. Plastic is increasingly contributing to climate change. Yet it was not possible to conclude an ambitious agreement against plastic pollution.
Since Tuesday, diplomats from 184 countries have been negotiating in Geneva, Switzerland, with the intention of concluding an agreement. State Secretary Thierry Aartsen (VVD, Ienw) is present on behalf of the Netherlands. The set deadline was Thursday, but it was unable to reach an agreement. Currently countries are still talking to each other about how they continue.
On Wednesday, from an interim proposal from the Ecuadorian chairman it became clear that there was no ambitious deal on the way. Both harmful chemicals in plastic and restricting (future) production of plastic were not addressed. The French President Emmanuel Macron called the proposal on X “weak” and “unacceptable.” Environment club Greenpeace called the text “a gift to the petrochemical industry and betrayal of humanity”.
In 2022, countries agreed to close a deal to address the “whole life cycle” of plastic; A formulation that opened the door to tackle the production of plastic. That should happen in five negotiating rounds, where number 5 in South Korea failed last December-in Switzerland the resit was.
Almost a hundred countries (including the Netherlands) had argued for making agreements about curbing the production of plastic. Due to the mass production and cheap price of new plastic, recycling is often economically uninteresting. Moreover, it makes plastic attractive to use for disposable products.
Doubling waste in the environment
According to scientists, to really reduce pollution, global plastic production must be reduced. If no restriction is imposed on production, the plastic waste that ends up in the environment can double in 2050 (up to 121 million tons), it was in science magazine at the end of last year Science. One of the researchers mentioned it earlier NRC “Of all the interventions investigated, the most effective way to reduce the greenhouse gases that are emitted by plastic.”
Countries are mainly concerned that the production of plastic will grow much faster. According to the OECD (economic partnership), plastic production and use can be done in 2040 without political intervention have grown another 70 percent (measured from 2020). Less than 10 percent of the waste plastic is recycled.
Yet it was already clear that a number of countries would not support a limit of plastic production. Opposite mainly came from oil or plastic-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and Malaysia. A negotiator told the Climate Home news site that was openly pronounced That a treaty export should not stand in the way. The representative of Kuwait said on Saturday during plenary negotiations that a possible treaty should protect their ‘interests and development practices’.
Oil countries are already expecting a reduced demand due to the electrification of cars. Plastic is expected to be the greatest future growth engine of the demand for oil. These countries wanted a treaty that would only focus on waste management. They were supported by oil and chemical companies. According to Greenpeace, there were four times as many lobbyists of these types of companies as scientists.
Mighty ally
Moreover, this camp received a powerful ally with the United States this camp. Where last year it was that the Biden government would like to support a deal with production restrictions, the maps under the Trump government were shaken very differently. Reuters news agency revealed that the United States sent letters in which they warned a global deal with limiting plastic production and/ or certain chemical additions not to support. It also submitted a formal proposal to limit the negotiation goal to the management of plastic waste. After China, the US is the largest producer of plastic, thanks to the abundance of cheap shale gas in the country.
Olielanden blocked radical agreements, while ambitious countries warned that they would rather not take home any agreement than a bad agreement
The Netherlands argued with the rest of the European Union, Canada, Australia, Peru, Chile and many African countries such as Ghana and Nigeria for the most ambitious agreement as possible. Countries such as Indonesia, Japan and South Africa were not so pronounced, but suggested texts such as that countries had to “work together to promote the sustainable consumption and production of plastic during their life cycle,” or that countries should “manage” plastic’s consumption and production.
The negotiations seemed hopeless for days. Olielanden blocked radical agreements, while ambitious countries warned that they would rather not take home any agreement than a bad agreement. Like this said Panama’s representative About a possible agreement without the restriction of plastic production: “The worst outcome for Panama is not that people remain disagreement, but that there will be an agreement that will not change anything.”
One of the discussions during the top was about whether there should be an agreement based on consensus, or a mood. That would actually have been decided in 2023, but it didn’t work then and it remained a point of discussion since then. Oil countries such as Saudi Arabia insisted on consensus, just as they have been doing for years at the regular climate utensils (where they then try to keep all the ambition from an agreement).
During the negotiations, ally Kuwait mentioned the importance of the next generation. Not to protect them against a world full of plastic pollution, but because it is precisely for them to listen to the position of oil countries. Because, according to Kuwait, “Children has been told that inclusion means respect for all opinions and perspectives. The silence of any voice would betray this principle.”
Read also
Very handy, shampoo, soap and detergent in mini -suits, but in Asia they are now everywhere