The World
Seeks an End to Plastic Pollution at Talks in South Korea
Many nations
hope to reduce the half a billion tons of plastic made each year. But pushback
from plastic and oil producers, and Donald Trump’s election, could scuttle an
agreement.
Hiroko
Tabuchi
By Hiroko
Tabuchi
Nov. 24,
2024, 1:45 p.m. ET
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/24/climate/plastic-pollution-south-korea-talks.html
On the heels
of contentious climate talks in Azerbaijan, negotiators from around the globe
are descending on Busan, South Korea, this week with another formidable goal:
to hammer out the world’s first treaty designed to tackle plastic pollution’s
explosive growth.
On the table
is a proposal that aims to cut down on the millions of tons of plastic waste
discarded each year. And a broad coalition of nations is seeking to go a step
further and rein in plastic production, with a focus on restricting single-use
plastic.
That notion
had gained traction leading up to the final round of talks in Busan, with even
the United States, a major plastics producer, tentatively backing the United
Nations-led effort.
Then came
the election of Donald J. Trump.
Now, few
expect the United States to sign on to an eventual treaty at all. And with
deep-seated opposition from oil and gas nations like Saudi Arabia and Russia —
which, like the United States, produce the fossil fuels used to make plastic —
some delegates are wondering whether any agreement is possible by the scheduled
end of the talks on Sunday.
“The U.S.
really engaged on this, but if they step back, it’s a big disappointment,” said
Ndiaye Cheikh Sella, a delegate for Senegal and the chief of staff of the
country’s environmental ministry.
There is one
consensus among most delegates: The world has a colossal plastic waste problem.
The world
produces nearly half a billion tons of plastic each year, more than double the
amount from two decades ago, and much of that turns up on coastlines and river
banks, as well as in whales, birds and other animals that ingest them.
Researchers have estimated that one garbage truck’s worth of plastic enters the
ocean every minute.
Scientists
have also sounded the alarm on microplastics in the environment and in the
human body, as well as the thousands of chemicals in plastic that can leach
into food, water and the environment. Producing and transporting plastic
releases planet-warming gases — if plastics were a country, it would be the
world’s fifth-highest emitter of greenhouse gases. Recycling isn’t keeping up;
scientists estimate that only 9 percent of plastic waste generated globally is
recycled.
Developing
nations have been at the forefront of efforts to tackle plastic pollution, as
they have struggled to cope with waste sent by rich countries.
“The stakes
have never been higher,” said Anja Brandon, the director of plastics policy at
the Ocean Conservancy, a nonprofit focused on marine conservation. While there
were competing approaches to reducing production, she said, there was “broad
acknowledgment that we need to be making less.”
Some
powerful nations, and industries, are opposed.
Stewart
Harris, a spokesman for the International Council of Chemical Associations,
which represents the global chemical and plastics companies, said that the
group did not support measures to restrict plastic production, instead favoring
an agreement centered on reuse, recycling and other ways to “give value to
plastic at the end of its life.”
Mr. Harris,
who also directs global plastics policy at the American Chemistry Council,
pointed to the unintended consequences of curbing plastic production, including
higher prices that could burden low-income households. (Plastic pollution also
disproportionately burdens poor people.)
The
chemicals industry is likely to find an ally in Mr. Trump, who previously
tapped an A.C.C. executive to lead the toxic chemical unit at the Environmental
Protection Agency. However, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mr. Trump’s pick for health
secretary, supported action on plastic production during his presidential bid.
In September last year, Mr. Kennedy posted a 10-point plan to “fix the plastics
pollution crisis” on X, starting with supporting “an ambitious international
plastics treaty.”
There has
also been heavy pushback from a handful of nations that favor a nonbinding
agreement without restrictions on plastic production. Major gas exporters,
including Russia, Qatar and Iran, held a meeting this month in preparation for
the Busan negotiations, with a focus on “ensuring that the role of natural gas
is duly considered.”
Still,
consumer giants including Mars and Unilever have thrown their weight behind a
stronger agreement, calling on nations to draw up a treaty “that addresses the
full life cycle of plastics.” On Saturday, hundreds of people marched in Busan
urging nations to agree to a robust plastics treaty.
Scientists
say a solution is possible. A recent paper in the journal Science estimated
that just four of the policies that have been discussed so far at the plastic
treaty talks could reduce mismanaged plastic waste by more than 90 percent, and
plastic-related greenhouse gas emissions by one-third. Those policies include
capping new plastic production at 2020 levels and mandating that new products
be made with at least 40 percent recycled plastic.
“It is
actually possible to nearly end plastic pollution with this treaty,” Douglas J.
McCauley, a professor of ocean science at the University of California, Santa
Barbara, said in an email. “It was also sobering to see that without a treaty,
plastic pollution will double by 2050,” he added.
Some
observers headed to the talks said it was time for negotiators to move ahead
with a treaty, even without every nation signing on. Many developing countries
were angered by the modest deal on climate crisis financing that emerged by
consensus from the Azerbaijan talks.
An ambitious
treaty with holdouts is better than a watered-down one signed by all, said
Jamala Djinn, a policy adviser at Break Free From Plastic, a coalition of
organizations working on plastic pollution. The United States, she noted, has
not been a signatory to a number of global treaties that were nevertheless
effective.
“We can’t
afford to let a handful of plastic producers hamper the ambition of a vast
majority of member states,” she said.
Senator Jeff
Merkley, Democrat of Oregon and the sole Congress member joining the Busan
talks, agreed.
“If the U.S.
doesn’t sign on, at least we wouldn’t be holding the world back,” he said.
The Biden
administration has taken its own steps to tackle plastic waste, including a
plan for the federal government to phase out purchases of single-use plastics.
But the survival of such policies under the incoming administration is in
doubt, along with the prospect of a U.S.-ratified treaty.
Days after
the presidential election, White House officials told stakeholders at a meeting
that the United States did not see a treaty that curbed plastic production as a
viable option, according to two people present who were not authorized to
discuss the meeting publicly.
Other points
of contention include whether the treaty should include a list of chemicals of
concern used in plastics that are targeted for stricter controls; whether it
should single out products — such as Styrofoam cups — that need to be phased
out; and what financing should be provided for developing nations that lack the
technical and financial resources to handle the waste.
Dennis
Clare, a legal adviser for Micronesia, said that for many countries, plastic
pollution was an equity issue. Small island nations overrun by plastic
pollution played little role in generating plastic waste but bore a huge brunt,
he said.
“If the
countries with the most wealth and most resources take a pass, it’s an
inequitable burden shift,” Mr. Clare said. “It’s dumping, quite literally and
figuratively, on poorer downstream countries.”
Hiroko
Tabuchi covers pollution and the environment for The Times. She has been a
journalist for more than 20 years in Tokyo and New York. More about Hiroko
Tabuchi
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário