Countries Consider Pact To Reduce Plastic Production By 40% in 15 Years (theguardian.com) 43
Countries are for the first time considering restrictions on the global production of plastic -- to reduce it by 40% in 15 years -- in an attempt to protect human health and the environment. From a report: As the world attempts to make a treaty to cut plastic waste at UN talks in Ottawa, Canada, two countries have put forward the first concrete proposal to limit production to reduce its harmful effects including the huge carbon emissions from producing it. The motion submitted by Rwanda and Peru sets out a global reduction target, ambitiously termed a "north star," to cut the production of primary plastic polymers across the world by 40% by 2040, from a 2025 baseline.
It says: "The effectiveness of both supply and demand-side measures will be assessed, in whole or in part, on their success in reducing the production of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels." The proposal calls for the consideration of mandatory reporting by countries of statistical data on production, imports and exports of primary plastic polymers. A global plastic reduction target would be similar to the legally binding Paris agreement to pursue efforts to limit global temperature increase to 1.5C above preindustrial levels, Rwanda and Peru said.
It says: "The effectiveness of both supply and demand-side measures will be assessed, in whole or in part, on their success in reducing the production of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels." The proposal calls for the consideration of mandatory reporting by countries of statistical data on production, imports and exports of primary plastic polymers. A global plastic reduction target would be similar to the legally binding Paris agreement to pursue efforts to limit global temperature increase to 1.5C above preindustrial levels, Rwanda and Peru said.
Are we still OUT of the Paris accords? (Score:1)
I dont' think either way the US is legally bound to follow it tho...since it wasn't properly voted on by the senate?
Anyway, this UN thing likely won't affect us either I'm guessing.
Re:Are we still OUT of the Paris accords? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, Biden rejoined in Feb 2021 but you are correct, it has always been a non-binding agreement.
Legal form – Like the Kyoto Protocol and unlike the Copenhagen Accord, the Paris Agreement is a treaty within the meaning of international law, but not all its provisions establish legal obligations. Most importantly, parties do not have an obligation to achieve their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to address climate change – thus, in that respect, NDCs are not legally binding.
https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/pa... [un.org].
Re: (Score:2)
While it may be a treaty, to my knowledge it has never been approved by the US Senate, and even the binding provisions do not bind the US. All it is at this point is a promise by a president.
Re:Are we still OUT of the Paris accords? (Score:4, Informative)
There is a difference between what the international community means by the term treaty and it's a bit more informal and how the US Constitution treats it which is a bit more strict. Of course it also gets messy with interpretations of Article II and the fact that Congress have given President more unilateral powers over the decades. It wasn't found unconstitutional when Obama signed us in, same when Trump signed us out. The non-binding nature of it makes the case easier
"This practice is easy to justify under the constitutional text," NYU Law Professor David Golove told Newsweek in an email. "A treaty, which the Constitution empowers the President and Senate to make, is just a binding agreement under international law. Non-binding agreements are not treaties and were never understood to be such."
Since the agreement is both legally binding and non-binding, "the Paris Accord was within the President's powers, then, for two reasons: the important commitments were "non-binding" and the "binding" commitments were sufficiently modest to be within his independent powers to make executive agreements," Golove said, mentioning that the practice goes back to before the 20th century.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-... [newsweek.com]
Countries polluting the most plastic in the ocean (Score:1)
https://aquablu.com/stories/en... [aquablu.com]
Countries responsible for the biggest plastic pollution in our oceans:
1. India (126.5 million kg).
2. China (70.7 million kg).
3. Indonesia (53.3 million kg).
4. Brazil (38 million kg).
5. Thailand (22.8 million kg).
6. Mexico (3.5 million kg).
7. Egypt 2.5 million kg).
8. United States (2.4 million kg).
9. Japan (1.84 million kg).
10. United Kingdom (0,703 million kg).
Plastic production by country -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic
Global plastic production (2020)
China 31%
NAFTA
Re: (Score:2)
"makes sense" is doing a lot of work there.
What makes "sense" in this case can be America wanting to reduce plastic pollution for it's own domestic reasons and/or also to set a good example for those other countries.
"USA doing good at this thing" doesn't mean we cant do better or that we shouldn't try to do better is all.
US, Canada, EU, ... have done their part for now (Score:2)
What needs to be discussed is how the countries that have already done the heavy lifting of reducing plastic pollution
use their TRADE POLICIES to 'encourage'' the largest few plastic pollution countries (india, china, indonesia) to drastically
reduce their own plastic pollution.
The US can keep reducing its waste, but needs to pressure other countries to do their much needed, and larger part.
Treaties won't work, they are ignored by the largest polluting countries. Trade policies will work.
Not related, but pl
Re: (Score:2)
I dont' think either way the US is legally bound to follow it tho...since it wasn't properly voted on by the senate?
The only thing the Paris Agreement "forces" countries to do is regularly update their nationally determined contributions (NDC) which contains their commitment to limit emissions. The only consequence of failing to update their NDC is being publicly shamed by other countries. Countries don't even have to meet their own declared goals. So considering there aren't any real obligations, there isn't even anything to argue is legally binding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I could use 40% less plastic. And pay more for the plastic I do use. which is how the economics shake out for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Moving the production? (Score:2)
Isn't this just moving the production to 3rd world countries? Shouldn't countries strive to reduce *consumption* by 40%?
Re: (Score:3)
Supply cuts and changes are really the only way to do things from a top-down policy point of view.
We've been telling people to cut back waste for decades now (reduce, re-use, recycle) but any plan that relies on human beings changing behavior en-masse is almost always doomed for mediocrity in outcomes.
Re:Moving the production? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah...but paper straws SUCK!!!
I'll stick with my plastic ones thank you....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree and that is a case where the hype takes preference over the actual results.
The issue with plastic straws isn't the straws themselves but the disposal pipeline. That's the issue with most plastics is that people don't dispose of them properly.
If everyone threw their plastic straws in the trash where at least in the US it pretty much has a 99% chance of ending up in a proper landfill instead of say, bodies of water. The issue in Asian countries with respect to say the pacific garbage patch is just t
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully...nowhere I've ever lived or visited so far in the US have had any of these paper straw mandates.
Isn't that pretty much just a California thing anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about mandates but I've encountered them in many states, just restaurant to restaurant. I think there are local ordinances now too as places around water or beaches always seem to have them, which is reasonable to me since people litter all the time. The quality of paper straw is also an issue, my suspicion is the good paper ones probably cost more than plastic ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Supply cuts and changes are really the only way to do things from a top-down policy point of view. We've been telling people to cut back waste for decades now (reduce, re-use, recycle) but any plan that relies on human beings changing behavior en-masse is almost always doomed for mediocrity in outcomes.
Reducing consumption doesn't need to focus on individual behavior changes. Governments can reduce consumption through regulation on companies just like they can reduce production. Any laws they pass to force a manufacturer to stop using plastics could instead force a retailer to not buy products that contain or are packaged in plastic. Limiting the use of plastic bags is another example of the government limiting consumption without relying on individual behavior changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Tomatoe-Tomato, and the end of the day the government is putting restrictions on supply which naturally reduces consumption. It just usually way simpler for the government to legally say "don't produce so much X" as opposed to "don't use so much X"
I did also forget the other tool which is Pigouvian taxes, just price the environmental cost into everything plastic and let the market sort it out from there.
Re: (Score:2)
It is an important distinction to focus on consumption instead of production. If you focus on production then production can simply shift to countries who have less ambitious plastic reduction targets. If populous countries instead focus on limiting consumption, companies cannot play that game.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but the answer to third party markets is to restrict their supply. When I think "consumption" I am thinking about the individual level, once a person has access to a thing it's impossible for policy to prevent their use so you have to stop it further up the line.
Example is the 40 year war-on-drugs. Yeah we make consumption illegal but supply is plentiful in just the way you described, production is shifted to different countries since we restrict supply in the US since telling everyone "don't use d
Clearly not China (Score:2)
With all the plastic Temu uses, this will be a long, hard slog.
This might actually fly (Score:2, Interesting)
This is like lead in gasoline. Once it was shown that leaded gas had literally poisoned every person on the planet, there was e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Affect and effect (Score:2)
If it effects everyone, why have lifespans been trending upward for the last half century as plastic used increased?
https://www.who.int/data/gho/d... [who.int]
What countries on board? (Score:2)
I can't find any information about what countries are actually on board here. 51% of plastics production comes out of Asia (32% from China alone), and another 31% comes from the US & EU. So it really comes down to whether you can get all these Asian and Western nations to agree to this, not some countries in Africa and South America. I saw estimates that plastic production will double by 2040 and triple by 2065, so a reduction of 40% from a 2025 baseline would mean a reduction of 70% of the projected p
What about plastics waste? (Score:2)
My take is this effort is the result of Canada running out of money and looking for new things to tax. Otherwise they will be investing into domestic plastic recycling instead of shipping it to third-world countries [www.cbc.ca].
So what's the replacement? (Score:3)
Goals are great, but what pray tell what will replace the plastic being used at this time? There is only so much reduction/recycle you can do. Plastic is everywhere, even on the keyboard I'm typing on. What will the keyboard be made of?
Re:So what's the replacement? (Score:4, Insightful)
The plastic in your keyboard isn't that big of an issue. Look in your kitchen for the real problem. Plastic is in intimate contact with your food. Plastic bags, plastic bottles, plastic coated paper, plastic storage containers, plastic wrap, etc.
Why? We need to control moisture, to keep it in or out of the food, and we demand sanitation even more. Glass costs more to produce, more to ship, and is breakable. The energy cost of recycling glass is high, they stopped recycling glass here because it didn't pay to haul it over the mountains to the recycling plant. And since the recycling plant uses natural gas, it's not real popular with the Greens either.
Then there was the plastic bubble around each of the batteries I bought last weekend. Three batteries in three bubbles on a piece of shiny coated cardboard.
The plastic garden hose I bought will last years, and your keyboard should last even longer. But the food wrappers and battery defense bubbles go right in the trash.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so what is the replacement?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Spend more energy we don't have recycling glass? Accept lower food safety standards?
I don't know why the plastic bubbles were around the batteries.
Re:So what's the replacement? (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of the food packaging can be reduced. For example, a plastic shell could be replaced by a thin plastic vacuum sealed bag, surrounded by cardboard. A 40% reduction seems like it wouldn't be too hard.
insanity (Score:3)
Plastic is ubiquitous in all sorts of products that are not thought of when religious fanatics talk about "plastic." For example, consider all the medical devices that require plastic--just the tubing is major. Then, what about synthetic fabrics -- all plastic. All the parts of airplanes and cars to reduce weight. Eyeglasses use plastic lenses -- glass is too heavy. It goes on and on. It's not just bottles and straws.
Plastic sustainable? (Score:2)
Is there even a level of sustainable plastic?
Re: (Score:3)
PLASTIC IS INERT!!! (Score:1)
What ever happened to the imbecile who'd show up to these discussions and scream: PLASTIC IS INERT!!! ???
Five Plastic Cups (Score:1)
Rwanda and Peru have agreed to reduce plastics by 40% in 15 years (less than 3%/yr compounded).
So... they'll throw away five less plastic cups a year.
Solo red frat-party cups are gonna be hurting!
They will all agree to do this ... (Score:2)
and then completely fail to change much. But today's politicians will get a lot of praise & kudos -- which is all that politicians really care about. Politicians in 10-15 years time will blame today's politicians.
Easy (Score:1)
Ban blister packs. Ban plastic film wrap. Ban plastic jars and jugs. Accept that we need to switch back to glass containers, paper bags, and opaque cardboard packaging.
Accept that bags will split more often. Especially when wet. Accept more broken glass on the roadside.
This isn't more than an inconvenience and we still won't do it.
Should focus on non-recyclables (Score:1)
This really comes down to use and how recyclable something is.
Even now, I am disgusted that in Seattle, they are saying to NOT recycle aluminum foil that has grease/food on it. Well, that can only mean that the approach for recycling is a horribly cheap one, which l
Nearly doubled in the past 20 years (Score:2)
None of this adds up. We simply need to kill off most uses of plastic. Ban it, prohibit production of certain types, etc.. Plastics production has increased by over 23,000% since 1950