Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Government

UN Plastic Treaty Talks Collapse Without a Deal (politico.eu) 67

United Nations members gathered this week in Busan, South Korea to negotiate the first treaty reducing plastic pollution. But Politico reports that "talks collapsed late Sunday after negotiators failed to resolve their differences and agree on a global plastic treaty. At the heart of the disagreement was a refusal by oil-rich nations led by Saudi Arabia to accept a deal that put limits on plastic production... Throughout the two years of talks, oil-rich and plastic-producing states had repeatedly clashed with nations that wanted to reduce plastic production to solve a worsening plastic pollution crisis. Many went to Busan hopeful differences would be put aside in the name of combatting a common global threat. But in the end this proved too optimistic...

The EU, alongside more than 100 other countries that included the U.K., on Thursday had backed a new proposal spearheaded by Panama pushing for a global target to reduce plastic production to "sustainable levels", drawing a clear battle line for the talks. But three negotiators from countries in the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution — granted anonymity to discuss closed-door talks — told POLITICO Saudi Arabia had coordinated a push from oil-rich and plastic-producing countries to block any proposals for the treaty that threatened to reduce plastic production. The vast majority of plastic is made from oil or natural gas...

Along with disagreements over plastic production, countries were also unable to agree on whether and how to target particularly polluting plastic products, and how to finance the treaty. Two of the "high-ambition" negotiators referenced above suggested the talks were doomed to fail from the beginning, arguing that there was never going to be enough time given the scope of the mandate. "I think the pressure on us to deliver that in 18 months ... was kind of stupid then, and it's still stupid now," said one. "Usually these processes take a number of years — beyond what we are doing...." But many observers and some delegates said the summit's collapse demonstrated the failures of consensus-based environmental multilateralism, arguing that requiring all countries to agree by consensus gave reluctant nations too much veto power. NGOs like the Center for International Environmental Law hope this week's failed talks will serve as a lesson for future U.N. talks...

The date and time of the next round of talks is yet to be announced.

Greenpeace issued a statement saying "over 100 Member States, representing billions of people, rejected a toothless deal that would have accomplished nothing, and stood before the world committing to an ambitious treaty."

And they argued that the message is clear. "Ambitious countries must not allow the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries, backed by a small minority of countries, to prevent the will of the vast majority. A strong agreement that protects people and the planet is our only option."

UN Plastic Treaty Talks Collapse Without a Deal

Comments Filter:
  • ... a lesson for future U.N. talks ...

    Rich nations will not stop their Imperialism pissing-contest, will not take responsibilities for their selfishness, will not pay for damages.

    It's taken 40 years to get a measly 300+ billion dollars to fix climate change. Pollution is far more survivable and thus, much less an issue. Trump decreased clean air/water controls during his last term and admits his agenda will repeat that corporate favouritism.

    The US sets the priorities, which haven't changed in 150 years: Profit at any cost, a few hiccups

    • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Sunday December 01, 2024 @06:21PM (#64984001)

      Trump is working hard to swing the American dick so far that someone will chop it off.

      Seriously, the whole "stick with the US dollar or I'll tariff you into non-existence" may just convince the BRICS countries to do it and tough out the consequences rather than bow to the US now that Trump's made it crystal clear that's what it would be.

      And while Canada has to kiss American ass for the moment, our politicians better be exploring every possible option to realign our economic interests with the EU.

      The US is too unreliable to leave with the primary levers of control on the world economy. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have figured that out after Trump's first term. They all thought they could ride it out and sanity would be restored. Well... here's round two, and it's going to be worse for the US and the rest of the world.

    • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Sunday December 01, 2024 @06:36PM (#64984049) Homepage Journal

      The US sets the priorities, which haven't changed in 150 years: Profit at any cost, a few hiccups aside. (Eg. the abolition of domestic slavery.) Now, the damage is measurable but no-one will punish the USA for their bad behaviour.

      We do some good things, too.

      Since the slavery thing, we rebuilt Japan and let them keep their soverignity. They're now a close ally, and we didn't annex them and turn them into a satellite state of the US (for comparison, see Tibet).

      Same for Germany (with a lot of help from other European nations.)

      We're the first onsite to help with there's a problem. We sent an aircraft carrier to Haiti to help with the crisis... and went home once they got back on their feet. Again, without annexing them into a satellite state.

      Throughout the cold war we policed the oceans and prevented piracy. Any nation that wanted to trade with any other nation could do so without having to field a standing navy to protect their own shipping, protection of shipping was free. All we asked in return was that if a conflict arose with the USSR, the country would side with us. (And in some cases, allow us to build a military base in their country.)

      We stood against the USSR, and eventually won.

      We (Churchill, Roosevelt, Maxim Litvinov of the USSR, and T. V. Soong of China) started the UN. Largely ineffective, it was at least a good idea with the best of intentions. We also host it (the UN).

      As a country, we send a lot of money to other countries with behavioral strings attached. Essentially, we pay them not to cause trouble, to act in a friendlier manner.

      We completed the Abraham Accords [wikipedia.org], which is a first step towards peace in the mideast.

      We're loud and noisy and crass and impolite, we tend to throw our weight around, but we also get some good things done on the world stage.

      Also, well... lots of people from certain nations log in just to tear us down, make us feel bad.

      Keep in mind all the good things we've done as well.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Lesson: Stop throwing garbage on the ground and in waterways.

      • by Teun ( 17872 )
        Exactly, the problem isn't the production and use of plastics (in the first world), the problem is mainly in third world countries where plastics are thrown in the environment.
        So fix the ignorance of those discarding plastics and the 'problem' no longer exists.
    • ...the abolition of domestic slavery.

      Not even that. Companies such as CoreCivic and GEO Group lease slave labour to corporations such as Walmart, AT&T, & Victoria’s Secret. Slave labour was infamously used during BP's 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, under particularly hazardous/toxic conditions.

  • The plain fact of the matter is, plastics are wonderful, and no one wants to get rid of them. Outlawing plastic bags or drinking straws is a kind of performance art, and I'm sure the plastic garbage-bag industry appreciates the boost from the lack of free grocery bags.

    There has been an attempt to terrify the gullible with "PFAS", lately. Why, there are microplastics in everything! It will surely kill us yesterday! Yeah... well, they're in everything and everyone, and you can't point to a single symptom, syn

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 )

      People don't realize the ramifications of eliminating plastics. You think food prices and loss are high now? Wait until you get rid of plastics. Transportation costs due to increased weight go up, all those medical devices that require plastics...

      • The steel industry will boom if plastics are outlawed and steam trains and telegraphs will be back, since we will not be able to make anything electric that needs insulation or paint.
        • The ceramics department would like a word with you about the "no more insulators" bit.
          Especially since electric motors can use vitreous enamel coated wire, and most circuit boards are fiberglass.

          That said, eliminating hydrocarbon based plastics is entirely unnecessary, we just need to significantly reduce excessive disposable uses, eg most disposable plastic packaging could be switched over to something more recyclable like aluminum foil. Sure, it'd require a lot of supply chain adjustments, but there's
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Nobody is seriously talking about us not having any plastics at all.

        What we need is to get to a sustainable level, where we recycle as much as possible (high end goods are now using recycled plastic) and when we do create it from oil, it is not for highly disposable single use purposes when that can be avoided.

        Plastic bags are a good example. Most were not ending up as bin liners (trash bags), they were being sent to landfill empty, along with large amounts of packaging that could be replaced with something

      • We shipped produce in the 70's without any plastic with no more loss than today. In some cases plastics have made it worse, boxes of bags of apples fair more poorly than just a box of apples because they can't quite arrange themselves for maximum surface area of contact.
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Not protectionist. All part of the Grand Plan to stop pumping oil.

      As long as there remain uses for petrochemicals besides energy and transportation, those distillation fractions will continue to be produced. And there are only a few things one can do with them: Burn them in a flare stack. Or burn them in IC engines. Both of which produce CO2 and make the greenies seethe.

    • Look in your kitchen if you want to admire the many uses of plastic. You can start in the freezer.

      The so called waxed paper and cardboard are really plastic coated. The inside of the bottle caps on your beer are plastic. The inside of the lids on the canning jars I use to can the pickles are lined with plastic. It used to be BPA, but they replaced that after everyone got excited. Even the lid on the oatmeal boxes is plastic now.

      As for clothing, well, read the label. Then think of all the ducks and geese tha

    • Outlawing plastic bags or drinking straws is a kind of performance art

      And what wonderful performance it is. Studies have already shown positive environmental effects in places where we have outlawed them, because it turns out people are just fucking terrible. Sure we fucking terrible people still throw our paper straws in the river, but at least they disintegrate before washing up on the beach.

      There has been an attempt to terrify the gullible with "PFAS", lately.

      Yeah those damn scientists and their "evidence" that PFAS has negative health consequences. What do *cough cough* they know anyway. Sorry gotta run, need to go see my oncologist *cough

    • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      Yeah... well, they're [plastics] in everything and everyone, and you can't point to a single symptom, syndrome, or illness caused by any of it... is that just the normal working of the MAGA conspiracy theorists?

      Are you suggesting that we should not be concerned about ingesting plastics? Or that the MAGA movement is somehow demonizing plastic? I am so confused. Are you "pro" plastic? Will the next step will be to demand *more* plastics? Or articles about the health benefits of microplastics?

  • Saudi Arabia. If they can't kill off one news reporter by butchering him in a Turkish embassy and giving money to terrorists in gaza and wearing white dresses made with the blood of jews and "dissenters" everywhere what can they do.

    Fuck Saudi Arabia and those who suck up to them. Muhammad Bin Salman, I call you out. Yuo're the face of the shit.

  • Irony (Score:5, Funny)

    by kyoko21 ( 198413 ) on Sunday December 01, 2024 @09:11PM (#64984297)

    It's ironic the talks broke down faster than the plastics will.

  • Sovereign countries can ban plastics, tax plastics out of existence, ban imports of plastics waste, etc all on their own without needing oil producers to agree to anything. They could also make their own treaty as a bloc to not import plastics or otherwise ban them/penalize those who use them. So why dont they? Yes it really is that simple, unless theyre trying to make it complicated by demanding money.

    • Sovereign countries can ban plastics, tax plastics out of existence, ban imports of plastics waste, etc all on their own without needing oil producers to agree to anything. They could also make their own treaty as a bloc to not import plastics or otherwise ban them/penalize those who use them. So why dont they? Yes it really is that simple, unless theyre trying to make it complicated by demanding money.

      Because plastics are really, really useful. If you ban them and no one else does you put your economy at a comparative disadvantage. If everyone (or at least a high proportion of countries) bans them you suffer the same downsides but it's at least a level playing field.

  • If the goal of the treaty was to reduce plastic pollution, I don't know why they would be talking about reducing production rather than working on ensuring that waste is properly disposed.

    Part of that is due to how direct the gains are -- gains at ensuring that all plastic ends up in a controlled landfill translate into less pollution. But a X% reduction in production only creates a X/100% reduction in pollution because >99% of plastic already ends up in landfill as it is.

    It just seems like they set them

    • A landfill is exactly where plastic waste belongs - not burned or dumped in the sea.
      • by Teun ( 17872 )
        Sorry but a landfill is the ultimate result of not recycling.
        Yes there are many different sorts of plastic and they are often incompatible to recycle together but dumping them in a landfill is just delaying the problem.
        As long a we are burning oil and gas is burning plastics a viable solution
      • Yes, exactly. So improving landfill recovery rates is far more effective at reducing the amount of plastic in the sea than decreasing production.

  • .. evidently not this. No money in it. It's like a cancer consuming the earth and we're all somehow complicit loving our tasty treats and entertaining nick naks it produces.

    Must be a better alternative, all the other 'isms isn't the answer, tried them. Perhaps it needs some serious calibration. No go zones for capital like instant monopolies from privatising public services. Cut corporate lobbying. Start putting some CEO's in jail for crimes against nature, humanity.

    The state has utterly failed to protect p

  • If we required all plastics to be stamped with a manufacturer/owner address that had to accept the returned product, then we could get past this ridiculous "negative externality" of our current approach. Cities could then sort by owner and return shipping containers full of shredded plastics to the manufacturer rather than the current approach of sending the stuff to our landfill after pretending to "recycle".
  • This is precisely what I predicted was going to happen, a month ago. I said, to paraphrase: “Unless this meeting ends with hard and absolute action, nothing will happen.”, and TADA, nothing happened. Why bother to have feel good, no action talks? If we have a problem that needs to be solved, you can't approach with the kind of nonchalance of ordering another round of beer when you're drunk.

    Why did this talk fail, because you let the people who had no vested interest in useful action, make

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T

Working...