UN Plastic Treaty Talks Collapse Without a Deal (politico.eu) 62
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."
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."
Re:Punishments (Score:4, Insightful)
Economic sanctions, typically.
Fortunately the EU is large enough to make some of this happen anyway. It's far from ideal but better than nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Have economic sanctions ever worked, anywhere? Look how sanctioned Russia is. They seem to just dig their feet in further and carry on about their business.
Re:Punishments (Score:5, Interesting)
The Russian economy is doing pretty badly.
It worked when the EU did it with China. Components produced there became RoHS compliant pretty fast.
Re: Punishments (Score:2)
Ok, Ivan.
If the sanctions weren't working how come there are so many cowards arguing they are bad?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see the RoHS *label* on products, but how/are the actual reduction of hazardous substances enforced?
1. The EU
2. California
3. New Jersey
The US has no federal restrictions, but California and NJ are big markets, so most manufacturers abide by RoHS even in the other 48 states.
Disclaimer: I live in California but have a hidden stockpile of 60/40 PbSn solder.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wondered about that -- I see the RoHS *label* on products, but how/are the actual reduction of hazardous substances enforced?
In the EU enforcement actions are virtually always left up to member states. So for example in Germany an importer of an RoHS non-compliant device could face 30000EUR fine + 1 year in jail. That gives a significant incentive for people not to import this shit. Now sure there's not a lot of chance of getting some random seller on aliexpress to go to a German jail, but when your Samsungs, your Siemens, your Apples, and the rest of the major players which do have people who risk enforcement go to their supplie
Re: (Score:2)
It's mostly done by the supply chain, and ultimately by regulators in the EU who do test products periodically.
Re: (Score:2)
We still need their natural gas, minerals, and until recently, their space industry. Add to that, money from online scams, they're not going broke in a hurry. Refusing to sell them cheese and computers means smugglers make money and the government confiscates any big-iron computers so "their business" of imperialism, doesn't stop.
Re: (Score:2)
The Russian economy is on the verge of collapsing, and there are rumors that it may be too late to stop it from doing so, even if Putin were to end the war today. Just because you don't see the results of sanctions in a month or two, or however little time you think it should take, doesn't mean sanctions don't work. It takes time, sometimes a year or more, for the results to fully manifest.
Think of someone with a few credit cards and a bit of savings in the bank who just lost their job. They may be able
Re:Punishments (Score:5, Informative)
There is no world police and there are no sanctions. These are voluntary pledges that, once ratified by countries X1, X2... X195, are enforced by the Parties' legal systems, which limit the action of the executive branch to abide by treaties. To go against the treaties, they'd first need to retract their participation, which they also can do any minute without sanctions, something they avoid because it makes them look bad.
The context is that while, in general terms, "everybody" agrees to do_something() , nobody wants to be the first. We regularly read such arguments on slashdot: it's worthless for country X to X.do_something() because China.do_something() does not occur. But China won't do it unless US.do_something() and EU.do_something() happen first, and we're stuck.
With these conferences, every nation agrees to simultaneously do something. The purpose of the UN is to give a platform for such negotiations, which could otherwise never occur. The UN has no means to enforce anything and relies on countries following Rule of Law. (Not all of them do.)
If needed, clarify if you honestly didn't know/understand or if you were making a rhetorical question.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say nobody wants to be first. Some countries have realized that being first can be a massive economic opportunity for them. Norway with electric vehicles, and now lots of jobs developing and testing EV technology in a challenging climate. China with solar and wind, and batteries and EVs, now massive industries with world-leading tech, and huge exports.
We have an opportunity to create huge amounts of business upgrading our countries to better air quality, cheaper energy, superior cars etc. We are
Greenies/Enivronmentalists (Score:2)
Re: Greenies/Enivronmentalists (Score:3)
"I want an EV and will get one for the wife which has driving needs that suit current EV's."
How many wives have you got?
Re: Punishments (Score:2)
It's a lesson to the poor (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. We already elected Trump. What more could we do?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That, I think, will be the unfortunate truth. The US is hitting itself, hard. All the "allies who support due to goodwill" will disappear and be replaced with a much more mercenary, transactional system because that's what Trump understands.
Those tariff walls will go up because Trump thinks that's a strong thing to do. Because it won't actually increase American productivity, it won't bring jobs back onshore. Prices will go up, average standard of living will go down, because it will no longer be propp
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Mass deportations and concentration camps are going to happen
Take your meds and realize that we just finished a presidential campaign. I would be shocked if more than half of the news you have consumed over the last year has been at all accurate. Same is true for the other side. On the topic at hand, the problem with recycling plastics is that energy prices are too high to do that. Just like for AGW, the only solution is nuclear. And as long as the folks at the table are scientifically illiterate, nothing of value will be accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
This time around, Trump (or at least, his puppet-masters) have a plan. This time, he's putting 'I have more rights' yes-men in charge of the government. It will be interesting times: Do the subordinate bureaucrats obey orders, do the people "do something" about the government as Fox network demanded for the last 20 years? If the lesser officials refuse theocracy, kleptocracy and oppression, the people have won the battle for the country before it started.
Americans like to pride themselves on limiting
Re:It's a lesson to the poor (Score:5, Informative)
That the Trump administration intends to launch a mass deportation that will involve concentration camps isn't hyperbole. It's his stated agenda. If you think otherwise it's you who needs to pay better attention.
The question is not whether Trump will try to do these things, it's whether he will succeed. Moderates who might once have resisted have been pushed out of the Republican Party. The GOP will have majority control of both houses of Congress and a compliant Supreme Court.
I'm somewhat hopeful that when Trump starts his trade war the economic consequences will be so evident that the Trump administration will step back from the edge. But, there is very little standing in Trump's way except his own incompetence and the GOP's lack of discipline.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump voters will have no problem blaming whatever inflation he causes on Obama, Hillary, space lasers, Satan, etc. But what he risks doing is waking up normal people, non-voters, to the fact that there's something fundamentally wrong with their government. I've always said that a lower turnout favors Trump and a higher turnout favors someone else. Last month's election results reinforce this.
I'm actually in favor of tariffs on China, precisely because it will cause people to buy less crap. Much of it plast
Re: (Score:3)
>Trump voters will have no problem blaming whatever inflation he causes on Obama, Hillary, space lasers, Satan, etc.
Last time around, didn't he cause a lot of pain for farmers with his hardon for tariffs? And IIRC, there were plenty of MAGA farmers willing to tell the media they were OK with it for the good of the cause.
>I'm not convinced he will even do the deportations though. He'll make a show about doing a few raids, get nice photos of a couple hundred Latinos chained up. But I would assume his f
Re: (Score:2)
If they get rid of ACA/Obamacare (same thing, apparently some people didn't realize) you will have people literally dying. Hard to say you are fine with it when your wife is dying in agony and you can't afford to help her, or your daughter got raped and now has to carry the rapists child to term.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss COVID? They were literally choking to death denying they had it because MAGA declared it a hoax. Red states were fudging death statistics.
Re: It's a lesson to the poor (Score:2)
sfcat doesn't think, it only is here to troll with nuclear fantasies which directly contradict math and science, and occasionally defend Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Take your meds and realize that we just finished a presidential campaign.
"Chill out! The politician who campaigned on mass deportations on a scale and at a pace that will necessitate concentration camps probably won't actually implement mass deportations and concentration camps!"
I'm also hopeful that Trump won't have the attention span to implement a lot of his campaign promises. My concerns about what he'll do are based on the words coming out of his own mouth, which feels like an odd category of information to write off.
Re: It's a lesson to the poor (Score:1)
Re:It's a lesson to the poor (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
We do some good things, too (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: We do some good things, too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Lesson: Stop throwing garbage on the ground and in waterways.
Re: (Score:2)
So fix the ignorance of those discarding plastics and the 'problem' no longer exists.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
reeks of protectionist gibberish (Score:1, Informative)
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)
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...
Re: reeks of protectionist gibberish (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: reeks of protectionist gibberish (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Kill the Dolphins and the Jews (Score:2)
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)
It's ironic the talks broke down faster than the plastics will.
I dont know if they realize this butâ¦. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Production problem or disposal problem? (Score:2)
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
Re: Production problem or disposal problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Capitalism is great at a lot of things, but ... (Score:1)
.. 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