Why is the global treaty on plastic pollution dividing the world?

What the hell can we do with all the plastic polluting our oceans, our food supply, and even our bodies?

That’s the query delegates from 175 countries try to reply this week in Busan, South Korea, where the fifth and final round of negotiations is underway for a United Nations-led treaty that might regulate the full life cycle of plastics, including production, design and disposal.

Many had hoped that the initiative, launched two years ago, would result in the most important environmental agreement since the Paris climate agreement in 2016.

But sharp divisions have emerged over the course of 4 rounds of talks, raising concerns that the Busan session will end with a watered-down treaty that falls in need of its ambitious goals.

The biggest disagreements are whether the treaty should focus on reducing overall plastic production, or whether it can be enough to easily improve recycling practices.

Meanwhile, the involvement of the United States, one in all the world’s largest producers of plastic waste, has been questioned after the results of the presidential elections.

Before the meeting began on Monday, South Korean Environment Minister Kim Wan-sup tried to dispel expectations, telling reporters: “I think it may be more realistic to implement measures gradually.”

Here’s what it is advisable find out about the problem and efforts to resolve it:

How serious is the world’s plastic problem?

Few people disagree with the statement that pollution levels have reached alarming levels.

Between 2000 and 2019, annual plastic production doubled to 460 million tons. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, it is expected to succeed in 736 million tonnes by 2040.

Very little of the world’s plastic waste – about half of which comes from single-use plastics reminiscent of packaging, straws and disposable utensils – is recycled. Just 9% of the 353 million tons of plastic thrown away in 2019 was recycled.

The number is even lower in the U.S., where everybody produces a median of 487 kilos of plastic waste per yr: In 2019, just 4% of waste was recycled, and most was incinerated or landfilled.

Because it doesn’t biodegrade, much of discarded plastic enters the environment as microplastics – tiny particles lower than 5 millimeters in size that could be present in water, food and even human placentas.

Although research on the impact on human health is just starting, there is one thing test In New England Journal of Medicine linked microplastics in certain blood vessels to an increased risk of heart problems.

“Our world is drowning in plastic pollution,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a video message to delegates on Monday.

“By 2050, there may be more plastic than fish in the ocean. Microplastics in our blood cause health problems that we are only beginning to understand.”

Is there a way out?

Research suggests it isn’t too late to act.

Paper published in the diary Science found that just 4 policies could “reduce mismanaged plastic waste by 91% and total plastic-related greenhouse gas emissions by one third.”

The two simplest: requiring a minimum recycled content of 40% for brand spanking new plastic products, followed by a cap on the production of recent plastics, along with a tax on plastic consumption and increased investment in waste management systems.

What are the biggest obstacles to treaty negotiations?

The most intractable questions also proved to be the most important: who would pay for what, and whether the treaty would set mandatory production limits or allow countries to set and cling to their very own voluntary targets.

Poorer countries, reminiscent of small Pacific island states, are calling for his or her wealthier counterparts to bear a greater share of the financial costs of waste, which is largely produced by developed economies but finally ends up on their shores.

The UN has estimated that measures to combat plastic will cost $1.64 trillion by 2040.

On the other hand, countries reminiscent of Saudi Arabia and Russia, whose economies depend on fossil fuels to offer ingredients for plastics, oppose mandatory production cuts, favoring as a substitute a spotlight on recycling and waste management.

And while countries including Rwanda and the UK have issued a pledge calling for clear limits on the production of recent plastics, fossil fuel producing countries have insisted that parties should have the ability to set their very own voluntary targets.

“We reject any proposals that impose excessive burdens on the industry,” Saudi Arabia said in its opening statement on Monday, favoring “recycling solutions rather than imposing rigid and exclusionary policies.”

Citing the “delay tactics” of nations on this camp, Virginijus Sinkevicius, head of the European Commission for the environment, predicted this yr that it will be very difficult to conclude negotiations by the end of November.

Why achieve this many countries and environmentalists oppose solutions that focus on recycling?

Few people disagree that higher waste management is needed. But critics say focusing almost exclusively on recycling exaggerates the possible impacts and distracts from more fundamental solutions to plastic pollution.

“We must stop making a lot of it. It really is that easy. And this treaty is our greatest probability to try this,” said John Hocevar, director of Greenpeace’s Oceans Campaign in the US.

“This is not a problem we can solve by recycling,” he said. “Most plastics will never be recycled.”

This is the case with California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is pursuing a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, one in all the world’s largest producers of petroleum-based polymers used to make single-use plastics.

In a grievance filed this yr in San Francisco County Superior Court, the state Department of Justice argued that the company “has deceived Californians for nearly half a century by promising that recycling can and will solve the ever-growing plastic waste crisis.”

“Exxon and Mobil, through the Plastics Industry Association, created and promoted the chasing arrow symbol even though they knew it misled the public into thinking that all plastics were recyclable,” the grievance says.

Exxon Mobil “knew that these statements were false or likely to mislead the public, including the knowledge that most plastics cannot be recycled on a large scale.”

What about the United States?

US negotiators reportedly decided in August to support production cuts, a surprising change from their earlier stance calling for individual, voluntary targets.

But this month, officials told environmental groups at a closed-door meeting that they now not viewed such a restriction as a viable “landing zone,” in keeping with reporting by Grist, a climate news site.

Many people doubt that a deal, even when it were to be struck, would survive under President-elect Donald Trump, who has a protracted track record of rolling back climate regulations and recently appointed fossil fuel executive Chris Wright as Energy Secretary .

During his first term, Trump withdrew the United States from the landmark Paris climate agreement, calling it a “fraud.”

Los Angeles Times 2024. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.