By Vikram Kilpady
Plastics are the scourge of nature, showing up in the unlikeliest of places, sullying everything they touch. The Everest base camp is not safe from them, they choke the world’s water bodies. From city to open country, few are the places that are free from the intrusion of plastic, despite routine cleanliness drives that, in India, tend to run out of steam.
Given their ubiquity, it is only to be expected that governments across the world would come together on this pressing issue, world peace can wait. But, just as plastic is so hardy and stubborn that it can survive years upon years in the environment, so too with the time it has taken for discussions on ridding the world of plastic pollution to yield results.
The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5), held at Busan in South Korea to develop an international, legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, ended last week, once again without a solution. Many countries agreed that plastics pose a great threat to the safety of our future generations, but differences were bound to occur.
At the INC-5, which took place from November 25 to December 1, the grouping’s Chair, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, presented a list of 32 articles on the multiple dimensions of plastic waste pollution and on how to curb sources of production before business negotiations began. Countries that wanted tougher measures against plastic were in agreement, but countries where livelihoods are tied to petrochemicals, refining and plastic manufacture opposed it. The United States, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Russia were those listed as saying that stopping plastic production would be disruptive both socially and economically.
Several countries pushed for a treaty that would address multiple issues, including the production of plastic and containing the use of hazardous chemicals. Their view was that an agreement here should get to the fundamental reasons for plastics pollution, instead of just coming up with solutions to problems plastic creates.
These countries, among them the European Union, Mexico, Panama and the countries of the Pacific, wanted some measure to stop or cut back on plastic manufacture by imposing more accountability on the industry. Such a view comes from the aim of ensuring the conference was meaningful and would not skirt the core issue of plastic production.
The European Union’s (EU) official representative, Climate and Environment Ambassador, Anthony Agotha, told a press conference that they were not demonising plastic, but that polluting plastic had to be ended. Justifying cuts on plastic production, Agotha said that while only 10 percent of plastic ever produced has been recycled, it was also the case that not all plastic can be recycled to begin with.
Hugo Schally, who also spoke on behalf of the EU, noted that the idea to meet in Busan was to nail plastic pollution by talking of plastic’s lifecycle. A meaningful treaty should include measures to reduce plastics production to levels that are sustainable.
While the focus of the conference was on plastic pollution especially in the seas, the hard line talk of those seeking greater control on plastic manufacture ran right into the countries that gain from it. The oil countries from the Middle East generate plastic as a byproduct from the hydrocarbon refining process that ends up as petrol or diesel. Every refiner, even if importing crude from the Middle East, generates plastic. Other byproducts from these countries, led by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, also feature in a long list of hazardous chemicals.
These countries blocked the aggressive suggestions on curbing plastic production put forward by the other group. Their key point was that such an agreement put out by INC-5 would be an economic threat to industries reliant on plastics.
With the sheikhs applying the brakes, the initial hard-as-nails commitments called for by countries opposing plastic from manufacture to consumption slowly slipped into broad, non-binding frameworks.
Kuwait’s Salman Al-Ajmi was reported to have said the original attempt to deal with plastic pollution had been stretched and the wider bid is to put in place trade restrictions and commercial competition as environmental action.
India found itself on the side of the oil countries, since it has higher stakes in manufacturing plastic polymers. India also struck out a different note over the use of sustainable alternatives to plastic. The country had banned the manufacture, sale and use of single-use plastic in 2022 while pointing at alternatives that were sustainable.
At Busan, the Indian delegation said while it would encourage the research and development of sustainable alternatives and substitutes to plastic, it would not extend support to the use of these products and services.
While the reason for India striking a contradictory note seems to be in its opposition to being told what to do with plastic polymers and other chemicals of concern in plastic production, the country reiterated its commitment to curbing plastic waste and pollution. Barring single-use plastic, plastic of other kinds can be recycled and put to use. It is expected that a text of such nature will be toned down further during negotiations ahead.
India noted that in the garb of combating plastic pollution, other agreements should not be contravened. The country’s national priorities and right to development should not be disrespected. The Indian steel industry is already under severe stress to make green steel for export to the EU. Being made without fossil fuels like coal, conventional steel units cannot make it.
Echoing its stance in the climate change talks, Delhi pushed for financial and technological assistance, including tech transfer for all developing countries.
Plastic waste is a gigantic problem in India. The Centre for Science and Environment estimates that nearly 24 million tonnes of plastic packaging have been introduced into India since 2022, and that too given the country’s recycling capacity of only 9.8 million tonnes.
The further issue that is weighing heavy on the participants at INC-5 is Donald Trump’s re-election as US president. Trump is an avowed climate change skeptic and, in his previous term, pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement on climate change. The Trump administration is likely to add more heft to the “no plastic production cut” lobby and could swamp the discussions further.
Despite that downer coming up in January 2025, the countries that met in Busan will likely meet next year to pursue the same objective. In her concluding address at Busan, UN Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen noted the frustration: “This too shall pass as we move forward to deliver a treaty, and there will be a different set-up to that which we have in negotiations. Thank you for hanging in there and thank you for your voice.”
She said: “It is clear that divergence persists. That is the reality of these negotiations. It is also clear that there are hundreds of participants in this room, and indeed thousands of voices, demanding that we get this over the line. I have not heard a single delegate saying they do not want this treaty. We just need more time to craft a meaningful outcome: an instrument that hits the problem hard instead of punching below its potential weight.”
In his closing remarks, INC-5 chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso said: “We have made progress by making and walking paths. Although our achievements so far are important, they remain insufficient… We have succeeded in many areas; however, three or four critical matters still need agreement.
I call on all delegations to continue making paths, building bridges, and engaging in dialogue.”
Paraphrasing Spanish poet Antonio Machado’s “Walker, there is no path, the path is made by walking”, Valdiviseo said, “Now is the time for all to walk firmly and speedily.”
The post appeared first on .
Plastics are the scourge of nature, showing up in the unlikeliest of places, sullying everything they touch. The Everest base camp is not safe from them, they choke the world’s water bodies. From city to open country, few are the places that are free from the intrusion of plastic, despite routine cleanliness drives that, in India, tend to run out of steam.
Given their ubiquity, it is only to be expected that governments across the world would come together on this pressing issue, world peace can wait. But, just as plastic is so hardy and stubborn that it can survive years upon years in the environment, so too with the time it has taken for discussions on ridding the world of plastic pollution to yield results.
The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5), held at Busan in South Korea to develop an international, legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, ended last week, once again without a solution. Many countries agreed that plastics pose a great threat to the safety of our future generations, but differences were bound to occur.
At the INC-5, which took place from November 25 to December 1, the grouping’s Chair, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, presented a list of 32 articles on the multiple dimensions of plastic waste pollution and on how to curb sources of production before business negotiations began. Countries that wanted tougher measures against plastic were in agreement, but countries where livelihoods are tied to petrochemicals, refining and plastic manufacture opposed it. The United States, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Russia were those listed as saying that stopping plastic production would be disruptive both socially and economically.
Several countries pushed for a treaty that would address multiple issues, including the production of plastic and containing the use of hazardous chemicals. Their view was that an agreement here should get to the fundamental reasons for plastics pollution, instead of just coming up with solutions to problems plastic creates.
These countries, among them the European Union, Mexico, Panama and the countries of the Pacific, wanted some measure to stop or cut back on plastic manufacture by imposing more accountability on the industry. Such a view comes from the aim of ensuring the conference was meaningful and would not skirt the core issue of plastic production.
The European Union’s (EU) official representative, Climate and Environment Ambassador, Anthony Agotha, told a press conference that they were not demonising plastic, but that polluting plastic had to be ended. Justifying cuts on plastic production, Agotha said that while only 10 percent of plastic ever produced has been recycled, it was also the case that not all plastic can be recycled to begin with.
Hugo Schally, who also spoke on behalf of the EU, noted that the idea to meet in Busan was to nail plastic pollution by talking of plastic’s lifecycle. A meaningful treaty should include measures to reduce plastics production to levels that are sustainable.
While the focus of the conference was on plastic pollution especially in the seas, the hard line talk of those seeking greater control on plastic manufacture ran right into the countries that gain from it. The oil countries from the Middle East generate plastic as a byproduct from the hydrocarbon refining process that ends up as petrol or diesel. Every refiner, even if importing crude from the Middle East, generates plastic. Other byproducts from these countries, led by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, also feature in a long list of hazardous chemicals.
These countries blocked the aggressive suggestions on curbing plastic production put forward by the other group. Their key point was that such an agreement put out by INC-5 would be an economic threat to industries reliant on plastics.
With the sheikhs applying the brakes, the initial hard-as-nails commitments called for by countries opposing plastic from manufacture to consumption slowly slipped into broad, non-binding frameworks.
Kuwait’s Salman Al-Ajmi was reported to have said the original attempt to deal with plastic pollution had been stretched and the wider bid is to put in place trade restrictions and commercial competition as environmental action.
India found itself on the side of the oil countries, since it has higher stakes in manufacturing plastic polymers. India also struck out a different note over the use of sustainable alternatives to plastic. The country had banned the manufacture, sale and use of single-use plastic in 2022 while pointing at alternatives that were sustainable.
At Busan, the Indian delegation said while it would encourage the research and development of sustainable alternatives and substitutes to plastic, it would not extend support to the use of these products and services.
While the reason for India striking a contradictory note seems to be in its opposition to being told what to do with plastic polymers and other chemicals of concern in plastic production, the country reiterated its commitment to curbing plastic waste and pollution. Barring single-use plastic, plastic of other kinds can be recycled and put to use. It is expected that a text of such nature will be toned down further during negotiations ahead.
India noted that in the garb of combating plastic pollution, other agreements should not be contravened. The country’s national priorities and right to development should not be disrespected. The Indian steel industry is already under severe stress to make green steel for export to the EU. Being made without fossil fuels like coal, conventional steel units cannot make it.
Echoing its stance in the climate change talks, Delhi pushed for financial and technological assistance, including tech transfer for all developing countries.
Plastic waste is a gigantic problem in India. The Centre for Science and Environment estimates that nearly 24 million tonnes of plastic packaging have been introduced into India since 2022, and that too given the country’s recycling capacity of only 9.8 million tonnes.
The further issue that is weighing heavy on the participants at INC-5 is Donald Trump’s re-election as US president. Trump is an avowed climate change skeptic and, in his previous term, pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement on climate change. The Trump administration is likely to add more heft to the “no plastic production cut” lobby and could swamp the discussions further.
Despite that downer coming up in January 2025, the countries that met in Busan will likely meet next year to pursue the same objective. In her concluding address at Busan, UN Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen noted the frustration: “This too shall pass as we move forward to deliver a treaty, and there will be a different set-up to that which we have in negotiations. Thank you for hanging in there and thank you for your voice.”
She said: “It is clear that divergence persists. That is the reality of these negotiations. It is also clear that there are hundreds of participants in this room, and indeed thousands of voices, demanding that we get this over the line. I have not heard a single delegate saying they do not want this treaty. We just need more time to craft a meaningful outcome: an instrument that hits the problem hard instead of punching below its potential weight.”
In his closing remarks, INC-5 chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso said: “We have made progress by making and walking paths. Although our achievements so far are important, they remain insufficient… We have succeeded in many areas; however, three or four critical matters still need agreement.
I call on all delegations to continue making paths, building bridges, and engaging in dialogue.”
Paraphrasing Spanish poet Antonio Machado’s “Walker, there is no path, the path is made by walking”, Valdiviseo said, “Now is the time for all to walk firmly and speedily.”
The post appeared first on .