Campaigners Welcome ‘Wake-Up Call' For Global Plastics Treaty
Campaigners have welcomed a joint declaration from more than 90 governments around the world for an 'effective and ambitious' global plastic pollution treaty.
The declaration, entitled 'the Nice wake up call for an ambitious plastics treaty' was issued at the UN Ocean Conference in France yesterday (9 June) and warns an effective plastics treaty is urgently needed.
Negotiations around a global treaty to curb plastic pollution have been going on for several years and are due to resume again later this summer, in Geneva.
The new declaration calls for a legally binding obligation to phase out the most problematic plastic products and chemicals of concern in plastic products and another to improve the design of plastic products.
'We call for an effective and ambitious treaty that can evolve over time and is responsive to changes in emerging evidence and knowledge,' the declaration states.
'To this end, the treaty should provide for the possibility of decision-making, through regular UN procedures if all efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted.'
It also warns a treaty which relies on voluntary measures or does not address the full lifecycle of plastics will not be effective to deal with the challenge of plastic pollution.
Erin Simon, vice president, plastic waste & business at the World Wildlife Fund said the statement sends a positive signal that there is strong support to secure a legally binding treaty, in a statement.
Simon added with just two months before the next round of negotiations get underway, it is essential countries come to the negotiation table ready to get to work on a treaty that both people and planet deserve.
'Millions of people around the world have called for a solution to the plastic pollution crisis and while today is a step in the right direction we must continue to push toward advancing a meaningful and enduring agreement in Geneva,' said Simon.
Rob Opsomer, executive lead for plastics and finance at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, said the statement demonstrates significant ambition in global efforts to end plastic pollution, and reinstates the urgent need to shift to a circular economy, in a statement.
Opsomer added the inclusion of 'product design', amongst the points key to reach an agreement, is especially impactful.
'Design is indeed critical to addressing plastic pollution, and it's encouraging to see it rightly recognised by a majority of countries as a key lever for achieving meaningful and lasting impact to end plastic pollution,' he added.
'We call on governments to agree on a treaty in Geneva that turns the tide on plastic pollution, enables a circular economy and delivers strong positive social and economic impact.'
The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty also welcomed the widespread support for a strong treaty in a statement.
It added it builds on momentum seen at previous conferences and reflects strong alignment between countries, businesses and civil society on the need for a comprehensive legally binding global agreement that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics.
'Besides harmonisation on key areas, there is also a need for a globally harmonised approach for national extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, with key principles and minimum requirements,' the statement said.
And Jodie Roussell, global public affairs lead - packaging and sustainability at Nestlé and co-chair of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, said the declaration also sends a strong signal that governments are ready to commit to harmonised regulation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
World Bank and IMF climate snub 'worrying', says COP29 presidency
The hosts of the most recent UN climate talks are worried international lenders are retreating from their commitments to help boost funding for developing countries' response to global warming. Major development banks have agreed to boost climate spending and are seen as crucial in the effort to dramatically increase finance to help poorer countries build resilience to impacts and invest in renewable energy. But anxiety has grown as the Trump administration has slashed foreign aid and discouraged US-based development lenders such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund from focussing on climate finance. Developing nations, excluding China, will need an estimated $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 in financial assistance to transition to renewable energy and climate-proof their economies from increasing weather extremes. Nowhere near this amount has been committed. At last year's UN COP29 summit in Azerbaijan, rich nations agreed to increase climate finance to $300 billion a year by 2035, an amount decried as woefully inadequate. Azerbaijan and Brazil, which is hosting this year's COP30 conference, have launched an initiative to reduce the shortfall, with the expectation of "significant" contributions from international lenders. But so far only two -- the African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank -- have responded to a call to engage the initiative with ideas, said COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev. "We call on their shareholders to urgently help us to address these concerns," he told climate negotiators at a high-level summit in the German city of Bonn this week. "We fear that a complex and volatile global environment is distracting" many of those expected to play a big role in bridging the climate finance gap, he added. - A 'worrisome trend' - His team travelled to Washington in April for the IMF and World Bank's spring meetings hoping to find the same enthusiasm for climate lending they had encountered a year earlier. But instead they found institutions "very much reluctant now to talk about climate at all", said Azerbaijan's top climate negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev. This was a "worrisome trend", he said, given expectations these lenders would extend the finance needed in the absence of other sources. "They're very much needed," he said. The World Bank is directing 45 percent of its total lending to climate, as part of an action plan in place until June 2026, with the public portion of that spilt 50/50 between emissions reductions and building resilience. The United States, the World Bank's biggest shareholder, has pushed in a different direction. On the sidelines of the April spring meetings, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the bank to focus on "dependable technologies" rather than "distortionary climate finance targets." This could mean investing in gas and other fossil fuel-based energy production, he said. Under the Paris Agreement, wealthy developed countries -- those most responsible for global warming to date -- are obliged to pay climate finance to poorer nations. Other countries, most notably China, make voluntary contributions. - Money matters - Finance is a source of long-running tensions at UN climate negotiations. Donors have consistently failed to deliver on past finance pledges, and have committed well below what experts agree developing nations need to cope with the climate crisis. The issue flared up again this week in Bonn, with nations at odds over whether to debate financial commitments from rich countries during the formal meetings. European nations have also pared back their foreign aid spending in recent months, raising fears that budgets for climate finance could also face a haircut. At COP29, multilateral development banks (MDBs) led by the World Bank Group estimated they could provide $120 billion annually in climate financing to low and middle income countries, and mobilise another $65 billion from the private sector by 2030. Their estimate for high income countries was $50 billion, with another $65 billion mobilised from the private sector. Rob Moore, of policy think tank E3G, said these lenders are the largest providers of international public finance to developing countries. "Whilst they are facing difficult political headwinds in some quarters, they would be doing both themselves and their clients a disservice by disengaging on climate change," he said. The World Bank in particular has done "a huge amount of work" to align its lending with global climate goals. "If they choose to step back this would be at their own detriment, and other banks like the regionally based MDBs would likely play a bigger role in shaping the economy of the future," he said. The World Bank declined to comment on the record. klm/np/mh/jj
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Oil and gas lawsuits are threatening Trump's energy agenda
Energy has been a highlight of the Trump 2.0 presidency. But the administration needs more cooperation from Lansing and Baton Rouge to bring its ambitious goals to fruition. Michigan and Louisiana may not have a lot in common, but there are few places in the U.S. more critical to the Trump administration's energy agenda. Michigan, an industrial powerhouse, needs abundant affordable energy to fuel the 'manufacturing boom' that the White House is promising. Louisiana, a leading liquid natural gas exporter, is key to Team Trump's goal to make the U.S. the signature supplier of energy to domestic industries and foreign allies. Yet politicized lawsuits against oil and gas companies are proliferating in both states, backed by rivals and fair weather friends whose lawfare crusades are undercutting President Trump's energy dominance agenda. For Michigan's Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, it's time to decide whether to get behind America First energy policies or side with powerful forces within their states that are pushing in the opposite direction. Whitmer, widely viewed as a 2028 Democratic presidential hopeful, nonetheless quotes Trump's call for a 'golden age of American manufacturing.' During her tenure as governor, Michigan has leaned into aspirational net-zero timelines, discouraged in-state gas production and created roadblocks to energy infrastructure. But there's also the legal offensive. Michigan's Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) continues to defend her six year-old lawsuit to shut down Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline, which supplies more than half of Michigan propane use, while she taps contingency lawyers to sue oil and gas companies for far-flung climate-related damages. That's not the posture of a state preparing to power an industrial renaissance. Meanwhile, Landry touts Trump's energy dominance agenda, yet at the same time supports dubious claims against oil and gas companies in his state. As state attorney general, Landry entered a joint prosecution agreement with trial lawyers seeking to hold the oil and gas industry liable for 2,000 square miles of Louisiana wetlands and barrier islands lost to coastal erosion since the 1930s. As governor, he has taken in more campaign contributions from trial lawyers than his Democratic predecessor. The support has paid dividends. A lawyer from the Landry administration backed up the trial lawyers who recently won a $744.6 million verdict against Chevron in a coastal erosion case. Although research shows that leveeing of the Mississippi is the main culprit, oil and gas companies are now defending 43 lawsuits in Louisiana blaming them for coastal land loss. Despite the obvious federal issues at play, the trial lawyers behind the cases are trying to keep the litigation in friendly state courts — precisely the kind of jurisdictional charade that Trump's order against state interference with American energy dominance was designed to prevent. Just this week, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review whether these cases belong in federal court where the oil and gas companies can get a fair hearing. If Landry and the trial lawyers dodge federal jurisdiction, it will be 'pay, baby, pay,' not 'drill baby drill' for oil and gas companies — much to the chagrin of the Trump administration and the detriment of the nation's energy consumers. Unless Team Trump follows through on its promise to defend domestic energy producers from state overreach, U.S. energy dominance will remain elusive. Taking on deep blue states over their climate lawfare is a solid first step, but it's not enough. The next time that Whitmer visits the Oval Office, Trump should remind her that Michigan consumes almost five times more energy than it produces. If the manufacturing golden age returns to Michigan, the demand side of that equation will only rise. The state's leadership needs to bury its green utopianism, drop its anti-pipeline crusade, and start producing more reliable and affordable energy needed to power autonomous vehicles, chip fabs, AI data centers and other industries that Whitmer is trying to attract. Likewise, Team Trump needs to tell Landry to put the energy dominance agenda ahead of his alliance with powerful trial lawyers. If Landry is unwilling to pull out of the retroactive cases against oil and gas companies, the Trump Department of Justice should intervene and defend federal energy policy interests against Louisiana's egregious overreach. For Louisiana's liquefied natural gas sector to propel U.S. energy dominance in the future, the state needs a predictable legal system, not one where industry is at the mercy of politically-connected trial lawyers. The key to the Trump administration's early energy successes has been the rollback of federal rules like the Biden administration ban on liquefied natural gas exports. Unleashing American energy over the long term, however, requires the states to push in the same direction. For states like Michigan and Louisiana, that doesn't require a new vision. It means having the political courage to make it real. Michael Toth is a practicing lawyer and a research fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Is Mark Carney turning his back on climate action?
The G7 summit in Alberta, hosted by Prime Minister Mark Carney, has ended with only passing mention of fighting climate change, including a statement on wildfires that is silent on the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is puzzling. Canadians didn't opt for Conservative Pierre Poilievre, considered by some to be an oil and gas industry mouthpiece, in the last federal election. Instead, voters gave Carney's Liberals a minority government. Carney was the United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance and was behind the UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance, so some Canadians might have assumed he'd prioritize climate action if he won the election. Instead, Carney has described developing fossil fuel infrastructure as 'pragmatic.' But it's unclear how a country grappling with abysmal air quality due to wildfires fuelled by global warming will benefit from further global fossil fuel development and its related emissions. Read more: Canada is warming faster than most of the globe. Its leaders should be laser-focused on mitigating climate change by reducing fossil fuel use to the greatest extent possible, as soon as possible. This decades-long understanding of how to approach climate action has been repeatedly explained by experts and is well known to governments globally. Canada's prime minister was once one of those experts. Carney now has a tremendous opportunity to lead by steering Canada in a clean direction. Canada is at the forefront of clean technology, with numerous business opportunities emerging, particularly in areas like circular economy international trade. These opportunities not only support Canada's commitment to meeting its Paris Agreement targets but also help expand and diversify its global trade. Canada already has exemplar eco-industrial parks — co-operative businesses located on a common property that focus on reducing environmental impact through resource efficiency, waste reduction and sharing resources. Such industrial communities are in Halifax and in Delta, B.C. They represent significant investment opportunities. Vacant urban land could be revitalized and existing industrial parks could boost their economic output and circular trade by building stronger partnerships to share resources, reduce waste and cut emissions. Read more: Canada would benefit economically and environmentally by building on existing expertise and expanding successful sustainability strategies to achieve economic, environmental and social goals. But by continuing to invest in fossil fuels, Canada misses out on opportunities to diversify trade and boost economic competitiveness. Real diversification makes Canada less vulnerable to economic shocks, like the ones caused by the tariffs imposed by United States President Donald Trump. Fossil fuel reliance increases exposure to global economic risks, but shifting to cleaner products and services reduces climate risks and expands Canada's global trade options. China's economic rise is partly a result of this strategy. That's seemingly why Trump is so fixated on China. China today is a serious competitor to the U.S. after making smart trade and economic decisions and forging its own path, disregarding American pressure to remain a mere follower. Investing in its huge Belt and Road Initiative, China also aligned itself with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. It's building diplomatic bridges with many Belt and Road countries in southeast Asia as Trump's America alienates its partners, pulling out of the Paris Agreement and cutting foreign aid. As another one of the America's mistreated partners, Canada was poised to forge its own path under Carney. Instead, Carney is supporting American oil and gas by encouraging Canadian pipeline projects. Canadian oil and gas is a concentrated industry controlled by a wealthy few, primarily Americans. More pipelines would therefore mean more sales of fossil fuels to other countries, with the beneficiaries mostly American. Fossil fuel investments reduce Canada's diversification because the resources used to further these projects could go elsewhere — toward clean diversification. With almost unlimited clean economy options across many sectors, clean diversification would broaden Canada's economic and trade portfolios and reduce American control. Read more: This is International Business 101, and would make the Canadian economy more competitive through innovation, while reducing the country's climate risk. California, often targeted by Trump for its policies, has been a leader in clean innovation, making its economy the envy of the world. Read more: My recent research shows that clear, decisive choices like those made in California will be key to Canada's future success. Canada must make choices aligned with goals — a core principle of strategic management. My research also suggests Canada must restructure its energy industry to focus on renewable energy innovation while reducing fossil fuel reliance. Increased renewable energy innovation, as seen in patent numbers, leads to higher GDP. Contrary to common beliefs, pollution taxes boost the economy in combination with clean innovation. But when the government supports both the fossil fuel industry and clean industries, it hinders Canada's transition to a cleaner future. Do Canadian taxpayers truly want to keep funding an outdated, polluting industry that benefits a wealthy few, or invest in clean industries that boost Canada's economy, create better jobs and protect the environment? To differentiate Canada from the United States, it would make sense to choose the latter. Carney should consider refraining from pushing for the fast-tracking of polluting projects. If he doesn't, Canada will become more uncompetitive and vulnerable, trapped by the fossil fuel industry. Read more: Carney's support for pipelines may have stemmed from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's implicit support for Alberta sovereignty. She made veiled threats to Canada at a critical juncture, when Trump was making repeated assertions about annexing Canada. Alberta didn't vote for Carney. But Canadians who care about mitigating climate change did. Banks that felt pressure to at least recognize sustainable finance during the Joe Biden administration joined Carney's Net-Zero Banking Alliance. But as soon as Trump came to power a second time and walked away from the Paris Agreement, many American banks abandoned the alliance. Canadian banks followed suit, and Carney remarkably missed another moment to show Canadian leadership by stopping their exit. In fact, Carney seems to have abandoned his own organization to appease Trump as the president made multiple 51st state threats. The prime minister had the chance to differentiate Canada and demonstrate his own leadership. Instead, he seems to have easily turned his back on his principles under pressure from Trump. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Deborah de Lange, Toronto Metropolitan University Read more: 'Canada is not for sale' — but new Ontario law prioritizes profits over environmental and Indigenous rights What Liberal Mark Carney's election win in Canada means for Europe How political leaders communicate climate policy should be a defining factor this election Deborah de Lange receives funding from SSHRC and ESRC. She is affiliated with The Liberal Party of Canada and The Writers' Union of Canada.
