The United States ranks as the world’s leading contributor of plastic waste, generating about 130 kilograms, or roughly 287 pounds, of plastic per person each year, according to a 2021 study from the National Academy of Sciences.
In 2016, the United States produced 42 million metric tons of plastic waste — almost twice as much as China and more than the European Union, the study found.
It could also address improving how the world manages plastic waste and cleans up pollution.
In a shift, U.S. officials said in August that they would back a global target for reducing plastic production.
The U.S. position on plastic production is opposed by industry groups, such as the International Council of Chemical Associations.
Countries have been trying for two years to reach a global consensus on the issue of plastic pollution, which is a startling issue with broad effects on both the environment and human health.
In addition to improving how plastic waste is handled globally, the agreement aims to “end plastic pollution” by implementing measures that could decrease the production of the pervasive material.
There is uncertainty about whether an agreement will be reached before the end of the year, though, as negotiators continue to seem divided on important provisions as representatives from 175 countries convene in Busan, South Korea, this week for the last round of formal talks.
A treaty such as this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance, according to John Hocevar, director of Greenpeace’s oceans campaign. It was difficult to think that everyone would be gathering to discuss ways to stop plastic pollution just a few years ago. I’m hoping we can maintain that spirit long enough to accomplish something that will truly matter. “”.
What’s wrong with plastics?
According to the United States, up to 460 million metric tons of plastic are produced annually, which is the weight of over 300,000 blue whales. No. the Environment Program. A 2021 study from the National Academy of Sciences found that the United States is the world’s largest producer of plastic waste, with each person producing about 130 kilograms, or 287 pounds, of plastic annually. 42 million metric tons of plastic waste were produced in the US in 2016, which is more than the EU and nearly twice as much as China, according to the study.
Fossil fuels, which can emit harmful and warming gases, are used to make the great majority of plastics. According to a study released in April by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the production of primary plastics was responsible for approximately 2 point 24 metric gigatons of emissions worldwide in 2019—the equivalent of more than 500 million gas-powered cars driven for a year.
🌱.
Be mindful of the environment and climate.
Single-use plastics make up a large portion of waste, and some of them can take hundreds of years to decompose, causing pollution of the land, waterways, and oceans. Microplastics, which are minuscule particles less than five millimeters in size and have been discovered in everything from human bodies to Antarctic snow, are produced when the material breaks down in the environment.
The precise health effects of microplastics are still unknown, but worries are growing because plastics are known to contain a number of harmful chemicals, and an increasing amount of research indicates that people are consuming, breathing, and drinking these tiny particles in far greater amounts than previously believed.
What might a worldwide agreement accomplish?
Countries decided in March 2022 to begin drafting a legally binding agreement that would cover every stage of the plastic life cycle, from waste management to design and production. Proponents claim it may be the most significant environmental agreement in a long time.
The drive to draft a global agreement “is an incredibly powerful sign about the severity of this crisis,” according to Anja Brandon, director of plastics policy at the nonprofit organization Ocean Conservancy.
According to the agreement, plastic products’ designs might be changed to increase their potential for recycling or reuse. Additionally, it might discuss ways to improve global pollution control and plastic waste management.
According to environmentalists, however, the treaty must incorporate measures to decrease the production of plastic if it is to successfully achieve its objective of eradicating plastic pollution. A ban on single-use plastics or restrictions on global production could accomplish this. Concerns about toxicity and demands for regulation of the chemicals are among the reasons why environmental organizations are supporting the agreement to address the chemicals used to make many plastics.
These kinds of clauses have been resisted by industry associations and fossil fuel-dependent nations, who contend that the treaty should focus more on addressing plastic waste than on supply.
According to Stewart Harris, a spokesman for the trade group International Council of Chemical Associations, “we really think an agreement that is focused on accelerating circularity and ending plastic-waste release or plastic waste in the environment is critical.”.
While the ICCA “continues to strongly support the plastics agreement,” Harris continued, the group does not think the treaty should contain any provisions pertaining to chemicals or limiting the production of plastics.
Participating nations could fulfill the treaty’s objectives by fulfilling their mandatory commitments or by taking voluntary steps. If trade restrictions on plastics are included in the agreement, nations that do not sign it could still be held responsible.
To what extent has progress been made?
After four meetings, a cumbersome 73-page draft text with over 3,000 words or sentences was produced, on which delegates are still at odds.
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, Ecuador’s ambassador and the meeting’s chair, released a more condensed document ahead of the final round of negotiations in Busan that may act as a new foundation for the discussions.
Along with provisions pertaining to waste management, cleanup, and plastic product design, the document offers a possible framework for the treaty. Additionally, it proposes that participating nations “take measures to manage, reduce, and where possible, eliminate emissions and releases” to the environment from the production of plastic and small plastic particles, such as microplastics.
A national plan that “describes the measures it intends to take to implement its obligations” is required of every nation, according to the text. “.”.
Several environmental organizations have voiced dissatisfaction with the draft text’s contents, but some experts say it could be interpreted as a sign that delegates are determined to reach a consensus by the end of the Busan negotiations.
Brandon stated, “We can support it as long as countries are willing to increase the ambition of the document. We are concerned that there is a pretty significant step backward in terms of the ambition outlined.”. “.”.
Instead of imposing legally binding obligations, the new draft suggests that participating nations enter into more voluntary agreements. Important measures addressing plastic production, the hazardous chemicals used to make plastics, and funding for the treaty and its commitments are among the important provisions that are missing from the document. According to Valdivieso’s statement in the document, the lack of proposed text suggests that there isn’t much consensus.
According to Rachel Radvany, an environmental health advocate for the Center for International Environmental Law, “it’s definitely still very unclear where we’re going to land because there is a very small but loud group of countries that are advocating very strongly for not including production at all and not including chemicals of concern at all in this treaty.”.
Where is the U. A. stand?
In a change, U. A. In August, officials declared their support for a global goal to reduce the production of plastic. The move was made approximately a month after the Biden administration declared its intention to phase out single-use plastics throughout the federal government as part of a broader plan to reduce plastic pollution in the US.
However, prior to the negotiations in Busan, U. A. When negotiators declared they would not back mandatory production caps, some environmental groups accused them of reversing course.
According to White House Council on Environmental Quality chair Brenda Mallory, the U.S. S. . Since August, the negotiating stance has remained unchanged, and the argument over the term “caps” is purely semantic.
The words that are being used have caused people to become a little fixated. In a recent interview conducted on the sidelines of the U.S. No. Azerbaijan’s Baku hosted a conference on climate change.
“We have stated unequivocally that the extent of the plastics problem necessitates that we examine the entire life cycle,” she continued. Therefore, focusing solely on waste won’t solve the issue. “.”.
But as U. S. The country’s move to generally support reductions in plastic production is significant, according to some environmentalists, who have criticized negotiators for lacking ambition and for being under pressure to support more aggressive measures. The final text of the Environmental Protection Agency’s national strategy to prevent plastic pollution was released less than a week before the Busan negotiations. The strategy calls for measures like lowering the production and consumption of single-use plastics and tracking the effects they have on the environment and human health over the course of their life cycle.
As of right now, production is still a highly contentious topic, so the U. S. Maintaining support for the measures… gives the nations that do wish to keep it on the table more clout,” Radvany stated.
The U. S. Industry associations like the International Council of Chemical Associations oppose the position on plastic production.
“We oppose that U. A. positional change—we are concerned about it,” Harris stated. Rather, the ICCA supports demand-side policies, such as those that increase recycling of plastics, he said.
Plastic comes into contact with most of U. A. manufacturing, so it sends a very chilling message across the United States to call for restrictions on the availability of that material. A. manufacturing sector,” he stated.
Will a deal be made?
“That’s the big question,” Hocevar, who is with Greenpeace, stated.
He and other experts expressed concern about nations hurrying to complete a text before the year-end deadline.
“Clearly, there is a great deal of urgency here,” Hocevar stated. “I’ve heard from governments that they are prepared to continue negotiations if the agreement they could reach in Busan doesn’t seem like a meaningful one, and it’s more important to get the treaty right than to get it done.”. “.”.
But the process won’t stop in Busan even if a treaty is reached during the negotiations. Prior to the agreement’s implementation, more meetings will be held to finalize and polish its terms.
This report was contributed by Maxine Joselow in Baku.
