According to Washington-based Ocean Conservancy, volunteer trash collectors found 29% fewer plastic bags on U.S. beaches in 2022 and 2023, compared to levels that were collected prior to the pandemic. At the same time, since 2020, the percentage of the U.S. population covered by plastic bag bans has doubled, from 12% to 25%, the advocacy group reported in its September study.

“The best way to prevent plastic grocery bags from becoming plastic pollution is by making and using fewer of them in the first place,” noted Anja Brandon, Ocean Conservancy’s director of plastics policy, in a statement. “This analysis confirms that bans are an effective way to deal with this problematic plastic.”

This is welcome news for a world clamouring for solutions that can make a difference in the climate crisis. For two and a half years, an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee at the United Nations has been discussing phasing down the production of plastic, which is made from fossil fuels, and thus greenhouse-gas-intensive, as part of a global plastics treaty that’s supposed to be wrapped up by December 1.

A 2017 study from the University of California at Santa Barbara calculated that the world produced about nine billion tonnes of plastic between 1960 and 2015 – and 80% of it still exists, in landfills and oceans. About 12% of that total production was incinerated (releasing volatile organic compounds); just 9% has been recycled. With industrial nations sending their plastic waste to less developed countries around the world, plastic has crossed into the water we drink and the air we breathe. Scientists have found 1,500 animal species, from birds to whales, that ingest plastic waste, and microplastics have been found in human placentas, kidneys and, to much consternation, testicles.

Worse still, the planet now produces half a million tonnes of virgin plastic a year, 40% of it for packaging. With the growing trend of single-serving food – and with the oil companies’ hopes to ramp up plastic production as oil and gas give way to renewable energy sources – annual production has been forecast to double by 2050.

A key counterforce is the new plastics treaty. But oil-producing nations such as China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United States have opposed production cuts, arguing without much evidence that better plastic-cleanup projects and recycling tools can solve the problem.

Suddenly this summer, the Joe Biden administration did an about-face, announcing it would phase out single-use plastics throughout the U.S. government – the world’s biggest procurer of plastics. And in August, while Kamala Harris’s candidacy for president dominated the news, word quietly went out that Washington would accept production cuts as part of a program of “raising ambition.”

The administration, it seems, took seriously a recommendation from an advisory committee on plastic pollution and a circular economy: “Successfully combating plastic pollution requires the United States to take a comprehensive approach that addresses the impacts of plastic throughout the entire lifecycle – from production to end of life.”

RELATED:

The moment of truth is now here for plastic pollution

Canada bans some single-use plastics; are takeout containers enough?

Is the burgeoning ‘plastic credits’ market a new wave of greenwashing?

The report said that Biden had already accepted the notion of a multifront battle. “Tackling plastic pollution and its associated impacts will require unprecedented action at every stage of the plastic lifecycle – from reining in the pollution from petrochemical production that is poisoning communities and driving climate change, to reorienting infrastructure to ensure dramatic increases in recycling and reuse, to investing in innovative materials to replace the pervasive use of plastics in our society.”

Environmental activists praised Biden’s new agenda, with Greenpeace calling it “a watershed moment.” But a major chemical-industry group called it a “betrayal” of U.S. manufacturing interests.

It’s important to understand just how thoroughly the plastics industry has evaded responsibility for the harm done by its fossil-based products. Many studies have documented that as waste plastics started to pile up, the industry pushed recycling as the solution – even though most commercial plastics can’t be recycled, and the hundreds of varieties of plastics are nearly impossible to sort efficiently. A 2020 investigation by National Public Radio found one operator of a San Diego recycling business who said he was puzzled to find more and more unrecyclable plastics showing up in his bins in the early 1990s. He then realized all those plastics bore the triangle/arrow logo that most people today recognize as a ready-to-recycle symbol. It seems the plastics industry lobbied state governments to require the symbol on all plastics – even those that couldn’t be reused. “It’s pure manipulation of the consumer,” he told NPR.

The post New research suggests plastic bag bans are driving down debris appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The news was first reported by Reuters and confirmed to Grist on Thursday by the State Department. It represents a major shift for the United States, which had previously rejected production limits in favor of an approach focused on boosting the recycling rate and cleaning up plastic litter.

While industry groups condemned the decision as “misguided,” environmental organizations said it could sway momentum in favor of production limits at a consequential point during the negotiations. There is only one meeting left before the treaty is supposed to be finalized in 2025.

“This couldn’t have come at a better time,” said Christina Dixon, ocean campaign leader for the nonprofit Environmental Investigation Agency. “The U.S. position has been one of the great unknowns and they have the power to be a constructive and collaborative player, so it’s a relief to see them setting out of their stall at this critical moment.”

Negotiations over a treaty have been ongoing since March 2022, when the U.N. reached a landmark agreement to “end plastic pollution.” Over the course of the four negotiating sessions that have occurred since then, however, progress has been slow — in large part due to disagreements over the treaty’s scope.

A so-called “high-ambition” coalition of countries, supported by many scientists and environmental groups, say the treaty must prevent more plastic from being made in the first place. Some 460 million metric tons are manufactured globally each year — mostly out of fossil fuels — and only 9 percent of it is recycled. Because the manufacturing, use, and disposal of plastics contribute to climate change, experts at the nonprofit Pacific Environment have found that the treaty must cut plastic production by 75 percent by 2040 in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

The high-ambition coalition also supports specific bans or restrictions on the most problematic types of plastic — typically meaning those that are least likely to be recycled — as well as hazardous chemicals commonly used in plastic products. This coalition includes Canada, Norway, Peru, Rwanda, and the U.K., along with more than 60 other countries.

RELATED:

• Can a global plastics treaty be reached after talks languish in Ottawa?
• Would a Harris presidency tackle plastic pollution?
• Lego says it hit a recycled plastic stumbling block. Do its claims stack up?

Oil-producing states like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China — backed by industry groups — oppose these measures. They want the treaty to leave production untouched and focus on managing plastic waste. The U.S. counted itself among those countries until this week.

Now, in addition to supporting restrictions on plastic production, the U.S. says it will also support creating a list of problematic plastics and hazardous chemicals, according to Reuters.

Because the U.S. carries so much weight in the treaty negotiations — and because North America produces one-fifth of the world’s plastics — Dixon said the White House’s new position could be “a welcome signal to fence-sitting countries,” encouraging them to join the high-ambition coalition.

“I hope it will only further isolate the small group of countries who are unwilling to commit to the necessary binding regulations we need to see on the supply of plastics.”

Industry groups reacted less favorably to the news.

Chris Jahn, president and CEO of American Chemistry Council, a plastics and petrochemical trade group, said in a statement that the U.S. had “cave[d] to the wishes of extreme NGO groups.” He described the White House’s new position as a betrayal of U.S. manufacturers that would slash jobs, harm the environment, and cause the cost of goods to rise globally.

“If the Biden-Harris administration wants to meet its sustainable development and climate goals, the world will need to rely on plastic more, not less,” he said, citing the material’s utility in renewable energy infrastructure, making buildings more energy efficient, and reducing food waste.

Nearly 40 percent of global plastic production goes toward single-use items like packaging and food service products.

Matt Seaholm, president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association, shared similar sentiments to Jahn. In a statement, he said the White House had “turned its back on Americans whose livelihoods depend on our industry.”

He added that the U.S.’s reversal would undermine its influence in the treaty negotiations, “as other countries know this extreme position will not receive support in the U.S. Senate.” The Senate has to approve treaties before the U.S. can ratify them.

Despite the industry’s outrage, polling suggests that ambitious policies to address the plastics crisis are broadly popular among the public. According to one recent poll from the nonprofit National Resources Defense Council, nearly 90 percent of Americans support measures to reduce plastic production. Eighty-three percent specifically support plastic production limits as part of an international treaty, and even greater numbers support treaty provisions to eliminate “unnecessary and avoidable plastic products” and toxic chemicals.

Reducing plastic production is “what the American people want,” Anja Brandon, director of U.S. plastics policy for the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy, said in a statement. She cited additional polling from her organization showing that 78 percent of Americans think ocean-bound plastic pollution is a “pressing problem.”

Brandon and other environmental advocates now say they’re eager to see how the U.S.’s new position will translate into advocacy during the final round of plastics treaty negotiations, scheduled to begin in late November in Busan, South Korea. They’re calling for the U.S. to sign onto the “Bridge to Busan,” a declaration put forward by a group of countries last April asking negotiators to “commit to achieve sustainable levels of production of primary plastic polymers,” potentially through “production freezes at specified levels, production reductions against agreed baselines, or other agreed constraints.”

“I’m cautiously optimistic,” Julie Teel Simmonds, a senior attorney for the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “I look forward to seeing U.S. delegates fight for these positions at the next plastics treaty negotiations in South Korea.”

This article originally appeared in Grist. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. 

The post U.S. will support limits to plastic production in major reversal appeared first on Corporate Knights.

That’s according to Jason Miller, a senior adviser to former president Donald Trump’s reelection campaign. On the day that U.S. President Joe Biden dropped his bid for reelection and endorsed Harris, Miller told NBC that Harris’ comments on plastic were part of the “radical record” she developed as a prosecutor and attorney general in California. The far-right Fox News commentator Sean Hannity weighed in on Harris’ record separately, telling viewers: “I love my plastic straw; I hate those paper straws.”

It’s unsurprising rhetoric, given the contemporary conservative movement’s tendency to conflate environmental pollution and personal freedom. But the plastic pollution crisis is no joke — every year, more than 460 million metric tons of plastic are produced globally, and just about 9% of it is recycled. The rest festers in landfills, emits toxic chemicals into the air when incinerated, and strangles aquatic life when it escapes into the world’s rivers, lakes, and coastal waters.

Meanwhile, recent polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want government action to address the problem. According to a recent survey from the nonprofit Oceana, three-fourths of registered voters support national policies that reduce single-use plastics; other surveys show even stronger support for reducing plastic production overall.

So what would a Harris presidency mean for plastics?

Harris’ track record on the subject is sparse, but experts say her background as California’s attorney general, combined with her record in the Senate and comments she made as a 2020 presidential candidate, augur well. If nothing else, Harris could build on progress achieved under the Biden administration, like a recently announced strategy to eliminate single-use plastics from federal operations.

“There are not a lot of data points,” said Sam Pearse, plastics campaign manager for The Story of Stuff Project, a nonprofit that advocates against plastic pollution. “But she has both the know-how and credentials to challenge plastic pollution as president, and hold polluters to a higher standard.”

Here’s what we do know about Harris’ views on plastics. She did say, in a 2019 interview with CNN, that the U.S. should ban single-use plastic straws. (She joked about the need for “innovation” to make better alternatives than paper-based straws that tend to wilt when wet.) But that wasn’t exactly a groundbreaking policy position; in 2019, support for plastic straw bans functioned mainly as a culture wars flashpoint for presidential candidates. Plastic straws make up just 0.25% of the estimated 8 million metric tons of plastic that end up in the world’s oceans each year.

More significant was her co-sponsorship, along with four other Democratic senators, of the federal Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2020. This far-reaching Democratic bill would have phased out a whole host of unnecessary single-use plastic products — yes, including straws — as well as created incentives for recycling beverage containers, held companies financially responsible for the plastic trash they generate, and placed a temporary pause on new or expanded plastic manufacturing facilities pending a comprehensive environmental review. That bill, as well as subsequent versions introduced in 2021 and 2023, never got a floor vote in the House or Senate, but environmental groups think it helped drum up awareness among the public and legislators about the kinds of systemic interventions needed to address the plastic pollution problem.

RELATED:

• Here’s what a Kamala Harris presidency could mean for climate
• What Trump’s VP pick could mean for climate policy
• Can a global plastics treaty be reached after talks languish in Ottawa?

“To have her support as a sponsor is a huge signal that she believes in addressing this problem from a life cycle perspective,” said Julie Teel Simmonds, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, a group that advocates for political candidates who will prioritize environmental issues. The term “life cycle” refers to all stages of plastic production, use, and disposal, in contrast to a perspective favored by industry groups that focuses mostly on reducing plastic litter.

Other environmental advocates said Harris’ track record as California’s attorney general could indicate a willingness to take on big plastic polluters. In 2011, Harris sued water bottle companies for claiming that their plastic bottles were “100% compostable and recyclable.” She also sued BP, ConocoPhillips, and Phillips 66 — companies whose fossil fuels are used to make plastic — for environmental violations, and oversaw an investigation into Exxon Mobil’s alleged efforts to lie to the public about the risks it faced from climate change.

None of this means that plastics (and the petrochemicals used to make them) will be a top priority for a potential Harris administration. Historically, action on plastics has tended to fall low on Democrats’ political agenda, even compared to other environmental problems. But the plastic pollution crisis has become much more visible over the past few years, in part due to United Nations negotiations over a treaty to “end plastic pollution.” Those negotiations are set to conclude by the end of the year, though further discussions around implementation could continue long after then.

The Biden-Harris administration has also ramped up the U.S.’s efforts to address the plastic pollution crisis, including most recently by announcing a target to phase out government procurement of single-use plastics from all federal operations by 2035. An interagency plastics policy committee set up by the Biden-Harris administration has also begun to acknowledge and address environmental justice issues caused by plastic production facilities, which tend to be sited near poor communities of color. A former White House staffer told Grist that Harris’ office has expressed interest in continuing this work.

The same can’t be said for a second Trump administration, according to several experts Grist spoke with.

“The extent to which a Trump administration would be willing to acknowledge the scope and the breadth of plastics and the effect that the oil and gas industry has on plastic is like, zero to negative a million,” said Rachel Karasik, a plastics research scientist at the Norwegian Institute for Water Research, which focuses on a range of water-related issues, including plastic pollution.

Back in 2019, in the aftermath of Harris’ 2019 straws comment, Trump’s then-campaign manager Brad Parscale swiftly launched a line of 9-inch, Trump-emblazoned plastic straws that raised nearly half a million dollars in just one week. They were apparently so popular that the first batch sold out within hours.

Although the last Trump administration didn’t totally ignore plastics — it released an interagency strategy to clean up “marine debris,” including plastics, in October 2020 — experts told Grist that a second time around would probably see the reversal of Biden-Harris plastics policies and the loosening of environmental restrictions on production facilities. They also said Trump would likely pull out of negotiations over the U.N. plastics treaty, much as he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement in 2020.

This is in contrast to hopes that the Harris administration will join a “high-ambition coalition” of countries supporting a strong agreement, and effectively implement the treaty’s provisions domestically. “Harris is at least competent and a true public servant, and she believes in international diplomacy and tackling global problems,” Teel Simmonds said. “I can’t say the same for Trump.”

This article was first published by Grist. Read the original article here. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. 

The post Would a Harris presidency tackle plastic pollution? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

“Plastic pollution? We have solutions,” the group chanted as it marched through downtown Ottawa to the convention hall where negotiations were about to begin on a global treaty to end plastic pollution.

Environmentalists were hopeful that the fourth of five rounds, which began two years ago in Uruguay, would make significant progress. But by the time negotiations ended late on the final night, that hope had dissolved.

“We were not close to having an international instrument that works to eliminate plastic pollution after having had a much-anticipated session here in Ottawa,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, tells Corporate Knights.

During eight days of negotiations, representatives from more than 170 countries convened to forge a legally binding treaty that will spell out how the world can end plastic pollution. Negotiators made little progress on the substance of the treaty but at least agreed to keep working in interim meetings before the next and final session in Busan, South Korea, in November.

“It isn’t that we didn’t make some progress, but if we’re serious about having an international convention to end plastic pollution by [the end of] 2024, the [interim] sessions really have to take off,” May says.

The United Nations estimates that the world makes around 400 million tonnes of plastic a year and that this will double by 2040 if left unchecked. In addition to wreaking havoc on marine ecosystems and making their way into human bodies, plastics are responsible for four times as much greenhouse gases as the airline industry, according to new research from the U.S. government.

To date, less than 10% of plastic produced has been recycled, a statistic that has led environmental organizations to call for a cap on plastic production. For decades, the petrochemical industry has pushed recycling as a solution to the plastics crisis despite knowing it wasn’t technically or economically feasible, according to a recent report by the Center for Climate Integrity.

“The industry is constantly putting forward proposals for false solutions that aren’t getting at the root cause of the plastic pollution crisis, from waste-to-energy, chemical recycling, recycled content and products, but maintaining business as usual on production,” says Sarah King, the head of Greenpeace Canada’s oceans and plastics campaign. “Industry will continue to find ways to keep the status quo.”

Last year at INC-3 in Nairobi, advocates blamed a small group of oil-producing states that included Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia for bogging down progress with procedural issues. This year, there was an even larger industry presence, with 196 lobbyists from the fossil fuel and chemical sectors attending the talks, a 37% increase from INC-3 according to the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).

Advocates say it would be one thing if these lobbyists were on equal footing with other attendees. But several of them were part of state delegations, giving them access to closed-door negotiations. CIEL found that 16 petrochemical lobbyists were on nine different countries’ delegations, including four on Malaysia’s and three on Thailand’s.

Meanwhile, Indigenous delegates did not have a seat at the negotiating table. Representatives from Indigenous communities, such as the Aamjiwnaang First Nation in southwestern Ontario, wanted to share their experience as “front-line communities” that suffer because of their proximity to plastic-producing facilities.

“We demand that you listen to the voices of our people,” Suzanne Smoke, a representative of Society of Native Nations, told the rally on Parliament Hill before negotiations began. “We are no longer going to sacrifice our children and our future generations for what you call development and progress.”

The presence of the petrochemical industry was felt throughout Ottawa during the negotiations. A group called These Plastics peppered the city’s airport with pro-plastic ads. They had people walking around downtown with signs strapped to their backs, spreading their message that “these plastics save lives,” “reduce food waste” and “deliver water.”

As the lights went out at the Shaw Centre in Ottawa, concluding the treaty talks at INC-4 in late April, the United Nations Environment Programme sent reporters a press release that trumpeted “Road to Busan clear.” But before negotiators make it to INC-5 in South Korea, negotiators will have their work cut out for them at the interim talks.

Advocates fear that unless a group of 118 countries called the High Ambition Coalition, which is calling for stronger measures, steps up to drive the process, there is a risk that not much will change between now and the final hour in South Korea.

The road to Busan may be bumpy.

The post Can a global plastics treaty be reached after talks languish in Ottawa? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The prototype was heralded as a victory on the road to breaking our collective addiction to the fossil-fuel-based material, at a moment when hundreds of companies were tripping over themselves pledging to chop their virgin plastic use.

Then Lego confessed it had hit a wall. Last month, the company said its big plan to go all-in on recycled bricks by 2030 would have made Lego Group’s carbon footprint worse when it’s trying to reduce carbon emissions by 37% by 2032.

Tim Brooks, Lego’s head of sustainability, told the Financial Times in September that the recycled plastic was softer and needed more energy to process it. “It’s like trying to make a bike out of wood rather than steel,” he said. “In order to scale production [of recycled PET, or polyethylene terephthalate], the level of disruption to the manufacturing environment was such that we needed to change everything in our factories. After all that, the carbon footprint would have been higher. It was disappointing.”

Industry observers are wondering if Lego is tackling its sustainability targets all wrong.

“Many had high hopes that Lego was setting a positive example by actively taking steps for the sustainability of plastics,” says Tiz Mekonnen, with the University of Waterloo’s Institute for Polymer Research. “Sustainability in plastic production extends beyond carbon emissions. Reusing PET plastic waste for products could address pressing waste-management issues while simultaneously reducing reliance on virgin and petrochemical plastics for Lego parts.”

To be sure, emissions from the plastic industry are a massive problem. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says that plastics generated 1.8 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions – or 3.4% of global emissions – in 2019. By 2060, emissions from the plastics life cycle are on track to more than double.

And plastic-recycling infrastructure has been a hot mess for years. Ever since China banned imports of most plastic waste in 2017, recyclers across North America and Europe have been scrambling for solutions. At this point, just 9% of Canada’s plastic is recycled. That stat isn’t much better in Lego’s home base of Denmark, where most plastics are incinerated.

Like Lego, a lot of private sector players are “hesitant to invest in new facilities and long-term, impactful research, prioritizing short-term profitability for their shareholders instead,” says Mekonnen, who suggests mandating recycled content as one solution.

Other major consumer brands such as Nestlé have said that recycled-content targets have been hampered by “a lack of government recycling infrastructure globally,” as Reuters reported.

Lego might shave emissions down a notch with plans to add solar panels to factories in China, Hungary, Mexico, Vietnam and the United States, where grids are often far from clean. But Lego Group operations only account for 2% of total emissions. The remaining 98% come from their scope 3 emissions – from the production of raw materials, distribution and transportation and the treatment of Lego products when they’re no longer wanted.

Hamish van der Ven is an associate professor of sustainable business management of natural resources at the University of British Columbia. He says Lego is too narrowly focused on addressing production instead of consumption. “Instead of making Lego moderately less carbon intensive, why not focus on reducing the need for new production through innovative sales strategies like renting Lego instead of buying it?”

van der Ven notes that plastic alternatives always come with downsides and additional cost (think paper straws). “Ending fossil fuel subsidies would be a good way to reduce the price difference between plastics and plastic alternatives while funding both infrastructure and research.”

Lego’s sustainability chief has acknowledged that “it’s better to reuse than recycle.” He said the company plans to expand its Lego Replay program, which donates used bricks to children’s non-profits. But Lego, like other companies trying to green themselves, will need to go beyond feel-good pilot programs. “We’re looking at a circular business model — how do we earn revenue from recircling bricks. It’s quite a shift in thinking and ideas,” said Brooks.

Greenpeace Canada’s head of oceans and plastic campaigns, Sarah King, is glad to see Lego talking circular. But, she says, “unless they begin to reduce production overall, their model does not lend itself to circularity . . . A continued reliance on fossil fuels for its products is not compatible with a sustainable or just transition for the business or the wider economy.”

The toymaker has clarified that it’s still “fully committed to making Lego bricks from sustainable materials by 2032,” adding that the company will “triple spending on sustainability initiatives to $1.4 billion in the four years to 2025.”

Environmental advocates will be watching closely to see whether Lego’s definition of sustainability stacks up.

The post Lego says it hit a recycled plastic stumbling block. Do its claims stack up? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Accelerate reuse and refill markets

Governments and businesses need to collaborate to eliminate unnecessary single-use plastics while developing thriving systems for reusable and refillable products, including deposit-return schemes and new refillable product-delivery models (e.g., modern-day “milkmen” for consumer goods).

Plastic-curbing potential: 30%

Ramp up recycling markets

At least 80% of plastic is landfilled because it costs too much to recycle. Regulators will need to enforce design rules to make plastics more recyclable, and governments should end fossil fuel subsidies for virgin plastic and set mandates for at least 50% recycled content to help level the playing field.

Plastic-curbing potential: 20%

Spur on sustainable alternatives

In cases where reuse isn’t an option, UNEP suggests that corporations carefully replace problematic plastic products with alternative materials, such as recycled paper and certified compostable materials, but only if they’re backed by life-cycle assessments.

Plastic-curbing potential: 17%

Deal with durables

More than 30% of plastic waste comes from “durable plastic” products that last more than three years. To help keep demand for new plastic-based electronics and goods in check (and boost product durability), governments must enable the right to repair and crack down on planned obsolescence.

Stop microplastics at the source

Tiny microplastic particles account for more than 6% of plastic pollution. A ban on intentionally adding microplastics to products is key, but so is redesigning tires, washing machines, polyesters and other textiles so they shed less, preventing microplastic particles from reaching waterways.

Tackle existing plastic pollution

UNEP says that 22% of plastic waste is mismanaged in dump sites, burned in open pits or dumped in the ocean. To help put an end to this, the report calls for a global ban on exporting plastic waste to countries with low collection rates while also building more collection systems in those regions.

The post Knight Bites: 6 ways to win our battle with plastic pollution by 2040 appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Environmentalists are hopeful that the second round of negotiations for the UN Global Treaty to End Plastic Pollution set to begin in Paris in May will be more fruitful than the first.

The inaugural plastics summit (Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, or INC1) closed in Uruguay at the end of last year without a huge amount of progress, as it was largely focused on procedural issues, but the fact that the negotiations happened at all was reason enough for some to celebrate.

“We have been able … to lay down some foundation principles upon which to build for the coming INCs,” said Fatumanava-o-Upolu III Dr. Pa’olelei Luteru, Samoa’s representative to the UN. “Obviously, we cannot agree on everything at this stage, but … we need to make room for flexibility because the more difficult part of these negotiations has yet to come.”

It’s fitting that the next round of negotiations will take place in France – not only because Paris was where the landmark agreement to limit global warming to 1.5°C was reached, but because the EU is leading the way on plastics. Last year, the European Commission proposed rules that would require companies to use packaging that could be recycled, reused or composted. And the EU has laid out a goal to cut packaging waste by 15% (of 2018 levels) by 2040. The target may sound fairly low, but it would signal a major shift.

The EU’s proposals for the global plastics treaty are also ambitious. They include global targets to limit plastic production – something the American delegation didn’t include in its proposals but environmentalists see as a necessary way to curtail plastic pollution.

“The European Union is playing a leading role in advocating for a high-ambition, legally binding global agreement under the UN process to end plastic pollution,” Steve Fletcher, director of the Global Plastics Policy Centre at the U.K.’s University of Portsmouth, told BNN Bloomberg. “The current proposals are aligned with that high ambition that they want to see developed through the treaty process.”

A plastics treaty takes shape

Activists want to see negotiations in France also focus on how nations will work to end the production of virgin plastic, and they want any treaty to address the entire life cycle of plastics, from extraction to disposal.

Hanging over all of this is the influence of the petrochemicals industry – a consolidated sector with lots of lobbying power behind it. While there are around 500 corporations that produce plastic, only 25 companies are responsible for half of the world’s plastic pollution, according to a recent study by the European Investment Bank.

“In a huge conflict of interest, the private sector continues to have far too much influence over these negotiations, including the polluters responsible for the global plastic pollution crisis,” wrote Greenpeace’s Kaitlyn Trent and Graham Forbes in a December blog post. They add that plastics manufacturers currently have as much say in these kinds of negotiations as the communities and scientists fighting against pollution: “Plastics treaty negotiations cannot be co-opted by welcoming oil and plastics industry lobbyists to dominate the discussion and weaken ambition.”

In Canada (where the fourth round of negotiations are expected to take place), plastic producers, such as Dow Chemical and Imperial Oil, are teaming up with the provincial governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan to sue the federal government for designating plastic products as “toxic” and prohibiting the sale of six single-use plastic items, including disposable plastic bags, cutlery and straws. The case could have consequences on how the federal government can regulate plastic pollution.

On the global stage, INC negotiators are aiming to draft a legally binding agreement by the end of 2024. If they’re going to reach that goal, some of the heavy lifting will have to be done in Paris.

The post Petrochemical industry influence looms over treaty to end plastic pollution appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Despite recycling the waste of others, waste pickers often lack waste collection services themselves. They suffer the consequences of pollution more than most by inhaling fumes from burning plastic and breathing air and drinking water that is heavily contaminated with microplastics. Waste pickers are also vulnerable to abuse and exploitation as a result of being women, immigrants, Indigenous or belonging to ethnic minorities and oppressed castes.

Punta del Este, an affluent resort town in Uruguay, is hosting the first intergovernmental negotiations to create a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution on land and sea. Punta normally hosts high-end tourists from Argentina and Brazil. Now, it is welcoming more than 1,000 delegates and observers from 160 nations and a range of environmental campaign groups, plastic industry representatives and waste pickers.

Waste pickers are known in Uruguay as clasificadores and can be found working in Punta’s nearest municipal landfill, a 20 minute-drive from the convention centre where the negotiations will take place. There, and in Uruguay’s capital of Montevideo, clasificadores have long carried out the lion’s share of plastics recycling. They scour landfills and bins and organise collections from homes and businesses before sorting recyclable from non-recyclable waste.

Clasificadores risk their lives doing this. In August 2022, a waste picker was found dead at Punta’s landfill – crushed by a reversing dump truck. While such deaths are thankfully rare, accidents, chronic illnesses and low life expectancy are common among waste pickers. Nevertheless, a new book by one of the authors, Patrick O’Hare, Rubbish Belongs to the Poor, shows how recyclable waste also offers a readily accessible source of income and provides a refuge for the poor and marginalised.

Historic recognition

Waste pickers are increasingly included in municipal waste management plans and services in various countries. Beyond collecting and sorting waste, waste pickers have also taken roles teaching people how to recycle waste properly. Multinational companies which generate a lot of plastic packaging, including Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Unilever and Nestlé, recently signed up to an initiative which would commit them to improving the rights of people in the informal waste sector who recover plastic to make recycled packaging with. It’s hoped this process might eventually lead to manufacturers buying recycled material directly from waste pickers, fairer prices and improved health and safety standards.

Now, pickers are also partners in devising the global treaty to curb plastic pollution. A ten-strong delegation from the International Alliance of Waste pickers (IAW) is attending the negotiations in Uruguay to influence the treaty as it takes shape. The IAW demands to be represented in all future treaty discussions – and, for this reason, has called for ring-fenced UN funding for six waste pickers from different regions to attend subsequent meetings.

Efforts to clean up pollution will fail if new plastics continue to be produced at an increasing rate as forecasts suggest is likely. The treaty is expected to introduce new rules forcing plastic manufacturers to change the design of their products and restricting their production of non-recyclable plastic. It will also seek to increase recycling rates, since only around 9% of the plastic that has ever been produced has been recycled. The IAW are keen to ensure that waste pickers benefit from these changes.

Plastics are more likely to find their way into and pollute the environment if there is no market for recycling them. Unrecyclable or difficult to recycle materials, which are likely to face production limits in the treaty (such as expanded polystyrene and sachets), offer little value to waste pickers. Where plastic bans and caps would affect livelihoods, the IAW has called for waste pickers to be given opportunities to transition into other forms of work.

At the negotiations for a global plastics treaty, waste pickers are asking to be involved in how plastic waste and recycling policies are designed and implemented within countries and internationally. It may be too late for reforms to benefit the Uruguayan clasificador who died in August. Yet if negotiations in Punta del Este end with overdue recognition of the role of waste pickers in tackling plastic pollution, this will be a small step towards honouring his memory.

Patrick O’Hare is a UKRI Future Leader Fellow at the University of St Andrews. Lucia Fernandez is the waste pickers global coordinator for WIEGO  and a lecturer in architecture, design and urbanism at Universidad de la República Uruguay.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Waste pickers push to be heard in global plastics treaty negotiations appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Even before the pandemic, 805 million takeout containers were dished out in Canada in 2019, as were 5.8 billion straws and 15.5 billion plastic grocery bags. Now Canada’s federal government is giving businesses until the end of 2023 to stop selling six hard-to-recycle single-use plastic items, including polystyrene and black plastic takeout containers, cutlery, grocery bags and straws. It’s an important first step that should eliminate more than 1.3 million tonnes of plastic waste, but environmental advocates point out a troubling fact: the ban is aimed at just roughly 5% of Canada’s swelling plastic stream. What about the rest of it? 

As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) noted in its latest global plastic report, released in June, “Plastic waste is projected to almost triple by 2060, with half of all plastic waste still being landfilled and less than a fifth recycled.”

“Less than a fifth” may be a generous estimate. In late April, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a first-of-its-kind investigation into the recycling claims made by Big Oil. “For more than half a century,” Bonta said in a statement, “the plastics industry has engaged in an aggressive campaign to deceive the public, perpetuating a myth that recycling can solve the plastics crisis.”

The reality, he added, is that the vast majority of plastic cannot be recycled. The bombshell investigation was announced on the heels of a damning report released by the U.S. Department of Energy a few days earlier, which concluded that only 5% of plastic has actually been getting a second life through recycling. That’s particularly bad news considering the United States generates more plastic waste than any other country. But the whole world is having a tough time figuring out what to do with its plastic.

For more than half a century, the plastics industry has engaged in an aggressive campaign to deceive the public, perpetuating a myth that recycling can solve the plastics crisis.

–California Attorney General Rob Bonta

Fortunately, there’s also been a surge in grassroots reuse-and-refill businesses around the globe. While the refillable mugs and reusable bags of the zero-waste movement were vilified in the early days of the pandemic, they’re back on the upswing. Independent start-ups like Suppli in Toronto and DeliverZero in New York have been tackling the takeout waste crisis by offering reusable container services to local restaurants. 

Now some major fast-food chains are promising to get in on the action. 

In a partnership with TerraCycle’s circular packaging service, Loop, refillable takeout containers may be coming to a Burger King near you. At least if you live in the United Kingdom or New Jersey, where BK outlets will be trialling deposit return systems for refillable burger “clamshell” packaging, soda cups and more. In Canada, BK’s parent company, Restaurant Brands International (RBI), partnered with Loop and Tupperware Brands to pilot reusable food packaging containers for the Tim Hortons chain late last year.

RBI isn’t the only corporation scrambling to meet public commitments to shift to fully recyclable, reusable or compostable packaging by 2025. Similar pledges have been made by more than 1,000 organizations. In May, Body Shop announced that it’s reviving plans to roll out refill stations across the U.S., and Dove is now offering deodorant in slick refillable containers. Earlier this year, Coca-Cola promised to make a quarter of its beverage containers “refillable/returnable glass or plastic bottles” by 2030. 

Whether corporate efforts to introduce refillable containers go beyond novelty or pilot projects remains to be seen. On World Refill Day, June 16, more than 400 organizations released an open letter to the CEOs of five of the biggest consumer goods companies (Coca-Cola, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Unilever and Procter and Gamble), urging them to support “transparent, ambitious and accountable reuse and refill systems.” 

In Canada, dozens of environmental groups and zero-waste businesses are calling for increased government support for reuse-and-refill initiatives. Sarah King, Greenpeace Canada’s head of oceans and plastics campaign, says that the federal government has been “stalling on fully embracing refill and reuse funding.” 

King says, “Canada will only meet its zero plastic waste by 2030 goal if it acts now to cut production of all non-essential plastics and creates a strategy to scale reuse and refill infrastructure nation-wide to accelerate a transition to truly zero waste, low carbon systems.”

The OECD agrees that bans on a “tiny share” of plastic waste will get us only so far. Its earlier February report on plastic concluded that “bans and taxes on single-use plastics exist in more than 120 countries but are not doing enough to reduce overall pollution.” The OECD is calling for “greater use of instruments such as Extended Producer Responsibility schemes for packaging and durables, landfill taxes, deposit-refund and Pay-as-You-Throw systems.”

Bans and taxes on single-use plastics exist in more than 120 countries but are not doing enough to reduce overall pollution.

–OECD

While announcing Canada’s new plastic ban June 20, Environment and Climate Change Canada didn’t mention any of the above, but the ministry did note that “moving toward a more circular economy for plastics could reduce carbon emissions by 1.8 megatonnes annually, generate billions of dollars in revenue, and create approximately 42,000 jobs by 2030.” 

In a sea of despair over rising plastic pollution, some hopeful signs are floating to the top. As of July 1, India is banning a long list of single-use plastics, including plastic wrap, cutlery and plastic sticks. Austria is mandating that 25% of beverage bottles be refillable by 2025, while Chile is mandating a 30% quota. 

Back in California, ExxonMobil put out a statement denying the attorney general’s charges that it’s been misleading the public on the recyclability of plastics: “We are focused on solutions and meritless allegations like these distract from the important collaborative work that is underway to enhance waste management and improve circularity.”

Of course, Exxon has also denied that it’s known about climate change for 40 years while spending millions on funding climate-change-denying think tanks. 

Judith Enck, president of the environmental group Beyond Plastics and a former Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator, told Inside Climate News that California’s investigation is “very significant.”

“[It has] the potential to finally hold plastic producers accountable for the immense environmental damage caused by plastics.”

A version of this article appears in the summer issue of Corporate Knights magazine. 

The post Canada bans some single-use plastics; are takeout containers enough? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The volume of medical-related waste represents a “new environmental crisis,” warns Peter Hopkinson, director of the National Interdisciplinary Circular Economy Research Hub (CE Hub) at the University of Exeter Business School. COVID-19 demand for single-use PPE, he adds, “has set back the substitution and replacement of medical plastic by quite a long way.”

Before the pandemic, the elimination of plastics in the ocean was a top global priority, he says. “Then came the pandemic, and suddenly it is ‘Where do I get my plastic … I don’t care where you get it from. It is a matter of life and death.’”

Like a number of global researchers, Hopkinson is conducting research to put the focus back on strategies to substitute and replace COVID-related plastic products.

Too often, he argues, plastics pollution is seen as a problem for oceans, not the climate as a whole. “People have still not really made the link between plastics and carbon; it’s basically oil,” he says. “When plastic [material] is incinerated as clinical waste, it releases carbon.”

The CE Hub explores business models that minimize reliance on non-renewable resources and maximize reuse of waste materials – the essence of circular economy principles. Since 2020, the CE Hub has worked with Revolution-ZERO, a sustainability focused provider of zero-carbon, zero-waste face masks and gowns, to pilot alternatives to single-use PPE in British hospitals. Initial results show that redesigned PPE can be safely reused 20 to 100 times before being repurposed as medical blankets or insulation curtains, complemented by staff training and special on-site laundry for holistic solutions.

[COVID-19 demand for single-use PPE] has set back the substitution and replacement of medical plastic by quite a long way.”

– Peter Hopkinson, director of the National Interdisciplinary Circular Economy Research Hub

Earlier this year, for its efforts to devise sustainable alternatives to disposable PPE, drapes and other surgical textiles, Revolution-ZERO was one of 10 recipients to share £1 million in funding from England’s Small Business Research Initiative.

The Exeter-led CE Hub is part of the National Interdisciplinary Circular Economy Research (NICER) program – a four-year, £30-million investment to move the UK toward a circular economy. In addition to the hub, the program involves 34 universities, 64 senior academics, 42 early-career researchers, more than 60 PhD students and 120 industry partners, all working to coordinate and scale that circular mission. Other related centres are focused on developing circular economy textiles, construction materials, metals and beyond.

Exeter has also introduced a Circular Economy Masterclass – a six-week, online, interactive program for organizations and individuals looking to create and deliver commercial benefits from the circular economy.

A circular economy approach is “perfectly possible, practical and profitable,” Hopkinson concludes. “It saves you a lot of money, there is no reduction in patient safety, and it is the right thing to do.”

Jennifer Lewington is an intrepid reporter and writes regularly on many topics, including business school news.

The post Can we curb COVID’s ocean waste crisis? appeared first on Corporate Knights.