Fossil fuel lobbyists predictably shut down international motion to reduce plastic production

This week, delegates at the INC dismissed a motion to reduce plastic production by 40% in the next 15 years. 

On Tuesday 30 April, negotiations wrapped up at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) plastic pollution talks. Held in Ottawa, these talks are crucial before the final negotiations in South Korea later this year. The aim of these talks is advancing an ‘’international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.’’

Many have seen the talks as a step closer to a world-first pact. Alarmingly though, delegates chose to dismiss the motion to reduce the production of these plastics.

Aquatic ecosystems in danger

As the Canary reported last week, plastic pollution poses a threat to human health and also has severe consequences for the environment and economy. Studies have found plastic nearly everywhere. Recently, a plastic bag was discovered in the deepest known point of our oceans – the Mariana Trench.

Every year, over 19m tonnes of plastic waste enters lakes, rivers, and seas, ultimately polluting aquatic ecosystems. As expected, this is endangering over 900 marine and coastal species. 

Worryingly, the annual production of plastic has more than doubled – to 460m tonnes in the last 20 years. 

Over 99% of plastic is made from fossil fuels, which account for 75% of all greenhouse gas emissions. This means that plastic generated from fossil fuels is directly impacting the rise in greenhouse gases. 

A change in energy is not enough

This week’s negotiations picked up where talks in Kenya finished five months ago. Delegates from 175 countries discussed a draft of what is to become a global treaty on ending the ever-growing problem of plastic pollution. 

Canadian parliamentary secretary Julie Dabrusin said the talks in Ottawa saw “a massive, monumental change in the tone and in the energy” compared with the previous round:

I’m really optimistic that we can get to an agreement by the end of the year… to end plastic pollution by 2040.

However, whilst some officials may be seeing this as a win – the important details of the cap on plastic production did not make it into the draft text. This continues to be a major stumbling block. 

Both Peru and Rwanda proposed a motion to cut plastic production by 40% in the next 15 years. This would be in line with the 2015 Paris agreement climate goals. Appallingly, delegates shot down this motion. 

This week, a simultaneous meeting of the G7 is taking place in Italy – where hopefully, environment ministers will commit to reducing plastic production. As the French delegation noted: 

the level of plastic pollution is unsustainable and that its increase is alarming.

Unnecessary pressure on decision makers

There is a clear consensus on the need for a plastics pollution treaty. However, oil-producing nations and the plastics industry – who favour recycling – continue to put unnecessary pressure on decision makers. 

Only last week, we reported that fossil fuel lobbyists had turned up in droves to sabotage INC-4. Predictably, this created a huge power imbalance, with seven times more lobbyists showing up than the 28 representatives of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus.

To top this off, the number of lobbyists who registered was three times greater than the 58 independent scientists. 

Willingness isn’t enough from the INC over plastic

Ana Rocha, speaking on behalf of Global South nations, said there had been: 

a growing willingness to address primary plastic polymers under the treaty.

It is clear that willingness isn’t enough, as Greenpeace’s Graham Forbes told AFP: 

You cannot end plastic pollution if you do not reduce the amount of plastic we produce.

This treaty will succeed or fail based on the extent to which it addresses and reduces plastic production. Nothing else will work if we don’t get that right.

Alejandra Parra, from Latin America, called recycling a “false option”.

She said that most plastic isn’t recycled and cannot be. Additionally, melting the plastics into new forms releases toxins and carbon emissions. Collecting and sorting recyclable them is also relatively expensive.

It’s unsurprising that a motion to reduce plastic production was shut down in the presence of so many fossil fuel lobbyists.

These are the very people who produce plastic and whose businesses would take a direct hit. Without a clear consensus between both the INC and the G7 – whose meetings seem to be both simultaneous and on the same topic, but on different continents – that we will struggle to make any real progress.

Willingness is simply not enough. 

Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

Feature image via CaptainDarwin/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1200 by 900, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0