- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
As talks on a new global treaty to end plastic pollution approach the halfway mark in Busan, South Korea, countries clashed in a heated plenary session on Wednesday over the lack of significant progress so far on the core elements of a pact, including potential curbs on plastic production.
Several nations pushing for an ambitious agreement have complained vehemently over the slow pace of the negotiations, with diplomats accusing some of their counterparts of holding up discussions and failing to act in good faith.
While not naming countries directly, negotiators and observers told Climate Home that some fossil-fuel producing nations – led by Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran – have repeatedly stalled the talks. These countries do not want the treaty to include any provisions on plastic manufacturing, preferring a narrow focus on managing consumption and waste.
At Wednesday’s plenary, Colombia’s negotiator said “a number of parties seem to be delaying discussions”, echoed by Switzerland’s delegate who said “some are not engaging in constructive dialogue”.
Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, Panama’s special representative for climate change, received loud applause after accusing negotiators of “tiptoeing around the truth and sidestepping ambition”.
“We are signing a pact of destruction for our planet and our people” if the treaty isn’t strong, added the fiery orator who wears a traditional hat.
Panama’s negotiator Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez. Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth
The fossil fuel-producing nations in the firing line hit back at the accusations.
Iran’s negotiator said “we are sincere, we are honest and ready to cooperate”, adding that Tehran does “not want to be blamed for blocking negotiations through dirty tactics”.
Russia’s representative called the accusations “unacceptable”, while the Saudi government delegate cryptically raised the risk of unspecified “irregularities or ambiguities” and “text being parachuted into the process”.
Three days into what is due to be the final round of talks – and two and half years after the whole process started – government diplomats have yet to agree on any parts of the text aimed at dealing with plastic pollution across the “full lifecycle” of the material – which means from production to disposal and reuse or recycling.
Production curbs needed for strong global pact on plastic pollution, campaigners say
Before negotiators vented their frustration on Wednesday evening, the chair of the talks, Luisa Vayas Valdivieso had told them “time is of the essence”.
“Progress has been too slow – we need to speed up our work,” he added, before urging diplomats to keep their interventions short and get back to work.
Commenting on the state of play in the negotiations, Aleksandar Rankovic, director of think-tank The Common Initiative, told Climate Home “the process is near explosion”.
“Given the visible tensions during the plenary tonight, it is hard to see how consensus can be reached this week,” he added.
When Climate Home asked Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme which is shepherding the talks, if they were reaching breaking point, she categorically denied that was the case.
“It is not uncommon that language gets a little sharper at certain points, but these are all very experienced negotiators and all understand the minuet that is being danced here,” she said.
Battle over production curbs
The inclusion of provisions aimed at cutting plastic production remains one of the biggest sticking points in the negotiations.
A large coalition of countries – including most Western, African, Latin American and Pacific island nations – are determined that the treaty should mention putting limits on plastic manufacturing. That is the only way to make a real dent in plastic pollution, they argue.
A proposal submitted by Pacific small island developing states this week called for the UN treaty to include a “global target of 40 percent reduction [in plastic production] by 2040, compared to 2025 levels”.
On Wednesday, a group of 45 African nations – excluding South Africa and North African states – put on the table a less specific proposal for a “global target to reduce the production and consumption of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels”.
A European negotiator told Climate Home that a “high level provision” calling for countries to “strive towards sustainable levels of production and consumption” could be more achievable.
“Ambitious countries will need to make a difficult decision on whether to take a less than ideal text or walk away from negotiations with nothing and no real alternative,” they added.
Plastic production has been rising at an unrelenting pace over the last few decades and, according to some projections, it could double or triple by 2050.
As nearly all plastic is derived from fossil fuels, a surge in production is expected to have a significant impact on the greenhouse gas emissions exacerbating the climate crisis.
Plastic production could consume around a quarter of the carbon budget remaining if global warming is to be limited to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, according to a study by the US-based Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
But many producers of fossil fuels see the petrochemicals sector, including plastics, as a lifeline with demand for oil and gas in the energy sector projected to decline as the world shifts to cleaner sources.
In submissions made this week, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran reinforced their view that production curbs fall outside the scope of the treaty, raising the prospect of “economic disruption”, trade restrictions and shortages of essential materials if such measures were enacted.
Christina Dixon, ocean campaign leader at the Environmental Investigation Agency, told Climate Home that “the talks hang in the balance” after Wednesday’s plenary.
“We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to secure a meaningful deal capable of addressing plastic pollution – but as usual a small minority of oil-producing countries are intent on derailing progress,” she added.
Dixon called on ambitious states to “hold firm”, while also making concerted efforts to offer a “financial package capable of delivering the change we need”.
After the plenary showdown, closed-door negotiations resumed with an official deadline of Friday night for agreed text to be handed over to legal reviewers before final approval.
“I won’t be holding my breath over that,” one veteran observer told Climate Home.
(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; editing by Megan Rowling)
The post Global plastics pact “hangs in balance” as petrostates block talks appeared first on Climate Home News.
Global plastics pact “hangs in balance” as petrostates block talks
Continue Reading
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.
Key Findings
- Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
- Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
- Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
- Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
- Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
- Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
What you can do
WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.