Connect with us

Published

on

Delegates from more than 175 countries are in Busan, South Korea, this week to hammer out an environmental deal described as the most significant since the Paris Agreement.

This is the final scheduled round of negotiations for a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty, promised by world leaders two years ago in a historic commitment to ending the crisis of plastic pollution across its lifecycle – including production, design and disposal.

But after four rounds of meetings, in which a small number of fossil fuel-rich countries dug in their heels to delay progress and water down ambition, it is still all to play for in Busan.

State of play on plastic production

On the eve of the negotiations, 1,500 activists marched in Busan and civil society groups delivered a petition of almost three million signatures, demanding a strong treaty that includes plastic production reduction measures.

They are particularly worried because a central point of contention among delegates is whether the treaty should regulate plastic production at all.

“It’s the elephant in the room,” said Swathi Seshadri, oil and gas lead at India’s Centre for Financial Accountability. “The petro-states and petrochemical-producing countries are pushing to keep the ambition low, but a majority of countries do want a strong treaty with upstream measures, including regulating polymer production and chemicals of concern.”

Cartoon courtesy of Break Free From Plastic

While it is the important ‘downstream’ harms of plastic waste that predominate in the public imagination – marine life choked by packaging, microplastics in human placenta and so on – the production of plastic contributes directly to planetary warming and harms human and environmental health.

Environmental Investigation Agency campaigner Jacob Kean-Hammerson explained: “The pollution doesn’t start when plastic misses a bin on the street. As soon as we start to produce plastic, toxic chemicals leak into the environment, causing harm to frontline communities.”

Primary plastic polymers – the building blocks of any plastic product – are made from fossil fuels through energy-intensive refinement processes, and hazardous chemicals are often added to make the materials more flexible or resilient.

“Moment of truth” for plastic pollution as treaty talks get underway

The $712-billion plastic industry is set to double or triple by 2050, which would see plastic production account for up to 31% of the remaining global carbon budget for staying below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.

Campaigners want mandatory targets to cap and dramatically reduce virgin plastic production, eliminate single-use plastics, and ban toxic chemicals in all virgin and recycled plastics.

‘Get out of jail free’ card for fossil fuels

Griffins Ochieng, of the Centre for Environmental Justice and Development, told Climate Home: “The controls must be global, obligatory and measurable to be meaningful, otherwise countries in the Global South –  that are not major producers of these polymers or chemicals – just have no way they can control what is happening in other places.”

However, some major fossil fuel-producing countries – like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran, as well as an ever-increasing number of industry lobbyists – are pushing to exclude plastic production from the treaty altogether.

Kean-Hammerson explained: “Plastics are seen as a ‘get out of jail free card’ for the fossil fuel industry, because they can increase demand for their products even as we take action to reduce demand in the energy sector.”

Campaigners highlight the connection between plastics and fossil fuels at a rally ahead of talks on a new global treaty to end plastic pollution in Busan, South Korea. (Photo by Seunghyeok Choi on assignment for Break Free From Plastic and Uproot Plastics Coalition)

According to Melissa Blue Sky, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, petro-states’ efforts to obstruct the negotiations extend from the content of the treaty to the procedural elements of the meetings.

Rather than looking to resolve particularly divisive issues through voting, some low-ambition countries have pushed for a consensus-based decision-making approach instead, which would effectively give every country veto power over the treaty text.

As a result, Blue Sky explained, nothing has been finalised in the “non-paper” – a draft treaty text prepared by the meeting’s Chair as a jumping-off point for negotiations – and it lacks any suggested language on plastic production.

“It is highly unusual to be in the final scheduled negotiating meeting and have no agreed text,” Blue Sky added. “This is not a normal situation,” she said, reflecting that “there are extremely far apart visions of what this treaty could be and do.”

Non-toxic reuse and refill 

In addition to capping plastic production, environmentalists say a strong treaty should also include legally binding, time-bound targets to scale up non-toxic reuse and refill solutions, accelerating a transition away from single-use plastic.

This could include policies that incentivise a shift to reuse systems, such as single-use plastic bans, and rejecting “false solutions” – techno-fixes that perpetuate business as usual, like waste-to-energy (WTE), whereby plastics are burned to generate power, producing highly toxic ash.

The fact that polluting technologies like WTE have been rejected in the Global North but are widespread in the Global South is “the nature of colonialism today”, CFA’s Seshadri pointed out.

A strong treaty would also look to eliminate waste colonialism, a practice by which higher-income countries offload waste to lower-income countries, where its disposal harms human health and the environment.

Environmental justice

A just transition for workers and communities along the plastics supply chain also needs to be at the core of a strong treaty, green groups argue.

This must include formally recognising waste pickers, who often work in unsafe conditions, and supporting frontline communities suffering from the toxic impacts of plastic production and disposal.

Jo Banner, co-founder of the racial and environmental justice organisation The Descendants Project, lives in one such community: Wallace, a town in the U.S. State of Louisiana, which was established by her ancestors and their peers who had been emancipated from slavery on nearby sugar plantations.

Wallace lies along an 85-mile stretch of land nicknamed ‘Cancer Alley’, where communities live beside some 200 fossil fuel and petrochemical operations – the starting points of plastic production – and suffer some of the highest rates of cancer and other illnesses in the country.

“We’ve been sacrificed for this,” said Banner. “It’s us who have to live on the fenceline of this pollution, in the same way we lived on the fenceline of the plantation.”

“This is not just about disposable products. It’s about disposable people. And when we stop looking at people as being disposable, that’s when we will see real change,” she said.

How a local victory against petrochemicals can spur global action on plastics

Finance for implementation

If delegates do leave Busan with an ambitious, binding and measurable roadmap to reduce plastic pollution, countries will need money to implement it.

How will those funds be delivered – and who will pay?

Campaigners are calling for a ‘polluter pays’ mechanism, where plastic producers would pay a levy on each tonne produced.

However, Kean-Hammerson warned that innovative private finance mechanisms must not come at the cost of public funding.

“[The] Polluter pays [principle] is often thought about in terms of companies – they are the ones putting the polymer and the plastics on the market,” he said.

But donor countries in the Global North should also dig into their pockets, he said, not just to show solidarity on a global issue, but also in recognition of the fact that they export a lot of waste to the Global South and have high levels of production and consumption onshore too.

As the talks continue in Busan, civil society is unwavering in calling for an ambitious, legally binding treaty. The outcome will hinge on whether high ambition countries are prepared to follow through on their public commitment to address the global plastic crisis – and bring others along with them.

Sponsored by Break Free From Plastic. See our supporters page for what this means. 

Daisy Clague is a freelance journalist based in London, UK. 

The post Production curbs needed for strong global pact on plastic pollution, campaigners say appeared first on Climate Home News.

Production curbs needed for strong global pact on plastic pollution, campaigners say

Continue Reading

Climate Change

World leaders invited to see Pacific climate destruction before COP31

Published

on

The leaders and climate ministers of governments around the world will be invited to meetings on the Pacific islands of Fiji, Palau and Tuvalu in the months leading up to the COP31 climate summit in November.

Under a deal struck between Pacific nations, Fiji will host the official annual pre-COP meeting, at which climate ministers and negotiators discuss contentious issues with the COP Presidency to help make the climate summit smoother.

This pre-COP, expected to be held in early October, will include a “special leaders’ component” hosted in neighbouring Tuvalu – 2.5-hour flight north – according to a statement issued by the Australian COP31 President of Negotiations Chris Bowen on LinkedIn on Thursday.

Bowen said this “will bring a global focus to the most pressing challenges facing our region and support investment in solutions which are fit for purpose for our region.” Australia will provide operational and logistical support for the event, he said.

    Like many Pacific island nations, Tuvalu, which is home to around 10,000 people, is threatened by rising sea levels, as salt water and waves damage homes, water supplies, farms and infrastructure.

    Dozens of heads of state and government usually attend COP summits, but only a handful take part in pre-COP meetings. COP31 will be held in the Turkish city of Antalya in November, after an unusual compromise deal struck between Australia and Türkiye.

    In addition, Pacific country Palau will host a climate event as part of the annual Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) – which convenes 18 Pacific nations – in August.

    Palau’s President Surangel Whipps Jr told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) that this meeting would be a “launching board” to build momentum for COP31 and would draw new commitments from other countries to help Pacific nations cut emissions and adapt to climate change.

    “At the PIF our priorities are going to be 100 per cent renewables, the ocean-climate nexus and … accelerating investments that build resilience from climate change,” he told ABC.

    The post World leaders invited to see Pacific climate destruction before COP31 appeared first on Climate Home News.

    World leaders invited to see Pacific climate destruction before COP31

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    There is hope for Venezuela’s future – and it isn’t based on oil

    Published

    on

    Alejandro Álvarez Iragorry is a Venezuelan ecologist and coordinator of Clima 21, an environmental NGO. Cat Rainsford is a transition minerals investigator for Global Witness and former Venezuela analyst for a Latin American think tank.

    In 1975, former Venezuelan oil minister Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo gave a now infamous warning.

    “Oil will bring us ruin,” he declared. “It is the devil’s excrement. We are drowning in the devil’s excrement.”

    At the time, his words seemed excessively gloomy to many Venezuelans. The country was in a period of rapid modernisation, fuelled by its booming oil economy. Caracas was a thriving cultural hotspot. Everything seemed good. But history proved Pérez right.

    Over the following decades, Venezuela’s oil dependence came to seem like a curse. After the 1980s oil price crash, political turmoil paved the way for the election of populist Hugo Chávez, who built a socialist state on oil money, only for falling prices and corruption to drive it into ruin.

      By 2025, poverty and growing repression under Chávez’s successor Nicolás Maduro had forced nearly 8 million Venezuelans to leave the country.

      Venezuela is now at a crossroads. Since the US abducted Maduro on January 3 and seized control of the country’s oil revenues in a nakedly imperial act, all attention has been on getting the country’s dilapidated oil infrastructure pumping again.

      But Venezuelans deserve more than plunder and fighting over a planet-wrecking resource that has fostered chronic instability and dispossession. Right now, 80% of Venezuelans live below the poverty line. Venezuelans are desperate for jobs, income and change. 

      Real change, though, won’t come through more oil dependency or profiteering by foreign elites. Instead, it is renewable energy that offers a pathway forward, towards sovereignty, stability and peace.

      Guri Dam and Venezuela’s hydropower decline

      Venezuela boasts some of the strongest potential for renewable energy generation in the region. Two-thirds of the country’s own electricity comes from hydropower, mostly from the massive Guri Dam in the southern state of Bolívar. This is one of the largest dams in Latin America with a capacity of over 10 gigawatts, even providing power to parts of Colombia and Brazil.

      Guri has become another symbol of Venezuela’s mismanagement. Lack of diversification caused over-reliance on Guri for domestic power, making the system vulnerable to droughts. Poor maintenance reduced Guri’s capacity and planned supporting projects such as the Tocoma Dam were bled dry by corruption. The country was left plagued by blackouts and increasingly turned to dirty thermoelectric plants and petrol generators for power.

      Today, industry analysis suggests that Venezuela is producing at about 30% of its hydropower capacity. Rehabilitating this neglected infrastructure could re-establish clean power as the backbone of domestic industry, while the country’s abundant river system offers numerous opportunities for smaller, sustainable hydro projects that promote rural electrification.

      A fisherman walks down the coast from the Paraguana Refining Center (CRP) following a crude spill in September from a pipeline that connects production areas with the state-run PDVSA’s largest refinery, in Punta Cardon, Venezuela October 2, 2021. Picture taken October 2, 2021. REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria

      A fisherman walks down the coast from the Paraguana Refining Center (CRP) following a crude spill in September from a pipeline that connects production areas with the state-run PDVSA’s largest refinery, in Punta Cardon, Venezuela October 2, 2021. Picture taken October 2, 2021. REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria

      Venezuela also has huge, untapped promise in wind power that could provide vital diversification from hydropower. The coastal states of Zulia and Falcón boast wind speeds in the ideal range for electricity generation, with potential to add up to 12 gigawatts to the grid. Yet planned projects in both states have stalled, leaving abandoned turbines rusting in fields and millions of dollars unaccounted for.

      Solar power is more neglected. One announced solar plant on the island of Los Roques remains non-functional a decade later, and a Chávez-era programme to supply solar panels to rural households ground to a halt when oil prices fell. Yet nearly a fifth of the country receives levels of solar radiation that rival leading regions such as northern Chile.

      Developing Venezuela’s renewables potential would be a massive undertaking. Investment would be needed, local concerns around a just and equitable transition would have to be navigated and infrastructure development carefully managed.

      Rebuilding Venezuela with a climate-driven energy transition 

      A shift in political vision would be needed to ensure that Venezuela’s renewable energy was not used to simply free up more oil for export, as in the past, but to power a diversified domestic economy free from oil-driven cycles of boom and bust.

      Ultimately, these decisions must be taken by democratically elected leaders. But to date, no timeline for elections has been set, and Venezuela’s future hangs in the balance. Supporting the country to make this shift is in all of our interests.

      What’s clear is that Venezuela’s energy future should not lie in oil. Fossil fuel majors have not leapt to commit the estimated $100 billion needed to revitalise the sector, with ExxonMobil declaring Venezuela “uninvestable”. The issues are not only political. Venezuela’s heavy, sour crude is expensive to refine, making it dubious whether many projects would reach break-even margins.

      Behind it all looms the spectre of climate change. The world must urgently move away from fossil fuels. Beyond environmental concerns, it’s simply good economics.

      People line up as others charge their phones with a solar panel at a public square in Caracas, Venezuela March 10, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

      People line up as others charge their phones with a solar panel at a public square in Caracas, Venezuela March 10, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

      Recent analysis by the International Renewable Energy Agency finds that 91% of new renewable energy projects are now cheaper than their fossil fuel alternatives. China, the world’s leading oil buyer, is among the most rapid adopters.

      Tethering Venezuela’s future to an outdated commodity leaves the country in a lose-lose situation. Either oil demand drops and Venezuela is left with nothing. Or climate change runs rampant, devastating vulnerable communities with coastal loss, flooding, fires and heatwaves. Meanwhile, Venezuela remains locked in the same destructive economic swings that once led to dictatorship and mass emigration. There is another way.

      Venezuelans rightfully demand a political transition, with their own chosen leaders. But to ensure this transition is lasting and stable, Venezuela needs more – it needs an energy transition.

      The post There is hope for Venezuela’s future – and it isn’t based on oil appeared first on Climate Home News.

      There is hope for Venezuela’s future – and it isn’t based on oil

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      UN’s new carbon market delivers first credits through Myanmar cookstove project

      Published

      on

      A cleaner cooking initiative in Myanmar is set to generate the first-ever batch of carbon credits under the new UN carbon market, more than a decade after the mechanism was first envisioned in the Paris Agreement.

      The Article 6.4 Supervisory Body has approved the issuance of 60,000 credits, which correspond to tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent reduced by distributing more efficient cookstoves that need less firewood and, therefore, ease pressure on carbon-storing forests, the project developers say. The approval of the credit issuance will become effective after a 28‑day appeal and grievance period.

      The programme started in 2019 under the previous UN-run carbon offsetting scheme – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – and is being implemented by a South Korean NGO with investment from private South Korean firms.

      The credits are expected to be used primarily by major South Korean polluters to meet obligations under the country’s emissions trading system – a move that will also enable the government to count those units toward emissions reduction targets in its nationally determined contribution (NDC), the UN climate body told Climate Home News.

      Myanmar will use the remaining credits to achieve in part the goals of its national climate plan.

      Making ‘a big difference’

      The approval of the credits issuance represents a major milestone for the UN carbon market established under article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement. By generating carbon credits that both governments and private firms can use, the mechanism aims to accelerate global climate action and channel additional finance to developing nations.

        UNFCCC chief Simon Stiell said the approval of the first credits from a clean cooking project shows “how this mechanism can support solutions that make a big difference in people’s daily lives, as well as channeling finance to where it delivers real-life benefits on the ground”.

        “Over two billion people globally are without access to clean cooking, which kills millions every year. Clean cooking protects health, saves forests, cuts emissions and helps empower women and girls, who are typically hardest hit by household air pollution,” he added in a statement.

        Concerns over clean cookstove credits

        Carbon markets are seen as an important channel to raise money to help low-income communities in developing countries switch to less polluting cooking methods. Proceeds from the sale of carbon credits made up 35% of the revenue generated by for-profit clean cooking companies in 2023, according to a report by the Clean Cooking Initiative.

        But many cookstove offsetting projects have faced significant criticism from researchers and campaigners who argue that climate benefits are often exaggerated and weak monitoring can undermine claims of real emission reductions. Their main criticism is that the rules allow project developers to overestimate the impact of fuel collection on deforestation, while relying on surveys to track stove usage that are prone to bias and can further inflate reported impacts.

        As Louisiana bets big on ‘blue ammonia’, communities brace for air pollution

        The project in Myanmar follows a contested methodology developed under the Kyoto Protocol that was rejected last year by The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), a watchdog that issues quality labels to carbon credit types, because it is “insufficiently rigorous”.

        An analysis conducted last year by Brussels-based NGO Carbon Market Watch claimed that the project would generate 26 times more credits than it should, when comparing its calculations with values from peer-reviewed scientific literature.

        ‘Conservative’ values cut credit volume

        But, after transitioning from the CDM to the new mechanism, the project applied updated values and “more conservative” assumptions to calculate emission reductions, according to the UNFCCC, which added that this resulted in 40% fewer credits being issued than would have been the case in the CDM.

        “The result is consistent with environmental integrity requirements and ensures that each credited tonne genuinely represents a tonne reduced and contributes to the goals of the Paris Agreement,” said Mkhuthazi Steleki, the South African chair of article 6.4 Supervisory Body, which oversees the mechanism.

        Over 1,500 projects originally developed under the CDM requested the transition to the new mechanism, including controversial schemes subsidising fossil gas-powered plants in China and India. But, so far, the transfer of only 165 of all those projects has been approved by their respective host nations, which have until the end of June to make a final decision.

        The UN climate body said this means that “a wide variety of real-world climate projects are already in line to follow” in sectors such as renewable energy, waste management and agriculture. But the transfer of old programmes from the CDM has long been contested with critics arguing that weak and discredited rules allow projects to overestimate emission reductions.

        Genuinely new projects unrelated to the CDM are expected to start operating under the Paris Agreement mechanism once the Supervisory Body approves the first custom-made methodologies.

        The post UN’s new carbon market delivers first credits through Myanmar cookstove project appeared first on Climate Home News.

        UN’s new carbon market delivers first credits through Myanmar cookstove project

        Continue Reading

        Trending

        Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com