- 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
The US government is pushing back against measures to tackle the ever-growing production of plastics in a new global treaty as key talks this week failed to produce a breakthrough ahead of the upcoming final round of negotiations.
Following speculation on how the Trump administration would handle thorny discussions over an expected UN pact on plastic pollution, US officials finally spelled out their new position at a three-day informal gathering in Nairobi aimed at finding a way forward ahead of next month’s talks in Geneva.
In a statement seen by Climate Home, the US made clear it does not support provisions that would regulate the supply side of plastics or feedstocks used in its manufacturing, adding that for areas without a “level of convergence” – including production – action should be left to “country-level discretion”.
After China, the US is the world’s second-largest producer of plastic polymers – the basic building blocks of plastic products that are primarily derived from fossil fuels.
Under the Biden administration, the US had flip-flopped between different positions on the UN treaty. It first attempted to water down its ambition, then backed measures to limit plastic production and finally, following Trump’s election, largely sat on the fence during crunch talks in Busan, South Korea, last December.
Fossil-fuel producers unite
Now, in the statement issued in Nairobi, the US said it wants “to ensure that we will grow our economies, maintain jobs for our citizens, all while reducing plastic pollution through cost-effective and pragmatic solutions”.
“We support an agreement that focuses on efforts that will lead to reducing plastic pollution, not on stopping the use of plastics,” it added, echoing a talking point frequently trotted out by other major fossil fuel producers opposed to plastic production cuts like Saudi Arabia and Russia.
After countries dramatically failed to reach an agreement in Busan, the informal meeting in Nairobi was billed as a crucial opportunity to find potential solutions and lay a path toward landing a deal at the so-called “INC-5.2” negotiations in Geneva.
Over half of countries push for plastic production cuts in new UN pact
But, while this week’s discussions were described as “constructive” and resulted in some overall progress, countries were still far apart on the most divisive elements of the treaty, including how to deal with the ever-expanding supply of plastics, three negotiators told Climate Home.
Climate Home maintained the sources’ anonymity to allow them to speak freely about confidential discussions from which the media is excluded.
Long-standing fault lines remain largely unchanged. On the one hand, a coalition of nearly 100 countries across the developed and developing world wants an “ambitious” treaty that stems the rising flow of plastics, ideally with a global target to reduce production and consumption to “sustainable levels”.
On the other, most oil-and-gas producing nations, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and petrochemical powerhouses like India, argue the pact should be limited to addressing consumption and recycling.
Seeking a way forward
David Azoulay, director of environmental health at the nonprofit Center for International Law (CIEL), said it was “concerning”, though not totally unexpected, that the meeting “did not provide the kind of breakthrough or radical changes in the negotiation dynamics that could unlock the negotiations ahead of INC-5.2 in Geneva”.
“We saw obstructive countries double-down on their proven, time-tested strategies that reject constructive approaches to addressing content,” he told Climate Home. He added that, while “ambitious developing countries continue to hold the line” on pushing for a plastics treaty that is “fit for purpose”, developed countries “were largely silent in defending ambition”.
Two negotiators from the self-described “high-ambition coalition” told Climate Home that the goal is to find language that could bring as many countries on board so that the treaty would meaningfully cover a significant proportion of the global plastics supply chain.
A potential landing zone on plastic production would be to acknowledge that business as usual is not working and introduce transparency measures without forcing strict reduction targets or quotas at first, they indicated.
In Nairobi, Japan put forward a proposal pointing in that direction. It states that countries “shall cooperate to promote sustainable production and consumption of plastics throughout their life cycle”, and report data on their supply chains as well as measures taken to address the treaty’s goals.
What will the US do in Geneva?
In the month before talks kick off on the shore of Lake Geneva, negotiators are expected to keep refining their strategies with one big unknown: how will the US behave?
The presence of a US delegation in Nairobi was seen as an indication of engagement with the plastics treaty, after the US government under Trump withdrew from most other multilateral talks on environmental and climate issues.
That could either be a blessing or a curse, one negotiator admitted. “They could be willing to do something, or let others do their thing and not ratify [the treaty] at this stage,” they said. “But if they want to hinder others, it will be very challenging.”
The post US comes out against plastic production limits in UN treaty at deadlocked talks appeared first on Climate Home News.
US comes out against plastic production limits in UN treaty at deadlocked 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.
Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measures to protect nature.