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
Climate Change
‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry, citing homegrown renewables as path to energy security
CANBERRA, Tuesday 21 April 2026 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed gas corporation war profiteering and environmental damage in a scathing Senate hearing today as part of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, urging fair taxation of gas corporations and the transition to secure, homegrown renewable energy to protect Australian households and the economy from future energy shocks.
Speaking at the hearing, Greenpeace said the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has laid bare the fundamental flaws of an energy system built on fossil fuel extraction, geopolitical power plays and corporate greed, and will be a defining moment for how the world thinks about energy security.
Greenpeace’s submission and full opening remarks can be found here.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“This is not an energy crisis, it’s a fossil fuel crisis. The crisis we’re all facing lays bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence, for our energy security, our communities, and for global peace and stability.
“Gas corporations like Woodside, Santos, Shell and Chevron — the same companies whose CEOs refused to front this Inquiry — are making obscene war profits, using the illegal war on Iran to price gouge, profiteer and push for more gas we don’t need — while people and our environment pay the price.
“Australians are getting smashed by soaring bills and the impacts of climate disasters — gas corporations should be paying their fair share to help this country, instead of sending billions offshore, tax-free.
“But we’re at a turning point — while gas corporations cynically push to open up more of our oceans and land to drilling for fossil fuels, our allies like the UK are doubling down on renewables in response to the fossil fuel crisis. Our trading partners in Asia are making the same reassessment of fossil fuels.
“Which is why the hearing today is crucial: an effective and well-designed tax on the gas industry’s obscene war time profits is a chance to channel funds to people and communities, fast-track the rollout of clean, secure homegrown wind and solar energy, while holding polluters accountable.
“Our dependence on fossil fuels leave us overexposed to the whims of tyrants like Trump — it’s in Australia’s national interest to end the fossil fuel chokehold for good and usher in the era of clean energy security.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
HOW WOODSIDE’S BROWSE GAS PROPOSAL THREATENS SCOTT REEF’S GREEN TURTLES AND PYGMY BLUE WHALES
Woodside’s Browse to NWS gas project is under assessment by the WA and Federal Governments right now. This is a project that involved drilling up to 50 gas wells around Scott Reef off the coast of WA. Gas would be extracted directly underneath Scott Reef and Sandy Islet and pumped through a 900-kilometre subsea pipeline to the NWS gas processing facility.
Woodside’s Browse gas project’s impact on Scott Reef’s marine habitats?
Scott Reef is one of Australia’s most ecologically significant marine environments, where green turtles breed, pygmy blue whales feed, and an array of at-risk species, including sharks, dolphins, whale sharks, rays, sawfish and sea snakes thrive. It is home to many threatened species, including some found nowhere else on Earth or in genetically isolated groups, magnifying its importance from a conservation perspective.
This delicate reef’s ecosystem faces multiple threats if Woodside’s Proposed Project goes ahead, including seismic blasting, gas flaring, noise pollution, artificial lighting, pipe laying and fast-moving vessels. The reef also faces the risk of a gas well blowout, which could have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for the region’s reefs and marine parks.
Woodside’s woeful marine impacts management plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles and endangered pygmy blue whales if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodsides management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Their assessment found that Woodsides management plans for these species misrepresents or does not assess the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s pygmy blue whales and green turtles. They’ve also surmised that if the project goes ahead the impacts contradict the Australian government’s own recovery plan for turtles and Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for Blue Whales.
The State and Federal Governments now have the opportunity to define their legacies on nature protection and save Scott Reef from Woodside’s dirty gas.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia with Dr Olaf Meynecke of Griffith University.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital feeding, foraging and resting habitat for pygmy blue whales.
Pygmy blue whales feed, forage and rest in the Scott Reef region every year. Scott Reef is recognised as a Biologically Important Area for the pygmy blue whale and is an important stop-over on their annual migration.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
- Woodside’s management plan claims of “no credible threat of significant impacts” are not supported by scientific evidence.
- The management plan relies on outdated whale population information.
- Woodside has claimed it is unclear whether Scott Reef is a foraging habitat for pygmy blue whales, despite the presence of pygmy blue whales and significant concentrations of krill being documented in the area.
- The PBWMP ignores the impacts of industrial noise on whale-to-whale communication. This is especially concerning as mother-calf pairs migrate through the Scott Reef Biologically Important Area shortly after calves are born. Mother-calf pairs rely on continuous, uninterrupted communications to maintain their connection.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital nesting ground for unique green turtles.
The green turtles that nest at Scott Reef’s low-lying Sandy Islet sand cay and nearby Browse Island are genetically unique and are classified as ‘Extremely Vulnerable’ in Australia’s Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
- The Browse project would operate within 20 kilometres of nesting habitat that’s critical to the survival of Scott Reef’s genetically unique and vulnerable green turtle population.
- Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan (TMP) misrepresents the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s green turtles.
- Claims in Woodside’s TMP about Scott Reef’s green turtle population size, nesting success and hatchling numbers are not backed by scientific evidence.
- The TMP proposes gathering updated data after the Browse project is approved.
- Woodside’s TMP proposes adding sand sourced elsewhere to Sandy Islet to counter subsidence and erosion, but fails to properly assess the associated risks.
To save Scott Reef and protect our oceans and animals, the State and Federal Governments must reject Browse.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodside’s management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits