Plastic is called “epidemic”, to tackle, the United Nations added a committee in 2022, which entrusted the task of brokering the legally -bound global agreement. This sophisticated contract between the UN member states was to solve the entire life cycle of plastic, from production to wasted: In short, explain what is counted as a plastic pollution and prevent such unhealthy output that is inevitable. But in five sessions since then, countries have failed to reach a consensus on the text.
What meant to be the last meeting without a contract in South Korea’s Bosan last year, and representatives from 175 countries are now ready to re -meet Switzerland’s Geneva again. The Ink -5.2 will be held from August 5 to 14, during which the negotiators will try to look eye on the draft contract points, which have been the most controversial so far. According to the Center for International Environment Act (CIEL), there are more than 370 points.
Circle
The use of chemicals of production, anxiety (which is considered a threat to toxic and/or other properties), is the key points of disagreement with product design and contract implementation. According to CIEL communications manager Kate Bonasini, these issues have left the countries in a halt. There are countries that argue that health should be excluded from the scope of the contract. Bonasini said in an email, these topics will be in front and center of the talks, and the UN member states have worked hard in closed doors meetings to find contract points for the past eight months, “said Bonasini in an email. “We will soon see the fruits of this labor.”
“In the heart of this problem, there is a huge difference in plastic pollution, and what steps is needed to eliminate plastic pollution, there is a huge disagreement.” Although commitment is focused on the full life of plastic, there has been a lot of controversy over this period.
“As scientists, we begin with the translation and production of the whole life,” said Betheny Carney Almarot, a professor of acotocycology at Gotanburg University and a member of the alliance of scientists for an effective plastic agreement. “This fossil fuel and raw plastic production will be fully productive, for the use, trade, transportation, waste management, mismanagement and environmental pollution, including the current heritage plastics. All of this.”
While more than 100 countries were in favor of an agreement last December, other people, including Saudi Arabia and Russia, opposed the caps. Prior to this session, the United States allegedly decided not to support the production caps, despite the previous indications. Not surprisingly, the countries that have raised the issue with the scope of the agreement are also the world’s oil producers.
“There are also other actors, who are trying to tighten this scope to go for the management of plastic products, water bottles, from water bottles, so we leave the external boundaries of how we describe the cycle of plastic life so that it can be more, essence,” said Carney.
Out -of -the -influence
In addition to the representatives of the co -member countries, scientists, environmental organizations and industry lobbyist negotiation sessions are available. According to Carni al -Marwat, who has attended the meeting of every inter -government talks committee (Ink) and is now in Geneva for Ink 5.2, it has been rapidly lobbesting that takes more space.
“In the last round of talks, the lobby of petrochemicals and plastic industries made the only largest delegation,” said Bangor University lecturer Vinnie Courtin Jones, who is also a member of the coalition. Conversation. Cile found that “three times more foolish fuel and chemical industry lobby than scientists” at the Bosan meetings. “Plastic is 99 percent of the fiancé fuel, and these companies are interested in producing fossil fuel -based products, including plastics,” Bonasini noted.
Their influence has played a major role in the interruption. “They” have a lot of power, money and influence, and their lobbying efforts go beyond the walls of the negotiating site … they have access to the decision makers in the ways that other observers do not. “
“They do not want to see chemicals,” said Carney Almarot. “But science indicates that chemicals (extra, processing aids, etc.) and production are of utmost importance not only in environmental stability but also in the context of human health.
In an editorial for Bulletin of World Health Organization In July, a group of scientists identified the effects of several potential health effects, which recent studies have linked to plastic, through the exposure of effective chemicals and from micro and nanoplastics. This includes the increasing risk of a number of chronic diseases, including “cancer, neurodemental damage and infertility,” as well as “respiratory, reproductive and gastrointestinal loss, potential links to lung and colon cancer.” “
The authors called on delegates to prefer these concerns in the upcoming talks and work toward an agreement that eliminates the production of toxic chemicals in plastic, banning plastic recycling containing these chemicals and reducing the production of plastic overall. His letter came in the journal with a separate research published this summer Nature It identified more than 4,200 concerns in plastic, which contains 16,325 chemicals of the total known plastic. Researchers argue that, at the top of the plastic makeup and removing the chemicals of anxiety, the plastics should be simplified if they are made safe.
The authors write that many chemicals that go into plastics “Fed stock can be released from extraction and production to use and waste to the entire life of plastic.” “Specific life treatments, such as uncontrollable filling or flare, can further increase the chemical release.” The United Nations has warned that the negative effects at every stage of plastic life cycle are inadvertently damaging the weaker population worldwide, including indigenous people, low -income families and rural community.
Where things stand
Today, plastic is less and less inevitable – microplastics can now be found in Antarctica. And research quickly shows that we are not fully aware of how bad the pollution level is.
In the last 25 years, global plastic production has exceeded double, which is estimated at 450 million metric tons annually. According to the International Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), recycled plastics are only 6 % of the total, which is expected to increase by 70 % of plastic use and waste production globally by 2040. And.
In a summer study, led by researchers at Utticht University and the Royal Netherlands Institute for C Research, found that even more plastic in the oceans could be more plastic in the oceans when calculating small particles than microplastics. The team collected water samples from 12 locations in the North Atlantic and measured the concentration of nanoplastics (plastic particles under 1 micrometer) at various depths. According to researchers’ estimates, only 27 million metric tons of nanoplastic can be in the North Atlantic. It is all in the ocean for the previous global estimation of plastic waste.
In another new research, researchers at the University of Tolos, France, found that we are breathing 100 times more microplastic particles at home, based on the measurement of microplastics in researchers and car cabinets, based on the measurement of air -powered microplastics.
The situation is essential, especially for the weaker population, said. “What kind of plastic are we producing today and plastics in the environment is astronomical,” said Carney Almarot. Until a few years ago, “we have plastics twice on the planet, in water, in water, in water, in water, in water, and then we have prepared much more plastic.”
“Plastic” all of our waste management infrastructure is too high and all waste management infrastructure, “said Carney Almarrot. And then we have the effects of human health above it. This is a serious problem. “
Logistics of destruction destruction
But, as the last five sessions have clarified, it is not easy to make a contract on how to resolve the issue. Anxiety, partially, boils on how the decisions are being made. So far, all of this is being done by consensus instead of voting. From this point of view, “a single country is allowed to veto power over decisions,” Bonasini said.
Petrochemical countries, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, India and Brazil, have called for alleged “barriers” to drag negotiations. Some people have “insisted” without legal grounds, “these decisions can be made only through consensus.” Consciousness, however, is not the only option.
The draft procedure allows the rules to vote by the majority if consensus cannot be agreed, but whether it will happen or not. “There are opportunities to force this principle. But, a country (or countries) will have to take steps,” said Carni al -Marwat.
At this stage of negotiations, there is a danger that countries will compromise on key provisions for time, which will eventually weaken the deal, Bonasini said. And once an agreement is finalized, “many years to modify the original text, if it may not take decades,” so it is very important to get it for the first time. International agreements that have taken a soft approach to tackling environmental issues like the Paris Agreement, which countries allow to set their goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
At the United Nations Ocean Conference in June, representatives from 95 countries, who are part of the Ink, confirmed a contract commitment that indicates the full life cycle of plastic, “plastic’s most troubled products and the effects of chemical effects of the chemicals and effective effects of the product.” “A contract that lacks these elements, only depends on voluntary measures or does not focus on a full plastic life cycle, will not be effective to tackle the challenge of plastic pollution,” “which includes Canada, Australia, Colombia, Zimbabwe, Britain and Germany. These countries added that “the agreement should provide the possibility of decision -making through a regular UN procedure, if all efforts to end the consensus are eliminated.”
If there is no deal this time, there are many ways to the next steps. The dialogue can be extended to another meeting, or countries can decide to take the matter elsewhere.
“Many countries are considering alternatives to failure to negotiate,” said Cristina Dickson, the lead of the Ocean Campaign for the Environmental Investigation Agency. Peanuts. “Powers returning to establish a new expansion mandate in the UN Environmental Assembly (UNEA), setting up a convention outside the United Nations that involved countries that commit to moving forward or adopting a protocol under the current convention.” Unia meets next December.
We are, as Kortine Jones wrote Conversation“On an important cross road.” It advocates for a strong, science -based agreement that everyone seems to agree. “There are many places where we can really do something to make a difference and improve things,” said Carney Almarot. “Countries need to be proud, and they need to stand and demand it.”
