Ocean Archives - Page 17 of 24

Landmark treaty on plastic pollution must put scientific evidence front and centre

EDITORIAL
08 March 2022

Landmark treaty on plastic pollution must put scientific evidence front and centre

United Nations resolution on greening plastics is a positive step. As negotiations begin, they must be evidence-based.

Twitter

Facebook

Download PDF

Leila Benali (left), Morocco’s minister for energy and sustainablity, and UN Environment Programme chief Inger Andersen celebrate the decision to begin talks on a plastics treaty.Credit: Tony Karumba/AFP/Getty

On 2 March, world leaders and environment ministers agreed to start negotiations on the world’s first legally binding international treaty to eliminate one of humanity’s most devastating sources of pollution: plastics. This hugely positive step has the power to attack the problem as never before. But to achieve this goal, science needs to be front and centre in the negotiations.Plastic pollution is a massive problem. Some 400 million tonnes of the material is produced each year, a figure that could double by 2040. Of all the plastic that has ever been produced, only about 9% has been recycled and 12% incinerated. Almost all other waste plastic has ended up in the ocean or in huge landfill sites. More than 90% of plastics are made from fossil fuels. If left unchecked, plastics production and disposal will be responsible for 15% of permitted carbon emissions by 2050 if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial temperatures.Talks on the treaty are expected to take between two and three years and will be organized by the United Nations Environment Programme, based in Nairobi. A significant feature of the treaty is that it will be legally binding, like the 2015 Paris climate agreement and the Montreal Protocol, a 1987 treaty that led to the production and use of ozone-depleting substances being phased out.
How to globalize the circular economy
A team of negotiators from different regions is being established. By the end of May, they will start work on the treaty’s text. According to last week’s UN decision, these negotiators will consider “the possibility of a mechanism to provide policy relevant scientific and socio-economic information and assessment related to plastic pollution”. But they need to do more than just consider a mechanism. The UN must urgently set up a scientists’ group that can give the negotiators expert advice and respond to their questions. These science advisers would need to reflect the necessary expertise in the natural and social sciences, as well as in engineering, and represent different regions of the world.Nations want the plastics treaty to be more ambitious than most existing environmental agreements. Unlike the Montreal Protocol, which replaced around 100 ozone-depleting substances with ozone-friendly alternatives, countries have agreed that a plastics treaty must lock sustainability into the ‘full life-cycle’ of polluting materials. This means plastics manufacturing must become a zero-carbon process, as must plastics recycling and waste disposal. These are not straightforward ambitions, which is why research — and access to research — is so important as negotiations get under way.Most plastics are designed in a ‘linear’ one-way process: small, carbon-based molecules are knitted together with chemical bonds to make long and cross-linked polymer molecules. These bonds are hard to break, which makes plastics extremely long-lasting. They do not degrade easily and are difficult to recycle.Marine litter often grabs the headlines, but plastic pollution is everywhere. Landfill sites containing mountains of plastic blight our planet, and minuscule particles of plastic are found in even the most pristine environments. Such is the scale and persistence of plastics that they are now entering the fossil record. And a new human-made ecosystem — the plastisphere — has emerged that hosts microorganisms and algae1.
Chemistry can make plastics sustainable – but isn’t the whole solution
As negotiators get to work, they will need scientists to help them address several key questions. Which types of plastic can be recycled2,3? Which plastics can be designed to biodegrade, and under what conditions? And which plastics offer the best chances for reuse4? Moreover, social-sciences research will be essential to understanding the implications of — and inter-relationships between — the solutions that countries and industries will have to choose from. For example, new technologies and processes will have impacts on jobs. These impacts need to be studied so that risks to people’s livelihoods can be mitigated.Mapping out the implications of various approaches to greening the plastics industry will also require cooperation between governments, industry and campaign organizations — building on the cooperation that has brought the world to the start of negotiations.Plastics have made the modern world. They are a staple of daily life, from construction to clothing, technology to transport. But plastics use is also increasing at a rapid rate, and this is no longer tenable — around half of all plastics ever produced have been made since 2004.It is clear from the UN’s ongoing efforts to tackle climate change that it is not enough for a treaty to be legally binding. Signatories must also be held accountable, with regular reporting and checks on progress. Equally important is the need for science advice to be embedded in the talks from the earliest possible stage.Last week’s decision is the best start the planet could have had to tackling our plastics addiction. But as the hard work begins, decision-makers must be able to quickly and easily access the very best available evidence that research can provide.

Nature 603, 202 (2022)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00648-9

ReferencesAmaral-Zettler, L. A., Zettler, E. R. & Mincer, T. J. Nature Rev. Microbiol. 18, 139–151 (2020).PubMed
Article

Google Scholar
Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R. & Edward, K. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 2115–2126 (2009).PubMed
Article

Google Scholar
Coates, G. W. & Getzler, Y. D. Y. L. Nature Rev. Mater. 5, 501–516 (2020).Article

Google Scholar
Grigore, M. E. Recycling 2, 24 (2017).Article

Google Scholar
Download references

Ecology of the plastisphere

Chemistry can make plastics sustainable – but isn’t the whole solution

Circular chemistry to enable a circular economy

How to globalize the circular economy

Subjects

Green chemistry

Environmental sciences

Policy

Latest on:

Green chemistry

Rare metal helps to turn sunlight into fuel, day and night
Research Highlight 01 FEB 22

Solar power’s need for a carbon-intensive metal is set to soar
Research Highlight 27 JAN 22

Wind power versus wildlife: root mitigation in evidence
Correspondence 11 JAN 22

Environmental sciences

Madagascar’s biggest mine achieves striking conservation success
Research Highlight 07 MAR 22

An engineer advances fire-management laws in Colombia
Career Q&A 23 FEB 22

Unprecedented oil spill catches researchers in Peru off guard
News 18 FEB 22

Policy

Paul Farmer (1959–2022)
Obituary 10 MAR 22

Chile’s science transformation gains steam with new president
News 10 MAR 22

Taiwan’s pandemic vice-president — from lab bench to public office and back
World View 08 MAR 22

Jobs

Post-Doctoral Position (CRBS & IGBMC)

National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM)
Strasbourg, France

PhD Fellowship in Carbon Capture and Gas Separation Technology

University of Stavanger (UiS)
Stavanger, Norway

NCMM Group Leader Position

University of Oslo
Oslo, Norway

Postdoctoral Scientist – PNAC – Dr Roger Williams – LMB 1798

MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology
Cambridge, United Kingdom

World leaders agree to draw up ‘historic’ treaty on plastic waste

World leaders agree to draw up ‘historic’ treaty on plastic wasteUN environment assembly resolution is being hailed as biggest climate deal since 2015 Paris accord World leaders, environment ministers and other representatives from 173 countries have agreed to develop a legally binding treaty on plastics, in what many described a truly historic moment.The resolution, agreed at the UN environment assembly in Nairobi, Kenya, calls for a treaty covering the “full lifecycle” of plastics from production to disposal, to be negotiated over the next two years. It has been described by the head of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) as the most important multilateral environmental deal since the Paris climate accord in 2015.Approximately 7bn of the estimated 9.2bn tonnes of plastics produced between 1950 and 2017 are now waste. About 75% of that waste is either deposited in landfills or accumulating in terrestrial and aquatic environments and ecosystems.“Against the backdrop of geopolitical turmoil, the UN environment assembly shows multilateral cooperation at its best,” said Espen Barth Eide, the president of UNEA-5 and Norway’s minister for climate and the environment. “Plastic pollution has grown into an epidemic. With today’s resolution we are officially on track for a cure.”Inger Andersen, the director of the UN Environment Programme, tweeted: “We have just gavelled the resolution paving the way for global action to #BeatPlasticPollution. The most important environmental deal since the Paris accord.”“The work starts now!” she added.Andersen described the agreement as a “triumph by planet Earth over single-use plastics” but warned that the mandate did not grant stakeholders a “two-year pause”.“In parallel to negotiations over an international binding agreement, UNEP will work with any willing government and business across the value chain to shift away from single-use plastics, as well as to mobilise private finance and remove barriers to investments in research and in a new circular economy,” Andersen said.UN nations, which have been holding talks in Nairobi this week to discuss the terms for a treaty, agreed it should cover the production and design of plastic, not just waste. The resolution established an intergovernmental negotiating committee, tasked with drafting and ratifying the treaty. It will start work this year and aims to finish by 2024.The resolution introduces provisions to recognise waste pickers, a “groundbreaking development” that would affect millions of people, according to NGOs, and the acknowledgment of the role of indigenous peoples. It is the first time waste pickers, low-paid workers in developing nations who scavenge for recyclable plastic and other goods, have been recognised in an environmental resolution.NGOs described the resolution as a critical shift in international policymakers’ approach, which previously focused on plastic as a marine litter issue. The mandate recommends measures to tackle plastic production, predicted to almost quadruple by 2050 and take up 10-13% of the global carbon budget. They urged world leaders to show even more resolve in developing and finalising the details of the treaty over the next two years.“We stand at a crossroads in history when ambitious decisions taken today can prevent plastic pollution from contributing to our planet’s ecosystem collapse,” said Marco Lambertini, director general of WWF International. “But our work is far from over – world leaders must now show even more resolve in developing and implementing a treaty which addresses our current plastic pollution crisis and enables an effective transition to a circular economy for plastic.”Christina Dixon, the deputy ocean campaign lead at the Environmental Investigation Agency, said: “This resolution finally recognises that we cannot begin to address plastics in our ocean and on land without intervening at source. “Fundamentally, the plastics tap must be turned off if we are serious about tackling the problem,” she said.Dixon said the world was at the “start of a journey” towards securing a legally binding treaty.Niven Reddy, the Africa coordinator at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, said: “This milestone could not have happened without a global movement pushing decision-makers every step of the way.”Joanne Green, a senior policy associate at Tearfund, said: “Today marks the first step towards justice for communities impacted by the burning and dumping of plastic waste. The recognition of waste pickers and the vital role they play in stopping plastic pollution is long overdue; governments must now ensure that they are given a prominent seat at the negotiating table.”The treaty will be accompanied by financial and technical support, including a scientific body to advise it, and the possibility of a dedicated global fund.The resolution was adopted with the conclusion of the three-day UNEA-5.2 meeting, attended by more than 3,400 delegates in person and 1,500 online participants from 175 UN member states, including 79 ministers and 17 high-level officials.There is growing public concern over plastic pollution. More than 60 countries already have implemented bans and levies on plastic packaging and single-use waste, aimed at reducing use and improving waste management.Plastic consumption in developed countries is 2.5 times higher per capita than in developing countries, according to the Planet Tracker thinktank.TopicsPlasticsSeascape: the state of our oceansPollutionUnited NationsEnvironmental activismGreen politicsnewsReuse this content

The UN is finally, maybe, doing something about plastic pollution

The UN has just signed a landmark agreement to reduce plastic pollution, in what some are calling the most important international environmental deal since the 2015 Paris agreement that targeted climate change.On Wednesday, marked by a gavel made from recycled plastics, representatives from 175 nations endorsed the agreement, which will act as the framework for discussions over the next two years. Worldwide, we produce 400 million tons of plastic a year, and that’s expected to double by 2040. If countries can stick to their commitments, it could lead to a massive reduction in single-use plastics, production levels, and ocean pollution.That’s a big “if”—while a lot of groups are cautiously optimistic, just like the Paris agreement, there are loopholes that countries could exploit. Here’s what you need to know about the agreement. What did the 175 countries actually agree to? “End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument” is a series of loose resolutions promising to address the full life cycle of plastic products.It creates an intergovernmental negotiating committee, which will spend the next two years hashing out exactly how to tackle the plastic problem. Resolutions called for promoting sustainably designed products and materials, environmentally sound waste management, and financial support for developing countries.At the next UN Environment Assembly in 2024, the committee will finalize the agreement. “What we laid out was, in the easiest terms, a plan for a plan,” said Erin Simon, head of plastic waste and business at the World Wildlife Fund. But, she warned, “There could be plenty of time for countries to back off what they committed to.” What can we expect to see in the treaty? A lot could happen over the next two years. Right now, similar to the Paris agreement, the deal allows for countries to take voluntary approaches—meaning it will likely not be mandatory for them to meet their commitments. It also contains an open mandate that allows the intergovernmental negotiating committee to change the treaty before it’s signed, potentially watering it down. While the open mandate could present a potential loophole, Jane Patton, the plastics and petrochemicals campaign manager for the Center for International Law, said it allows the committee to improve the draft’s language, making issues like plastic’s toxicity to human health more explicit. “It’s about setting up a framework that countries feel empowered to take action on,” Simon said. “They are likely to take action if they have the opportunity to inform the process.”What can possibly go wrong?Just like with the Paris climate agreement, if the U.S. doesn’t uphold its end of the bargain, the rest of the world could follow suit. The U.S. is the largest plastic waste producer in the world, shipping off its unwanted garbage to developing nations.Plastic policy can sometimes gain bipartisan support, however. Even well-known environmental curmudgeon Donald Trump signed the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, designed to fight coastal plastic debris, into law in 2020. Fortunately, the fact that plastic pollution is so visible is speeding up efforts to address it. “It’s something a bit more tangible as a problem than climate, because you can’t see greenhouse gases in the air, but I can see plastic pollution in the streets outside my house,” Patton said. Are the worst culprits finally going to be held to account? We’ll see. Plastics are derived from fossil fuels and chemicals, and, unsurprisingly, oil and chemical industries have been less enthusiastic about the treaty.Their strategy focuses on recycling, which diverts the conversation away from reducing plastic production and usage. With a recycling approach, consumers who lack access to proper recycling resources are held responsible for their plastic waste, while plastic producers can continue business as usual. Plus, if the resolution’s terms aren’t mandatory for governments, companies might not face meaningful restrictions, either.Perhaps surprisingly, companies that have been ranked as the world’s top plastic polluters, including PepsiCo, Nestlé, and Coca-Cola, have joined with dozens of others in a pre-UNEA statement supporting the treaty, using snazzy buzzwords that called for “a holistic, coordinated international response,” a “circular economy for plastics,” and a “robust governance structure to ensure countries’ participation and compliance.” Although the global agreement doesn’t enforce plastics restrictions yet, some companies have already made sustainability pledges. Nestlé commits that 100 percent of packaging will be recyclable or reusable by 2025. It may sound like progress, but environmental experts are skeptical.“Recycling doesn’t get to the root of the problems with plastic production,” said Jim Walsh, policy director at Food and Water Watch. “When you focus simply on issues of recycling and packaging management, you ignore all of the impacts of the petrochemical development and pollution that comes along with that.”The companies’ support could be due in part to a growing anti-plastics movement over the past two years. A 2021 Ipsos poll of more than 20,000 people in 28 countries found that 88 percent of respondents believe a global plastics treaty is important and 85 percent want manufacturers and retailers to be held responsible for plastic packaging. Over 2 million people signed WWF’s petition for a global plastics agreement ahead of negotiations.What’s so bad about plastic?Plastic pollution is an environmental nightmare. Annually, reports estimate that between 9 to 11 million metric tons of plastic are tossed into oceans, the equivalent of dumping a garbage truck full of plastic every minute. Forty percent of plastic produced is single-use, and disturbingly, after over a hundred years of production, only 9 percent of plastics has ever been recycled.Plastic garbage doesn’t really decompose—rather, it breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces, eventually becoming microplastics the size of sesame seeds. These synthetic crumbs act like magnets for surrounding chemical pollutants, attracting floating environmental contaminants and depositing them to unsuspecting hosts.That’s a major problem for humans. Besides the health effects from eating the plastic itself, humans are getting exposed to a host of hormone disruptors, carcinogens, and pollutants in our food, water, salt, beer, and seafood dinners. These toxins lead to serious health issues, including cancer, birth defects, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, auto-immune conditions, neuro-degenerative diseases, and stroke. Fifth UN Environment Assembly President Espen Barth Eide told the committee on Monday his blood tests showed plastic compounds and chemicals in his body.Plastics also fuel climate change. A 2021 report from environmental group Beyond Plastics found that plastic is currently slated to outpace coal’s greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by 2030.“The fact that that isn’t addressed right now in any of the global multilateral environmental agreements is a significant issue,” Patton said. What happens next? Signing the treaty was a major step for taking some plastic out of the equation. “I wanna say I have all the hope,” Simon said. “The fact that we have come to consensus on the draft resolution so far showcases a collective desire to solve the plastic pollution crisis together.”But nations, companies, NGOs, and consumers shoulder greater responsibility to make good on its promises over the next few years. Several of the member nations have already started to take action. In 2019, the European Union began limiting certain single-use plastics, restricting their sale when sustainable alternatives were easily available. Kenya, the UN host country, banned single-use plastics in protected natural areas in 2020. “This is a problem that the world cannot ignore,” Patton said. “It is a problem that has urgent implications for human health and the environment, and we have to move quickly on this issue.”

A global plastics treaty is on the way

It’s Thursday, March 3, and world leaders have agreed to write a binding treaty on plastic pollution.

World leaders concluded the fifth United Nations Environment Assembly on Wednesday with a promise to the world: By 2024, delegates will broker a binding, international treaty addressing the full life cycle of plastics — including its production and design.
“We made history today,” Espen Barth Eide, Norway’s minister of climate and environment and president of the Assembly, told delegates.
The United Nations conference in Nairobi, Kenya, has been branded the most significant international environmental negotiation since 2015, when world leaders met to broker the Paris Agreement. For years, scientists, policymakers, and environmental advocates have urgently called for a comprehensive solution to the plastic pollution crisis, which — like climate change — is already exerting a hefty toll on people and the natural world.
Delegates at this week’s U.N. conference agreed to address the problem through a holistic “life cycle” approach, meaning the treaty they negotiate over the next two years could limit the amount of plastic the world is allowed to produce. There are some caveats: Although the treaty itself will be binding, the resolution contains language allowing for binding and non-binding elements, and nations may have a lot of discretion over how they adhere to the treaty’s terms.
Still, the treaty may prompt U.N. member states to adopt far-reaching measures to curb plastic pollution, potentially including national production caps or market-based mechanisms, like extended producer responsibility laws that force plastic manufacturers to pay for the pollution they create. This overall approach is in line with what scientists and environmental advocates have long stressed is the best way to curb pollution from plastics.
An intergovernmental negotiating committee still has to hammer out most of the treaty’s important details, but environmental advocates the world over applauded the U.N. resolution.
“It is a monumental and inspiring act,” Graham Forbes, plastics global project leader for Greenpeace, told me. “They’ve set out a powerful intention to tackle the pollution crisis — that’s what the world needs.”
Editor’s note: Greenpeace is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.
In the news
As scientists sound the alarm on climate, Biden’s State of the Union barely mentions itZoya Teirstein, Grist➤ Read more
Ukrainian official calls for Russian fossil fuel boycott at UN Environment AssemblyJoe Lo, Climate Home News➤ Read more
Only 6% of G20 pandemic recovery spending ‘green,’ analysis findsFiona Harvey, The Guardian➤ Read more
Fish on valium: A multitude of prescription drugs are contaminating Florida’s waterways and marine lifeAman Azhar, Inside Climate News➤ Read more
How fossil fuel companies are stonewalling Sarah Bloom Raskin’s nomination to the FedJane Mayer, The New Yorker➤ Read more

Together, toxics and climate change hinder fish growth

In biology, there is a rule of thumb that upholds food webs: the 10% rule, meaning animals are generally good at converting energy from their food into body weight at a rate of about 10%.

For example, a cow might eat 100 pounds of grass, but only grows by 10 pounds. This rule sustains life on Earth and determines the pyramidal structure of the food chain. However, new research shows that plastic pollution and warming oceans could threaten to upend this rule, possibly creating unwelcome consequences for marine species as well as the global food supply.

Researchers on the study, published in January in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, studied zebrafish in the lab and determined that warmer water and bisphenol-A (BPA) — a chemical used in many plastics — together make fish metabolisms less efficient at converting food into energy and body weight.

In the study, zebrafish exposed to these two stressors needed more energy to grow and reached a much smaller size at adulthood than their counterparts who had not been exposed.

The global food web “depends on a certain rate of energy from one level being transferred to the next. If you disrupt that, you can disrupt whole ecosystems,” Frank Seebacher, an author on the study and a professor of biology at the University of Sydney, told EHN.

BPA, one of the most abundantly used plastic additives in the world, affects fish — and human — endocrine systems by disrupting the ability of hormones to signal important body processes like growth and development. BPA contaminates fish via plastic pollution in the ocean and through plastic materials used in aquaculture (fish farming operations). While BPA is a prevalent endocrine-disrupting chemical, others are present in plastics, too, like phthalates and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Such chemicals have been shown to affect fish growth on their own.

Research shows that fish hormones and endocrine systems are also impacted by temperature: in warmer water, fish metabolisms speed up, making the energetic cost of growth much higher. Both warming and endocrine-disrupting chemicals impact fish growth and development, making fish less efficient at converting their food into biomass. When fish are exposed to both at once, said the researchers, the problem is worse, and could lead to population-level impacts.

While the study was done on zebrafish within the lab, changes in fish size have already been observed in the wild, said Nicholas Wu, an author on the study and a PhD student at Western Sydney University in Australia.

“This is a growing problem,” he told EHN.

Population level impacts

Less efficient fish metabolisms spell trouble for marine ecosystems — especially those animals at the top levels of the food chain, the researchers said. Smaller fish at lower levels of the food chain mean that there’s less food to go around, which could cause a decrease in populations of animals like sharks, whales, or other large predators.

Additionally, said Seebacher, when prey fish are found at lower numbers — and therefore are spread further apart in the water — predators like sharks and whales must spend more time and energy searching for food. That can be stressful for the animals and threatens their populations as well.

Wu also said that fish are not the only marine organisms for which this is a problem; the metabolisms of some crustaceans, plankton, aquatic insects, and marine mammals have also been shown in other studies to be sensitive to endocrine-disrupting chemicals from plastic pollution. These chemicals disrupt processes critical to the survival of these organisms, like body size, development, and reproduction.

After determining that warming water and plastic pollution disrupted fish growth, researchers created maps to identify “problem areas,” or areas of the world with many fisheries, high levels of plastic pollution, and faster-than-average ocean warming.

They determined that, under the RCP 8.5 warming scenario (one commonly used climate model that assumes rising emissions continuing through the 21st century), many fisheries in southeast Asia, Central America, and equatorial Africa would be at high risk of changes in fish growth within the next hundred years.

The study comes as the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warns that marine heat waves are already becoming more common, longer, and more intense. The report further warns that climate change will threaten marine life through habitat loss, population decline, increased risks of extinctions, and the rearrangement of marine food webs.

Impacts on global food production

Fishing nets. Some areas of the world with extremely warm waters and high levels of pollution may need to stop fishing for human consumption altogether, said Seebacher. (Credit: Hanson Lu/Unsplash) This wouldn’t just impact marine fisheries: As a result of this growth effect, said the researchers, aquaculturists who grow fish for human food production may have to spend more money on feeding their fish for the same quantity of fish harvested. Predatory fish like tuna, salmon, and marlin all require other fish as food — if those other fish are smaller and less abundant, it becomes less efficient and more expensive to grow predatory fish for human consumption.“Successful aquaculture operations rely on food and energy transfer efficiency,” Seebacher said. “If that’s out, and it’s not commercially viable anymore, it produces more pollution because it’s just inefficient.” According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, fish provide, on average, 7% of the protein in a person’s diet; for 3.3 billion people, however, fish provide more than 20% of the protein they eat. Global demand for fish as food is expected to rise, making it even more critical for those managing fisheries to attend to warming and plastic pollution concerns.

Future for fish

Seebacher said he hopes that the findings of this research will inform management strategies for fisheries, possibly leading to an adjustment in fish quotas to help combat the potential decline in fish abundance. Aquaculturists, he said, could benefit from replacing materials containing BPA that are used in their aquaculture ponds, such as plastic tubing, liners, or containers.The problem of marine plastic pollution is only getting worse: according to one 2020 study, 11% of all plastic waste produced enters aquatic ecosystems, and global waste management systems likely will not be able to keep up as the amount of plastic produced each year continues to rise. Some areas of the world with extremely warm waters and high levels of pollution may need to stop fishing for human consumption altogether, said Seebacher.“The results were really quite an eye opener,” he said. “This could have really important implications.”Banner photo: Sebastian Pena Lambarri/UnsplashFrom Your Site ArticlesRelated Articles Around the Web

The world’s nations agree to fix the plastic waste crisis

In front of the United Nations African headquarters in Nairobi, a 30-foot-high artwork featuring a faucet “spewing” a long stream of plastic waste dramatically illustrates the worsening flow of plastic fouling the world. Inside the main hall, 175 UN delegates took the first formal steps on Wednesday to turn off the tap. They agreed to negotiate the first comprehensive global treaty to curb plastic pollution—a move hailed as the most significant environmental agreement since the Paris climate accord in 2015.The framework of the agreement was hammered out last week ahead of the delegates’ vote. It creates a road map for treaty negotiations that are set to begin in May. Inger Andersen, who heads the UN Environment Program, told the delegates: “This is a historic moment.”This 30-foot monument themed “Turn off the plastics tap” by Canadian activist and artist, Benjamin von Wong, uses plastic waste retrieved from Nairobi’s largest slum, Kibera. It stands outside the UN African headquarters in Nairobi.Photograph by Tony Karumba, AFP/GettyPlease be respectful of copyright. Unauthorized use is prohibited.Plastic waste flowing into the oceans is forecast to triple by 2040, so the vote came not a moment too soon. Or did it? The effort to construct an international agreement to gain control of mounting plastic waste took almost five years just to get to the starting line. How can the UN, slow-moving by design, possibly come up with a solution in time to stave off an environmental disaster? Below is a guide to what’s involved, and why a binding global treaty may be the world’s best hope to contain a plastic waste crisis that knows no international boundaries.Q: How might a global treaty help solve the plastic waste crisis?A: It would address the crux of the problem by requiring nations to commit to cleaning up their plastic waste. Because the treaty would be legally binding, it could pack more punch than the Paris accord, which requires nations to voluntarily commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “This is like ‘Paris Plus,’” says Chris Dixon, the deputy ocean campaign lead at the U.K.-based Environmental Investigation Agency. “The devil is in the details, but this makes sure the ambition of the mandate is carried through. This is the beginning of the journey, not the end.”Q: Can this process be fast-tracked? A: Negotiators say they plan to reach an agreement within two years, astonishingly quick for the UN. The UN began exploring solutions to plastic waste in 2017. In 2019, the United States, which produces more plastic waste per capita than any other nation, was blamed for thwarting efforts to begin treaty talks, as the Trump administration opposed such a treaty. Last November, the U.S. reversed course and, along with France, announced support for a legally binding treaty. The approach is based on the treaty to end mercury pollution—known as the Minamata Convention which was finalized in just over three years. And it could take less time than the agreement to address climate change took.Q: What changed to allow this to move forward?A: Plastic waste has proliferated in recent years, and has been documented in every part of the world. As plastic production has increased—growing faster than production of any other material—the waste issue has taken on a greater urgency. That, in turn, has drawn wide support from all quarters for a global treaty. The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group that opposed a legally binding treaty in 2019, now supports one. As two proposals were circulated—one by Peru and Rwanda, the other by Japan—support snowballed. By the time negotiators convened in Kenya’s capital city last month, those publicly backing a global treaty included more than 300 scientists, more than 140 nations, and nearly 100 leaders of multinational companies, including some of the largest plastics users: the Coca Cola Company, PepsiCo, and Unilever.Q: What’s on the table?A: The framework’s language is only a guide for the actual treaty talks. Consequently, the language is basic in many places. For example, negotiators had to define what the plastic lifecycle entails. Should the treaty focus on when plastic becomes waste? Solutions in that case would revolve around expansion of reuse programs, recycling, and enhanced and better-funded waste management. Or is the plastic lifecycle more expansive, meaning the treaty would include every step along the way—from production of virgin plastic to packaging design, product distribution, and disposal after use? The industry focused on waste management, but the negotiators opted to recommend the broader definition. Tackling the problem from multiple angles provides more opportunities to intervene along the way, and that could reduce the amount of packaging that becomes waste or eliminate it altogether.Q: Why do we need an international treaty? Aren’t many nations already addressing the problem?A: It’s a global problem, and we need a global solution to solve it. About eight million tons of plastic are estimated to spill into the seas every year, and is known to travel across oceans. One nation’s regulations do not prevent another nation’s waste from reaching its shores. Bag bans in one country don’t stop neighboring countries from smuggling in bags for a tidy profit. Plastic waste is also traded internationally; that involves international agreements. More importantly, there are no uniform global standards or policies that guide the industry. Definitions of biodegradable plastics vary, depending on the manufacturer. And virtually no one can sort out the varying rules on what plastics can go into the recycle bin. Meanwhile, multinational corporations selling in multiple nations can find themselves sorting through hundreds of regulations affecting such issues as product design or packaging thickness. These companies strongly support harmonizing definitions, reporting metrics, and methodologies that will simplify industry practices and improve management of waste.Q: How serious is the plastic waste problem?A: Forty percent of all plastics manufactured today is for packaging, most of it disposed of within minutes of opening it. Globally, just 9 percent of plastics get recycled. Both waste and production are on the rise: Between 1950 and 2020, production of plastic, which is made from fossil fuels, increased from roughly two million tons annually to just over 500 million tons. Production is projected to further increase to one billion tons by 2050. Consensus is growing among scientists, activists, and elected officials that to truly curtail the growth of plastic waste, plastic production must be reduced. The industry disagrees.Q: Does the framework call for a cap or reduction in production of virgin plastic? A: No, it does not. The framework also does not include a requirement that production numbers be reported along with other statistics. Collection of production data represents the first step before any regulations could be written—and it’s a step that industry would like to avoid. On this subject, the framework contains a single sentence, instructing negotiators to “specify national reporting as appropriate”—not a strong directive, but one that does leave the door open to sharper language during the treaty talks.The framework has drawn universal praise from the parties involved. The International Council of Chemical Associations said in a statement it was “pleased with the outcome and fully supports a legally binding agreement… .”Ellen MacArthur, founder of the nonprofit Ellen MacArthur Foundation, is a proponent of creating a “circular economy” to reduce waste of any kind through reuse and recycling. She called the mandated agreement key to dealing with “the root of causes of plastic pollution, not just the symptoms.”In Nairobi Wednesday, Anderson told the delegation at the UN that reaching agreement to proceed toward a treaty “would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. But today … you are taking a crucial step to turn the tide on plastic pollution.” He then recalled how his mother eavesdropped on a pair of American businessmen in a cafe in Denmark a few years before he was born. The men laid out colorful blocks made of a strange new material in front of them, and she heard them say: “This is plastic. This is the future.”“Look—in the space of one lifetime, we have created a massive problem…,” Anderson said. “Now we must make the wrong-headed way we manufacture and use plastic the past.”

Together, toxics and climate change hinder fish growth

In biology, there is a rule of thumb that upholds food webs: the 10% rule, meaning animals are generally good at converting energy from their food into body weight at a rate of about 10%.

In the study, zebrafish exposed to these two stressors needed more energy to grow and reached a much smaller size at adulthood than their counterparts who had not been exposed.

“This is a growing problem,” he told EHN.

Population level impacts

Impacts on global food production

Future for fish

Coors Light to scrap single-use plastic rings

Coors Light announced Tuesday it is moving away from single-use plastic rings on its six packs to a more sustainable packaging option. Molson Coors is making an $85 million investment to update its packaging machinery to produce “fully recyclable and sustainably sourced cardboard-wrap carriers” and will begin the transition later this year. “Our business, and Coors in particular, has a long history of using packaging innovation to protect our environment, and today we are building on that rich legacy,” Molson Coors CEO Gavin Hattersley, said in a news release. The company’s entire suite of brands in North America will make the switch by the end of 2025. “We believe that buying beer shouldn’t mean buying plastic,” Marcelo Pascoa, Vice President of Marketing for the Coors Family of Brands, said in a news release. “That’s why we’re taking a step toward making packaging even more sustainable, and with this achievement Coors Light will save 400,000 pounds of single-use plastic from becoming waste every year.” Molson Coors, which says it’s the largest beer brand in North America to make the move, estimates the eco-friendly shift across its brands will save 1.7 million tons of plastic pollution annually. America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.The International Union for Conservation estimates at least 14 million tons of plastic ends up in oceans each year, accounting for 80 percent of all marine debris. A report released by the World Economic Forum in 2016 predicted that without changes, there will be more single use plastics by weight than fish in the oceans by 2050. READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA FLORIDA HOUSE PASSES ‘DON’T SAY GAY’ BILL LIA THOMAS SWEEPS IVY LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIPS, ADVANCES TO NCAA FINALS AMENDMENT IN FLORIDA BILL TO ‘OUT’ STUDENTS IS WITHDRAWN EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TO ERASE $415 MILLION IN STUDENT LOAN DEBT FOR NEARLY 16,000 BORROWERS JUST 20 MINUTES OF DAILY EXERCISE AT 70 COULD STAVE OFF MAJOR HEART DISEASE: STUDY

Scientists: US needs to support a strong global agreement to curb plastic pollution

On Monday, world leaders will gather at the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in Nairobi to negotiate a global treaty to address plastic pollution. Scientists and at least 60 of the member states support a version of the treaty that could put caps on the world plastic production in addition to other policy interventions. A recent survey also found that three-quarters of 20,513 people polled from 28 countries endorse a swift phase-out of single-use plastics. The exponential rate at which global industries extract fossil fuels and produce new plastics and associated chemicals outstrips governments’ ability to regulate their safety, manage waste, and mitigate harm to people and the environment.The total mass of plastics produced exceeds both the overall mass of all land and marine animals and the planetary boundary for these novel substances, moving us out of a safe operating space for humanity. Yet industry continues to project growth, investing billions of dollars in new infrastructure and opposing national and now international efforts to curb both plastic production and pollution.

Get our FREE Plastic Action Kit

Reducing plastic pollution

Pew Charitable TrustsAs reported by Reuters, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a powerful trade organization representing a consortium of plastics and petrochemical interests, is lobbying against production restrictions to be negotiated during the UNEA meetings, which run through March 2. The ACC’s strategy is to undermine proposed production limits on newly produced plastics by convincing politicians and regulators that plastics provide a net benefit to society and can be readily managed through long-failed downstream methods such as waste collection, recycling, and waste-to-energy conversion or yet unproven chemical or so-called ‘advanced recycling technologies’. The industry’s strategy moves against science-backed efforts to curb plastic pollution, including the recent NASEM report, requested by Congress, and the proposed Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, which aim to address plastic’s impacts on climate, environment and health. As such, their efforts comport with the well-documented disinformation tactics deployed previously to undermine science-based environmental governance.Plastic pollution is a multifaceted problem requiring curtailment of both production and use, as proposed by Rwanda and Peru. Furthermore, the Rwanda/Peru resolution recognizes the transboundary nature of plastic pollution and the need to address it at its root. By contrast, the Japan resolution narrowly focuses on marine plastics, which, while important, is but one facet of the complex problems plastics pose.

Plastics’ harms

The proliferation of plastic debris is indeed problematic. It collects along the coastlines, clogs sewers, and causes destructive flooding in cities with insufficient waste management like Mumbai and Nairobi. Waterways stagnant with plastic and sewage are a breeding ground for disease vectors that spread cholera and malaria. Plastic waste also has negative repercussions on livelihoods. In Rwanda, Ethiopia, Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, and Niger, plastic ingestion by livestock has led to cattle death, impoverishing subsistence communities. In Ghana, where fishing supports most coastal-dwellers, water-borne plastic pollution threatens both jobs and food security.The volume of plastic debris also perpetuates existing social disparities. The export of plastic and waste from high-GDP countries in Europe and North America into the African and Asian nations since 1990has led to massive accumulation and widespread impacts. This ‘waste colonialism’ unfairly exploits environments and people in these regions. The promise of value generation through local recycling proved farcical due to the insufficient infrastructure and markets for recycled products. New plastics are cheaper than products made from recovered resin. Citizens in African nations have pushed back on the Global North’s extractive agenda, resulting in bans and restrictions on certain plastics. Re-introducing plastic under the guise of ‘improving people’s lives’ would undermine their political will, environment, health, and economies.Plastics cause harm throughout their entire lifecycle, shedding microplastic particles into our food, water, air, and soil, releasing greenhouse and toxic gases during production, landfill, and incineration. Toxic additives leach from everyday plastic products such as foodware, textiles, and car tires. Evidence for human exposure to chemicals from plastic and microplastic particles has grown exponentially in recent years. Microplastics have even been detected in human placenta. Continuous exposure to plastic chemicals disrupts development, growth, metabolism, and reproduction for organisms and humans alike. Factory emissions diminish air and water quality, violating the health and human rights of the predominantly low-income communities and communities of color who live along the fenceline. And without reduction mandates, plastics’ CO2 emissions will amount to 6.5 gigatons by 2050 eating 10–13% of the remaining CO2 budget, accelerating global heating. While the Rwanda/Peru resolution reaffirms the importance of addressing plastics toxic and climate implications, such provisions were specifically erased in the Japan resolution.

UN plastics treaty

UN Environmental Program, via TwitterScientific evidence highlights the need for unanimouspolitical support for an ambitious global treaty regulating plastics during their entire lifecycle to account for their impacts to climate, humans, and ecosystems. Such a treaty will need to include caps on production of new plastic to prevent further irreversible global damage. The Rwanda/Peru resolution includes language to address plastics’ impacts from extraction of raw materials to production and end-of-life. It goes beyond dealing with plastic as a waste problem and considers systemic solutions to reduce, replace, reuse, and recycle plastic effectively. Voluntary, optional or market-led solutions will not suffice to solve this complex, global problem. To truly address the impacts of plastics on the environment, society and health, in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and call for nations to protect clean and healthy environments as a human right, the resolutions must be binding. Voluntary, optional or market-led solutions will not solve these wicked problems. There is no time for lengthy negotiations aimed at delaying and diluting urgently needed action.

Co-authors

The authors thank five expert colleagues for their help in the preparation of this OP-ed: Dr. Rebecca AltmanDr. Susanne BranderDr. Tridibesh DeyAnja KriegerDr. Tony R. Walker

About the authors

Prof. Bethanie Carney Almroth is an ecotoxicologist at the University of Gothenburg. She researches the effects of chemicals and plastics in marine and freshwater animals, and works to find means for sustainable development, She also coordinates the Gesamp working group on plastics, providing scientific advice to UN organizations. @BCarneyAlmroth, email: bethanie.carney@bioenv.gu.seDr. Melanie Bergmann is a polar marine biologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research who has researched and published on plastic pollution since 2012. She edited the textbook Marine Anthropogenic Litter and runs the online portal Litterbase as well as a pollution observatory in the Arctic. She is part of the AMAP Expert Group on Microplastics and Litter providing scientific advice to the Arctic Council. @MelanieBergma18, email: Melanie.Bergmann@awi.deDr. Scott Coffin is a research scientist at the California State Water Resources Control Board, who has researched plastic pollution since 2014. He leads California’s efforts to monitor and manage microplastics pollution in drinking water and the environment. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any government agency or institution. @DrSCoffin, email: scott.l.coffin@gmail.comDr. Rebecca Altman is a Providence-based writer and independent scholar working on an intimate history of plastics for Scribner Books (US) and Oneworld (UK). Recent work has appeared in The Atlantic, Science, Aeon and Orion. She holds a Ph.D. in environmental sociology from Brown University. Dr. Susanne Brander is a professor and ecotoxicologist at Oregon State University, co-lead of the Pacific Northwest Consortium on Plastics, and recent co-chair of a California Ocean Science Trust advisory team on marine microplastics. Her primary focus is on the effects of stressors such as emerging pollutants, including micro and nanoplastics, on aquatic organisms; and her research and teaching span both ecological and human health impacts. Anja Krieger is a writer and podcaster from Germany working in science communication. She’s reported as a freelance journalist for over a decade in media outlets such as Ensia, Undark, Vox News, PRI The World, Deutschlandradio, and Die Zeit. Anja is the creator of the Plastisphere podcast and co-producer of Life in the Soil. A cultural scientist by training, she’s completed the Knight Science Journalism Fellowship Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Tridibesh Dey is a South Asian anthropologist generating theoretical knowledge about plastics from long-term engaged fieldwork with communities and landscapes most affected by these materials. Having trained originally in the natural sciences with professional experiences in sustainable development, Dr. Dey offers practice-oriented multi-disciplinary perspectives on the complex social entanglements of the material one might call ‘plastic’. Dr. Tony Walker is an Associate Professor at Dalhousie University. He has studied impacts of plastic pollution for nearly 30 years and was invited by the Deputy Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada to to help develop the Ocean Plastics Charter for Canada’s 2018 G7 presidency. He participated in the Canadian Science Symposium on Plastics to inform Canada’s Plastic Science Agenda, and represented Canada at the G7 Science Meeting on Plastic Pollution in Paris, France in 2019.The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect those of Environmental Health News or The Daily Climate.Banner photo of plastic garbage next to the sea by Antoine Giret/UnsplashFrom Your Site ArticlesRelated Articles Around the Web

Plastic pollution is a global problem – here's how to design an effective treaty to curb it

Plastic pollution is accumulating worldwide, on land and in the oceans. According to one widely cited estimate, by 2025, 100 million to 250 million metric tons of plastic waste could enter the ocean each year. Another study commissioned by the World Economic Forum projects that without changes to current practices, there may be more plastic by weight than fish in the ocean by 2050.

On March 2, 2022, representatives from 175 nations around the world took a historic step toward ending that pollution. The United Nations Environment Assembly voted to task a committee with forging a legally binding global treaty on plastic pollution by 2024. U.N. Environment Program Executive Director Inger Andersen described it as “an insurance policy for this generation and future ones, so they may live with plastic and not be doomed by it.”

I am a legal scholar and have studied questions related to food, animal welfare and environmental law. My forthcoming book, “Our Plastic Problem and How to Solve It,” explores legislation and policies to address this global “wicked problem.”

I believe plastic pollution requires a local, national and global response. While acting together on a world scale will be challenging, lessons from some other environmental treaties suggest features that can improve an agreement’s chances of success.

A pervasive problem

Scientists have discovered plastic in some of the most remote parts of the globe, from polar ice to Texas-sized gyres in the middle of the ocean. Plastic can enter the environment from a myriad of sources, ranging from laundry wastewater to illegal dumping, waste incineration and accidental spills.

Plastic never completely degrades. Instead, it breaks down into tiny particles and fibers that are easily ingested by fish, birds and land animals. Larger plastic pieces can transport invasive species and accumulate in freshwater and coastal environments, altering ecosystem functions.

A 2021 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on ocean plastic pollution concluded that “[w]ithout modifications to current practices … plastics will continue to accumulate in the environment, particularly the ocean, with adverse consequences for ecosystems and society.”

Plastic pollution by the numbers.
University of Georgia, CC BY-ND

National policies are not enough

To address this problem, the U.S. has focused on waste management and recycling rather than regulating plastic producers and businesses that use plastic in their products. Failing to address the sources means that policies have limited impact. That’s especially true since the U.S. generates 37.5 million tons of plastic yearly, but only recycles about 9% of it.

Some countries, such as France and Kenya, have banned single-use plastics. Others, like Germany, have mandated plastic bottle deposit schemes. Canada has classified manufactured plastic items as toxic, which gives its national government broad power to regulate them.

In my view, however, these efforts too will fall short if countries producing and using the most plastic do not adopt policies across its life cycle.

Growing consensus

Plastic pollution crosses boundaries, so countries need to work together to curb it. But existing treaties such as the 1989 Basel Convention, which governs international shipment of hazardous wastes, and the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea offer little leverage, for several reasons.

First, these treaties were not designed specifically to address plastic. Second, the largest plastic polluters – notably, the U.S. – have not joined these agreements. Alternative international approaches such as the Ocean Plastics Charter, which encourages governments and global and regional businesses to design plastic products for reuse and recycling, are voluntary and nonbinding.

Fortunately, many world and business leaders now support a uniform, standardized and coordinated global approach to managing and eliminating plastic waste in the form of a treaty.

The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, supports an agreement that will accelerate a transition to a more circular economy that promotes waste reduction and reuse by focusing on waste collection, product design and recycling technology. America’s Plastic Makers and the International Council of Chemical Associations have also made public statements supporting a global agreement to establish “a targeted goal to ensure access to proper waste management and eliminate leakage of plastic into the ocean.”

However, these organizations maintain that plastic products can help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions – for example, by enabling automakers to build lighter cars – and are likely to oppose an agreement that limits plastic production. As I see it, this makes leadership and action by governments critical.

The Biden administration also has stated its support for a treaty and is sending Secretary of State Antony Blinken to the Nairobi meeting. On Feb. 11, 2022, the White House released a joint statement with France that expressed support for negotiating “a global agreement to address the full life cycle of plastics and promote a circular economy.”

Early treaty drafts outline two competing approaches. One seeks to reduce plastic throughout its life cycle, from production to disposal, a strategy that would probably include methods such as banning or phasing out single-use plastic products.

A contrasting approach focuses on eliminating plastic waste through innovation and design – for example, by spending more on waste collection, recycling and development of environmentally benign plastics.

Some harmful impacts of plastic waste become more intense as the plastic breaks down into smaller and smaller fragments.

Elements of an effective treaty

Countries have come together to solve environmental problems before. The global community has successfully addressed acid rain, stratospheric ozone depletion and mercury contamination through international treaties. These agreements, which include the U.S., offer strategies for a plastics treaty.

The Montreal Protocol, for example, required countries to report their production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances so that countries could hold each other accountable. As part of the Convention on Long-range Air Pollution, countries agreed to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, but were allowed to select the method that worked best for them. For the U.S., that involved a system of buying and selling emission allowances that became part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

Based on these precedents, I see plastic as a good candidate for an international treaty. Like ozone, sulfur and mercury, plastic comes from specific, identifiable human activities that occur across the globe. Many countries contribute, so the problem is transboundary in nature.

In addition to providing a framework for keeping plastic out of the ocean, I believe a plastic pollution treaty should include reduction targets for both producing less plastic and generating less waste that are specific, measurable and achievable. The treaty should be binding but flexible, allowing countries to meet these targets as they choose.

In my view, negotiations should consider the interests of those who experience the disproportionate impacts of plastic, as well as those who make a living off recycling waste as part of the informal economy. Finally, an international treaty should promote collaboration and sharing of data, resources and best practices.

Since plastic pollution doesn’t stay in one place, all nations will benefit from finding ways to curb it.

This article was updated March 2, 2022, with the international vote to write a plastics treaty.

[Over 140,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletters to understand the world. Sign up today.]