How a global plastic treaty could cut down pollution—if the world can agree on one

The Paris Plastic Agreement “was to be finalized at the end of this week.

But after a week and a half of intense discussions in Geneva, Switzerland, where negotiators in 180 countries are gathered, talks are likely to deliver a very weakened agreement (if we can be finalized at all).

“With less than 48 hours to do,” wrote a academic in Geneva, “the firm action window.”

What went wrong in Geneva? And what experts think they are part of a treaty to make it effective?

Resistance

By writing at the start of this series of negotiations on August 5, the Social Sciences Cat Acheson, Alice Street and Rob Ralston of the University of Edinburgh, underlined various elements in the draft text which could make a real difference.

“These include cutting plastic production (article 6), prohibiting plastic products and dangerous chemicals for humans or the environment (article 3), and a section dedicated to the protection of human health (article 19).”

But many countries grow back. Winnie Courtene-Jones, our expert in Geneva, is a lecturer in marine pollution at Bangor University. She says that the same political disagreements that blocked the previous talks are not resolved:

“The resistance comes largely from a block of countries with strong industries and petrochemical interests, not wanting to compromise or continue ambitious measures.”

It is the “group sharing the same ideas” of the countries which has frustrated the attempts to include these objectives since the start of the talks in Uruguay in November 2022. Almost all the plastic is made from fossil fuels, hence the shared position of the main petrochemical producers, in particular in Saudi Arabia, in Russia and Iran, more the great presence of people working for oil societies and gas and plastic manufacturers in negotiations.

This cohort promotes an agreement that seeks to manage waste rather than on plastic production.

“They did so by arguing that plastics are in fact essential to protect health, due to the role of single -use plastic in modern medicine,” said Acheson and his colleagues.

From the uterus to the grave

Petrostats citing the needs of health workers in their arguments against limiting the quantity of plastic worldwide is probably dishonest. A historical report published last week Lancet The medical newspaper shows why.

“Plastics, according to evidence, is a threat to human health – from belly to the grave,” said Acheson, Street and Ralston. “They are linked to false layers, congenital malformations, heart disease and cancer.”

The report highlights how more than 16,000 chemicals are used in plastic, many of which are not disclosed by the companies that do it. Plastic chemicals are linked to health effects at all stages of human development, although fetus, infants and young children are particularly sensitive.

Less than 10% of plastic is recycled, says Lancet. A large part of the leaks at different stages between use and elimination and decomposes into tiny and smaller fragments. Plants and worms in the soil and plankton in water ingest or absorb these microplastics and are in turn consumed by larger organisms. This is how plastic moves through food networks and finally reaches us.

“It is now clear that the world cannot withdraw from the plastic pollution crisis,” according to the Lancet report.

Plastic Eating Microbes

There are promising developments.

Barely a few days ago, Julianne Megaw, lecturer in microbiology at Queen’s Belfast University, reported the results of her latest research on microbial degradation, which, according to her, implies “to exploit the natural capacities of certain bacteria and mushrooms to decompose plastics in a way that current technologies cannot”.

Such microbes are often found in polluted sites, but Megaw’s research shows that they are also in more virgin environments. Some were able to degrade plastics by around 20% in a month without pre -treatment.

These results are “among the highest biodegradation rates ever recorded for these plastics,” writes Megaw. “This suggests that we don’t have to stick to polluted sites. It is possible that we can find microbes with excellent degrading plastic potential anywhere.”

This is excellent news of course. Perhaps one day billions of friendly microbes will be deposited to eliminate a century or two of plastic pollution. But even in the most optimistic scenario, we are still able to use large-scale microorganisms.

Reach the limit?

And so it leaves the idea of placing limits to total plastic production. The search for Costas Velis, professor in resource efficiency at the University of Leeds, indicates why an effective treaty will have to include a kind of global ceiling:

“All efforts to scientifically model the extent of plastic pollution in the future assume that the restriction of the quantity of plastic in the world each year will be necessary (among other measures) to slow down its harmful presence in the environment.”

But even if countries can eliminate plastic manufacturing, VELIS warns that we would have much more to solve the problem.

“The reduction in production almost in two and the use of all other strategies, such as felling of recycling and the elimination of plastic waste in discharges or via incineration plants, would always leave residual pollution in 2040,” he said.

Waste management reforms, changes in the design of remaining plastic products and mandates for retailers will also be necessary.

“It may be possible to massively simplify the types of polymers used in the packaging so that some are in circulation.

You and I will have to get used to living with much less plastic – a change marked in our lives for which there is little precedent, says Velis. A result in Geneva that tells the expansion plastic industry could at least launch this process.

“Each year without production ceilings makes the cut necessary for plastic production in future and our need to use other measures to solve the problem more,” he said.

Whatever happens in the coming days, be sure to consult the last cover here on the conversation. We have plastic experts aligned to assess the final treaty or explain why the talks finally collapsed.

Post-carbon

Last week, we asked you if a growing consciousness of microplastic contamination had affected your behavior.

Stefan Frischauf said that plastic bags are a nightmare and, as an architect, “the reconstruction and reuse of materials should be regulated much more seriously”.

Babette Schouws says: “I stopped buying polyester clothes or other plastic materials … I always check the label before trying something.”

And Tina Grayson has set up “a small business selling our bars of solid shampoo and revitalizing”. Each bar, she says, saves about three plastic bottles. “This is our contribution to the constantly evolving increase in plastics and microplastics in our world – as well as doing other things in our house, such as ordering milk from milk in glass rather than buying plastics in the supermarket, using crunch toothpaste, using plastic -free toothbrushes, buying our dismissal paper from Bambou which is wrapped in paper

Next week, we would like to know if waves of serious heat in the United Kingdom, in southern Europe or beyond have assigned your vacation projects. Are you going to try to avoid 40 ° C temperatures or direct a dive in the sea to cool off?

This article is republished from the conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.