The Guardian view on the collapse of environmental talks: petrostates blocked a global plastics deal, but we must not despair | Editorial
BEnsuring the collapse of the UN talks to request the first legally binding agreement on the fight against plastic pollution, Geneva blockers failed the next generation. Most states are arranged, even determined, to act. But the United States has joined the Petrostats obstructing the action. Their children will also live to regret it.
To say that plastics are part of our lives, from the cradle to the grave is an understatement: the microplastics were found in the placentas, as well as in blood and breast milk. Although we cannot yet be certain of the complete impact of substances, we know that many have been linked to health effects and that fetuses, infants and young children are very vulnerable. Microplastics have been shown to damage human cells in laboratory experiences, and a journal published this month has documented how exposure is associated with increased risks of miscarriage of miscarriage, mortinity, congenital malformations, altered pulmonary growth, child cancer and fertility problems in adulthood.
However, even if our awareness of the danger to human and planetary health soar, plastic production, which should triple – more than a billion tonnes per year – within 35 years. Half of the plastic produced each year concerns single -use items. Partly, this growth is that petrostats see petrochemicals as their solution to the maintenance of demand given the transition to renewable energies and nuclear in electricity production.
Three years ago, the prospect of a binding global treaty brought hope to all those concerned with the impact of plastics. But subsequent discussions have failed and in Geneva this week, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others have insisted that action should be limited to the fight against waste – which can only have a completely inadequate impact – not to slow down the production and stopping the use of toxic chemicals in their manufacture. The United States insisted that only voluntary measures were acceptable. Rightly, that was not enough for delegates of the “high ambition” states, which include those of the EU, Great Britain, Canada and most of the world South. The insistence on a consensual decision allowed a minority to prevent the necessary action.
It is deeply disappointing that no agreement can be concluded, and that none lies in sight, but perhaps not surprising, especially when diplomacy and multilateralism are more generally struggling. Many of those who frequent have concluded that no agreement was better than a weakness that could allow the real change pressure to dissipate. They will continue their push, but not necessarily by the same mechanism, given this second failure. Some people think that another UN forum could be more effective.
We cannot afford to despair. Activists also note that it took eight years of talks to agree on an amendment on hydrofluorocarbons in the Montreal protocol on ozone depleting substances. Some hope that China could play an essential role in achieving a change: it is one of the largest plastic producers in the world, but it depends less on them, and Beijing could benefit from being considered a leader in this global environmental issue. In the meantime, countries can and must act unilaterally and in the blocks to reduce the use of plastic. Some, like Colombia, are already taking important measures.
If the record number of industry lobbyists in Geneva was a sign depressing rooted interests that all those who care about this problem had to fight, it was also proof that plastic producers know that the change is possible and that the case for it is strengthening day by day. They have fought it for the moment, but they shouldn’t prevail.
