Plastics Treaty Talks, G7 Climate Meeting Fail to Deliver Meaningful Progress, Campaigners Say
Civil society observers react to outcomes from high-level intergovernmental sessions discussing the plastics and climate crises, both rooted in fossil fuels.
Two high-level international negotiating sessions on pressing climate and environmental crises wrapped up with outcomes that advocates say fall far short of the ambitious commitments necessary to protect public and planetary health, including phasing out fossil fuels and curbing plastics production.
From Torino, Italy to Ottawa, Canada, ministers and delegates recently convened under the Group of 7 (G7) ministerial and the United Nations global plastics treaty negotiating committee, respectively, to discuss ongoing actions and options for tackling the climate and plastic pollution problems.
The discussions in both forums concluded with limited and “insufficient” progress, according to civil society observers reacting to the outcomes.
“The G7’s agreement to phase out domestic coal power in the first half of the 2030s is important yet insufficient progress,” said Andreas Sieber, associate director of global campaigns at climate action organization 350.org, which noted in its statement that this agreement still does not align with the Paris Agreement objective of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Friends of the Earth International’s Sam Cossar-Gilbert, commenting on the global plastic’s treaty’s fourth negotiating session (INC-4), similarly said the result was inadequate. “While we saw a slow and improved progress in the Plastics Treaty negotiations process, not enough agreement was made on key issues of reducing plastic production, securing a funding mechanism for the Global South, reducing corporate influence or stopping the toxic waste trade.”
Calls to Curb Plastic Production
The global plastics treaty, a sort of “Paris Agreement for plastics,” is currently under development following a landmark adoption of a UN resolution in 2022 to create a legally binding instrument to tackle plastic pollution. UN Environment Program (UNEP) Executive Director Inger Andersen has called it the “most significant environmental multilateral deal” since the adoption of the Paris climate accord in 2015. The text of the treaty was supposed to be finalized by the end of this year, and it is meant to be “based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastic.” Expert reports and studies have documented how plastic, which is made from fossil fuels, pollutes throughout its lifecycle, and effectively addressing plastic pollution, scientists and experts say, should involve limiting new plastic production. Absent upstream controls, plastic production is set to nearly triple by 2050.
But delegates during the International Negotiating Committee sessions have been divided over approaches that attempt to address production. A “High Ambition Coalition” of countries led by Rwanda and Norway supports restraints on plastic production and consumption, while other countries like the US have not endorsed production limits.
As the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) explains, “the controversy around production reduction is no accident — reducing plastic production poses a direct threat to the plastic industry’s long-term financial interests.” At the treaty’s fourth negotiating session (INC-4) that just concluded in Ottawa, nearly 200 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists — a 37% increase from the previous negotiating session — were registered, according to a CIEL analysis.
The Ottawa session ended with what civil society observers and environmental campaigners say is a “weak compromise” that fails to advance ambition ahead of the final negotiating session scheduled for Busan, South Korea later this year. The lengthy draft text leaves a plethora of options open and many issues unresolved, making it unlikely the treaty will actually be finalized by the end of the year.
Fighting Fossil Fuel Lobby Influence
Campaigners called out the heavy industry lobbying presence for delaying important decision-making and obstructing progress.
“The influence and growing presence of fossil fuel and petrochemical industries are not what the people want nor what the climate needs. This is the fourth out of five meetings and the fossil fuel lobby is holding us back from negotiating a treaty that will end the plastics crisis,” said Graham Forbes, Greenpeace International’s Head of Delegation to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations.
“We are in the presence of an industry with a well-known playbook for jeopardizing the ambition of environmental and social negotiations,” said Delphine Lévi Alvarès, global petrochemical campaign coordinator at CIEL. “For two years, the majority of negotiators have come to the table in good faith, but we are facing an industry that fights dirty. Ottawa was the sad scene of intimidation of female delegates who are challenging fossil fuel and chemical interests. If countries want to get something out of this process, they’re going to have to challenge this petromasculinity — in the intersessional work, in Busan, and in whatever follows.”
Abdul Ghofar from WALHI / Friends of the Earth Indonesia echoed these sentiments: “To end plastic pollution across the life cycle of plastics and fulfill the Paris Climate Agreement commitments we need a strong and binding international agreement that does not accommodate the interests of the fossil fuel industry.”
Plastics Threaten Climate and Health
Plastics has been called the “Plan B” for the fossil fuel industry as demand for its products in the energy sector starts to wane, but the proliferation of plastics, especially ones designed for single-use, poses a massive threat not only to the environment with pervasive waste, but to climate and human health. A recent study from researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory warns that global carbon pollution from plastic production could triple by 2050, undercutting efforts to limit planetary heating in line with Paris Agreement objectives. Current plastic production generates an estimated 2.24 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions (as of 2019), according to the study; in comparison, the aviation sector generated 0.6 billion metric tons of GHG emissions in 2019. Moreover, plastics contain thousands of toxic chemicals and additives that are linked to numerous adverse health impacts and that can leach into our bodies through ingestion of micro- and nanoplastics. As Giulia Carlini, senior attorney and Environmental Health Program manager at CIEL, put it, “the global plastics treaty is fundamentally a public health treaty.”
G7 Failing on Climate Ambition
Meanwhile, thousands of miles away from where delegates convened in Ottawa to discuss plastics, ministers met in Torino, Italy for a G7 ministerial meeting on climate, energy and environment – the first high-level meeting of a group of developed countries to talk about climate action following the 28th UN climate summit (COP28) in Dubai where the world finally agreed, at least on paper, to transition away from fossil fuels that are the primary driver of the climate crisis.
Protestors demonstrated in the Italian city as the meeting got underway, blocking a highway and burning photos of world leaders to symbolize the role of rich countries in fueling climate breakdown. While the G7 nations, which include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the US, all tout their commitments to climate action and ambition, none of them are on track to meet their own 2030 emissions reduction targets. Most of them, led by the US, are expanding fossil fuel production; according to Oil Change International, G7 countries account for nearly 48% of CO2 emissions from new oil and gas production.
The outcome of the ministerial meeting, summarized in a 35-page communique document issued on April 30, reflects what climate campaigners say is a lack of ambition to advance a full, fair, fast, and funded fossil fuel phaseout as science and justice demands.
While the document did include a commitment to phase out coal power from domestic energy systems by no later than 2035, experts say that is too late to have any chance of limiting warming to the 1.5 degree-threshold. In remarks delivered to ministers on April 29, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said the transition away from fossil fuels “needs to be much faster and fairer”, adding: “And for the G7 that includes phasing out of coal by 2030 to be 1.5 aligned.”
Greenpeace International responded to the coal phaseout agreement by saying it is “too little, too late.”
“If they are serious and aligned with what the science says is needed to keep 1.5° within reach, G7 countries must ditch this dinosaur planet-wrecking fuel no later than 2030. And the climate emergency demands they just don’t stop at coal. Fossil fuels are destroying people and planet and a commitment to rapidly phase out all fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – is urgently needed,” said Tracy Carty, global climate politics expert with Greenpeace International.
Furthermore, reflecting language in the COP28 agreement, the ministers’ communique includes qualifying terms like “unabated” and “inefficient” in discussing phasing out coal or fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies, leaving the door open to continued fossil fuel subsidization and support – including unproven and costly carbon capture technologies that risk prolonging the fossil fuel era.
“The G7 are falling far short of what’s needed to implement the COP28 agreement to phase out fossil fuels,” Romain Ioualalen, global policy campaign manager Oil Change International, said in response to the ministerial meeting outcome. “This was the first opportunity for the G7 to show they were taking the COP28 agreement seriously,” he added. “They have failed.”