https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/over-100-countries-back-plastic-treaty-caps-talks-reach-fierce-finish-2024-11-30/
The UN mandated meetings to find solutions to the plastics problem met again at Busan, S Korea (ends Dec 1 tomorrow but across the international date line where it’s tomorrow.)
“The fifth U.N. Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) meeting intended to yield a legally binding global treaty in Busan, South Korea, was meant to be the final one.”
They failed to reach agreement. “The most divisive issues included capping plastic production, managing plastic products and chemicals of concern, and financing to help developing countries implement the treaty.”
Fossil fuel countries like Saudi Arabia strongly oppose capping plastics production.
C&EN had an article reporting a suggestion from UC Berkeley and UC Santa Barbara in Science magazine. They define “mismanaged plastic waste” as waste that does not end up in a landfill, burned in a regulated incinerator, or recycled. It is expected to almost double by 2050.
They used a “machine learning model” to look at 8 possible policy solutions. The four with best expected results are 1) a packaging tax, 2) requiring a minimum amount of recycled content, 3) capping virgin plastic production, and 4) investment is waste plastic infrastructure.
A $10/metric ton ($0.005/lb) tax on plastic production could reduce mismanaged plastic waste by 40% if invested in waste management infrastructure.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/Computer-model-shows-paths-cutting/102/i36?ref=search_results
1 Like
The international community has so completely failed to limit worldwide CO2 emissions, they are now going after another environmental cause (plastic waste) they can fail at equally well.
The plastic waste issue might be better for the UN to go after, since success can be rather loosely defined. With CO2, there are several monitoring stations around the globe that continuously measure the atmospheric concentration. We can closely monitor how well, or how poorly, past and current efforts at limiting CO2 have been. (They haven’t been effective at all.) But with plastic, what parameter do we use to measure the problem? The total mass of the Pacific garbage patch maybe? Who does the measuring, and how are their findings confirmed? When is success declared?
The plastic waste issue looks to be a wonderful opportunity for many UN meetings, junkets to large conferences in exotic locales, including the necessary expense account spending.
I don’t like to see litter at all. People need to be more respectful of their surroundings and not litter, especially in public places and nature parks, etc. But if the United Nations is forming committees and holding meetings on littering, I know that they will do nothing to actually solve the problem.
_ Pete
The thing about plastic is most of it is permanent. It is intended to last forever. Burying it in a landfill merely stores it for future generations.
Yes, something needs to be done. Figuring out how to recycle it better is a good start. Plastics that degrade soon are a step in the right direction.
CO2 may be a concern but we know plants consume it and convert it to sugars and carbohydrates. It is not permanent. Its temporary. Yes, too much of it. And it doesn’t cycle fast enough.
Limiting plastic production. Or at least giving preference to those that recycle best and penalizing the others would help.
Taxes can be used to do this. And using proceed for better waste disposal or recycling around the globe will help.
UN has been trying but reaches an impass. Congress can do this in the US but getting global agreement is a long shot. At least they are talking about it.
There is also this associated issue. This particular form of waste plastic is not unsightly. In fact, most of it is invisible to the naked eye. But it is a possible health problem.
We encounter microplastics everywhere: from trash, dust, fabrics, cosmetics, cleaning products, rain, seafood, produce, table salt, and more.
Little wonder that microplastics have been detected throughout the human body, including in the blood, saliva, liver, kidneys, and placenta. Investigators are probing how they get into other organs and tissues from the lungs and gastrointestinal tract. Microplastics smaller than 1 micrometer, known as nanoplastics, worry researchers the most because they can infiltrate cells.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It is probably too late to do anything about microplastics. It is best to simply understand the risks and come up with ways to cope with it, if possible.
_ Pete
1 Like
Given that plastics never go away (unless burned) as production continues (and even increases) the problem gets worse.
Its great that the plastics problem is getting some attention but frustrating progress is taking so long.
Plastics should be put into different categories, such as by their use cases. Things that are built with the intent of a long useful life are at one end of the list and things meant to be used once and tossed at the other end. Then develop alternatives and/or tax the single use items over time.
Then do the same kind of thing based on difficulty to recycle (chemically) and how easy it is for people to recycle products. (i.e. bottles are pretty easy but stretchy plastic film on meat not so easy)
Mike
Agreed. The recycling code on the bottom of most items defines seven types of plastics. Some can be used interchangeably and decision is often made based on cost. Some are easier to recycle than others. The easy ones should be preferred.
Taxing the difficult ones and subsidizing the easy ones makes sense to me. Limiting production of the difficult ones also makes sense.
But we know govt does not always do the obvious. And international agreements can be especially frustrating.
1 Like