Credit: UNEP
06 December
Environmental justice advocates criticize lack of inclusion in plastic treaty negotiations
“We had to fight for every second we had on the floor.”
Environmental justice and Indigenous groups say they were largely excluded from key plastic treaty talks last week in Busan, South Korea, which took place over seven days and ended without a final text.
As oil and gas producing nations opposed reducing plastic production, the fifth round of talks in a series of UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee meetings ended without clear consensus on how to curb global plastic pollution. The group will reconvene next year with hopes of finalizing a treaty.
During previous plastic treaty talks, environmental justice and Indigenous delegations were permitted to listen and speak during negotiations between member states. That changed at this meeting, as the last several days of the talks consisted of private conversations.
“I was really disappointed with the process this time,” Sarah Martik, director of the Center for Coalfield Justice, an environmental justice advocacy group based in western Pennsylvania, told EHN. “There were two and a half days of informal meetings with delegates from member states held in private rooms, which completely cut out civil society. We have no notes and no records from those meetings … and we had very few opportunities to speak. We had to fight for every second we had on the floor.”
“I was really disappointed with the process this time.” Sarah Martik, Center for Coalfield Justice
Other U.S.-based environmental justice advocacy groups including the The Descendants Project in Louisiana’s Cancer Alley; the Port Arthur Community Action Network in Texas; and Breathe Free Detroit expressed similar frustrations, as did numerous Indigenous groups.
“[Holding negotiations during private meetings] is a blatant attempt to stifle dissent and pave the way for the influence of the petrochemical industry,” Frankie Orona, executive director of Society of Native Nations, said in a statement. “Despite our tireless advocacy and the support of numerous member states, the [latest treaty draft] fails to recognize our inherent rights and traditional knowledge, effectively silencing our voices in the fight against plastic pollution.”
The groups also said that oil and gas-producing countries “weaponized” the consensus-based decision-making process by intentionally stalling progress during the negotiations and effectively vetoing measures favored by a majority of other countries, like plastic production caps.
“Despite our tireless advocacy and the support of numerous member states, the [latest treaty draft] fails to recognize our inherent rights and traditional knowledge." - Frankie Orona, Society of Native Nations
China, the United States, India, South Korea and Saudi Arabia were the top five primary plastic-producing nations in 2023, according to data provider Eunomia. Some of these countries, like Saudi Arabia, Russia and India, oppose production caps. More than 100 of the approximately 170 countries attending the talks supported caps on plastic production. The U.S. and China were absent from the talks when countries pressed for production limits.
“Saudi Arabia and Russia kept taking the floor to be obstructionist, basically saying a whole lot of nothing, and we didn’t get an opportunity to speak on the floor until about two in the morning, when a lot of member states were already leaving,” Martik said.
“The elephant in the room is how the U.S. presidential election is going to impact all of this,” Martik added. “Delaying the final treaty until after Trump takes office could change how the U.S. is showing up at these negotiations.”
Disagreement over plastic production caps
Most plastic is made from fossil fuels, and as the world decarbonizes to tackle the climate crisis, oil and gas companies are increasingly turning to plastic production to stay profitable. More than 400 million tons of new plastic are created annually across the globe, and plastic production is expected to increase by an additional 70% by 2040 without policy changes.
“When I first engaged in [plastic treaty talks], I was standing in line at lunch and a delegate read my nametag and asked what I was doing there,” said Martik, who attended the talks as a member of Break Free From Plastic, a global advocacy organization. “I had to explain the connection between fracked gas being drilled in southwestern Pennsylvania and the global production of plastic.”
The plastic industry and oil-producing countries have fought against production caps, instead pushing the idea of a “circular economy.” But less than 10% of the world’s plastic is currently recycled, and attempts to improve recycling technology have so far largely proven unprofitable and inefficient.
“Delaying the final treaty until after Trump takes office could change how the U.S. is showing up at these negotiations.” - Sarah Martik, Center for Coalfield Justice
While plastic pollution chokes waterways and shorelines and microplastics turn up in every part of the human body, concerns about human health effects from every stage of plastic’s lifecycle have increased. In the U.S., health care costs attributable to chemicals in plastics are an estimated $250 billion every year.
“I think a worst-case scenario would have been that we walked away with a treaty that was ineffective and catered to the lowest-common denominator,” Martik said. “But we saw clearly that there are far more countries wanting to step up to the plate and be really ambitious about this than there are countries fighting a meaningful treaty.”
Keep reading...Show less
Read the Full Article on
www.ehn.org
Senator Whitehouse puts climate change on budget committee’s agenda
For more than a decade, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse gave daily warnings about the mounting threat of climate change. Now he has a powerful new perch.
Credit: Mathurin NAPOLY / matnapo/Unsplash
06 December
US defends Paris climate deal but faces criticism for lack of action
The U.S. defended its commitment to the Paris Agreement at a major international climate hearing, but critics questioned its lack of accountability for global warming’s damage.
In short:
- The U.S. representative called the Paris Agreement the best framework to address climate change but avoided clarifying future U.S. commitments.
- Small island nations and environmental groups criticized the U.S. for resisting legal accountability for emissions and failing to push stronger actions.
- The International Court of Justice hearings could influence global climate lawsuits, with over 100 countries participating.
Key quote:
“Let me be clear: These treaties are essential, but they cannot be a veil for inaction or a substitute for legal accountability.”
— Ralph Regenvanu, special envoy for climate change and environment for the island nation of Vanuatu
Why this matters:
Rising emissions disproportionately harm vulnerable nations, which demand stronger accountability from top polluters. Legal rulings could shape global climate policies, especially for nations like the U.S., which historically contributed most to greenhouse gas emissions.
Keep reading...Show less
Read the Full Article on
www.nytimes.com
Credit: Ministry of Environment - Rwanda/Flickr
06 December
A plastics treaty could reshape global pollution but faces major hurdles
Negotiations for a global plastics treaty are progressing slowly, with countries divided over production limits, waste regulation, and scientific access, yet the commitment to further discussions remains a hopeful sign.
In short:
- Negotiators in Busan, South Korea, failed to finalize a treaty to curb plastics pollution but agreed to continue talks within the year.
- The treaty is expected to address the full life cycle of plastics, but key points like production limits face opposition from major fossil-fuel-producing nations.
- Limited access for scientists in negotiations raises transparency concerns, as the treaty’s success hinges on independent research and evidence-based definitions.
Key quote:
“Although delegates’ frustrations are justified, the commitment to continuing the discussions and the ambition of most participating countries to secure a strong agreement are positive.”
— Samuel Winton, researcher at the Global Plastics Policy Centre
Why this matters:
The push for a global plastics treaty is shaping up to be one of the defining environmental battles of our time—and it’s no quick fix. Plastic particles are linked to health issues from cancer to infertility. If we get this treaty wrong, the consequences could ripple through ecosystems and generations. Read more: Every stage of plastic production and use is harming human health.
Keep reading...Show less
Read the Full Article on
www.nature.com
Credit: JasonParis/Flickr
06 December
Ontario’s coal-free future sparks new energy dilemmas
A decade after Ontario’s landmark coal phase-out cleaned up its skies, the province now faces tough questions about how to ditch natural gas, a significant contributor to climate change.
In short:
- Ontario's coal phase-out, completed in 2014, eliminated 17% of the province's emissions and was the largest greenhouse gas reduction initiative in North America at the time.
- Doctors and environmental advocates played key roles in pushing the government to act, citing smog-related health crises that caused thousands of premature deaths and respiratory illnesses annually.
- The province now faces growing calls to transition away from natural gas, but challenges like rising energy demands and political resistance complicate the path forward.
Key quote:
"Phasing out gas is one of the easiest, most cost-effective ways to reduce our greenhouse gases now."
— Jack Gibbons, Ontario Clean Air Alliance
Why this matters:
Ontario's coal phase-out shows that bold energy transitions are possible with strong public and political will, but relying on natural gas risks undoing hard-won climate and health gains. The question is whether political leaders and energy planners can summon the same resolve they did a decade ago. Read more: Natural gas vs. renewable energy — beware the latest gas industry talking points.
Keep reading...Show less
Read the Full Article on
thenarwhal.ca
Credit: Sang Hyun Cho/Pixabay
06 December
Trump administration puts environmental justice funding in jeopardy
President-elect Donald Trump’s transition plans suggest potential cuts to environmental justice programs, threatening gains made under the Biden administration’s Justice40 initiative to combat pollution in vulnerable communities.
Amudalat Ajasa and Anna Phillips report for The Washington Post.
In short:
- Biden directed 40% of pollution-reduction funding to disadvantaged areas through the Justice40 initiative, boosting projects like solar installations and clean buses.
- Trump’s allies propose eliminating EPA’s environmental justice programs, questioning their necessity and focusing on deregulation.
- Advocates fear reduced pollution enforcement and halted community grants, particularly in areas like Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley.”
Key quote:
“Environmental justice and civil rights is not something [Trump’s] administration wants to support or further or advance. They want to obliterate it.”
— Matthew Tejada, former EPA official
Why this matters:
Pollution disproportionately harms low-income and non-white communities, increasing health risks like premature death from air pollution. Rolling back environmental justice efforts could worsen inequities, leaving vulnerable populations with less protection against industrial pollution.
Related: California's environmental justice protections may weaken under Trump
Keep reading...Show less
Read the Full Article on
www.washingtonpost.com
Credit: Tristan Maness/Unsplash
06 December
Concerns grow over potential lead risks in Asheville’s water after hurricane
Two experts urge Asheville residents to conduct widespread testing for lead in drinking water following a treatment suspension caused by Tropical Storm Helene.
In short:
- Two independent experts recommend residents in homes built before 1988 use bottled water until lead tests are completed, citing potential risks from a lapse in corrosion control.
- The city of Asheville assures its water meets EPA standards but acknowledges lead detected in seven schools' water systems after stagnant water samples were tested.
- Officials emphasize flushing pipes to reduce lead exposure, noting it could take months to rebuild protective pipe coatings.
Key quote:
“We need a broad investigation of the lead levels at the tap of residences, schools and businesses who source their water from Asheville City Water.”
— Sally Wasileski, UNC Asheville chemistry department chair
Why this matters:
Lead exposure is a significant health hazard, especially for children, as it can cause developmental and neurological harm. Residents in older homes or with outdated plumbing face higher risks, requiring clarity and transparency from officials to ensure safe water access.
Read more: Hurricane Helene's water crisis leaves lingering doubts for Asheville residents
Keep reading...Show less
Read the Full Article on
avlwatchdog.org
Credit: Kai Pilger/Pixabay
06 December
Banks fuel climate risk with $200 billion for new gas projects
A surge of liquefied natural gas projects could generate emissions rivaling all coal power plants worldwide, raising fears over climate goals.
In short:
- A report from Reclaim Finance highlights $213 billion invested in liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, which could emit 10 gigatonnes of greenhouse gases by 2030.
- Global LNG capacity is projected to grow nearly 50% by the decade’s end, far outpacing demand and risking reliance on cheap fossil fuels over renewables.
- Critics argue banks and investors lack policies to curb LNG investments, undermining their climate commitments and threatening the Paris Agreement targets.
Key quote:
“Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger.”
— Justine Duclos-Gonda, campaigner at Reclaim Finance
Why this matters:
Expanding LNG infrastructure locks in fossil fuel dependency and increases methane emissions, a potent driver of climate change. Redirecting investments to renewables is essential to avoid surpassing global temperature thresholds.
Related:
Keep reading...Show less
Read the Full Article on
www.theguardian.com
From our Newsroom
What a Trump administration means for the federal hydrogen energy push
Legal and industry experts say there are uncertainties about the future of hydrogen hubs, a cornerstone of the Biden administration’s clean energy push.
Op-ed: The common ground between labor and climate justice is the key to a livable future
The tale of “jobs versus the environment” does not capture the full story.
El terreno común entre los derechos laborales y la justicia climática es la clave de un futuro habitable
La narrativa de “empleos vs. proteger el medio ambiente” no cuenta la historia completa.
LISTEN: Pradnya Garud on the role of unions in climate justice
“They’ve been able to combine forces and really come forward to bring social and environmental change.”
Hydrogen hubs test new federal environmental justice rules
A massive push for hydrogen energy is one of the first test cases of new federal environmental justice initiatives. Communities and advocates so far give the feds a failing grade.
What’s hampering federal environmental justice efforts in the hydrogen hub build-out?
“Organizational change in large bureaucracies takes time.”