The process of the World Plastics Treaty has fallen flat – here is what is in pain and how you can help

Progress towards a legally binding global treaty on plastic pollution has stalled and was reversed this week. The meeting of the United Nations intergovernmental negotiation committee in Geneva, Switzerland, has run overtime. It is likely to end this evening, without agreement.

It is an incredibly disappointing result. As a member of the Scientists Coalition for an effective plastic treaty, I hoped that action really slows down plastic pollution. Our priorities included taking the whole life cycle into account rather than elimination, to set targets to reduce plastic production and to regulate the use of harmful additives to reduce risks to human health.

Unfortunately, the acquired interests have diverted negotiations. Countries with large petrochemical producers have resisted the ceilings on the production of virgin plastic. We have already seen it. Legitimate scientific concerns concerning damage have been minimized by powerful interests repeatedly – with tobacco, PFA, asbestos and climate change.

Regarding plastics – in particular micro and nanoplastics now invading our body – consciousness and early action could make all the difference. But we can always act in our hands as consumers, to minimize exposure and reduce waste. If we act together, we can also send a powerful message to the plastic manufacturing industry.

Why do we need a plastic treaty?

An ambitious plastic treaty could have a positive and lasting impact on the environment and human health.

The Montreal Protocol, adopted in 1987 to eliminate the ozone depleting aerosols, is an excellent example of what can be done.

The original Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, however, was not ambitious enough. He had fewer signatories and his efficiency varied between countries. The plastic treaty is at a similar crossroads.

This treaty is a unique opportunity. It could ensure that harmful additives are disclosed, new materials have proven to be safe before use and upstream measurements – such as reducing production and simplification of plastic chemistry – are priority.

Dissect

A promising treaty project, broadcast in December after two years of negotiations, was revised at the end of the first week of the summit, then cut half the second week. All statements have been deleted.

Words such as “target”, “chemicals”, “harmful” and “eliminate” were absent. Article 19 – The one who approaches human health – was completely deleted. References to public awareness have disappeared from the waste management section.

It plans to overall remove specific products such as plastic bags and straws. The same goes for the section on the durable production and reduction objectives. There is no mention of worrying chemicals or transparency around additives. Even a basic language on the improvement of recycling rates, the prohibition to burn and the dumping at the opening or to encourage change in behavior has been removed.

On a positive note, the revised project always encourages innovation and research. But without guarantees, there are risk efforts will simply consist of finding gaps to dodge penalties. We have already seen it before: replacing a chemical prohibited by another non -regulated and just as harmful.

What can we do as a consumers?

In the absence of a strong treaty – at least for the moment – we should not underestimate the power and the influence that we have as consumers.

The industry responds to public demand. Just look at what happened with plastic microbeads. These tiny plastic pieces were once common in personal care products such as exfoliants, body scrubs and toothpaste. But when people started to reject products containing microbeads, recognizing them as a source of microplastics, the manufacturers have taken note.

Governments also intervened. The Netherlands were the first country to ban them, soon followed by many others. Finally, the manufacturers expelled plastic microbeads from their product ranges worldwide.

This change was largely driven by popular pressure. It is a small victory, but a reminder – a reminder that our choices can make a difference.

Did you know that some of the largest sources of microplastics are textiles and synthetic tires? Together, they contribute more than 60% of primary microplastics. Microplastics are released not only when an element is thrown and disintegrates in the oceans, but each time it is worn or washed.

Apparently small actions – such as the purchase of less clothes, the choice of natural fibers as far as possible, washing less often and walking or cycling instead of driving – can make a difference if we all act collectively.

It is also worth examining other sources of microplastics in our environment, to limit exposure. The carpets are generally made of synthetic fibers that constantly lose microplastics. Exhibition is significantly higher inside, including cars inside, another reason to walk.

Don’t wait for a treaty

Australia is not a large producer of raw polymers of fossil fuels. This may be partly why our nation is part of the high ambition coalition to end plastic pollution by 2040.

However, Australians consume more single -use plastic per capita than most other countries – more than 50 kilograms per person per year.

We do not need to wait for a treaty to start braking plastic pollution in our own life. If we have serious to change our tracks, manufacturers may have to take note.

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