They weren't really trying. Once you give oil-producing states a veto the result is obvious. If they were serious, EU and others would negotiate a separate treaty and then maybe get others to join.
> ... senior policy officer for the U.S. nonprofit Society of Native Nations, which has advocated that the treaty include specific language on Indigenous peoples’ rights and the use of Indigenous science.
Plastics aren't a problem if people actually put them in the bin, and they are buried / recycled / burned. The problem is littering and poor waste management.
You can solve plastic pollution in two ways. Either crackdown on inappropriate waste disposal, or eliminate the use of plastics. One is actually possible, the other isn't.
Edit: although to be fair there are a range of "harm reduction" type measures. But if you focus on those, you might solve 10% of the problem and just drain energy from actually solving waste management.
> A norm around consensus-based decision-making discouraged compromise from all countries
So, a maladaptive systemic influence was noted, but they continued to focus on lower-level discussions around plastics. When will we start to see that it is the communication protocols that are driving this failure, and that good-faith bargaining is a fallacy, when there is profit to be made? I would like to know how this is being addressed, and which other proposals have been made that represent alternative routes to progress - specifically ones that do not require vested interest to forego their short-term benefits in favour of others' long-term needs.
> But only one speaker was able to give a statement before the United States and Kuwait asked the chair to cut them off and conclude the meeting
If the observers' voices are so important, why schedule them for the very end? Yet another structural failing that demonstrates that the scale of thinking and organisation being employed is insufficient for the stated task.
It’s a bit frustrating how difficult (near impossible) it can be to not buy plastic products. I try to avoid it as much as possible but more often than not, the only option (other than not being a consumer) is to purchase a product contained in plastic.
I’ll use the simple example of dental floss. When I was younger, you could purchase dental floss in a small circular metal container. Today, almost every option of dental floss available for purchase is in an often oversized / non-recyclable plastic container with non-recyclable plastic packaging.
This actually prompted me to once again go on the hunt for that little metal container of dental floss from my youth, and I actually found an option! A US company called Poh sells dental floss in metal container. Just thought I’d share, for anyone else that is dumbfounded when they have to buy more plastic wrapped plastic products to practice good dental hygiene.
If you profit from the problem, you shall not get a vote on the solution. Especially when we are talking on a commonwealth problem.
---
A "like-minded group" of oil states (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain, Russia) refused to accept:
- Legally binding obligations to reduce plastic production
- Mandatory phaseouts of hazardous chemicals
- Disclosure requirements
- Any controls on new plastic production
I mean does anyone expected anything like this to happen?
---
And here's the biggest joke:
Taxpayers around the world are funding all of this. Countries should represent their citizens' interests, right? So taxpayers collectively spend tens of millions to send their representatives, only to get this unexpected result. Saudi Arabia, Russia, and co. blocked the agreement.
Nations simply need to lead by example and reject plastic waste. That certainly won't happen until at least 2029 in USA, if ever. If USA still exists then.
Plastics are one of the greatest modern inventions today. It’s saved literally millions of lives and makes possible countless things in manufacturing that previously literally could not exist. It’s probably the single greatest contributor to reducing human climate change of any other invention (by drastically reducing packaging weight and thus transportation costs around fuel).
It’s not without downsides, but too often people just say “plastic sucks” (or equivalent) without thinking of what a world without plastics would look like. A de-growther’s dream perhaps, but everyone else’s nightmare.
Aside from the ocean problem, nations could take action on these items themselves in many cases. Require the chemical lists, chemical phaseout, restrict production and import, etc.
So the UN keeps drafting "repulsive" plans, then accuses "oil states" of "thwarting" the agreements to reduce plastic pollution?
Sounds like a failure of basic leadership and negotiation skills. This sort of one-sided extremism only creates division. It's a lack of wisdom on part of the UN.
Good. Plastics are one of those technologies that have been maligned incorrectly and now we cannot be reasonable about it.
We are not even looking at e.g removing plastics from the ocean, because that would force us to come to terms with the inconvinient truth that most of the plastic is from a few rivers in poor areas (basically it is been used as a self emptying trash system) and used up fishing nets.
There are solutions for these problems, but the ones like banning plastic straws simply do not address this problem.
17 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 33.6 ms ] threadPut tarrifs on all trade with non compliant nations and their partners.
It's not just the oil states, it's almost all of them.
What is indigenous science?
You can solve plastic pollution in two ways. Either crackdown on inappropriate waste disposal, or eliminate the use of plastics. One is actually possible, the other isn't.
Edit: although to be fair there are a range of "harm reduction" type measures. But if you focus on those, you might solve 10% of the problem and just drain energy from actually solving waste management.
So, a maladaptive systemic influence was noted, but they continued to focus on lower-level discussions around plastics. When will we start to see that it is the communication protocols that are driving this failure, and that good-faith bargaining is a fallacy, when there is profit to be made? I would like to know how this is being addressed, and which other proposals have been made that represent alternative routes to progress - specifically ones that do not require vested interest to forego their short-term benefits in favour of others' long-term needs.
> But only one speaker was able to give a statement before the United States and Kuwait asked the chair to cut them off and conclude the meeting
If the observers' voices are so important, why schedule them for the very end? Yet another structural failing that demonstrates that the scale of thinking and organisation being employed is insufficient for the stated task.
I’ll use the simple example of dental floss. When I was younger, you could purchase dental floss in a small circular metal container. Today, almost every option of dental floss available for purchase is in an often oversized / non-recyclable plastic container with non-recyclable plastic packaging.
This actually prompted me to once again go on the hunt for that little metal container of dental floss from my youth, and I actually found an option! A US company called Poh sells dental floss in metal container. Just thought I’d share, for anyone else that is dumbfounded when they have to buy more plastic wrapped plastic products to practice good dental hygiene.
---
A "like-minded group" of oil states (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain, Russia) refused to accept:
- Legally binding obligations to reduce plastic production
- Mandatory phaseouts of hazardous chemicals
- Disclosure requirements
- Any controls on new plastic production
I mean does anyone expected anything like this to happen?
---
And here's the biggest joke:
Taxpayers around the world are funding all of this. Countries should represent their citizens' interests, right? So taxpayers collectively spend tens of millions to send their representatives, only to get this unexpected result. Saudi Arabia, Russia, and co. blocked the agreement.
It’s not without downsides, but too often people just say “plastic sucks” (or equivalent) without thinking of what a world without plastics would look like. A de-growther’s dream perhaps, but everyone else’s nightmare.
Sounds like a failure of basic leadership and negotiation skills. This sort of one-sided extremism only creates division. It's a lack of wisdom on part of the UN.
We are not even looking at e.g removing plastics from the ocean, because that would force us to come to terms with the inconvinient truth that most of the plastic is from a few rivers in poor areas (basically it is been used as a self emptying trash system) and used up fishing nets.
There are solutions for these problems, but the ones like banning plastic straws simply do not address this problem.