Kuidas ülemaailmne leping lahendaks plastijäätmete kriisi | Greenbiz

Kuidas ülemaailmne leping lahendaks plastijäätmete kriisi | Greenbiz

Ajatempel: 22. mai 2023 kell 5:11
Allikasõlm: 2669708

Järgmisel nädalal koguneb Pariisis ÜRO rahastatud rahvaste, ärirühmade ja aktivistide kogunemine, et edendada lepingut, mille eesmärk on piirata plastireostust kogu maailmas.

If done thoughtfully and comprehensively, the treaty could be a game-changer. But that’s a two-liter-sized “if.” The open question is whether the measures being considered are sufficient to stem the still-growing tide — or is it a tsunami now? — of plastjäätmete, sealhulgas tühjad pakendid ja muu praht, mis juba üle maailma maastikud ja veeteed valdab.

Püüdlus a Ülemaailmne plastireostuse leping, õiguslikult siduv leping, käivitati eelmise aasta lõpus Plastreostust käsitleva valitsustevahelise läbirääkimiskomitee esimene istung, mida ÜRO kõnepruugis tuntakse kui INC-1. Järelkohtumine, INC-2, algab 29. mail. See püüab nullida keerulised küsimused, mida leping peaks käsitlema. Eesmärk on saada lõplik eelnõu ratifitseerimiseks valmis 2024. aastal.

Nende keeruliste küsimuste hulgas on a ÜRO dokument issued in April: potentially banning or phasing out certain polymers and plastics; reducing the dispersion of microplastics into the air, water and soil; encouraging circular designs of products and packaging; cleaning up plastics already in the environment; and facilitating a just transition, “including an inclusive transition of the mitteametlik jäätmesektor” in developing economies. (Hyperlink added.)

It seems we’ve come a long way from the days, not very long ago, of plastmassist õlgede üle näägutamine.

Leping on osa investorite, seadusandjate, aktivistide ja kaubamärkide kasvavast murelainest plasti mõju pärast keskkonnale ja inimeste tervisele. Näiteks eelmisel aastal hääletas Amazoni korralisel üldkoosolekul veidi alla enamuse – 48 protsenti – aktsionäridest otsuse poolt. esitatud aktivistide rühmitus As You Sow, paludes e-kaubanduse hiiglasel avalikustada oma kasvavat plastpakendite kasutamist.

We’ve come a long way from the days, not very long ago, of fretting over plastic straws.

Sel kuul nagu mu kolleeg Jesse Klein teatatud, the advocacy group CDP announced it will start collecting data about companies’ use of plastics in order to provide greater visibility over how they are contributing to the plastic waste crisis. Companies are being asked to disclose their “most problematic” production and use of plastic polymers, durable plastics and plastic packaging.

All this is taking place at a time when the production and consumption of plastics continues its unyielding growth. Global plastics production doubled during the first two decades of the 21st century, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. According to its “Global Plastics Outlook: poliitikastsenaariumid aastani 2060,” plastic waste is on track to nearly triple by 2060 worldwide, with around half going into landfill and less than a fifth recycled.

Wrote the report’s authors: “Without radical action to curb demand, increase product lifespans and improve waste management and recyclability, plastic pollution will rise in tandem with an almost threefold increase in plastics use driven by rising populations and incomes.” The report estimated that almost two-thirds of plastic waste in 2060 will be from short-lived items such as packaging, low-cost goods and textiles.

The runup to INC-2 has seen the publication of other reports on the plastics problems. Last week, the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) published “Kraani väljalülitamine: kuidas maailm saab lõpetada plastireostuse ja luua ringmajanduse,” examining the economic and business models needed to address plastics’ impacts, from reuse to sustainable plastic alternatives. Also last week, the advocacy group WWF published “Kõrge riskiga plasttoodete lagundamine: saasteohu hindamine ja plasttoodete kõrvaldamise teostatavuse hindamine,” which aimed “to identify and prioritize plastic product groups with the highest pollution risk, and the control measures that would be most suitable to address them.”

Pakkumine või nõudlus?

Niisiis, kuidas saaks ülemaailmne leping mängu muuta? Palusin hiljuti mitmel seda probleemi jälgivatel vaatlejatel kaaluda lepingu väljavaateid ja seda, mida ta peab tegema, et painutada plastitarbimise ja -jäätmete kasvukõverat.

“The argument behind why we need a treaty is that you have this globally traded commodity and everyone’s playing by a different set of rules,” John Duncan, who leads WWF’s global initiative, Looduses pole plastikut, explained to me. “So, I think the logic for a global treaty, to bring about standardization and create global rules and a level playing field, is very important.”

Duncan selgitas, et on kaks peamist lähenemisviisi: pakkumine ja nõudlus. Tarnepoolsed algatused hõlmavad tootmisele piiride seadmist, taaskasutatud plastide pakkumise suurendamist ning plastide ja alternatiivsete materjalide ja toodete jätkusuutlikkuse parandamist.

“That’s quite challenging,” Duncan said. Among other things, it requires improving recycling systems, which have been notoriously bad at collecting and processing most types of plastic. “You could be shooting yourself in the foot by trying to tackle it from a supply-side approach.”

Broad-based bans are similarly problematic, Duncan said. “It’s easy to default to, ‘Plastic is the devil and we need to get rid of it.’ I think that’s a very naive approach. Plastic has a number of very important applications but we have broadly lost sight of what those applications are.”

Nõudluse ja pakkumise võrrandi tasakaalustamine on üks õelamaid probleeme, millega lepingute läbirääkijad silmitsi seisavad.

Nõudluse poolel hõlmavad lahendused aitamist suurendada nõudlust ringlussevõetud plastide järele ning ühtlustada konkurentsitingimusi – hinda ja jõudlust – kasutamata ja taaskasutatud plastide vahel. See võib hõlmata teatavat kombinatsiooni esmase materjali maksudest, ringlussevõetud sisu standarditest, sihipärastest hankenõuetest ja tarbijaharidusest.

Nõudluse ja pakkumise võrrandi tasakaalustamine on üks õelamaid probleeme, millega lepingute läbirääkijad silmitsi seisavad.

Montreal või Pariis?

Teine võtmeküsimus on järgmine: kas lepingu lähenemisviis peaks olema kitsalt keskendunud, nagu 1987. aasta puhul Montreali protokoll osoonikihti kahandavate ainete kohta, mis on suures osas lõpetanud osoonikihti kahandavate kemikaalide tootmise ja kasutamise või laiemalt, nagu 2015.a. Paris lepingu kliimamuutuste kohta?

Igaühel on plusse ja miinuseid.

Montreali protokoll keskendus ühele kemikaalide kategooriale, mille kasutamine oli peaaegu täielikult ettevõtetevaheline. Sellel oli ühemõtteline eesmärk: kaotada osoonikihti kahandavate ainete tootmine ja kasutamine.

The process worked. “We have the thickest ozone level layer that we’ve had for 100 years because we just actually did it,” Duncan noted.

Seevastu Pariisi leping seadis laiaulatuslikud eesmärgid maailmamajanduse mõistusevastasele ringile, alates elektritootmisest ja põllumajandusest kuni transpordi ja ehitatud keskkonnani, hõlmates nii äri- kui ka tarbijakäitumist. Ta loodab, et iga riik koostab oma tegevuskava ja seab oma eesmärgid – ärge unustage, et nende eesmärkide summa ei pruugi tingimata olla lepingus seatud eesmärkidega. Sellegipoolest kaasati kõik riigid paljude majandustegevuste käsitlemisse ja mõnel juhul taasleiutamisse.

“With plastic, every single industry in the world uses it for something,” Doug Woodring, founder and managing director of the Ocean Recovery Alliance (and an occasional GreenBizi kaastööline), explained. “There are too many types, there’s no standardization and it’s spread across the world to consumers, so it’s very different than controlling the tap, which is what Montreal was about.”

Selles peitubki dilemma: Montreali eesmärk oli selge ja keskendus väikesele kemikaalide komplektile; Pariisi lähenemisviis on lai, paindlik ja iga riik või piirkondlik üksus on rakendatav (ja tõlgendatav).

Milline on parim viis plasti jaoks? Selle lahendavad INC-2 delegaadid ja nende mõjutajad Pariisis.

Muidugi on nii aktivistid kui ka ärihuvid – fossiilkütuste ja kemikaalide tootjad ning suuremad kaubamärgid – täies jõus, et vestlust kujundada. detsembril Uruguays Punta del Estes asuvas INC-2-s, mis tegeles peamiselt protseduuriliste küsimustega, aktivistid. hädaldas “the presence of leading corporate polluters in the negotiation process and the lack of transparency from [UNEP] on how many of them are hiding behind NGO badges.”

Järgmisel nädalal jätkub tõenäoliselt see aktivistide ja ettevõtete vastasseis. Seda saab olema huvitav vaadata.

Ärireaktsioon

Companies have ample reason to both advance and forestall a global treaty. “A lot of the challenges that companies face is that each country has a pipeline of five to 10 or 15 regulations, sometimes going in very different directions,” WWF’s Duncan said. “Some places are pushing for biodegradable or bio-based plastics, some are banning plastics. I think companies are saying, ‘It’s actually cheaper if we could have a system that harmonized all these things.’ It would make a hell of a lot of sense.”

Osana oma rollist WWF-is on Duncan ülemaailmse plastilepingu ärikoalitsiooni sekretariaadi kaasjuht, mis esindab enam kui 80 finantsasutust, mittetulundusühingut ja ettevõtet kogu plasti väärtusahelast, mis on ühtlustatud jagatud nägemus. They view the treaty as key to accelerating progress in three areas: reducing plastic production and use through a circular economy approach; increasing the circulation “of all necessary plastics”; and preventing and remediating “hard-to-abate micro- and macro-plastic leakage into the environment.”

Teised ärigrupid ei ole plastitootmist ohjeldavate lahenduste osas nii kirglikud. Nende hulka kuulub Ameerika Keemianõukogu (ACC), mille liikmed esindavad suuri keemia- ja naftaettevõtteid. Nagu Reuters teatas last year: “The Washington-based ACC is attempting to forge a coalition of big businesses to help steer treaty discussions away from production restrictions, according to an Oct. 21 e-mail sent from the trade group to a blind-copied list of recipients.”

Teine rühm, Plastiringluse ülemaailmsed partnerid, a collaboration of the International Council of Chemical Associations (“the global voice of the chemical industry”), is advocating for a circular economy “in which plastic products and packaging are sustainably reused or recycled instead of discarded, enabled by a global agreement that unlocks industry innovation and global investment in plastics circularity.” That is, its primary focus is on end-of-pipe solutions — the disposition of plastic at the end of its useful life, as opposed to reducing plastic use altogether or developing non-polluting alternatives.

Peab ütlema, et tööstuskoalitsioonidel on seda sageli tehtud õnnestus õnnetult plastikriisile sisuliste ja tõhusate lahenduste pakkumisel. Ja see kehtib eriti koalitsioonide kohta, mida juhivad tööstused, mis tekitasid lahendamist vajava probleemi.

Nagu Jeva Lange hiljuti uudiskirjas kirjutas Kuumakaart iga päev, “Plastics are the fossil fuel industry’s last stand.”

“The challenge is that, at the treaty level, what we have to overcome is individual states or companies fighting for their own specific interests, as opposed to looking at the bigger picture,” said Duncan. Moreover, he said, “We typically look at the costs associated with change and struggle to understand the opportunities associated with that change.”

It’s naive to look at it just as a waste problem because it’s not. It’s a systems problem.

Ettevõtete reageerimist raskendab veelgi asjaolu, et pole selge, kui palju juhtivate kaubamärkide võetud kohustusi plastijäätmete vähendamiseks või kõrvaldamiseks on õigel teel.  

“Unfortunately, there hasn’t been a lot of progress,” Simon Fischweicher, head of corporations and supply chains at CDP North America, told me. “We’ve seen an increase in policy around single-use plastics. We’ve seen an increase in company commitment around single-use plastic. Yet we have not seen any decrease in plastic waste. In fact, we’ve only seen an increase in the amount of plastic production and waste. And we know that, at least in the United States, 85 percent of plastic ends up in the landfill. So, there really hasn’t been much progress in terms of recycling, reusing or reducing anything around single-use plastic.”

Andmete puudumine ja plasti seos kliimakriisiga on põhjus, miks CDP käivitas hiljutise plastide avalikustamise algatuse, ütles Fischweicher.

“We made the decision that in order to address the climate crisis, we needed to address the nature crisis, and that includes ocean health,” he explained. “Plastic pollution and microplastic particles are significantly damaging the health and biodiversity of our oceans, which serve as major carbon sinks and are critical for human society and nature overall.” The treaty, he said, could significantly advance that goal.

Järgmisel nädalal Pariisis kogunevate inimeste ülesanne on otsustada, kas ja kuidas suudavad plastid saavutada samaväärset kliimat ja bioloogilist mitmekesisust kui kriitilisi küsimusi, mis väärivad ülemaailmset lepingut. Juba praegu osutavad kriitikud, nagu Doug Woodring, aluslepingu lähenemisviisi puudustele.

For starters, Woodring told me, the treaty “doesn’t deal with existing inventory,” meaning “all of the stuff that is already out there, which could get recovered and repurposed in some manner, even if it’s for energy but also for concrete or asphalt or new materials that are plywood replacements.”

Moreover, he said, the proposed treaty is more about tweaking the existing system than reimagining it. “There’s no rethink on how to collect plastic in a better way and get it to the brands that have made huge commitments to use it. That’s the giant missing piece that is not being addressed.”

John Duncan agrees. “It’s naive to look at it just as a waste problem because it’s not. It’s a systems problem. You want the right materials to be used in the right places. And when they are being used in the right places, you need the right systems to manage them effectively.”

Kuid isegi kriitikud näevad järgmisel nädalal toimuvatel lepinguläbirääkimistel lootust.

“This is just stage two of a many-stage process,” Woodring said. “It’s not going to be the end of the treaty discussion. It’s just part of the process to get to the next meeting.” Indeed, the U.N. already has mapped out future meetings: INC-3 in November, in Kenya; INC-4 next spring, in Canada; and INC-5 in fall 2024, in South Korea.

Concluded Woodring: “I think there will be a lot of good things that come out of this regardless of what the final answer is.”

Ajatempel:

Veel alates Greenbiz