Kako bi globalna pogodba lahko rešila krizo plastičnih odpadkov | Greenbiz

Naslednji teden se bo v Parizu pod pokroviteljstvom Združenih narodov zbralo srečanje držav, poslovnih skupin in aktivistov, da bi pospešili pogodbo, katere cilj je omejiti onesnaževanje s plastiko po vsem svetu.

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 odpadki iz plastike, vključno s prazno embalažo in drugim detritom, ki je že preplavil svetovne pokrajine in vodne poti.

Iskanje a Globalna pogodba o onesnaževanju s plastiko, pravno zavezujoč sporazum, je bil sklenjen konec lanskega leta na Prvo zasedanje Medvladnega pogajalskega odbora o onesnaževanju s plastiko, v jeziku ZN znan kot INC-1. Nadaljnji sestanek, INC-2, se začne 29. maja. Poskušal se bo osredotočiti na kočljiva vprašanja, ki bi jih morala obravnavati pogodba. Cilj je, da bo končni osnutek pripravljen za ratifikacijo leta 2024.

Med temi kočljivimi vprašanji je po mnenju a dokument ZN 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 neformalnem sektorju odpadkov” in developing economies. (Hyperlink added.)

It seems we’ve come a long way from the days, not very long ago, of razburjenje nad plastičnimi slamicami.

Pogodba je del naraščajočega vala zaskrbljenosti vlagateljev, regulatorjev, aktivistov in blagovnih znamk glede vpliva plastike na okolje in zdravje ljudi. Lani je na primer na Amazonovi letni skupščini nekaj manj kot večina – 48 odstotkov – delničarjev glasovala za sklep, predložen aktivistična skupina As You Sow, ki je od velikana e-trgovine zahtevala, naj razkrije svojo naraščajočo uporabo plastične embalaže.

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

Ta mesec, kot moj kolega Jesse Klein poročali, 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 “Globalna perspektiva plastike: politični scenariji do leta 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 “Zapiranje pipe: Kako lahko svet odpravi onesnaževanje s plastiko in ustvari krožno gospodarstvo,” 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 “Razgradnja plastičnih izdelkov z visokim tveganjem: ocena tveganja onesnaženja in izvedljivosti odprave plastičnih izdelkov,” 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.”

Ponudba ali povpraševanje?

Torej, kako bi lahko globalna pogodba spremenila igro? Pred kratkim sem prosil več opazovalcev, ki spremljajo to vprašanje, naj pretehtajo možnosti za pogodbo in kaj bo morala storiti, da bi ukrivila krivuljo rasti porabe plastike in odpadkov.

“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, V naravi ni plastike, 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.”

Obstajata dva osnovna pristopa, je pojasnil Duncan: ponudba in povpraševanje. Pobude na strani ponudbe vključujejo omejevanje proizvodnje, povečanje dobave predelane plastike in izboljšanje trajnosti plastike ter alternativnih materialov in izdelkov.

“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.”

Uravnoteženje enačbe med ponudbo in povpraševanjem bo ena od hudih težav, s katerimi se soočajo pogajalci pogodbe.

Na strani povpraševanja rešitve vključujejo pomoč pri povečanju povpraševanja po reciklirani plastiki in izenačenje konkurenčnih pogojev – cene in zmogljivosti – med neobdelano in reciklirano plastiko. To bi lahko vključevalo kombinacijo davkov na neobdelane materiale, standarde reciklirane vsebine, ciljno usmerjene zahteve glede javnih naročil in izobraževanje potrošnikov.

Uravnoteženje enačbe med ponudbo in povpraševanjem bo ena od hudih težav, s katerimi se soočajo pogajalci pogodbe.

Montreal ali Pariz?

Drugo ključno vprašanje je: ali naj bo pristop pogodbe ozko osredotočen, kot je bil pri pogodbi iz leta 1987. Montrealski protokol o snoveh, ki tanjšajo ozonski plašč, ki je večinoma opustil proizvodnjo in uporabo kemikalij, ki tanjšajo ozonski plašč, ali širše, kot leta 2015 Sporazum Paris o podnebnih spremembah?

Za vsakega so plusi in minusi.

Montrealski protokol se je osredotočil na eno samo kategorijo kemikalij, katerih uporaba je bila skoraj v celoti med podjetji. Imela je nedvoumen cilj: odpraviti proizvodnjo in uporabo ozonu škodljivih snovi.

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.

Nasprotno pa je pariški sporazum postavil široke cilje glede osupljivega dela svetovnega gospodarstva, od proizvodnje električne energije in kmetijstva do transporta in grajenega okolja, ki vključuje vedenje podjetij in potrošnikov. Zanaša se na to, da bo vsaka država ustvarila svoj načrt in postavila lastne cilje – ne glede na to, da vsota teh ciljev ne ustreza nujno navedenim ciljem pogodbe. Kljub temu je vsak narod vključil v obravnavanje in v nekaterih primerih ponovno odkrivanje širokega spektra gospodarskih dejavnosti.

“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 Sodelavec GreenBiz), 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.”

V tem je dilema: Montrealski cilj je bil jasen in osredotočen na majhen nabor kemikalij; pariški pristop je širok, prilagodljiv in predmet izvajanja (in razlage) vsake države ali podnacionalne entitete.

Kateri je najboljši pristop za plastiko? To bodo morali rešiti delegati INC-2 in njihovi vplivneži v Parizu.

Seveda bodo tako aktivisti kot poslovni interesi – proizvajalci fosilnih goriv in kemikalij ter velike blagovne znamke – v polnem obsegu poskušali oblikovati pogovor. Na INC-2 v Punta del Este v Urugvaju decembra, ki se je ukvarjal predvsem s postopkovnimi zadevami, so aktivisti opozoril “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.”

Naslednji teden se bo ta spopad med aktivisti in podjetji verjetno nadaljeval. Zanimivo bo gledati.

Poslovni odziv

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.”

Kot del svoje vloge pri WWF je Duncan sovodja sekretariata Poslovne koalicije za globalno pogodbo o plastiki, ki predstavlja več kot 80 finančnih institucij, neprofitnih organizacij in podjetij iz celotne vrednostne verige plastike, ki so se povezala na skupna vizija. 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.”

Druge poslovne skupine niso tako navdušene nad rešitvami, ki zavirajo proizvodnjo plastike. Vključujejo Ameriški svet za kemijo (ACC), katerega člani predstavljajo velika kemična in naftna podjetja. Kot Poroča Reuters 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.”

Druga skupina, Globalni partnerji za krožnost plastike, 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.

Povedati je treba, da so industrijske koalicije pogosto klavrno propadel pri zagotavljanju vsebinskih in učinkovitih rešitev za plastično krizo. In to še posebej velja za koalicije, ki jih vodijo industrije, ki so ustvarile problem, ki ga je treba rešiti.

Kot je nedavno v glasilu zapisala Jeva Lange Dnevna toplotna karta, “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.

Odziv podjetij dodatno otežuje dejstvo, da ni jasno, koliko zavez vodilnih blagovnih znamk za zmanjšanje ali odpravo plastičnih odpadkov je na dobri poti.  

“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.”

To pomanjkanje podatkov in povezava plastike s podnebno krizo je tisto, zaradi česar je CDP sprožil svojo nedavno pobudo za razkritje plastike, je dejal 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.

Tisti, ki se bodo naslednji teden zbrali v Parizu, bodo morali ugotoviti, ali in kako lahko plastika doseže enakost s podnebjem in biotsko raznovrstnostjo kot ključni vprašanji, vredni globalne pogodbe. Kritiki, kot je Doug Woodring, že opozarjajo na pomanjkljivosti pogodbenega pristopa.

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.”

Toda tudi kritiki vidijo upanje v pogajanjih o pogodbi naslednji teden.

“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.”

• Distribucija vsebine in PR s pomočjo SEO. Okrepite se še danes.
• PlatoAiStream. Podatkovna inteligenca Web3. Razširjeno znanje. Dostopite tukaj.
• Kovanje prihodnosti z Adryenn Ashley. Dostopite tukaj.
• Kupujte in prodajajte delnice podjetij pred IPO s PREIPO®. Dostopite tukaj.
• vir: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-global-treaty-could-solve-plastic-waste-crisis