Negotiations on a treaty to end plastic pollution have stalled. Representatives of 175 countries, gathered at UNESCO headquarters in Paris for a second round of negotiations, failed to finalize the text.
The stakes are high because plastic is an integral part of our daily lives. Mainly in packaging (44% of jobs), but also in electronics, automotive and building, with construction accounting for 18% of jobs. However, UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) has made a great effort to track the trade in plastics throughout their life cycle. Verdict: The global plastics trade displaces $1 trillion a year, or “5% of global merchandise trade.”
In quantitative terms, UNCTAD estimates that in 2021, 369 million tonnes of plastic will be traded worldwide. This would fill “more than 18 million trucks”, a “queue that goes around the world 13 times”.
Production figures from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) are 460 million tonnes in 2019. It has doubled in 20 years, and the amount of waste has increased even faster.
Who produces and who sells what?
By 2021, according to Plastic Europe, China will have produced almost a third of all plastics from polymerization and recycling. According to UNCTAD, it is also the leading importer of primary plastic materials and the leading exporter of intermediate manufactured products.
The United States, the world’s largest consumer per capita, leads in primary plastics exports along with the European Union, South Korea and Saudi Arabia.
This common ground does not preclude differences of opinion during negotiations. The European Union is a member of the “High Ambition Coalition”, a group of 56 countries led by Rwanda and Norway, which primarily advocates the reduction of production.
The United States, where the plastics industry moves billions, and China are focusing more on recycling, an approach criticized by NGOs who say it encourages consumption when two-thirds of plastic production already have a short lifespan.
Saudi Arabia and OPEC countries in general are also proponents of recycling. Already faced with the challenge of energy transition, this would allow them to further protect their petrochemical industry.
Oil-producing countries like Canada and Norway are also members of the High Ambition Coalition.
A cost to society
A cost not so easy to determine. Estimates vary by study and calculation method. The WWF estimates the cost of plastic management to society, the environment and the economy at around $3.7 trillion for 2019, more than India’s GDP, with a margin of error that the NGO recognizes very important. A very significant part of this sum is linked to marine pollution. The WWF also estimates the damage caused by greenhouse gases emitted during the life cycle of plastic products at $171 billion.
Another approach, linked to the cost of the solutions, is that advocated by the university research center of the Center for Cultures, Environments, Arctic, Representations and Climate (CEARC). “According to Mateo Cordier, researcher at Cearc at Saint-Quentin en Yvelines University-Paris Saclay University, “cleaning up ecosystems, reducing production and replacing them with alternative products would cost between 12,000 and 18,000 billion dollars over the period 2016-2040”. . This figure is “probably overestimated”, admits the researcher, because it does not take into account the revenue generated by these solutions. And there is.
Alternative solutions
For example, through the development of substitute materials. UNCTAD, citing bamboo, bananas and seaweed, sees huge potential in this market. In 2020, trade in plastic substitutes and their products was, by value, only “one-third of trade in plastic products made from fossil fuels”. UNCTAD calls for “the removal of barriers”, noting for example that plastic straws are taxed less than paper straws. However, ZeroWasteFrance warns that “replacing plastic completely, without questioning its unique use, would have counterproductive effects”.
In a recent report, the United Nations Environment Program advocates for a transition to a circular economy and wants to empower producers in the elimination of microplastics. The recommended systemic changes would create jobs, especially in low-income countries. For that, you have to invest. But the cost of action ($65 billion per year) would be much lower than the cost of inaction ($113 billion per year).
Source: Latercera
I’m Rose Brown , a journalist and writer with over 10 years of experience in the news industry. I specialize in covering tennis-related news for Athletistic, a leading sports media website. My writing is highly regarded for its quick turnaround and accuracy, as well as my ability to tell compelling stories about the sport.
