… the possibility of a strong, health-centred treaty hangs in the balance. Campaigners, scientists and healthcare groups are pushing for strong measures to cap production and ban hazardous chemicals. But petrochemical producers and industry lobbyists are pushing back – arguing, against mounting evidence, that plastics are essential to saving lives.
…
The global plastics treaty is an unprecedented opportunity to take decisive, coordinated action to tackle one of the planet’s biggest threats. At stake in Geneva is whether health will stay at the heart of this treaty – or be sacrificed under pressure from industry and petrostates.
An interesting point of reference. The global population also now stands at more than 8 billion souls and counting.
Approximately 1,000 kg of plastic for each one of us. Although plastic use is far more a feature of life in some nations. Perhaps it’s more like 2-3 tonnes per person in Australia considering we are not that good at recycling plastics?
Assumes continued use is sustainable? This topic has been sharing content suggesting that in everyday use plastics are damaging our environment and accumulating in human tissues. Elimination is always the preferred reduction strategy in any hierarchy of control of unacceptable risk. Improved recycling is better than none. Lyrically “Washing Plastic” has something in common with “green washing”. Actions which are more about creating a feel good than delivering a sustainable and environmentally safe outcome. Is there any such thing as a safe plastic?
It’s unlikely we will find anyone living in a developed nation whose daily living is independent of modern plastics. From bicycle tyres to house paint.
With final negotiations underway in Geneva, hope is dimming that the most ambitious parts of the treaty, including caps on plastic production, can be achieved.
In letters circulated to a handful of countries on Monday, first reported by Reuters, the United States urged countries to reject a global pact that would limit plastic production and ban certain plastic chemicals.
It puts the US in direct opposition to more than 100 countries — including Australia — who are pursuing the most ambitious form of a legally binding treaty.
…
Ahead of the treaty’s expected finalisation, The Lancet has launched a global monitoring system on plastics to track progress toward reducing plastic exposure.
It offers a grim starting point.
“The presence of multiple widely used plastic chemicals [have been found] in the bodies of nearly all people examined, including newborn infants and pregnant women. Microplastic and nanoplastic particles are increasingly reported in human biological specimens, including blood, breastmilk, liver, kidney, colon, placenta, lung, spleen, brain, and heart in populations worldwide,” researchers said.
“The world is in a plastics crisis. This crisis has worsened alongside the other planetary threats of our time and is contributing to climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss.”
Another reminder that what we have already put into the environment. More than just a simple question to answer.
Some of the microplastic comes from failures to manage waste. Some comes from everyday use - the dust and lint in the room air shed from clothing and furnishings, to that accumulating in our water and soils from vehicular tyre wear.
To suggest those who preference organic certified spray free plant produce or meat products from untreated (hormone and vaccination free) animals will also find microplastics in every food source they now consume.
Opening statement on behalf of ‘like minded countries’
We firmly believe that solutions should be framed on sustainable development and the approaches of circularity. Furthermore, the broad and diverse national circumstances will require nationally driven approaches in tackling plastic pollution. Therefore, the assumption that plastic is problematic globally is not an inclusive one. In addition, waste management and recovery are key drivers of circularity and reduction of pollution. We must not forget that these transformative materials also play a significant role in society by contributing to advancements in healthcare, food safety, and technology. From life-saving medical devices to lightweight materials that reduce emissions in transportation, plastics enable critical infrastructure and innovation while supporting the global transition to more sustainable energy systems. Therefore, any policies within the ILBI on plastic pollution should be thoroughly discussed on its adverse effects on socio-economic development and progression toward sustainable development.
It is a fact that hospitals rely heavily on plastic items for hygiene and disinfection: single use personal protective equipment, medical devices, packaging..although these contribute greatly to hospital waste, they are also valued for maintaining sterilisation, for cost effectiveness and versatility.
Will be interesting to see the results of the meeting in Geneva..
years ago hospitals used mainly glass items that could be sterilised, staff changed into uniforms at work and were not permitted to wear them off site, staff had several sets of uniform provided so they could change as necessary, and laundry/sterilisation was done at hospitals. Maybe its time to go back to this.
Talks aimed at striking a landmark global treaty on plastic pollution have fallen apart without agreement.
Talks ultimately failed to find common ground between nations wanting bold action, such as curbing plastic production, and oil-producing states preferring to focus more narrowly on waste management.
What’s next?
Several countries voiced bitter disappointment as the talks unravelled, but said they were prepared for future negotiations — despite six rounds of talks over three years.
Participating at the Geneva convention were ‘Like-minded groups’ consisting mainly of oil-producing nations opposed to minimising plastic productions. They are in favour of recycling and of waste management. It was doubtful from the start that a consensus would be reached, sadly..
Main point was the use of plastic items in hospitals and for medical purposes: for hygiene and disinfection, versatility, cost effectiveness, ability to maintain sterility, single use personal protective equipment, medical devices….
Not the only point made in support of continued exploitation of plastics. Is it a disingenuous argument made by a minority present? IE To suggest the positive outcomes of the use of plastics for medical purposes justifies continuing to accept from all other uses the global environmental damage and contamination of all life forms.
Note:
The global medical plastics market is currently worth US$22.26 billion, or 2% of total plastics production by value, and is growing by 6.1% per year.
Medical use plastics are priced at a premium necessary to meet stringent health standards. To expect the physical volume of global plastics product used for medical purposes is significantly less than 2%.
To ask why only a token agreement was forthcoming on the other 98%. The views of a minority of nations with significant economic interests in continuing to enable production. Asking why impose a penalty on their economic development? It’s not their problem to solve. They seem happy to supply for as long as there are willing customers.
France’s Ecological Transition Minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher said: “I am disappointed, and I am angry,” saying a handful of countries, “guided by short-term financial interests”, had blocked the adoption of an ambitious treaty.
Whether some such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia, and Bahrain qualify as impoverished developing third world countries - varying views?
P.S. Those who have suffered severe consequences through medical procedures using implanted plastic mesh products are evidence that medical use can also be a risk.
