A treaty not yet signed but already limited? While 175 countries are currently in Paris to negotiate a future treaty against plastic pollution, the United States makes it known that the future text should not “demonize” this matter.
“The United States wants to reach an ambitious international agreement that will end discharges into the environment by 2040”, as announced by the G7, “and which takes into account the different needs of each country”, confides to Jose W. Fernandez, US Under-Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment, came to Paris to lead a team of 40 negotiators.
For the future treaty, whose NGOs are concerned about the real effectiveness, “we advocate a flexible approach, as opposed to a prescriptive approach that would say this is what to do”, warns Jose W. Fernandez during an interview at the embassy, before the resumption Monday of delicate negotiations with 175 countries, supposed to lead by the end of 2024.
“This is one of the environmental challenges of our time and it is a priority for us,” added the American official. “It’s also a matter of justice because in many cases it’s the poor countries that suffer,” says Jose W. Fernandez.
It recognizes the “need for financial support” and underlines the responsibility of Westerners “among the main producers and consumers of plastic”. While arguing about the quality of the American collection system: “we are the source of less than 1% of ocean pollution”.
The world’s largest consumer of plastic per capita, the United States generates 20% of the 353 million tonnes of annual plastic waste worldwide, according to 2019 figures from the OECD. That they mostly eliminate by landfilling.
“Each country must be clear about the objective. Then, we should leave it to each country to chart its course,” he sums up. “We are also very keen that the treaties are always open to innovation”.
The legal scope of the text is also in its sights: “Even within the Coalition for High Ambition, some are of the opinion that one part of the treaty is legally binding and another is not”, welcomes he.
“The life cycle and overall life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of plastics are often lower than those of other sources such as glass or steel,” said the Minister. Plastic accounts for 3.4% of global emissions, a figure that could more than double in the future.
The American plastics industry, which notably includes the giants ExxonMobil and Dow Chemical, weighs tens of billions of dollars in the United States. And the US government intends to defend the benefits of polymers.
“The life cycle and overall life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of plastics are often lower than those of other sources such as glass or steel,” said the minister. Plastic accounts for 3.4% of global emissions, a figure that could more than double in the future.
“Plastics are also lighter, with a lower carbon footprint in terms of transport”, further defends Jose W. Fernandez.
The toxic risks, linked to the thousands of additives suspected of being carcinogenic? “These situations may not exist in a particular country”, and should therefore be dealt with at the national level, he judges.
“There are uses of plastic that will be difficult to replace in the short term, in planes, automobiles, etc.”, he recalls, before concluding: “Let’s not demonize the invention of plastic”.