UN plastic summit ends without a deal: what now?
After ten days of intense negotiations in Geneva, representatives from around 180 countries were unable to agree on a UN internationally binding instrument on reducing plastic pollution. The efforts, which have been ongoing for three years, failed mainly due to resistance from oil-exporting states. European commentators examine the options for further action.
Levy taxes and reduce consumption
Europe must not use the failure to reach an agreement as an excuse for inaction, De Volkskrant warns:
“If the world isn't willing to produce less plastics, then countries of good will, such as those in Europe, must ensure that consumption drops. ... Europe wants to achieve a fully circular economy in which all raw materials are reused by 2050. This will only be possible if Europe does all it can to reduce consumption and if all countries impose the same taxes on plastic and pursue the same recycling strategy.”
Survival instinct must prevail against greed
People must stop turning a blind eye to this pressing issue, Ilta-Sanomat urges:
“As is typical when it comes to environmental problems, greed is still stronger than the survival instinct. The plastics summit didn't receive the international attention it deserved. This is because lengthy processes aimed at solving environmental problems are not as interesting as acute crises and wars. However we must never forget that the flood of plastic and its consequences are omnipresent.”
Microplastics filtering for the rich
The Süddeutsche Zeitung notes:
“It's the same scenario as in the debate on climate change. Here, too, the production and consumption of petroleum, natural gas and coal is the problem, but this business generates so much money that no one wants to stop. And they certainly don't want to be the first to stop because it would be terrible if your neighbour were suddenly richer than you. ... But the plastic crisis offers a way out, of sorts. Scientists at the University of Dresden have provided initial evidence that microplastics can be filtered out of the body through blood washing. The researchers found and removed several plastic substances from 21 individuals. A ray of hope - for those who can afford it.”
No agreement better than a weak one
The Guardian is anything but surprised:
“The insistence on a consensus decision allowed a minority to prevent the action needed. It is deeply disappointing that no agreement could be reached, and that none lies in sight, though perhaps not surprising, especially when diplomacy and multilateralism are struggling more generally. Many of those attending concluded that no deal was better than a weak one which might allow the pressure for real change to dissipate. They will continue their push. ... We cannot afford to despair.”
Giving up not an option
Reaching a deal will require perseverance, the Tages-Anzeiger stresses:
“It's tragic that the world still has no agreement on plastic waste. ... But with a problem that is getting bigger and bigger, giving up is not an option. An agreement that affects so many interests requires stamina. So it's only right that many countries want to continue negotiations. As long as talks are ongoing there is hope that a favourable moment for an effective treaty will come. The motto must be: stay on it.”
Learn from failures and carry on
Humanity can get the plastic problem under control despite the failed conference in Geneva, Der Tagesspiegel is convinced:
“If not everyone wants to join in, let's form a 'coalition of the willing'. ... It doesn't take magic or even major sacrifices, just common sense. Plastic can be produced in a sensible, targeted way that doesn't threaten prosperity or convenience and coupled with effective, economically viable recycling systems. This would also create jobs. The technologies already exist, and better ones are in development. It's better that there is no agreement at all now, rather than a bad one. We must learn from our failures and move on. Perhaps it isn't too late yet.”