Sorry Kids... latest research shows that increasing temperatures adding to extreme heat due to burning fossil fuels has a disproportionate impact in killing young people under 35 years. While this research is based on Mexico, it is highly likely it applies more widely, although there will be some caveats.
One of the authors of the study, Danny Bressler, said: "The concentration of heat-related mortality among younger people is quite disproportionate compared to other causes of death. Although just 16% of overall deaths from all causes are among under 35 year olds, 75% of heat-related deaths are among under 35 year olds. When we consider lost life years, the age-specific inequality is more extreme: 87% of heat-related lost life years occur among under-35-year-olds."
Meanwhile Australia's Environment Minister is set to approve another 3 coal mines pushing up the temperature and endangering our children's future.
Heat disproportionately kills young people: Evidence from wet-bulb temperature in Mexico (December 2024)
Australia has long tried to be two things at once – a trusted friend to Pacific nations in a bid to reduce China’s influence, and a giant exporter of fossil fuels. This diplomatic tightrope has become increasingly hard to walk, as Pacific nations see climate change as an existential threat.
This week, Australia’s government was forced to make a choice in a very public forum. It chose fossil fuels.
Disappointed by the slow pace of United Nations climate talks, Vanuatu and other Pacific nations launched a case at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands to clarify the obligations countries have to prevent harm to the Earth’s climate system for current and future generations.
While international climate negotiations are often conducted behind closed doors, this case is being broadcast in public. We can clearly see the arguments Australia has laid out and the countries it has aligned itself with.
In the courtroom on Monday, Australia sided with major emitters and fossil fuel exporters such as Saudi Arabia, the United States and China to try and minimise their legal liability in contributing to climate change.
Outcome summary: Negotiations fail to conclude, but some progress made. Still wide divergencies in some areas. A resumed session in 2025 agreed to.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Global Plastics Treaty is holding its fifth meeting in Busan, South Korea from 25 November to 1 December 2024 to prepare a treaty by the end of 2024. This meeting is it.
Global Plastics pollution is an escalating Crisis that interlinks with the Biodiversity Crisis and Climate Crisis. The Health and environmental impacts of plastics, microplastics and nanoplastics are of increasing concern as more research is done.
The process for a Global Plastics Treaty was started in March 2022 at the resumed fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2). See my reports of INC1, INC2, INC3, INC4.
A Zero Draft of the treaty was prepared at INC4 with elements of both common rules for all parties, and a nationally driven policy framework, and many procedural issues still to sort out. As this zero draft contained some 1500 brackets, in the interim the Secretariat has prepared a non-paper to try to streamline negotiations start.
IISD/ENB have a highlights report available with a summary of Final Plenary discussions.
They agreed to adjourn INC-5 in Busan, Republic of Korea, and convene a resumed meeting at a later date. Some countries wanted it early in 2025 not to lose momentum, while others like Saudi Arabia called for later - July or August.
delegates agreed to use the Chair’s revised Text as a basis for negotiations at the resumed fifth session of the INC (INC-5.2), and also other texts.
INC Chair Vayas resassured delegates that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
While supporting it as the basis for negotiations at the next meeting, several delegations underlined that the Chair’s Text should remain open to additions and deletions. They noted that the text did not always reflect the discussions held during the week and excluded some countries’ “red lines.”
The Arab Group and the Russian Federation noted that the Non-Paper containing the draft text of the Chair of the Committee, circulated on Friday, 29 November 2024, better reflected discussions, but were willing to engage on the basis of the Chair’s Text
“We are not leaving Busan discouraged,” shared the EU, encapsulating the mood during the closing plenary.
Several delegations spoke, with Mexico and Rwanda speaking on behalf of 95 and 85 countries, respectively, to call for a strong treaty, which would include articles on production, hazardous plastics, and chemicals of concern.
Kuwait, who spoke for the Like-Minded Countries, expressed concern that “at this session, expedient progress was undermining trust and inclusivity,” and noted “attempts to stretch” the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) resolution mandate beyond its limits.
After report backs from the 4 contact group co-chairs, Chair has proposed the latest non-paper as a starting point for further negotiations at a resumed session 5.2 at some time in the future. Various Parties spoke in plenary, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, India, Ghana, Rwanda, Mexico, Uruguay, European Union, Finland. Panama, Russian Federation, Iraq, Canada, Cuba, Grenada, Samoa, Japan, Vanuatu, Jamaica, Armenia, Tonga, UK. Powerful statements by Rwanda on behalf of 85 countries and Mexico for 95 countries for an ambitious legally binding full-life-cycle treaty that addresses chemicals of concern.
2 December - International talks on curbing plastic pollution fail to reach agreement (Guardian)
Chair releases latest text. Some Delegates and Policy Experts have responded with this press release (GAIA):
Plastics Treaty INC-5: Global South Delegates and Civil Society Speak Out Delegates and Policy Experts React to the Chair’s Proposed Treaty Text
Busan, South Korea – Global South delegates and civil society leaders spoke at a press conference at BEXCO Convention Center this afternoon, to share their outlook on the negotiations thus far and what it means for the Global South. In the hour before the press conference, the Chair released his latest paper, which proposes text for the treaty to serve as a basis for the final bout of negotiations.
Arpita Bhagat, Plastics Lead at GAIA Asia Pacific states: “The Chair’s latest text is unacceptable to the majority of Global South countries and the billions of people they represent: people who are fighting for their lives for a strong treaty. Nor is it acceptable to people harmed by plastics in the Global North, including environmental justice, front and fenceline communities, and Indigenous Peoples who have long been sidelined in the process. It is not a reflection of the will of the vast majority of Member States, who support ambitious measures in a legally-binding, global instrument. Once again, as throughout this process, the Chair has bent to the will of the petrochemical states while dismissing the demands of the majority, in a completely non-transparent, exclusionary process. This is a matter of life and death, especially for Global South communities. Member States will not roll over and play dead. As long as ambitious countries hold on to their principles, civil society will have their backs.”
Cheikh Ndiaye Sylla, National Focal Point for Senegal, states, “This version of the text is…not acceptable…For life cycle, we have to negotiate this from the polymer, meaning the production. It is legally binding as per the title…No text is better than bad text.”
Dr Sam Adu-Kumi, Negotiator for Ghana, states, “The whole world is looking up to us…they are expecting something better that will protect the environment, human health, our brothers and sisters, and our young populations….So we are not here to accept anything short of an ambitious treaty.”
These elements in the new text are particularly problematic:
On core obligations:
Plastic production (“Supply”): the Chair’s text does not represent the strong language Panama and more than 100 other countries proposed, including a global target on production reduction; it is full of weak text options, such as referring to a reduction target as “aspirational.” This critical article must be strengthened with national targets.
Chemicals of concern: The Chair has stripped away systematic controls on toxic chemicals from this article, where we need the strongest measures to address the fundamental threat posed by chemicals of concern.
Waste management: the waste hierarchy has been removed; and “energy recovery” – code for waste-burning technologies– remains.
On means of implementation:
Financial mechanism: At least 126 countries support an independent, dedicated fund– the most widely supported provision in the instrument– yet the Chair’s text undermines it with weak, optional language that fails to provide adequate funds, such as through a polymer production fee.
The treaty infrastructure is weak:
No right to vote: The Chair’s text fails to give countries the right to vote, ensuring further paralysis of the process. This is not the “start and strengthen” treaty that we were promised.
The week in Busan started with petrochemical states threatening to derail the process if Member States exercised their right to call for a vote, which brought us to this point. Continuing the work in an INC 5.2 will only be worthwhile with a transparent process where states put an end to the tyranny of the minority.
As we confront the potential failure of the negotiations, we remind Member States that, as they themselves have stated, no deal is better than a bad deal.
Panama makes an Impassioned plea alongside all high ambition countries at the global plastic treaty negotiations in Busan. We can’t be dragged down by those with low ambition. Treaty must reduce plastic production & address chemicals of concern. Its not a waste a management treaty
30 November 2024 - Saudi Arabia Leads Pushback Against Global Plastic Treaty (New York Times) "Saudi Arabia, Russia and other producers of petroleum, which is used to make most of the world’s plastic, have pushed back against measures that would address plastic pollution by placing curbs on excessive plastic production. The Saudis and their allies have also said they oppose any treaty that would start to list and phase out chemicals present in plastic that are thought to be harmful to health."
November 30 - Day 6
According to Break Free from Plastic: "The sixth day of #INC5 negotiations for a #PlasticsTreaty have been spent in informal closed door meetings that are extending to the late evening."
Marine Biology Professor Rebecca R Helm reports: "Citizens at the UN plastics negotiation are no longer allowed in rooms. This is, in some ways, abnormal. But it’s also not unexpected. Rumor has it a key sticking point is on capping plastic production. Now we wait."
Will INC-5 deliver a treaty? With only a day left for delegates to negotiate, the answer to this question generated mixed responses. Amidst the “aura of confusion” at the venue, some country delegates felt that the light at the end of the tunnel was “getting brighter.” “There are some articles that we can already agree on,” referring to issues such as information exchange; public information, awareness, education and research; final provisions; and the establishment of the conference of the parties (COP), subsidiary bodies, and the secretariat. Others, however, were more cautious, sharing that the clean articles need to be attached to strong language on production, design, waste management, and finance. “We are not there yet.”
For some “stakeholders,” though, being excluded from the talks at this crucial stage sent a “dark signal.” At a press conference of the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics on Saturday, Indigenous representatives stressed, “We have been silenced and strategically undervalued” in these negotiations. “How can you talk about a just transition, when we are not given a space at the table?” Another delegate shared, “we are rights holders in this process,” and “this treaty must guarantee not only our participation in the negotiations, but also in the implementation of measures to tackle the onslaught of plastic pollution, which disproportionately affects our communities, relatives, and Mother Earth.”
Will it be a plastics treaty, or a plastic waste treaty? “It is worrying that at this stage in negotiations, we are still unsure,” opined one participant. The text circulated on Friday has elements that, if agreed, “could give us a plastics treaty, with upstream measures related to production and design.” On the other hand, “if we cannot agree on these, we will go home with a plastic waste treaty,” she said, noting that this would be “a real waste.” Another delegate was overheard lamenting, “If after all this, we end up with a plastic waste treaty, which countries can implement domestically if they want, does it even make sense to call this an international treaty? Will it have been worth our efforts?”
One seasoned delegate wondered out loud whether there was still time to change the working modalities of the negotiations. “By now, we have come to the end of the line on contact-group-like negotiations, with every state commenting on every line,” drawing attention to the fact that the informal closed-door negotiations seem like “contact groups, just without the transparency.” He described several formats that could “push negotiations over the finish line,” including the round-table Vienna setting, which would bring the Chair and key coalitions together in face-to-face discussions. He wondered whether, “we may have run out of time” to switch gears in this way.
With the informals going on upstairs, delegation after delegation held bilaterals with the INC Chair downstairs, perhaps in a bid to break the deadlocks on core issues. However, at the end of the evening, it was still unclear whether “we’ll be shedding happy tears on Sunday, or weeping.” In hushed conversations throughout the day, some were heard discussing “plan B options,” in the event that INC-5 does not deliver a treaty. “Who will fund a resumed meeting of the INC, if it comes to that?” queried one delegate. “Should we keep hope alive?” asked one delegate. The jury is still out.
30 November 2024 - Greenpeace challenges petrochemical tanker as Busan plastics treaty talks enter final stage (Greenpeace)
Greenpeace International activists have boarded a tanker that is set to load toxic plastic chemicals from South Korea’s Hanwha TotalEnergies complex. They are urging governments to resist fossil fuel and petrochemical industry interference in the talks and to deliver a treaty that firmly cuts plastic production, which on current trends is set to triple by 2050.
“We are taking direct action here today – stopping this plastic shipment – to urge world leaders to listen to the voices of the millions of people around the world, along with scientists and businesses – who are demanding they cut plastic production to stop plastic pollution,” said Alex Wilson, Greenpeace UK climb team volunteer.
They continued, “As we protest here, petrochemical industry lobbyists are out in force in Busan. They are using their power, money and access to try to ensure that the treaty fails to do what it must – turn off the tap of plastic production.
