“The United States’ Ambitious Goals for Global Plastic Pollution Treaty”

For the United States, the future global treaty against plastic pollution must have “ambitious” objectives, to eradicate waste into the environment, but without imposing a limitation on production, leaving each country to develop its own solutions to better manage a subject not to be “demonized”.

“A priority for us”

“The United States wants to reach an ambitious international agreement that ends environmental emissions by 2040”, as announced by the G7, “and which takes into account the different needs of each country”, confides Jose W. Fernandez, US Under-Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment, came to Paris at the head of a team of 40 negotiators.

“This is one of the environmental challenges of our time and it is a priority for us”, he assures during an interview at the embassy, ​​before the resumption Monday of delicate negotiations with 175 countries, supposed lead by the end of 2024.

“It’s also a matter of justice because in many cases it’s the poor countries that suffer,” says Jose W. Fernandez.

Leading waste-producing country

He admits 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 plastics per capita, the United States generates 20% of the world’s 353 million tonnes of annual plastic waste, according to 2019 figures from the OECD. That they mostly eliminate by landfilling.

A flexible approach

For the future treaty, whose NGOs are worried about the real effectiveness, “we recommend a flexible approach, as opposed to a prescriptive approach which would say ‘this is what must be done'”, warns Mr. Fernandez.

To solve this global crisis, a growing scourge for the environment, should we start by reducing production, as defended by the fifty or so countries of the Coalition for High Ambition, led by Rwanda and Norway? “Some countries may think this is the solution but there are many ways to achieve the goal,” explains the minister. “One of them is limited production. Another way is to recycle, reuse or whatever”.

“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”.

A non-binding part of the treaty

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.

To achieve the objectives anyway, “we must progress on measures to ensure compliance with and monitoring of commitments”, through procedures of “transparency” which it is too early to detail, according to him.

The weight of the plastics industry

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 for plastic that will be difficult to replace in the short term, in aircraft, automotive, etc. “, he recalls, before concluding: “Let’s not demonize the invention of plastic”.