Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Survey finds that 60 firms are responsible for half of world’s plastic pollution

News Feed
Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Fewer than 60 multinationals are responsible for more than half of the world’s plastic pollution, with five responsible for a quarter of that, based on the findings of a piece of research published on Wednesday.The researchers concluded that for every percentage increase in plastic produced, there was an equivalent increase in plastic pollution in the environment.“Production really is pollution,” says one of the study’s authors, Lisa Erdle, director of science at the non-profit The 5 Gyres Institute.An international team of volunteers collected and surveyed more than 1,870,000 items of plastic waste across 84 countries over five years: the bulk of the rubbish collected was single-use packaging for food, beverage, and tobacco products.Less than half of that plastic litter had discernible branding that could be traced back to the company that produced the packaging; the rest could not be accounted for or taken responsibility for.“This shows very, very, very well the need for transparency and traceability,” says a study author, Patricia Villarrubia-Gómez, a plastic pollution researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. “[We need] to know who is producing what, so they can take responsibility, right?”The branded half of the plastic was the responsibility of just 56 fast-moving consumer goods multinational companies, and a quarter of that was from just five companies.Altria and Philip Morris International made up 2% of the branded plastic litter found, Danone and Nestlé produced 3% of it, PepsiCo was responsible for 5% of the discarded packaging, and 11% of branded plastic waste could be traced to the Coca-Cola company.“The industry likes to put the responsibility on the individual,” says the study’s author, Marcus Eriksen, a plastic pollution expert from The 5 Gyres Institute.“But we’d like to point out that it’s the brands, it’s their choice for the kinds of packaging [they use] and for embracing this throwaway model of delivering their goods. That’s what’s causing the greatest abundance of trash.”The Guardian approached Philip Morris International, Danone, Nestlé, PepsiCo and The Coca-Cola Company.The Coca-Cola Company said: “We care about the impact of every drink we sell and are committed to growing our business in the right way.” It has pledged to make 100% of its packaging recyclable globally by 2025, and to use at least 50% recycled material in packaging by 2030.Nestlé said it has reduced its virgin plastic usage by 14.9% in the last five years, and supports schemes around the world to develop waste collection and recycling schemes.“Since launching our voluntary commitments to address plastic waste five years ago, we have significantly outperformed the market at large in reducing virgin plastic and increasing recyclability, according to the most recent report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,” it said.The company also supports the creation of a global legally binding regulation on plastic pollution which is being negotiated this week.However, while many of these companies have taken voluntary measures to improve their impact on plastic pollution, the experts behind the study argue they are not working. Plastic production has doubled since the beginning of 2000 and studies show only 9% of plastic is being recycled.When the team collected data on self-reported yearly plastic packaging production for each of these multinational companies and compared it with the data from their 1,500-plus litter surveys, their statistical analysis showed that every 1% increase in plastic production was directly correlated with approximately a 1% increase in plastic pollution.“Actually seeing this one-to-one increase, I was like, wow,” says a study author, Kathy Willis, a marine socio-ecologist from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia.“Time and time again from our science we see that we really need to be capping how much plastic we are producing.”However, Kartik Chandran, an environmental engineer at Columbia University, who was not involved in the research, said that while this new data was striking, the observation that 1% plastic production was equal to 1% plastic pollution was “a bit unrealistic” and “simplistic”.He said the data did not consider plastic pollution in China, Korea and Japan, nor take into consideration recycling or clean-up initiatives under way.A better analysis could be based on the net plastic flows into plastic production – also accounting for credits from the reuse of plastic materials – and the net plastic load ascribed as plastic pollution.The team behind the study, some of whom are participating in the talks being held in Ottawa this week to discuss a UN Treaty for Plastic Pollution, said their findings emphasised the urgent need for a globally binding treaty focusing on production measures.The talks will run to Monday, and Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the Ecuadorian ambassador to the UK, told the Guardian earlier this week he was hopeful that countries would come together to secure an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution.“It is very important we are negotiating this treaty now. The world is in a triple crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. But while there are agreements in place for the first two, we have no legislation, no global agreement on plastic pollution.”

Study confirms Philip Morris International, Danone, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are worst offendersFewer than 60 multinationals are responsible for more than half of the world’s plastic pollution, with five responsible for a quarter of that, based on the findings of a piece of research published on Wednesday.The researchers concluded that for every percentage increase in plastic produced, there was an equivalent increase in plastic pollution in the environment. Continue reading...

Fewer than 60 multinationals are responsible for more than half of the world’s plastic pollution, with five responsible for a quarter of that, based on the findings of a piece of research published on Wednesday.

The researchers concluded that for every percentage increase in plastic produced, there was an equivalent increase in plastic pollution in the environment.

“Production really is pollution,” says one of the study’s authors, Lisa Erdle, director of science at the non-profit The 5 Gyres Institute.

An international team of volunteers collected and surveyed more than 1,870,000 items of plastic waste across 84 countries over five years: the bulk of the rubbish collected was single-use packaging for food, beverage, and tobacco products.

Less than half of that plastic litter had discernible branding that could be traced back to the company that produced the packaging; the rest could not be accounted for or taken responsibility for.

“This shows very, very, very well the need for transparency and traceability,” says a study author, Patricia Villarrubia-Gómez, a plastic pollution researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. “[We need] to know who is producing what, so they can take responsibility, right?”

The branded half of the plastic was the responsibility of just 56 fast-moving consumer goods multinational companies, and a quarter of that was from just five companies.

Altria and Philip Morris International made up 2% of the branded plastic litter found, Danone and Nestlé produced 3% of it, PepsiCo was responsible for 5% of the discarded packaging, and 11% of branded plastic waste could be traced to the Coca-Cola company.

“The industry likes to put the responsibility on the individual,” says the study’s author, Marcus Eriksen, a plastic pollution expert from The 5 Gyres Institute.

“But we’d like to point out that it’s the brands, it’s their choice for the kinds of packaging [they use] and for embracing this throwaway model of delivering their goods. That’s what’s causing the greatest abundance of trash.”

The Guardian approached Philip Morris International, Danone, Nestlé, PepsiCo and The Coca-Cola Company.

The Coca-Cola Company said: “We care about the impact of every drink we sell and are committed to growing our business in the right way.” It has pledged to make 100% of its packaging recyclable globally by 2025, and to use at least 50% recycled material in packaging by 2030.

Nestlé said it has reduced its virgin plastic usage by 14.9% in the last five years, and supports schemes around the world to develop waste collection and recycling schemes.

“Since launching our voluntary commitments to address plastic waste five years ago, we have significantly outperformed the market at large in reducing virgin plastic and increasing recyclability, according to the most recent report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,” it said.

The company also supports the creation of a global legally binding regulation on plastic pollution which is being negotiated this week.

However, while many of these companies have taken voluntary measures to improve their impact on plastic pollution, the experts behind the study argue they are not working. Plastic production has doubled since the beginning of 2000 and studies show only 9% of plastic is being recycled.

When the team collected data on self-reported yearly plastic packaging production for each of these multinational companies and compared it with the data from their 1,500-plus litter surveys, their statistical analysis showed that every 1% increase in plastic production was directly correlated with approximately a 1% increase in plastic pollution.

“Actually seeing this one-to-one increase, I was like, wow,” says a study author, Kathy Willis, a marine socio-ecologist from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia.

“Time and time again from our science we see that we really need to be capping how much plastic we are producing.”

However, Kartik Chandran, an environmental engineer at Columbia University, who was not involved in the research, said that while this new data was striking, the observation that 1% plastic production was equal to 1% plastic pollution was “a bit unrealistic” and “simplistic”.

He said the data did not consider plastic pollution in China, Korea and Japan, nor take into consideration recycling or clean-up initiatives under way.

A better analysis could be based on the net plastic flows into plastic production – also accounting for credits from the reuse of plastic materials – and the net plastic load ascribed as plastic pollution.

The team behind the study, some of whom are participating in the talks being held in Ottawa this week to discuss a UN Treaty for Plastic Pollution, said their findings emphasised the urgent need for a globally binding treaty focusing on production measures.

The talks will run to Monday, and Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the Ecuadorian ambassador to the UK, told the Guardian earlier this week he was hopeful that countries would come together to secure an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution.

“It is very important we are negotiating this treaty now. The world is in a triple crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. But while there are agreements in place for the first two, we have no legislation, no global agreement on plastic pollution.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

What will it take to solve our planet's plastic pollution crisis?

Countries are meeting in South Korea this week to hash out the final details of a global treaty aimed at eliminating plastic pollution — here's what experts say it needs to include

Plastic waste in IndonesiaPA Images / Alamy The world currently produces more than 50 million tonnes of “mismanaged” plastic waste each year, and some researchers project this flood of plastic pollution will double by mid-century – but they also say that, if countries can agree to adopt four key policies during global plastic treaty negotiations this week, we could slash that number by 90 per cent. Plastic pollution ends up clogging ecosystems on land and at sea. “This has an impact on every level of the food chain, from phytoplankton cells to humans,” says Sarah-Jeanne Royer at the University of California, San Diego. Plastics are also responsible for about 5 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. That’s why most of the world’s countries are meeting in Busan, South Korea this week to hammer out the final details of a global treaty aimed at ending plastic pollution. In 2022, 175 countries already agreed to adopt the legally binding treaty and have spent the past two years debating exactly what it should require, with particular disagreements over setting limits on the production of new plastic. To bring more clarity to the debate, Douglas McCauley at the University of California, Santa Barbara and his colleagues used an artificial intelligence model trained on economic data to test how the policies under consideration would affect global plastic pollution. “I wasn’t convinced that [eliminating plastic pollution] was actually possible,” says McCauley. “But it turns out you can get pretty darn close.” According to their projections, under current conditions, plastic pollution is set to roughly double to between 100 and 139 million tonnes by 2050. But a combination of four policies, all of which are still on the table in the current treaty draft, were enough to reduce this by more than 90 per cent. The most impactful of these was a mandate that plastic products contain at least 40 per cent recycled material. That rule alone cut plastic pollution in half by mid-century. This effect is so significant because it cuts demand for newly made or “virgin” plastic while also spurring demand for recycled materials, says McCauley. “Suddenly there’s a giant global market for recycling.” But recycling on its own wasn’t sufficient. “If your target is to end plastic pollution, you need to do things across the entire lifecycle,” he says. Deeper cuts required limiting production of virgin plastics to 2020 levels. This production cap cut plastic pollution by around 60 million tonnes per year by the middle of the century, according to the model. This change also had the greatest impact on greenhouse gas emissions from plastic production, as extracting fossil fuels and turning them into virgin plastics involves emissions-intensive processes. A third policy, spending $50 billion on waste management, reduced pollution by nearly the same amount as the production cap – especially if these funds were spent in low-income countries with poor infrastructure, which are also the most inundated by plastic pollution. “When you start talking about global finance, [the amount of money needed] is not that big,” says McCauley. “Building a sanitary landfill is not like building a port.” Plastic waste is increasing, and though some is recycled or destroyed, a large portion is “mismanaged” and piles up as plastic pollutionA. Samuel Pottinger et al. Finally, a small tax on plastic packaging cut pollution by tens of millions of tonnes. The researchers based this estimate on case studies of how people reduced their plastic use in response to similar taxes, such as a 5 cent fee on single-use plastic bags in Washington DC. Money raised by such a tax could also be used to pay for other changes, like building out waste management infrastructure or improving recycling systems. Royer, who was not involved with the study, says she thinks those policies would all help. Reducing the use of single-use plastic such as grocery bags or plastic forks via a tax or a ban could also make a difference, she says. “If we look at plastic pollution in general, 40 per cent of the plastic being produced is single-use items.” However, she points out local rules alone will never solve the problem. For instance, California banned some single-use plastic bags a decade ago and this year banned all such bags. But most of the plastic pollution that washes up on its beaches originates outside the state: California’s plastic waste generally drifts across the Pacific from Asia or is flotsam left by the fishing industry. “There’s no border,” says Royer. That’s where a global treaty comes in. The researchers showed how implementing different policies across the world would cut down on three things: the volume of mismanaged plastic waste, the production of new plastics, and plastic-related greenhouse gas emissions. The four key policies in combination, seen in the graph below, reduced all three measures, and in particular slashed mismanaged waste by 91 per cent. Researchers estimated the impact of different policies for reducing plastic wasteA. Samuel Pottinger et al. In Busan, countries have now reached the deadline to decide on a final treaty draft, but they remain far apart on key issues. A main fault line is whether the treaty should include a production cap on newly made plastics, which the researchers found was the second-most impactful policy. Plastic-producing countries and the petrochemical industry oppose production caps, instead throwing their support behind recycling measures. A “high-ambition coalition” of 68 countries, including the UK, is pushing for a treaty that would include both, with the goal of eliminating plastic pollution by 2040. Other researchers have also argued a cap on plastic production is necessary to end pollution. But just last week, advocates for a production cap were dismayed by reports the US would not support a specific limit on plastic production. McCauley recently penned an open letter – signed by more than one hundred researchers – to the Biden administration urging it to support a strong plastic treaty. “We’re at a pivotal moment,” said Erin Simon at the World Wildlife Foundation, an environmental advocacy group, in an email to press. “Our last best chance to forge an agreement that could end the flow of plastic into nature is within reach, but only if countries come to the negotiating table with a clear vision and determination to get the job done.”

Pollution
Chemicals
Nature

Nations Meet To End Plastic Pollution With A Global Treaty. Here’s What To Know.

Sixty-six countries plus the European Union are kicking off a final round of negotiations to address an ever-worsening global problem.

A last round of negotiations on a legally binding treaty to address the global scourge of plastic pollution has opened in Busan, South Korea. Here’s what to know about it:Nations are deciding what actions they’ll takeNational delegations still have a lot to hammer out before there is a treaty. Most contentious is whether there will be a limit on the amount of plastic that companies are allowed to produce.Led by Norway and Rwanda, 66 countries plus the European Union say they want to address the total plastic on Earth by controlling plastic design, production, consumption and what happens at the end of its life.Some plastic-producing and oil and gas countries, including Saudi Arabia, vigorously oppose such limits.Litter and debris blanket the shoreline in Cap-Haitien, Haiti. Sixty-six countries plus the European Union are meeting in South Korea to address the total plastic on Earth.Global plastics production is set to reach 736 million tons by 2040, up 70% from 2020, without policy changes, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Negotiators must also decide whether the treaty will reduce or eliminate single-use plastics. They’ll have to resolve whether to end the use of hazardous chemicals in plastics and whether these steps will be mandated or merely encouraged.Their common objective is to protect human health and the environment.There are some things many countries agree on. They want provisions in a treaty to promote the redesign of plastic products so they can be recycled and reused. They want to invest to better manage plastic waste. They want to increase recycling rates and help waste pickers transition to safer jobs. There is agreement that there needs to be a mechanism to help countries pay for anything required of them.Environmental groups and Indigenous leaders want a holistic approachAn excavator cleans up plastic and other waste materials on Mahim Beach on the Arabian Sea coast in Mumbai, India, on April 22, 2024.Graham Forbes, who is leading a Greenpeace delegation in Busan, said his group could support an agreement that puts sensible guardrails in place to reduce the amount of plastic produced, eliminates toxic chemicals and protects people from the uncontrolled use of plastics. That’s achievable, but will take political leadership and courage not seen yet in earlier negotiations, he added.Frankie Orona, executive director of the Texas-based Society of Native Nations, said they demand a treaty that tackles the root causes of the crisis rather than just managing plastic waste.“We must seize this moment and leave a legacy we can be proud of, with a non-toxic sustainable future for all children and our children’s children,” he said.The plastics industry wants to focus on redesign, recycling and reuseIndustry leaders want an agreement that prevents plastic pollution by redesigning plastics to be reused, recycled and remade into new products. They say this will keep the materials in circulation and out of the environment.Indian rag pickers look for reusable material at a garbage dump filled with plastic and other waste material on the outskirts of Jammu, India, April 22, 2024.Company executives said they’ll support a treaty that recognizes plastics’ benefits to society, while ending pollution.“I would hate to miss this opportunity because we get fixated on issues that divide us rather than unite us in this purpose of ultimately addressing the issue of plastic pollution,” said Steve Prusak, president and CEO of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company. “It’s a really critical time. We’re really hopeful that what we get out of the meetings will lead to practical, implementable policies and harmonization across the globe.”The U.N. wants negotiators to reach an agreement in BusanU.N. Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen said the treaty talks are a historic opportunity to land an agreement and course-correct, something “entirely within our reach.”“We can sit and wait and negotiate and negotiate and negotiate. But meanwhile our oceans are chockablock with plastic,” she said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Pollution
Chemicals
Crisis

Toxic Air Pollution in India and Pakistan Is “a National Disaster”

This story was originally published by Voxx.com and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. India and Pakistan are losing ground to a common deadly enemy. Vast clouds of dense, toxic smog have once again shrouded metropolises in South Asia. Air pollution regularly spikes in November in the subcontinent, but this year’s dirty air has […]

This story was originally published by Voxx.com and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. India and Pakistan are losing ground to a common deadly enemy. Vast clouds of dense, toxic smog have once again shrouded metropolises in South Asia. Air pollution regularly spikes in November in the subcontinent, but this year’s dirty air has still been breathtaking in its scale and severity. The gray, smoky pollution is even visible to satellites, and it’s fueling a public health crisis. Last week, officials in the Punjab province in Pakistan imposed lockdowns on the cities of Multan, population 2.1 million, and Lahore, population 13.7 million, after reaching record-high pollution levels. “Smog is currently a national disaster,” senior Punjab provincial minister Marriyum Aurangzeb said during a press conference last week. Schools shut down, restaurants closed, construction halted, highways sat empty, and medical staff were recalled to hospitals and clinics. Across the border in India, the 33 million residents of Delhi this week are breathing air pollution that’s 50 times higher than the safe limit outlined by the World Health Organization (WHO). The choking haze caused 15 aircraft to divert to nearby airports and caused hundreds of delays. Students and workers were told to stay home. Global health authorities say air pollution has reduced the average life expectancy by 2.3 years, and contributes to almost 7 million deaths annually. Despite all the disruption, air pollution continues to spike year after year after year. Why? The dirty air arises from a confluence of human and natural factors. Construction, cooking fires, brick kilns, vehicles, and burning leftovers from crop harvests are all feeding into the toxic clouds. The Himalaya and Hindu Kush mountains to the north of lower-lying areas like Lahore and Delhi hold the smog in place. In the winter, the region experiences thermal inversions, where a layer of warm air pushes down on cool winter air, holding the pollution closer to the ground. As populations grow in South Asia, so will the need for food, energy, housing, and transportation. Without a course correction, that will mean even more pollution. Yet history shows that air pollution is a solvable problem. Cities like Los Angeles and Beijing that were once notorious for dirty air have managed to clean it up. The process took years, drawing on economic development and new technologies. But it also required good governance and incentives to cut pollution, something local officials in India and Pakistan have already demonstrated can clear the air. The task now is to scale it up to higher levels of government. There’s no shortage of science showing how terrible air pollution is for you. It aggravates asthma, worsens heart disease, triggers inflammation, and increases infection risk. It hampers brain development in children and can contribute to dementia in adults. On average, air pollution has reduced life expectancies around the world by 2.3 years, more than tobacco. It contributes to almost 7 million deaths per year, according to WHO, about one in nine deaths annually. It sucks trillions of dollars out of the global economy. The toll is especially acute in South Asia. Air pollution drains 3.9 years of life in Pakistan. In India, it steals 5.3 years. For workers who spend their days outdoors—delivery drivers, construction crews, farm laborers—the damage is even higher. Many residents report constant fevers, coughs, and headaches. Despite the well-known dangers and the mounting threat, it remains a persistent problem. Part of the challenge of improving air quality is that air pollution isn’t just one thing; it’s a combination of hazardous chemicals and particles that arise in teeming metropolises in developing countries. One of the most popular metrics around the world for tracking pollution is the Air Quality Index, developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The index is not a measurement of any one pollutant, but rather the risk from a combination of pollutants based on US air quality standards. The main villains are ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particles. The particles are subcategorized into those smaller than 10 microns (PM10) and smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). (Earlier this year, the EPA modified the way it calculates the AQI, so numbers from this year are not an apples-to-apples comparison to levels from previous years.) The tiny particles are pernicious because they penetrate deep into the lungs and trigger breathing problems. “I think the most surprising, interesting, and scary thing, honestly, is seeing the levels of pollution in areas that haven’t been monitored before.” An AQI below 50 is considered safe to breathe. Above 200, the air is considered a health threat for everyone. At 300, it’s an emergency. In Delhi, the AQI this last week reached 1,185. Lahore reached 1,900 this month. If a person breathes this air for over 24 hours, the exposure is roughly equivalent to smoking 90 cigarettes in a day. However, air pollution poses a threat long before it’s visible. “Your eye is not a good detector of air pollution in general,” said Christi Chester Schroeder, the air quality science manager at IQAir, a company that builds air quality monitoring instruments and collects pollution data. “The pollutant that you have to be really careful about in terms of not being able to see it but experiencing it is ozone. Ozone levels can be extremely high on sunny days.” IQAir has a network of air quality sensors across South Asia, including regions like Lahore and Delhi. The company tracks pollution in real time using its own sensors as well as monitors bought by schools, businesses, and ordinary people. Their professional-grade air monitors can cost more than $20,000 but they also sell consumer air quality trackers that cost $300. Both sources help paint a picture of pollution. Many schools and businesses across South Asia have installed their own pollution monitors. The US maintains its own air quality instruments at its consulates and embassies in India and Pakistan as well. Schroeder noted, however, that IQAir’s instruments are geared toward monitoring particles like PM2.5 and don’t easily allow a user to make inferences about concentrations of other pollutants like sulfur oxides and where they’re coming from. “When you’re looking at places that have a really big mixture of sources—like you have a mixture of transportation and fires and climate inversion conditions—then it gets to be much murkier and you can’t really sort of pull it apart that way,” Schroeder said. Air quality monitors in India and Pakistan show that air pollution can vary over short distances—between neighborhoods or even street by street—and that it can change rapidly through the day. Nearby bus terminals, power plants, or cooking fires contribute a lot to local pollution, but without tracking systems in the vicinity, it can be hard to realize how bad the situation has become. “I think the most surprising, interesting, and scary thing, honestly, is seeing the levels of pollution in areas that haven’t been monitored before,” Schroeder said. Another complication is that people also experience pollution far away from where it’s produced. “This automatically creates a big governance challenge because the administrator who is responsible for providing you clean air in your jurisdiction is not actually the administrator who is governing over the polluting action,” said Saad Gulzar, an assistant professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University. Take crop stubble burning, which accounts for up to 60 percent of the air pollution in the region this time of year. In late fall, farmers in northern India and Pakistan harvest rice and plant wheat. With little time between the reaping and sowing, the fastest and cheapest way for many farmers to clear their fields of leftover stems, leaves, and roots is to burn it. The resulting smoke then wafts from rural areas into urban centers. Motivating officials to act at local, regional, and national levels is a key step in reducing air pollution. The challenge is that farmers and urbanites are different political constituencies, and it’s hard to demand concessions from the former to benefit the latter. It has led to bitter political fights in both countries and between them. Farmers also point out that the reason they have so little time between crops is because of water conservation laws: To cope with groundwater depletion, officials in India imposed regulations to limit rice planting until after monsoon rains arrive in the early summer to top up reservoirs. Delaying planting means delaying harvest, hence the rush to clear their fields. Both India and Pakistan have even gone as far as to arrest farmers who burn crop stubble, but there are millions of farmers spread out over a vast area, stretching enforcement thin. However, local efforts to control smoke from crop burning have proven effective when local officials are motivated to act. Gulzar co-authored a study published in October in the journal Nature, looking at air pollution and its impacts across India and Pakistan. Examining satellite data and health records over the past decade, the paper found that who is in charge of a jurisdiction plays a key role in air pollution—and could also be the key to solving it. When a district is likely to experience pollution from a fire within its own boundaries, bureaucrats and local officials take more aggressive action to mitigate it, whether that’s paying farmers not to burn stubble, providing them with tools to clear fields without fires, or threatening them with fines and arrest. That led fires within a district to drop by 14.5 percent and future burning to decline by 13 percent. These air pollution reductions led to measurable drops in childhood mortality. On the other hand, if the wind is poised to push pollution from crop burning over an adjacent district, fires increase by 15 percent. The results show that simply motivating officials to act at local, regional, and national levels is a key step in reducing air pollution and that progress can begin right away. But further air quality improvements will require a transition toward cleaner energy. Besides crop burning, the other major source of air pollution across India and Pakistan is fossil fuel combustion, whether that’s coal in furnaces, gas in factories, or diesel in trucks. These fuels also contribute to climate change, which is already contributing to devastating heat waves and flooding from torrential monsoons in the region. Both countries have made major investments in renewable energy, but they are also poised to burn more coal to feed their growing economies. At the COP29 climate change conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, India was asking wealthier nations to contribute more money to finance clean energy within its borders and to share technologies that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance air quality. Solving the air pollution crisis in India and Pakistan will take years, and it’s likely to get worse before it gets better. But there are lifesaving measures both countries can take now.

Pollution
Climate
Chemicals

What to Know About the Plastic Pollution Treaty Talks in South Korea

A last round of negotiations on a legally binding treaty to address the global scourge of plastic pollution has opened in Busan, South Korea

Nations are deciding what actions they'll take National delegations still have a lot to hammer out before there is a treaty. Most contentious is whether there will be a limit on the amount of plastic that companies are allowed to produce. Led by Norway and Rwanda, 66 countries plus the European Union say they want to address the total plastic on Earth by controlling plastic design, production, consumption and what happens at the end of its life. Some plastic-producing and oil and gas countries, including Saudi Arabia, vigorously oppose such limits. Global plastics production is set to reach 736 million tons by 2040, up 70% from 2020, without policy changes, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Negotiators must also decide whether the treaty will reduce or eliminate single-use plastics. They'll have to resolve whether to end the use of hazardous chemicals in plastics and whether these steps will be mandated or merely encouraged.Their common objective is to protect human health and the environment.There are some things many countries agree on. They want provisions in a treaty to promote the redesign of plastic products so they can be recycled and reused. They want to invest to better manage plastic waste. They want to increase recycling rates and help waste pickers transition to safer jobs. There is agreement that there needs to be a mechanism to help countries pay for anything required of them. Environmental groups and Indigenous leaders want a holistic approach Graham Forbes, who is leading a Greenpeace delegation in Busan, said his group could support an agreement that puts sensible guardrails in place to reduce the amount of plastic produced, eliminates toxic chemicals and protects people from the uncontrolled use of plastics. That's achievable, but will take political leadership and courage not seen yet in earlier negotiations, he added.Frankie Orona, executive director of the Texas-based Society of Native Nations, said they demand a treaty that tackles the root causes of the crisis rather than just managing plastic waste.“We must seize this moment and leave a legacy we can be proud of, with a non-toxic sustainable future for all children and our children's children," he said. The plastics industry wants to focus on redesign, recycling and reuse Industry leaders want an agreement that prevents plastic pollution by redesigning plastics to be reused, recycled and remade into new products. They say this will keep the materials in circulation and out of the environment. Company executives said they'll support a treaty that recognizes plastics' benefits to society, while ending pollution.“I would hate to miss this opportunity because we get fixated on issues that divide us rather than unite us in this purpose of ultimately addressing the issue of plastic pollution," said Steve Prusak, president and CEO of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company. "It’s a really critical time. We’re really hopeful that what we get out of the meetings will lead to practical, implementable policies and harmonization across the globe.” The U.N. wants negotiators to reach an agreement in Busan U.N. Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen said the treaty talks are a historic opportunity to land an agreement and course-correct, something “entirely within our reach.” “We can sit and wait and negotiate and negotiate and negotiate. But meanwhile our oceans are chockablock with plastic,” she said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Pollution
Chemicals
Crisis

Biden proposes to restrict pollution from new gas plants

The Biden administration has proposed a rule that it says will reduce pollution stemming from new gas-fired power plants and other industrial facilities. The proposal would require these plants to cut their emissions of pollutants known as nitrogen oxides, which can lead to smog formation and contribute to asthma in people with long-term exposure. The agency said that the...

The Biden administration has proposed a rule that it says will reduce pollution stemming from new gas-fired power plants and other industrial facilities. The proposal would require these plants to cut their emissions of pollutants known as nitrogen oxides, which can lead to smog formation and contribute to asthma in people with long-term exposure.  The agency said that the regulation would reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by as many as  198 tons in 2027 and 2,659 tons in 2032.  However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule is not expected to become final before inauguration day, meaning it would be up to the Trump administration to decide whether to move ahead with it.  The incoming Trump administration has indicated that it hopes to reduce regulations on both the economy as a whole and the power sector in particular. Nevertheless, environmental advocates, who praised the Biden action, said they would push the incoming Trump administration to keep it.  “The Biden-Harris administration’s proposed rule is an important and long-overdue step towards limiting dangerous smog and soot-forming pollution,” said Matthew Davis, vice president of federal policy at the League of Conservation Voters, in a written statement.  “We will continue to press the EPA to improve on these important clean air safeguards and will hold the future Trump administration accountable to the court-ordered deadline to finalize a protective rule in November 2025,” he added.  A 2023 legal agreement between the EPA and environmental groups who sued the agency says the EPA has to either tighten the standards or issue a formal decision not to do so no later than November 12, 2025. 

Pollution
Conservation

Suggested Viewing

LEAVES

An academic woman in Texas becomes concerned when a massive red oak in her backyard seems to be ailing, though she isn’t sure why it bothers her so much. At the same time, in her small cottage, her attention to her work is distracted by news reports she sees and hears. They tell in graphic terms of the out-of-control forest fires up and down the West Coast. Her attention is further pulled in the direction of other stories about the worsening conditions of the world’s rainforests which she discovers are disappearing at the astounding rate of 200,000 acres a day. Suddenly such stories are all she seems to hear and see on the radio or television or on her computer. But when she hears/sees a science report about how trees actually communicate with each other, she begins to realize there may be a connection between her tree and what she is learning from the news. She begins to recall a strong connection she herself has with that tree and allows that connection to regrow…..

Pollution
Forests
Inspirational

LOUD

Catriona Armour's body art and a special appearance by Dana Lyons of "Cows with Guns" propel the musical narrative about noise pollution in, around, and above the Salish Sea of Washington State and British Columbia.

Music
Culture
Pollution

Precarious

An independent art film, Precarious is a haunting evocation of the aftermath of the explosion at Chernobyl, 25 years on. Accompanied by testimony from a group of unseen veterans of the disaster, Precarious bears witness to both the folly and resilience of humans and to nature's fragility.

Crisis
Pollution
Energy

Kingdom of Waste

Our garbage accumulates and gives life to a plastic monster. We wish his reign to be short. It is probably time to think over how we produce and consume to pollute less.

Waste
Pollution
Family

Again, Together - The Cumulative Impact of Environmental Racism in Houston

"Again, Together" is a film created in partnership with Ronald L. Jones, bringing stories from communities across Houston that have been impacted by environmental racism — namely redlining, segregation, underinvestment, exposure to pollution, gentrification, inequitable disaster recovery resources and freeway development.

Social Justice
Pollution
Health

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.