SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The latest round of negations show just how difficult it is to enforce humanitarian and ecological objectives which go against the interests of the oil industry and oil-producing countries.
A legally binding Global Plastics Treaty was first proposed in March 2022 when 175 nations signed a resolution at the United Nations Environment Assembly committing to draft the treaty. Negotiations have, however, been stalled by disagreements for years.
This treaty was seen as our greatest chance to address the plastics crisis on a global scale across its entire lifecycle, from production to disposal. In August 2025, at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC)-5.2, 184 countries negotiated the details of the agreement in Geneva, resulting in an outcome that many have labelled a failure.
Plastic was once hailed as a great invention, but is now increasingly seen as a considerable risk to human health, the environment, and the economy. In a 2016 report, the World Economic Forum found that, at current rates, it is predicted that without a solution, "Oceans will contain more plastic than fish by 2050."
Plastics production has increased twentyfold since 1964, and now 360 million metric tons of plastic waste is created every single year. Just 9% of this is recycled effectively. One-third will end up in fragile ecosystems such as the world's oceans. Plastic production is set to triple by 2060.
There are about 16,000 different plastic chemicals, the effects of which are still largely unexplored; this includes per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other forever chemicals. Toxic chemicals now pose one of the greatest threats to humanity, alongside the climate crisis, species extinction, and nuclear weapons.
As with the fossil fuels industry, big tobacco, and the arms trade, profits are privatized, but the burden is carried socially.
There are already five marine regions which are completely contaminated with plastic and can no longer support life. The most infamous is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in the North Pacific, which is twice the size of Texas.
Plastic is now considered a health risk with an estimated cost of up to $1.5 trillion per year. Plastic is inhaled from the air and consumed in food and drinks. Tiny microplastic particles have been found in human blood, brains, intestines, and placentas, which can cause cancer, heart attacks, and strokes. Once they have entered the environment, microplastics cannot ever be removed.
The vast majority of synthetic plastics are derived from crude oil, natural gas, or coal. The transition away from fossil fuels in the energy sector has led many fossil fuel companies to shift their attention to the plastics industry, building new manufacturing sites and ramping up production. Plastics play a significant role in the climate crisis and are responsible for 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions—twice as much as global air traffic.
Mismanagement of plastic waste results in the vast majority of it being discarded, burned, or relocated to poorer regions of the world, where it is released back into the environment and ultimately finds its way into our oceans.
An installation of wasted materials turned into art by Tan Zi Xi is shown. (Photo by Choo Yut Shing/Flickr/CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
There have so far been six rounds of talks organized by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), none of which have resulted in a consensus. The previous session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.1) in Busan, South Korea was unable to overcome opposition to an international plastics treaty and adjourned until the next year.
The main points of contention were the inclusion of mandatory caps on plastic production and the use of toxic chemicals in processing.
Oil and gas-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Kuwait, and the USA have been stalling progress, as they oppose production targets and prefer to focus on waste management. The UNEP conferences have been swarmed by fossil fuel lobbyists who have been very much part of the pressure groups blocking a strong deal.
The INC-5.2 took place in Geneva from 5-15 August 2025. Representatives from 184 countries and numerous national and international nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) took part under the auspices of the United Nations. It was the largest round of international negotiations since the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 and the UN Biodiversity Summits.
The UNEP INC-5.2 Plenary is shown. (Photo by Alejandro Laguna Lopez/UNEP/Flickr/CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
The talks formally closed on August 15 without a deal—a historic opportunity missed. Two days before the decision was made, chairman Luis Vayas Valdivieso presented a proposal that was deemed unsatisfactory by the conference delegates. The draft practically dropped all measures to reduce plastic production and referred mainly to the handling of plastic waste that has already entered the environment.
The conference was extended by one day, which left just hours to find a compromise. A revised draft was submitted by the chair at the last hour. It was also deemed not fit for discussion by high-ambition countries as it omitted the key concepts of reducing plastic production, regulating chemicals of concern, and creating a fund to tackle plastic injustice in the Global South.
Forming a coalition of the willing, which excludes states blocking the deal, will enable countries that want a strong plastics treaty to fulfil their mandate without obstacles and move forward together.
The main obstacle to securing a strong deal was the UN's requirement for consensus in decision-making. For years, delegations have been urging a reform to a democratic voting system, allowing drafts to be approved with a two-thirds majority. Most governments support a strong treaty. The consensus process bows to low-ambition countries, who are backed by powerful corporations intent on blocking real solutions.
Colombia's delegate, Sebastián Rodríguez, blasted the talks, stating that "the negotiations were consistently blocked by a small number of states who simply don't want an agreement." Even French President Emmanuel Macron stepped in to call for a successful conclusion in the interest of future generations.
There is currently no confirmed date or venue for the next round of negotiations.
Co-headed by Norway and Rwanda, a group of like-minded countries have formed The High Ambition Coalition made up of many European countries, including the UK, Germany, and France, many small island nations, Japan, many Latin American countries, and even the UAE.
Their common goal is to end plastic pollution by 2040 and implement a strong plastics treaty which is both legally binding and effectively monitored. In preparation for the INC-5.2, the coalition drafted the Nice Wake-up Call in June 2025.
Their three primary objectives are:
Civil society organizations such as the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastic Treaty, Business Coalition for a Plastics Treaty, Break Free From Plastic, Greenpeace, WWF, IPEN, the Center for International Environmental Law, GAIA, Environmental Justice Foundation, and groups of Indigenous peoples are calling for:
Plastic credits and carbon offset schemes are not a viable solution. They merely enable uninhibited plastic production under the guise of offsetting emissions elsewhere. The incineration of plastic must also be minimized as a method of plastic disposal, as it adds even further carbon to our atmosphere.
The decomposition times of marine debris are shown. (Photo by Zephyrschord/CC BY-SA 4.0)
Just seven countries are responsible for the production of two-thirds of the four most widely used types of plastic worldwide. China leads by a wide margin, producing as much plastic as the next six largest producers. The USA follows in second place, producing more than the countries in the EU combined. The countries with the highest plastic consumption per capita are the USA, closely followed by South Korea and Australia.
The plastics crisis does not respect geographical boundaries; the whole of humanity must consume and produce less plastic. The technology and materials for replacing plastic with more ecologically compatible materials are already a reality. The plastics industry needs to be refocused and jobs transformed.
As with the fossil fuels industry, big tobacco, and the arms trade, profits are privatized, but the burden is carried socially. This strategy is now an institutionalised playbook. Profits must not take precedence over environmental and health concerns. Lobbyists must be excluded from negotiations.
This conference shows just how difficult it is to enforce humanitarian and ecological objectives which go against the interests of the oil industry and oil-producing countries. The failed deal is a metaphor for global conflicting interests, a lack of ability to compromise, and the shortsighted behavior of profiting states and companies.
An eye-opening meta study from 2024 revealed the following:
We reviewed economic and environmental studies on global plastic pollution and we estimate the global cost of actions toward zero plastic pollution in all countries by 2040 to be US$ 18.3-158.4 trillion (cost of a 47% reduction of plastic production included). If no actions are undertaken, we estimate the cost of damages caused by plastic pollution from 2016 to 2040 to be US$ 13.7–281.8 trillion. These ranges suggest it is possible that the costs of inaction are significantly higher than those of action.
How long does humanity want to go on like this?
The High Ambition Coalition should continue to organize, expand its networking, and initiate the next round of negotiations with a well-prepared draft. Forming a coalition of the willing, which excludes states blocking the deal, will enable countries that want a strong plastics treaty to fulfil their mandate without obstacles and move forward together.
Individually, we can reduce our purchases and consumption of plastic and improve our management of plastic waste. Individuals can seek out alternative products such as those made from natural materials or bioplastics, which are biodegradable.
Environmental education, which informs politicians and citizens about the extent and consequences of plastic waste, is essential. It promotes ecological commitment, civil society engagement, and informed voting behavior.
Environmental protection can be enforced by legal action. The climate ruling by the International Court of Justice on July 23, 2025, initiated by Vanuatu, officially states that the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is protected by law. Legal action can and should also be taken to reduce plastic production and pollution.
The online platform Better World Info has extensively researched and documented the Plastics Crisis and the Global Plastics Treaty. It provides additional resources and proposed solutions.
Members of the Republican elite know that there is a problem, but rather than take action to lessen it, they do what they can to make it worse.
In the annals of national suicide, the present dismantling of the American state will surely rank high. It may not reach the apogee attained by Russia in its final Tsarist days or by Louis XVI in the run-up to the French Revolution, but Great Britain’s Brexit hardly smolders compared to the anti-democratic dumpster fire of the Trump regime. Countless governmental, scientific, educational, medical, and cultural institutions have been targeted for demolition. The problem for the rest of the world is that the behavior of Trumpian America is more than suicidal—it’s murderous.
The deaths are mounting. By one accounting, the disruption of overseas food and drug shipments from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), including life-saving HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria treatments, has already caused nearly 350,000 deaths (and they continue at an estimated rate of 103 per hour). Here at home, cuts to Medicaid, as contemplated in the absurdly named “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” would lead to more than 21,600 avoidable deaths annually. And those numbers pale next to the levels of mortality expected to arise from the effects of climate change—a worsening catastrophe that the Trump regime is dead set against doing anything about. Indeed, with an array of policies under the rubric “Drill, baby, drill,” President Donald Trump and his officials seem intent on worsening matters as quickly as possible.
Worrying about how future generations will cope with a savagely inhospitable climate is for losers.
If the World Economic Forum is to be believed, deaths from flood, famine, disease, and other nonmilitary consequences of a hotter, more violent global climate might reach 580,000 per year, or 14.5 million by 2050. And that may be a lowball estimate, according to the American Security Project. Its models assert that warming-induced fatalities are already running at 400,000 annually and are heading for 700,000.
Any way you cut it, that’s a lot of misery. Given that the Trump regime is opening new areas for drilling; aggressively curtailing funding for climate-related programs; purging mention of climate change from government websites and publications; and disassembling the government’s capacity to track, let alone predict climate-change impacts, it makes sense to wonder WHY?
Trump has indeed claimed that climate change is a hoax. He has also said that solar cells should be installed on car roofs. He says a lot of things. His words may be a guide to his state of mind—or his state of con—but they don’t necessarily reflect his or his coterie’s actual beliefs. On the question of climate change, it’s become increasingly clear that the elite of the far-right tacitly accept the reality of climate change. More and more, outright denial is reserved for ramping up the fervor of the MAGA base, who appear willing to believe that a transvestite in the wrong bathroom is more dangerous than fires, floods, and hurricanes.
Project 2025, the much-discussed (and, by Trump, falsely disavowed) 885-page wish list for his administration, reflects the new Republican tone. That blueprint for reversing progressive policies asserted that “the Biden administration’s climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding.” Notably, however, the document doesn’t deny the existence of climate change. Indeed, in a relatively sober moment that one might wish Elon Musk and his minions at the Department of Government Efficiency had shared, the authors write, “USAID resources are best deployed to strengthen the resilience of countries that are most vulnerable to climatic shifts.” Other, non-lunatic parts of the Republican Party sail by the same tack: They argue more about the particulars of climate solutions than the reality of the underlying problem. Various outspoken and influential Republicans like Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk (all right, in Musk’s case, formerly influential) have taken a similar line.
Let’s get this right: Members of the Republican elite know that there is a problem, but rather than take action to lessen it, they do what they can to make it worse by calling for more oil and gas development, ordering inefficient coal-fired generating stations to stay in operation, and obstructing the growth of renewables. Their excuse for this irrationality, when they even bother to offer one, loosely follows Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s recent testimony before Congress that “the U.S. has ‘plenty of time’ to solve the climate crisis.” How to make sense of this? How do they make sense of this?
The reasons are varied and revealing. First, of course, there’s
• Money: It’s obvious. Contributions from oil and gas political action committees (PACs) to Republicans were more than five times greater than those to Democrats in the last election cycle. And that doesn’t include funds from individual donors connected to the fossil fuel industry or various forms of “educational” soft money, let alone “dark money” channeled through issue-oriented nonprofits that don’t report their sources. There can be no question that total expenditures by fossil fuel interests in the 2024 election far exceeded that sector’s $219 million in traceable investments.
Action to address climate change in a meaningful way would require enforceable restrictions on emissions and/or a heavy carbon tax, both of which are anathema to the right.
• Business Opportunities: One man’s loss is another man’s gain. The thawing of the Arctic and other regions will open new transportation routes and allow access to resources of every kind. Part of the allure of Greenland for Donald Trump, for instance, is the island’s wealth in rare earth metals, which are critical to advanced battery technology and therefore to an array of high-tech and national security applications. If Gaza, demolished and bleeding, can be repurposed as the “Riviera of the Middle East” (to quote President Trump), then imagine what might be done with real estate freed from the bondage of ice.
• Culture Wars: The lines have been drawn for a long time. Solidarity is the key. If you give up too much ground on the climate issue, your challengers will paint you as a RINO—a Republican in name only—and you’ll be suspected of being soft on bathrooms, too. Pretty soon you’ll lose the MAGA faithful, who don’t want to be bothered by talk about issues. They want stand-up, semi-comedic entertainment in which you spray spite and vituperation like an incontinent cat. So, you tell them that worrying about climate change is for sissies and they eat it up. That’s good because it also helps keep you from doubting yourself. You’ve gone down this road much too far to turn back now. The anthropologist Anthony F.C. Wallace offered his “Principle of the Conservation of Cognitive Structure” as a fancy way of saying that, if you pull one brick out of a wall of belief, the whole structure might topple. It’s a reason some people insist on fighting when they ought to switch. They sense the terrifying possibility that, if they dare accept something from outside the echo chamber in which they’ve been living (read: Fox News), they might collapse in a simpering heap.
• The Short View: There’s a lesson to be learned in how quickly the “best of friends” bromance between Donald Trump and Elon Musk was cancelled. Apart from the fact that two hyper-narcissistic men in a small transactional space will never last long, it turns out that obsessive self-concern is a prerequisite for thoroughly ignoring the well-being and needs of others. Such a lack of empathy applies to the future as well as the present. If Trump, Musk, Vice President JD Vance, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and crew ever happened to stumble across Robert Heilbroner’s essay “What Has Posterity Ever Done for Me?,” they would undoubtedly agree with the implication of the title, which is surely all they would bother to read. (Heilbroner actually argues the opposite: that care for posterity is a moral imperative.) Trump and his sycophants would say that, since posterity has done nothing for them, they owe it nothing. Bottom line: Worrying about how future generations will cope with a savagely inhospitable climate is for losers.
• Ideology: This is the absolute deal-breaker. An ideology that prioritizes individual freedom over all else—rights untethered from responsibilities—inevitably leads to a hatred of regulation of any sort. If you accept taxation as a kind of regulation that limits your ability to keep all the money that you can get your hands on, you have the full picture. Action to address climate change in a meaningful way would require enforceable restrictions on emissions and/or a heavy carbon tax, both of which are anathema to the right. Worse yet, as climate change is a global problem, international agreements like the Paris climate accord are also necessary and, for conservatives, that smacks of the worst kind of regulation, representing a step toward “extra-national” governance—decisions made by the United Nations or other foreign councils or sets of states, but mainly by people who are not like you.
• Psychopathy (or maybe just psycho): Being willfully unconcerned about an existential threat to civilization requires an exceptional personality, immune to the pangs of compassion and devoid of empathy for others. Such people exist. They have been identified among serial killers, remorseless business executives, and… well, you know, that guy in the White House. The horrific fires last January in greater Los Angeles, which destroyed more than 11,500 homes, presented the nation’s prospective Consoler-in-Chief with an opportunity to salve the region’s wounds with supportive and reassuring words. Instead, then-President-elect Trump, who has never been formally diagnosed with psychopathy but manifests many of its symptoms, opted to castigate California Gov. Gavin Newsom for his water policies. (After his inauguration, Trump ordered a massive release of federally controlled water into southern California, a grandstanding move that produced no benefits for LA’s fire victims, would have conferred no advantage on firefighters had the flames still been leaping, and uselessly depleted water reserves.) Nevertheless, it might be useful to consider the situation from the point of view of Trump and his wealthy right-wing peers: If you have plenty of money, you can live anywhere you want. If one of your houses burns down, you no doubt have another you can move to—or you just build a new one. What’s the big deal?
• Disconnection: This goes deeper than ideology and provides the soil from which conservative ideology grows. Tucker Carlson and other right-wing media stars revealed more than they knew when they accused “environmentalist wackos” and other progressives of drawing a connection between climate change and systemic racism. With customary paranoia they attributed the link between the two issues to liberals’ desire to “control you.” They were dead wrong about the motivation, but the linkage is there.
Climate change invites an ecological view of life on Earth in which human behavior is understood to affect the condition of the planet. If such a problem can be global and the responsibility for it shared, then the people of the world are connected by a common challenge and predicament. Ultimately everyone, like it or not, is in the same mess, and only collective effort is likely to provide a remedy. Once the web of connection is admitted, belief in a special tribe, a superior race, a chosen people, or any other kind of exceptionalism becomes difficult to sustain, and the basis for racism starts looking as hollow as it is. Charles Darwin expressed this understanding a century and a half ago when he wrote, “As… small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men [and of course women!] of all nations and races.”
For people whose sense of self depends on believing that they are separate and superior to others, the ecological view espoused by Darwin and his many successors is anathema. Resistance to it, even at the cost of self-destruction—to say nothing of the cost to others—becomes an endless and vain cry of “Don’t tread on me!” Because this attitude originates deep in the identity of its adherents, prospects for overcoming it may seem dim indeed. Politics, however, are fluid. The tide can shift. The right-wing dead-enders can be outnumbered. They’d better be. The climate clock is ticking.
"People are no longer buying the lies. They see the fingerprints of fossil fuel giants all over the storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires devastating their lives, and they want accountability," said the head of one green group.
Large majorities of people around the world support both taxing oil, gas, and coal companies for the environmental damage made worse by fossil fuels and using higher taxes on polluters to support communities most impacted by the climate crisis, according to the results of an international survey released Thursday.
The study, which was jointly commissioned by Greenpeace International and Oxfam International, surveyed roughly 1,200 people in each of these 13 countries: Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Philippines, South Africa, Spain, United Kingdom, and the United States. The research was conducted by the data company Dynata, and field work was done between May 9-28, 2025. Greenpeace noted that, taken together, the countries represent close to 50% of the globe's population.
The results of the survey showed a whopping 81% of those surveyed would support taxes fossil fuel companies to pay for damages wrought by "fossil-fuel driven climate disasters."
"These survey results send a clear message: people are no longer buying the lies. They see the fingerprints of fossil fuel giants all over the storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires devastating their lives, and they want accountability," said Mads Christensen, the executive director of Greenpeace International.
"It's only fair that those who caused the crisis should pay for the damage, not those suffering from it," he added.
The study findings come as individual states in the U.S. show a growing interest in passing legislation to force fossil fuel companies to help pay for the recovery cost of climate-related disasters. Vermont became the first state in the country to pass a climate "Superfund" law in 2024, and New York followed suit later that year. Several other states are considering such legislation, according to March reporting from Stateline.
The survey also found that 86% of respondents support channeling revenues "from higher taxes on oil and gas corporations towards communities most impacted by the climate crisis."
Climate campaigners have long sought international financial arrangement that would see rich countries transfer money to developing countries in order to help the latter cut their emissions and adapt to climate change. Last year's United Nations climate negotiations ended with a pledge by donor countries to set at least $300 billion annually for that purpose. That amount was criticized for being inadequate.
The study was launched Thursday at the UN Climate Meetings in Bonn, where government representatives are discussing climate policies, including ways to raise at least $ 1.3 trillion annually for climate mitigation, adaptation, and recovery by 2035 across the Global South.
According to Amitabh Behar, executive director of Oxfam International, "a new tax on polluting industries could provide immediate and significant support to climate-vulnerable countries, and finally incentivize investment in renewables and a just transition."