From & nbspgeorge Dimitropoulos & nbsp && nbspEURONEWS Green& nbspwith & nbspAccess
Was published
Advertising
After eleven days of intensive negotiations in the United Nations Geneva, representatives of 184 countries leave without consent on global legally mandatory plastic pollution.
The conference was aimed at completing the first agreement, which would encounter a plastic life cycle in general, from production to mood. Nevertheless, disagreements on whether the agreement should limit the explosive increase in production and impose global control on toxic chemicals, led to a complete dead end – the failure in South Korea, repeating last year on the stage.
Such countries as Norway, Australia and Tuval, expressed deep disappointment. “We came to Geneva to ensure a global state for plastics, knowing that there can be no more bets,” said the European Commissioner on the Environment, resistance to water and competitive circular economy, Gesian Rosval, emphasizing that the EU emphasizes that the EU EU, emphasizing that the EU. It will continue to insist on a stronger and more mandatory agreement.
On the contrary, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait claimed that the production of plastics should not be included in the scope of the contract. The chairman of the negotiations of the Committee of Luis Vagia Valdivies submitted two planes of texts that recognized the “unstable” course of production and consumption of plastics, but did not foresee quantitative restrictions.
The Danish Minister of the Environment, Magnus Khunka, called the last text “more ambitious, although not perfect,” but noted that “the achievement of a compromise requires us to retreat from our red lines” – which did not happen.
Greenpeace spoke about “Circles of course -end”, calling for a change in the process so that decisions can be made by voting, and not unanimous. For its part, the Center for International Environmental Legislation accused in some countries in the parish to prevent, and not reach an agreement, calling for a “restart” and a “desire agreement”.
The future of negotiations remains uncertain, with a break between countries looking for ambitious obligations, and those who protect the existing model remaining visual.