When UN negotiations over a global agreement on plastic waste convene for a second session in May, the EU is planning to bring evidence that it practices what it preaches.
In November last year, the European Commission proposed sweeping packaging regulations that would require companies selling products in EU countries to make their packaging easier to reuse, recycle or in some cases compost. Takeaway food, hot and cold drinks, and wine and other alcohol would have to be provided at least partly in reusable packaging by 2030, and the rules would limit unnecessary empty space in packaging.
The EU’s overall goal is to reduce packaging waste by 5 percent by 2030 from 2018 levels, and by 15 percent by 2040.
Many of these policies can also be found in proposals submitted by the EU ahead of the session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) on plastic waste, such as minimums on recycled content and reusable packaging, limits on the use of labels claiming biodegradability, and “eco-design” criteria that include avoiding empty space and promoting durable and refillable packaging.
Those objectives also largely reflect the views of the UN negotiations’ “High Ambition Coalition,” a group of countries including EU member states, the UK, Ghana, Senegal, Australia and Canada.
The small island states most negatively impacted by marine plastic waste are also calling for better design and reuse.
“The European Union are playing a leading role in advocating for a high-ambition, legally binding global agreement under the UN process to end plastic pollution,” said Steve Fletcher, director of the Global Plastics Policy Centre at the University of Portsmouth in southern England. “The current proposals are aligned with that high ambition that they want to see developed through the treaty process.”
It is only the beginning. The EU has over the past four years, in legislation and negotiations, begun to make its case for a world less reliant on single-use and virgin plastics. Its vision centers on a global set of rules around the most harmful chemicals used in plastics, a ramping-up of recycled content and reusability, and — most controversially — stricter controls on plastics production.
The bloc has also begun tackling possibly its greatest global plastic sin: the wholesale export of waste to developing countries.
The plastic industry is fiendishly complicated and global by nature. Plastic is typically extracted in the form of fossil fuels in one country, then made into nurdles or pellets and shipped somewhere else, where it is turned into a consumer product, shipped again and finally sold.
After it is used, most plastic is sent to a landfill or incinerator, and what gets recycled often still ends up polluting rivers and oceans.
No matter how it is disposed of, each kilogram of plastic that comes on to the market has already caused almost 3kg of greenhouse gas emissions through its production, and if incinerated, that adds another 2.7kg, the EU estimates.
As a result, reforming the plastics industry is also fiendishly complicated. The companies that make and sell plastic work across the globe, and there are no universal standards for their claims around bioplastic, biodegradability, compostability, reusability and recyclability. Guidance and labels for consumers are confusing or nonexistent.
Into this maelstrom comes the EU. Although its vision for a UN plastics agreement would have to be reconciled with that of more than 100 other countries, the bloc is a powerful influence.
Its decisions have a wider impact than its borders, both on the companies that supply EU consumers and on the governments of the nations around it.
Its proposed plastics rules are also more systemic, comprehensive and wide-ranging than previous efforts, and more likely to be effective than piecemeal bans on individual products.
There is a realistic chance that the EU’s standard becomes the de facto global standard, which would make the bloc something of a global plastics sheriff.
“Of course, we are always happy when our regulation is followed by others,” European Commissioner for the Environment, Oceans and Fisheries Virginijus Sinkevicius told Bloomberg Green in an interview. “I think in UNEA everyone recognized that plastic is becoming a growing issue and we should not be naive about recycling our way out of it.”
About the EU’s intended role, Sinkevicius said that “a sheriff is someone who watches for the others. We are not going to be doing that, but we are always happy when our legislation is being taken as the leading one.”
EU policy is already having an impact. In 2019, the bloc launched a Single Use Plastics Directive that banned polystyrene plates and cups, as well as single-use plastic plates, cutlery, straws, balloon sticks and cotton buds. It also required polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles to contain a minimum of 25 percent recycled plastic, and mandated PET bottle caps stay attached to reduce littering.
England, Scotland and Wales have since announced or implemented almost identical bans, while aspiring EU members such as Montenegro, Serbia and Albania have to add the directive to their domestic legislation, in order to be able to join. Coca-Cola’s “tethered” bottle caps, a result of the regulations, were also adopted in Britain last year, despite its departure from the EU.
The EU is not the only governing body making moves on plastic, and the new world it seeks to encourage is not entirely novel.
In some South American countries, Coca-Cola sells more than 60 percent of its products in refillable packaging, and many other nations were ahead on restricting single-use plastic bags. Bangladesh was the first to introduce a total ban in 2002, while the EU’s directive only encourages reductions. Several US states have deposit-return schemes, known locally as “bottle bills,” which encourage consumers to return containers for a small refund. In the EU, they are currently standard only in Germany.
However, the EU’s legislation is unique in the sense that it tackles packaging as a whole, rather than focusing only on plastic. It also reflects a wider effort by the bloc to influence global environmental policy through “green diplomacy.”
“There is this willingness from the EU to be the green deal leader and the environmental leader globally,” said Justine Maillot, coordinator of the campaign group Break Free From Plastic Europe. “If some big companies are starting to change the way they produce their packaging for the EU market, they may also do the same for other markets.”
Public opinion is also providing a tailwind, Sinkevicius said, adding that solutions seen to be working in one place can provide a model for citizens of other countries looking to apply pressure to their governments.
Already, some EU members are racing ahead. In France, a ban on plastic packaging for produce and in fast food restaurants took effect this year.
“It’s very well supported by the citizens,” Sinkevicius said, adding that the single-use plastic directive “passed the EU legislation so quickly because citizens were all along the process ensuring that it moves quickly.”
Putting in place domestic legislation is a way to add weight and leadership to international negotiations, Fletcher said.
“I see the [EU’s] motivation as being a bit more positive, around leading by example and really demonstrating that if you have the political commitment you can implement quite strong reforms to the plastics economy,” he said.
To some degree, the EU’s hand is also being forced.
The plastic waste that the bloc’s countries do produce has a shrinking pool of possible destinations. For years, China was the chief recipient of the world’s plastic waste, importing about half of it until the country banned such imports in 2017. Thailand and Turkey have also restricted imports of plastic waste, and a separate law banning plastic waste exports to developing countries was approved by the European Parliament last month.
That urgency is part of why Sinkevicius is trying to sell the plastics crackdown as positive for European businesses, saying that they can claim first-mover advantage in areas like reusability.
“The moment you ship your waste away, you kill any innovation,” he said. “We’re talking not only about reuse — we’re also talking about longer-lasting plastics that can be used for a long time. I think that would be something that would be very much appreciated across the world.”
Jean-Pierre Schweitzer, policy officer at the nonprofit European Environmental Bureau, said that higher fossil fuel costs would also make efforts to create resource-efficient packaging “increasingly interesting from an economic perspective.”
When the next UN negotiations begin in May, the EU’s tougher packaging rules would still be an open question. The proposal has yet to clear the European Parliament and the European Council, and already faces opposition from the plastics, glass and paper industries.
There are also implementation concerns to work through, as compliant EU businesses would depend on the enforcement of import standards, and while the new rules are binding for EU member states — creating a harmonious system without the need for separate domestic laws — that also means identical policies would have to be implemented in countries with wildly different waste infrastructures.
Finally, there is the sheer scale of the waste in question, which continues to grow. In 2020 alone, the EU produced almost 80 million tonnes of packaging waste. Reducing that by 5 percent would only take the bloc’s waste levels back a few years — and do nothing to erase past damage.
“If we went in a time machine back to 2018, it’s not like we’re living in a world free of packaging waste,” Schweitzer said. “In the same way that in the Wild West, the sheriff normally also was guilty of committing his fair share of crimes, I think this is definitely the case for the EU as well.”
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS