The Inflation Reduction Act: A pivotal opportunity to push back against false solutions

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) channels $270 billion in tax credits for climate investments but raises concerns about incineration—a false solution to waste disposal that could generate 637.7 million tonnes of CO2e emissions over two decades, further harming the environment and disadvantaged communities.

By: Marcel Howard (Zero Waste Program Manager, US/Canada) and Jessica Roff (Plastics & Petrochemicals Program Manager, US/Canada)

Key Highlights

  • The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is primarily a tax bill. Of the promised $369 billion in climate investments, $270 billion will come in the form of tax credits1
  • Incineration is one of the most polluting and expensive waste disposal systems. Industry2 often greenwashes incineration as  “waste-to-energy”3 despite producing minimal amounts of usable energy and massive energy input
  • By measuring the lifecycle climate impacts of incineration accurately, the Department of the Treasury can deny polluting facilities billions in tax credits intended for actual sustainable energy solutions and ultimately delay or block their construction or expansion
  • If industry succeeds in propping up incinerators for 20 years, they will produce 637.7 million tonnes of climate-change-inducing CO2e emissions and further exacerbate toxic pollution and environmental racism4
  • Pairing new subsidies for incinerators with incentives for EVs is perverse
  • Turning waste, including fossil fuel-derived plastics, into jet fuel is dangerous and does not decarbonize air travel 
  • Two-thirds of US incinerators are located in states that include incineration in their renewable energy portfolio
  • The IRA allocated billions of dollars in lending subsidies specifically meant to drive reinvestment in low-wealth and environmental justice communities. Environmental justice, frontline, and fenceline groups should consider applying for these IRA lending programs

Background

The United States (US) has a waste problem compounded by a plastic problem. For decades, we have been handling our waste in ways that harm communities, our climate, and the natural world. Federal, state, and municipal governments continue to site waste incinerators of all forms in Black, brown, indigenous, and lower-wealth communities — plaguing them with decades of harmful air emissions, high levels of greenhouse gasses, toxic waste, accidents, and other health and safety-related concerns. From fossil fuel extraction to final waste product disposal, the entire production process damages these communities and numerous others. Across the board, incineration is one of the most polluting and expensive waste disposal systems.

Industry often greenwashes incineration as  “waste-to-energy” despite producing minimal amounts of usable energy and leverages this greenwashing to access billions of dollars in federal, state, and local green, renewable, and sustainable energy subsidies and tax breaks. Against this backdrop, the Biden Administration signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law on August 16, 2022. Many agencies are already approving and funding false solutions under the IRA. The Department of Energy (DOE) is funding new carbon capture programs at nearly $3.5 billion and allocating $1.2 billion of Justice40 money to develop direct air capture facilities. We are in a pivotal moment where the US must decide if it will take critical steps to lower greenhouse gas and toxic emissions and move toward a truly sustainable future or will continue to subsidize the dirtiest industries to annually emit millions of tonnes of new CO2 and other dangerous air pollutants.

IRA Overview

The Biden Administration claims its 755-page IRA is the most comprehensive climate bill in US history that is supposed to “make a historic commitment to build a new clean energy economy.” Its provisions on climate change mitigation, clean energy, and energy innovation dominate headlines, as it raises nearly $800 billion from multiple sources. President Biden said, “With this law, the American people won and the special interests lost.” To ensure this is true and stop the incinerator lobby and other special interests from cashing in on a new pool of taxpayer money, the federal government must implement critical changes to its business-as-usual model.

The IRA is primarily a tax bill. Of the promised $369 billion in climate investments, $270 billion will come in the form of tax credits. Before the IRA, Congress awarded tax credits to specific technologies (including incinerators) regardless of greenhouse gas emissions or community harm. Beginning in 2025, however, their eligibility will depend entirely on the Department of Treasury (Treasury) determining that they are zero-emission technologies. By measuring the lifecycle climate impacts of incineration accurately, Treasury can deny polluting facilities billions in tax credits intended for actual sustainable energy solutions and ultimately delay or block their construction or expansion.

Threats & False Solutions

Lifelines to Old, Failing Incinerators

Corporate polluters are corrupting the IRA, lobbying to weaken its rules and definitions to qualify for billions in new subsidies to expand and retrofit existing incinerators, most of which have been operating for an average of 32 years. It is nearly impossible to construct new conventional incinerators due to cost and community opposition, so industry is focused on expansion and modification. If industry succeeds in propping up incinerators for 20 years, they will produce 637.7 million tonnes of climate-change-inducing CO2e emissions and further exacerbate toxic pollution and environmental racism. 

Codifying False and Greenwashed Definitions

The incinerator lobby’s goal is to maximize subsidies, profits, and expansion and to use the IRA and other climate bills as a subsidized path to an undeserved sustainable image upgrade. In the context of the IRA, federal agencies such as the Treasury, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can either categorize incineration as the dirty, expensive, polluting process it is or bolster industry’s claims that incineration produces sustainable energy. If the federal government supports industry’s definitions in the earliest stages of IRA implementation, they will frame agency action and provide billions in tax credits, likely being codified for many climate laws, including the IRA.

IRA Breakdown & Opportunities for the Incinerator Lobby 

The incinerator lobby is working to undermine all aspects of the IRA, specifically focusing on (1) the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), (2) Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), and (3) IRA lending programs. 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)

In consultation with the Department of Agriculture and DOE, EPA implements the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The RFS program is a “national policy that requires a certain volume of renewable fuel to replace or reduce the quantity of petroleum-based transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel.” The four renewable fuel categories under the RFS are biomass-based diesel, cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. Although long limited to liquid fuels like ethanol, Biden’s EPA is in the process of allowing electricity from certain types of bioenergy to generate eligible credits. Under the current proposal, electric vehicle manufacturers would contract with power producers to generate highly profitable RFS credits.

Pairing new subsidies for incinerators with incentives for EVs is perverse. While support for electric vehicles is vital, it must not be fueled by dirty energy nor sacrifice frontline and fenceline communities. Incinerator interests recently launched a lobbying campaign to secure these incentives. Fortunately, EPA is not required to allow incinerator electricity into the program and has recently tabled an industry-backed eligibility proposal. But, only public pressure on Biden’s EPA and key Administration climate deciders will ensure they don’t approve such proposals.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) 

As one of the most generous IRA incentives, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Tax Credit (SAF) poses an urgent environmental justice concern. The credit increases in value for lower lifecycle emissions fuels. Treasury’s implementation will determine if this approach succeeds or fails. Industry interests are pushing to make the credit friendlier– and more lucrative–to a new generation of incinerators masquerading behind greenwashing like “pyrolysis,”  “chemical or advanced recycling,” and “plastic-to-fuel.” Turning waste, including fossil fuel-derived plastics, into jet fuel is dangerous and does not decarbonize air travel. 

Although the new aviation production tax credit theoretically excludes petroleum-based feedstocks like plastic, industry is pressuring the Administration to interpret the law to maximize benefits for incineration-based aviation fuels. President Biden and Treasury must decisively determine that plastic-derived fuel — including that derived from pyrolysis oil or any other product of chemical recycling/pyrolysis/gasification — is ineligible for these tax credits.

Lending Programs

The IRA allocated billions of new dollars to EPA and DOE, in particular, to expand existing lending programs and launch entirely new ones. Like the rest of the IRA, these programs’ climate and justice benefits depend on implementation. EPA is in charge of the new Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), arguably the most important non-tax provision of the IRA. Worth $37 billion, it will be divided into three separate programs. EPA released broad, unenforceable guidelines in April 2023, suggesting they will focus lending on distributed generation, building decarbonization, and transport. These guidelines will not ensure the money is appropriately allocated, so EPA must prioritize applicants working on proven zero waste approaches. 

DOE is in charge of The Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment (EIR) Program, a new loan guarantee program with $250 billion that must be spent before 2026. It can fund energy infrastructure upgrades and the reopening of defunct energy infrastructure, both of which industry could coopt to support their ongoing incineration and chemical recycling plans. DOE must refuse to consider any incinerator applications to guarantee industry does not use loopholes to access clean energy tax credits. 

In July, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee passed the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies budget for Fiscal Year 2024. Their budget supports chemical recycling while cutting massive amounts from EPA’s budget and the IRA’s environmental justice efforts, including a nearly $4 billion EPA budget cut (a 39% reduction over 2023), reneging on the IRA’s $1.35 billion promised in environmental and climate justice grants.

Call to Action 

The incinerator lobby is so desperate for money and a government-greenwashed reputation that they launched a new, big-money–astroturf5 network, including DC power brokers and local government enablers. The combined movements6 for climate justice don’t have industry money, but we have people power, the truth, and a prime opportunity to fight against this industry push. There are three key areas in which to counter industry’s agenda: (1) Treasury engagement, (2) state-level renewable portfolio standards, and (3)  IRA lending subsidies. 

Treasury Engagement

As the Washington Post exposed in May 2023, the incinerator industry is among polluting industries racing to position themselves as green to access billions in subsidies and tax credits. In the last year alone, industry launched two trade groups to push their message: the Waste-to-Energy Association and the Circular Economy Coalition. Both have made comments to access benefits for incinerators under the Inflation Reduction Act, or considered prioritizing it. Industry is dedicated to getting Treasury to qualify incinerators as renewable, despite overwhelming evidence that incinerators are extremely polluting. 

It is critical to engage with Treasury as it develops policies, rules, regulations, and procedures to implement the IRA. If Treasury determines this most costly and polluting form of energy is zero emission, it will set an appallingly low bar within the IRA that will exacerbate rather than address the climate crisis, perpetuating and compounding the issues we currently face, and permanently scarring the Biden Administration legacy.

State-level Renewable Portfolio Standards 

The IRA has broad implications, reaching far beyond the federal level of government. Defeating federal government incinerator giveaways in the IRA and other federal climate initiatives will strengthen communities fighting state and local government incinerator giveaways. Currently, different states provide a patchwork of policies and incentives related to incineration. Perhaps most notable are state Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). Twenty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and four US territories have an RPS. Each RPS has its own renewable electricity targets, defines what technologies qualify as renewable, designates particular technologies as higher or lower tier within the mix, and enables the trading or sale of renewable energy credits. Two-thirds of US incinerators are located in the 26 US states and territories that include incineration in their renewable energy portfolio. Showing industry’s power, scope, and connections at both the federal and state levels of government. It also shows an entrenched mentality that incineration is a clean energy solution. It is imperative that the IRA does not follow suit.

IRA Lending Subsidies

Along with Treasury engagement, environmental justice, frontline, and fenceline groups should consider applying to IRA lending programs. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and DOE’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment (EIR) Program offers billions of dollars for projects specifically meant to drive reinvestment in low-wealth and environmental justice communities. Both programs provide an opportunity to fund proven zero waste solutions that push back against false solutions, like incineration. 

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF): The GGRFis a $27 billion investment program designed to achieve the following: “ (1) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants;  (2) deliver benefits of greenhouse gas, and air pollution-reducing projects specifically to low-wealth and disadvantaged communities; and (3)  mobilize financing and private capital to stimulate additional deployment of greenhouse gas and air pollution reducing projects.” The GGRF is being implemented via three grant competitions, which include: (1) the National Clean Investment Fund, (2) the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator, and (3) the Solar for All Fund.”7 

The National Clean Investment Fund: “The National Clean Investment Fund competition will provide grants to 2-3 national nonprofit clean financing institutions7 capable of partnering with the private sector to provide accessible, affordable financing for tens of thousands of clean technology projects across the country.” To learn more about the program and how to apply, visit Grants.gov. Application packages must be submitted on or before October 12, 2023, at 11:59 PM (Eastern Time) through Grants.gov.

The Clean Communities Investment Accelerator: “The Clean Communities Investment Accelerator competition will provide grants to 2-7 hub nonprofits that will, in turn, deliver funding and technical assistance to build the clean financing capacity of local community lenders working in low-wealth and disadvantaged communities so that underinvested communities have the capital they need to deploy clean technology projects.” To learn more about the program and how to apply, visit Grants.gov. Application packages must be submitted on or before October 12, 2023, at 11:59 PM (Eastern Time) through Grants.gov. 

DOE Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment (EIR) Program: “The EIR Program provides $250 billion for projects that retool, repower, repurpose, or replace energy infrastructure that has ceased operations or enable operating energy infrastructure to avoid, reduce, utilize, or sequester air pollutants or greenhouse gas emissions.” To learn more about the program and how to apply, visit Energy.gov. Individuals interested in applying should request a no-cost pre-application consultation with a member from DOE’s Loan Programs Office. 

USDA Empowering Rural America (New ERA) Program: “The ERA program provides $9.7 billion for projects that help rural Americans transition to clean, affordable, and reliable energy intending to improve health outcomes and lower energy costs for people in rural communities.” To learn more about the program and how to apply, visit USDA.gov. Individuals interested in applying should submit a Letter of Interest (LOI) by September 15, 2023.  

Conclusion 

On paper, the Biden Administration’s IRA may be the most comprehensive climate legislation in history, but it also has the immense potential to be a climate destroyer. We are at a crossroads where the Administration and all other levels of government have the power to use the IRA for its stated purpose to “confront the existential threat of the climate crisis and set forth a new era of American innovation and ingenuity to lower consumer costs and drive the global clean energy economy forward.” To make the promise a reality, the Administration — including all the executive agencies, particularly Treasury, Energy, and EPA — cannot succumb to industry greenwashing lobbying.

The Biden Administration must accurately measure the lifecycle climate and health impacts of all forms of incineration and its products (including pyrolysis and gasification) and unequivocally determine that it is not a source of clean energy or a safe way to make jet fuel. It will be up to our ever-expanding movement to hold the Administration accountable to the ideal of the IRA and ensure it is not another greenwashed handout to industry — and that its tax credits and funding go to sustainable solutions that benefit the Black, brown, indigenous, and low wealth communities as it initially intended. 

For more information on the Inflation Reduction Act and its lending programs, visit our fact sheet here.

Resources 
  1. As a tax bill, the categories and definitions of processes are critical because they will determine if a process is covered under it. Historically, there have been some good and some bad determinative definitions (including currently for chemical recycling). ↩︎
  2.  Industry refers to the plastics, incinerator, fossil fuel, and chemical industries who are all perpetuating the plastic waste problem ↩︎
  3.  Industry labels waste-to-energy (WTE) a number of different ways including: plastic-to-fuel (PTF), plastic-to-energy (PTE), refuse-derived-fuel, etc. ↩︎
  4.  This is entirely dependent on if the federal government places incinerators into favorable categories for purposes of massive amounts of tax credits and de facto subsidies. ↩︎
  5.  Astroturfing is the practice of hiding the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious, or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from, and is supported by, grassroots participants. ↩︎
  6.  The movement includes, but is not limited to – and is always open to expand – the environmental justice movement, climate movement, conservation movement, public health movement, plastics movement, etc. ↩︎
  7. The deadline for the Solar for All Competition has recently been extended to October 12, 2023. Please review this link for additional information: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-launches-7-billion-solar-all-grant-competition-fund#:~:text=The%20Solar%20for%20All%20competition,%2C%20Tribal%20governments%2C%20municipalities%2C%20and ↩︎
© Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka.
  • Los derrames a gran escala de pellets de plástico tóxico en el mar van en aumento. En mayo de 2021, 1.680 toneladas de pellets y 9.700 toneladas de otros plásticos se precipitaron a las aguas de Sri Lanka como consecuencia del hundimiento del carguero X-Press Pearl.
  • La limpieza está recién empezando. Se trata de una de las peores catástrofes medioambientales de la historia de Sri Lanka, dejando un profundo legado de contaminación tóxica que afectará al país durante décadas.

En mayo de este año, el barco de carga X-Press Pearl derramó 1.680 toneladas de pellets plásticos y 9.700 toneladas de otros plásticos a 9 millas de la costa de Sri Lanka. El plástico se acumuló en las playas hasta llegar a los 2 metros de altura, convirtiéndose en el desastre ambiental más grande de la historia del país, y el   mayor evento de contaminación por pellets de plástico que se haya visto en el mundo.

© Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka.

A pesar de esto, el hecho de que los pellets se encuentren en todas las costas investigadas, y con cada vez más evidencia de que los pellets actúan como esponjas tóxicas y que una gran cantidad de especies marinas se alimentan de ellos, actualmente no son considerados como contaminantes persistentes y peligrosos. Una clasificación más estricta por parte de la Organización Marítima Internacional (OMI) haría que los pellets se manejen en el mar como otras mercancías peligrosas. Esta clasificación supondría la aplicación de instrucciones de manipulación y etiquetado mucho más estrictas, la estiba bajo cubierta y protocolos adecuados de respuesta ante catástrofes que limitarían las consecuencias que se produjeron en Sri Lanka en posibles catástrofes marítimas a futuro. 

Urgencia de contar con regulaciones internacionales

© Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka.

La contaminación por plásticos de origen marino está contemplada en la política internacional de la OMI, concretamente en el Anexo V de MARPOL. La OMI cuenta con un Plan de acción relacionado con los desechos plásticos marinos procedentes de los buques, pero su avance ha sido lamentablemente lento y se ha visto obstaculizado por los problemas causados por la pandemia del Covid-19. 

En el Comité de Protección del Medio Marino (MEPC-77) que se desarrolló en noviembre,  los plásticos volvieron a estar en agenda después de casi dos años y de que varias ONG han trabajado para amplificar la importancia de este tema y destacar ejemplos concretos en los que la falta de supervisión y normativa internacional está teniendo un impacto en el medio ambiente, en medios de subsistencia y en las comunidades.

Hubo varias propuestas sobre la mesa, entre ellas una del gobierno de Sri Lanka y otra de ONG relacionada a los plásticos. Las iniciativas recibieron gran apoyo con más de 50.000 firmas en la declaración que exige el establecimiento de lineamientos internacionales y obligaciones para el transporte de pellets de plástico.

También te podría interesar

Mingas por el mar, Ecuador: La polución marina por nurdles es un problema global para el cual se necesita acción urgente

Otros países que también han sido afectados por contaminación de pellets:
  • Hong Kong (2012)
  • Sudáfrica 2017 y 2020
  • Dinamarca, Suecia, Noruega – 2020
  • Países Bajos y Bélica – 2019

We, the undersigned members of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives – Asia Pacific and its allies, call on the ADB’s  Board of Directors to reject the diluted, regressive, and dangerous draft ADB Environmental and Social Framework (“draft ESF”), which is currently being presented without meaningful consultations with affected communities and civil society organizations.

What has been set in 2009 as a forward-looking safeguard policy for people and the planet is turning into an unbreakable shield of protection for industry polluters in a time of deep and intersecting crises of biodiversity, climate, pollution, and social inequalities.

While science, community experiences, and global policy agenda point to bans, phase-outs, and restrictions on the manufacturing, trade, transport, and use of globally known hazardous substances and materials such as persistent organic pollutants and mercury which are known to have adverse impacts on human health, ecosystem, or have potential for depletion of the ozone layer – ADB’s draft ESF has glaringly dropped key multilateral environmental agreements (MEA) governing these harmful and toxic substances and materials.  

Instead of keeping at pace with the recent amendments of these MEAs on the standards and targets to curb the most harmful pollutants to guide the Bank and its borrowers, the draft ESF has omitted previous references in the 2009 Safeguards Policy on the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants,  the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal. Moreover, it also has ignored the Minamata Convention that governs mercury which is a known byproduct of waste-to-energy incinerators. 

In the heart of ignoring global consensus on the need for international standards, targets and cross-border cooperation on the management of hazardous wastes is ADB’s direction towards continued support for industries known to be using toxic wastes as inputs or producing hazardous emissions such as waste-to-energy incinerators, co-incineration of waste with coal and cement plants, refuse-derived fuel, fly ash “recycling”, among others. 

Not only does the draft ESF enable the Bank and its borrowers to circumvent obligations to these MEAs, but it also encourages the use of poor or non-existent national mechanisms to under-capacitated developing countries in governing hazardous wastes or rely on the World Bank’s equally inadequate environment and health standards (EHS) instead of supporting developing member-states in the region achieve the objectives of international law. 

The undermining of MEAs poses risks to significant long-term impacts on communities in developing countries that are already challenged with shrinking civic spaces, democratic backsliding, and being unjustly blamed for causing pollution and destroying ecosystems. 

Moreover, the draft ESF allows continued pollution through offsetting mechanisms that have been repeatedly offered as a default option in the draft ESF for borrowers should their projects create “unavoidable” pollution instead of avoiding damage in the first place. The truth is, that MEAs are telling us that hazardous waste must be restricted and ultimately eliminated in the immediate horizon. 

Real safeguarding of the Earth’s resources and preventing pollution starts with redesigning production systems and goods, reducing unwanted extraction, and developing safe and just reuse of waste materials. However, it is alarming that the draft ESF has not placed the proper safeguards to ensure that circular economy activities achieve a just and safe future for everyone, especially the most marginalized players in the conservation of material resources. 

Despite the critical roles of informal workers in material resource recovery, the draft ESF has not recognized and protected their rights as provided for by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Recommendations 193, 204, and 205 which guide member-states on ensuring a just transition. 

If adopted, the current draft ESF risks reversing global efforts in addressing pollution and conserving material resources in a just and safe manner. 

We reject the draft ESF until the ADB moves toward upward harmonization with international consensus, including in emerging processes like the Global Plastics Treaty. 

We demand a progressive ESF policy with avoidance to harm and human rights at the center that empowers communities to say no to rights-violating, climate and debt-inducing projects, and technologies that keep the poorest region as toxic markets for false solutions of wealthier countries. 

SIGN-ON FORM

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Modestos avances en el texto del Tratado y los trabajos entre sesiones

PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA 30 DE ABRIL DE 2024

Ottawa, Ontario, Canadá- Después de más de un año de estancamiento, los negociadores finalmente avanzaron en la cuarta ronda de conversaciones del tratado sobre los plásticos (INC-4), con un apoyo decisivo y creciente entre las partes sobre la necesidad de que el tratado incluya objetivos de reducción de plásticos, con más de 50 países a favor. 

“El INC-4 marca un punto de inflexión en la lucha contra la contaminación por plásticos, a pesar de los esfuerzos de los países petroleros y de la industria por bloquear el progreso y rebajar la ambición”, afirma Ana Rocha, Directora de Política Global de Plásticos de GAIA. “Los países de todo el mundo están cada vez más dispuestos a reducir la producción de plástico. Cada vez más líderes están despertando a lo que la ciencia y nuestras experiencias nos dicen: el plástico es contaminación, y necesitamos detenerlo desde el origen.”

El mérito del creciente cambio radical en la reducción de los polímeros plásticos primarios (PPP) corresponde a las regiones del Sur Global, en particular África, América Latina y los pequeños Estados insulares en desarrollo (PEID). Ruanda y Perú fueron los primeros en pedir un objetivo de reducción del plástico del 40% para 2040. La propuesta de Ruanda y Perú es la primera vez que un grupo de países propone un objetivo específico de reducción de la producción de plástico, aunque no lo suficientemente alto como para evitar el incumplimiento del objetivo climático de 1,5 °C. Otros países que se han manifestado abiertamente son Fiji, Angola, Filipinas, Senegal, Tailandia y Perú.

“A menos que abordemos las realidades del Sur global, este problema de la contaminación por plásticos no desaparecerá, dejando que nuestros pueblos y entornos soporten sus impactos más perjudiciales. El Grupo Africano de negociadores en el INC-4 ha demostrado su fuerza y unidad en el INC-4, en nombre de todos hoy y de las futuras generaciones”, afirma Merrisa Naidoo, responsable de la Campaña sobre Plásticos de GAIA África.

En otro salto adelante en el proceso del tratado, los países han comenzado a negociar el texto del tratado en sí, por primera vez en el proceso del INC, y el largo y difícil de manejar Borrador cero revisado del INC-3 se redujo a un texto previo viable para un tratado final. En este borrador simplificado, las prioridades políticas clave de GAIA están muy presentes: la reducción de polímeros plásticos primarios, la erradicación de sustancias químicas tóxicas en los productos, un mecanismo financiero independiente y la consagración de una transición justa. 

A pesar de estos logros, o tal vez debido a ellos, la sesión plenaria de clausura se vio sumida en la confusión cuando la propuesta del Presidente para el trabajo entre sesiones (reunión entre INC-4 y 5) no respetó las propuestas más ambiciosas presentadas por los países del Sur global, capitulando ante la voluntad de los Estados miembros menos progresistas al presentar una agenda que excluye polímeros plásticos primarios (PPP).

“Las molestias de esta noche demuestran que las injusticias históricas se han abierto paso en los pasillos de las negociaciones del tratado sobre plásticos”, afirma Camila Aguilera, Responsable de Comunicación de GAIA América Latina y el Caribe. “Los países del Sur global que están luchando con todas sus fuerzas por un tratado sobre plásticos sólido han sido pasados a llevar por la voluntad de las naciones ricas. El debate sobre el trabajo entre sesiones es una representación de estas divisiones geopolíticas entre el Norte global y el Sur global”.  

La propuesta entre sesiones limitaba el alcance de las conversaciones sobre el mecanismo financiero a centrarse en las fuentes de financiación existentes y en la financiación privada, amenazando los avances en esta faceta decisiva del tratado.

Arpita Bhagat, responsable de Política de plásticos para Asia y el Pacífico de GAIA, afirma:  “Los países del Norte global intentan eludir su responsabilidad sugiriendo que las necesidades del Sur global pueden satisfacerse a través de los fondos financieros medioambientales existentes, como el Fondo Mundial para el Medio Ambiente, cuando los países han dejado claro que los recursos existentes no son suficientes, ni accesibles para los más necesitados.”

También es preocupante la promoción de la Responsabilidad Ampliada del Productor y los créditos de plástico, controlados por la industria y en gran medida no regulados, por parte de entidades como el Banco Mundial, Verra, Plastic Credits Exchange y muchas más. Los informes de investigación han puesto de manifiesto que los créditos de plástico son un plan de lavado verde que agrava el problema del plástico al quemarlo en los hornos de cemento. 

A última hora, se alcanzó un compromiso para los trabajos entre sesiones con una propuesta de Brasil que incluía opciones para el establecimiento de un mecanismo financiero, atendiendo a la petición de los países del Sur global afectados.

La cuestión de si se incluirá a la sociedad civil en este paso crítico del proceso sigue sin resolverse. Jessica Roff, Directora del Programa de Plásticos y Petroquímicos de GAIA Estados Unidos y Canadá, afirma: “Después de múltiples garantías de compromiso con nuestra inclusión, el gobierno de Estados Unidos permaneció en silencio mientras la presidencia ignoraba las repetidas peticiones de inclusión por parte de los países más progresistas.”

Nota de la redacción: 

GAIA celebró una rueda de prensa el lunes por la tarde sobre las perspectivas del Sur Global en relación con el proceso del tratado. Puede encontrar una recodificación aquí. 

Contactos de prensa:

Claire Arkin, Directora de Comunicación Global

claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869

Camila Aguilera, comunicaciones América Latina y el Caribe

camila@no-burn.org |  +56 9 51111599

###

GAIA es una alianza mundial de más de 1.000 grupos de base, organizaciones no gubernamentales y particulares de más de 90 países. Con nuestro trabajo pretendemos catalizar un cambio global hacia la justicia medioambiental fortaleciendo los movimientos sociales de base que promueven soluciones a los residuos y la contaminación. Imaginamos un mundo justo, sin residuos, basado en el respeto de los límites ecológicos y los derechos comunitarios, en el que las personas estén libres de la carga de la contaminación tóxica y los recursos se conserven de forma sostenible, no se quemen ni se viertan. 

Modest Progress Made on Treaty Text, Intersessional Work

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: APRIL 30, 2024

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada– After more than a year of stalling, negotiators finally made progress on the fourth round of plastics treaty talks (INC-4), with a decisive and growing support amongst parties on the need for the treaty to include plastic reduction targets, with over 50 countries in favor. 

“INC-4 marks a turning point in the fight against plastic pollution, despite petro-states’ and industry efforts to block progress and lower ambition.” says Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director at GAIA. “The drumbeat to reduce plastic production is growing from countries worldwide. More and more leaders are waking up to what the science and our lived experiences tell us: plastic is pollution, and we need to stop it where it starts.”

The credit for the growing sea change on primary plastic polymer (PPP) reduction goes to Global South regions, particularly Africa, Latin America, and small island developing states (SIDS). Rwanda and Peru were the first to call for a plastic reduction target of 40% by 2040. While not high enough to avoid breaching the 1.5°C climate target, Rwanda and Peru’s proposal is the first time a group of countries have put forward a specific target for plastic production cuts. Other outspoken countries include Fiji, Angola, the Philippines, Senegal, Thailand, and Peru.

“Unless we address the realities of the Global South, this problem of plastic pollution will not go away, leaving our people and environments to bear its most detrimental impacts. The African Group of negotiators at INC-4 have shown their strength and unity at INC-4, on behalf of everyone today and future generations to come,” says Merrisa Naidoo, Plastics Campaigner of GAIA Africa.

In another leap forward in the treaty process, countries have begun negotiating on the treaty text itself, for the first time in the INC process, and the long and unwieldy Revised Zero Draft from INC-3 was whittled down into a viable precursor to a final treaty text. In this streamlined draft, GAIA’s key policy priorities are very much in play: reduction of primary plastic polymers, eradication of toxic chemicals in products, a stand-alone financial mechanism, and enshrining a just transition. 

In spite of these gains, or perhaps because of them, the closing plenary was flung into disarray when the Chair’s proposal for intersessional work (meeting between INC-4 and 5) failed to honor the more ambitious proposals put forth by Global South countries, capitulating to the will of the least progressive Member States by putting forward an agenda that excludes PPP.

“Tonight’s upsets show that historical injustices have made their way into the halls of the plastics treaty negotiations,” states Camila Aguilera, Communications Officer for GAIA Latin America and the Caribbean. “The Global South countries who are fighting tooth and nail for a strong plastics treaty have been steamrolled by the will of wealthy nations. The debate over intersessional work is a proxy for these geopolitical divides between the Global North and the Global South.”  

The intersessional proposal limited the scope of talks on the financial mechanism to focusing on existing funding sources and private financing, threatening progress on this make-or-break facet of the treaty.

Arpita Bhagat, GAIA Asia Pacific Plastic Policy Officer, states:  “Global North countries are attempting to shirk responsibility by suggesting that the Global South’s needs can be met through existing financial environmental funds like the GEF, when countries have been clear that existing resources are not enough, nor accessible to those most in-need.”

Also concerning is the promotion of  industry-controlled and largely unregulated Extended Producer Responsibility and plastic credits by entities like the World Bank, Verra, Plastic Credits Exchange and many more. Investigative reports have exposed plastic credits as a greenwashing scheme that exacerbates the plastic problem by burning plastic in cement kilns. 

At the eleventh hour, a compromise was reached for intersessional work with a proposal by Brazil that included options for the establishment of a financial mechanism, fulfilling the request of impacted countries in the Global South.

The question of whether civil society will be included in this critical next step in the process remains unresolved. Jessica Roff, Plastics & Petrochemicals Program Manager at GAIA US and Canada, states, “After multiple assurances of commitment to our inclusion, the US government stayed silent as the chair ignored repeated requests for our inclusion by the more progressive countries.”

Editor’s Note: 

GAIA held a press conference Monday afternoon on Global South perspectives in regards to the treaty process. You can find a recording here. 

Press contacts:

Claire Arkin, Global Communications Lead

claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869

###

GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 29 April 2024

29 April 2024, Ottawa, Canada – In a powerful demonstration of unity and purpose, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) hosted a media briefing on the closing day of the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) on Plastic Pollution. This event brought together a coalition of civil society organizations (CSOs) from the Global South, highlighting the critical issues and imbalances faced by lower-income countries in the treaty negotiations.

Speakers from the Center for Environment Justice and Development (CEJAD) in Kenya, Asociación Nacional de Recicladores in Chile, and River Warrior/GAIA Asia Pacific in Indonesia spotlighted the severe implications of plastic pollution that predominantly impacts their regions. They discussed the skewed dynamics between the Global North and Global South, pointing out the exploitation faced by less economically powerful countries.

Throughout the briefing, the speakers emphasized the need for equitable and effective participation in the treaty negotiations. They provided updates on the current status of these negotiations and discussed the potential implications of the treaty outcomes for their regions. Additionally, they unpacked what a financial mechanism is, the sources of funding, and what this funding can do. The group also stressed the need to be guarded against ‘false solutions’, such as plastic credits and waste-to-energy (WtE) incineration, which they argued impose additional environmental and health burdens on communities in the Global South. Instead, they advocated for genuine changes that address the root causes of plastic pollution.

The briefing also underscored the crucial roles of marginalized groups, including waste pickers and indigenous populations. It stressed the importance of incorporating these communities into the development of solutions that ensure a just transition to sustainable waste management practices. Moreover, the devastating effects of waste colonialism were discussed in detail, providing compelling evidence of how this practice exacerbates environmental crises and infringes upon the health and rights of local communities.

This gathering was not merely a forum to voice concerns but also served as a decisive call to action for leaders of the Global South. The group urged global leaders to recognize and rectify the imbalances that hinder effective international cooperation on this urgent issue.

QUOTES: 

  • Dorothy Otieno, CEJAD, Kenya: We need a dedicated fund to ensure that resources are readily available for developing countries to meet their obligations under the plastics treaty. Kenya, along with other countries in the global south, is dealing with a crisis that we did not create; therefore, we need to ensure that this financial mechanism is put in place to give us a chance to implement the treaty obligations. 
  • Aeshnina Azzahra, River Warrior Indonesia, GAIA Asia Pacific:  Please stop waste colonialism. We, the youth,  want to live in a healthy and plastic-free future. Let us play in a clean river and breathe in fresh air with no microplastics in it. I hope that with this INC, we can all open our hearts and minds to solve plastic pollution.

###

Media Contacts:

GAIA Africa: Carissa Marnce, +27 76 934 6156,  carissa@no-burn.org

GAIA Asia Pacific: Sonia G. Astudillo, +63 9175969286, sonia@no-burn.org

GAIA América Latina: Camila Aguilera, +56 9 5 111 1599; camila@no-burn.org 

GAIA Global: Claire Arkin, +1 973 444 4869, claire@no-burn.org

About GAIA:

GAIA is a network of grassroots groups as well as national and regional alliances representing more than 1000 organizations from 92 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, Zero Waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. www.no-burn.org

INC-4 Day 6, April 28, 2024

Reminder: Global South Media Briefing TODAY at Shaw Center and online! Learn more.

Plenary Shows Overwhelming Support for Intersessional Work on PPP

On everyone’s minds going into the Shaw center on Sunday was the question of intersessional work between INC-4 and INC-5. While the discussion of “intersessional work” may sound like it’s relegated to the world of policy wonks, it remains a hot-button issue central to Member States’ ability to keep to the ambitious timeline of ratifying a plastics treaty by the end of this year. Intersessional work means a convening in person, online, or a hybrid, to advance negotiations ahead of the official INC date. 

While this in theory sounds uncontroversial, the mandate of intersessional work opens up a minefield of contention over who gets to be in the room, and what is discussed. Conflicting opinions on intersessional  work led to a showdown at INC-3, where Russia and Saudi Arabia led a small group of petro states who insisted that intersessional work only cover waste management, and be closed to observers. Talks fell apart without agreeing to a mandate for intersessional work, putting even more pressure on delegates to make up for lost time at INC-4. 

Sunday’s plenary on intersessional work, however, was a far cry from the dysfunction of INC-3.  There was resounding support for including PPP (primary plastic polymers) in the scope of intersessional work, with almost sixty countries speaking out in favor of Rwanda and Peru’s proposal on the same. Fiji had a particularly strong intervention, stating: “We can’t afford to indulge the interests of a select few when they have nothing to lose and we have everything to lose…a job half done is a job not done. The science is clear: we cannot limit to 1.5 degrees without reducing  plastic production.” There was also a heavy emphasis on including financial mechanisms in the intersessional work.  

In another victory for civil society, over 50 countries insisted that they be present for intersessional work to provide vital expertise (even the United States!), and no country openly dissented. The delegate from Senegal was particularly vocal on this: “Civil society must participate in our work. It should not be left on the sidelines, it should accompany us all the way through to the achievement of the final instrument.” 

Once again, Global South countries led the charge for a progressive approach to intersessional work, with a show of unity from the African Bloc, GRULAC (Group of Latin America and the Caribbean), AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States), and PSIDS (Pacific Small Island Developing States). 

These resounding calls drowned out the attempts by low-ambition countries to weaken the mandate for intersessional work with the usual playbook: focusing on waste management. However, unlike the united front from ambitious countries, the splintering “Like-Minded Group” has started to bely its namesake. The group attempted to put forward a counter-proposal for intersessional work, calling for only non-controversial waste management topics to be included in a closed technical working group, but weren’t able to get consensus even amongst themselves, ironic for a group who holds consensus as very dear to their hearts. 

The plenary concluded with the Chair tasking himself with writing a new proposal for intersessional work based on Member State input, debate over which is expected to dominate the closing plenary. The million dollar question is whether the Chair will heed the overwhelming calls from a massive group of Member States to include PPP.

Countries in support of addressing PPP in IW (i.e support for Peru-Rwanda’s Proposal)

  • Switzerland 
  • Mauritius 
  • Peru
  • Rwanda 
  • Malawi 
  • Micronesia 
  • Senegal 
  • Vanuatu on behalf of PSIDS (+14) 
  • Israel
  • Iraq
  • EU (+27)
  • Philippines 
  • Thailand 
  • Fiji 
  • Norway
  • Cook Islands 
  • Palau
  • Uruguay 

MS that called for CSOs to participate in IW as Key Resource People

  • Vanuatu (PSIDS – Equal rep) (+14)
  • Monaco, 
  • South Africa 
  • Switzerland 
  • Nigeria 
  • Senegal
  • UK 
  • Israel
  • USA
  • EU (+27) 
  • Norway
  • New Zealand
  • Tunisia   
  • Guinea Bissau

Contact:

Claire Arkin, Global Communications Lead

claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869

References: 

For more information about GAIA’s treaty advocacy, please visit  no-burn.org/unea-plastics-treaty, follow us on X @gaianoburn, and read our Press kit.

INC-4 Day 5, April 27, 2024

PRESS CONFERENCE MONDAY APRIL 29, 1 PM SHAW CENTER: Global South Leaders Respond to INC-4 Negotiations

Global South leaders–including a Member State Delegate, frontline community leader, policy expert, and youth activist– will share their perspectives on the plastics treaty negotiations thus far. The stakes could not be higher–what happens in the rooms of the Shaw Center will have a direct and profound impact on our lives and the lives of our families and communities. 

Click HERE for further information

Register HERE for zoom livestream

Contact Groups Get Down to Business

At long last and to the surprised delight of civil society observers, Member States finally began negotiating on text for the first time in the INC process. Previously countries had put forward proposals and expressions of support for other country proposals. These interventions informed the creation of the Zero Draft that the Chair presented for INC-3 negotiations, and then led to a bloated revised Zero Draft at INC-3. Now the Contact Group facilitators have created a streamlined Zero Draft that has trimmed down the text significantly. 

As of Saturday Member States began to give input on the exact wording of the streamlined Zero Draft in both contact groups. This is a major advancement in the treaty negotiations, signaling the viability of the streamlined text as a precursor to a final treaty text. One of the most exciting parts of this new phase of treaty negotiations is that contact group 1 began negotiating text on regulation of plastic polymers. This is a decisive step forward in the battle for plastic reduction. 

Organizations Create the Latin American and Caribbean Network for the reduction of plastic production with binding global targets

On Saturday, civil society organizations launched a network to advocate for the reduction of plastic production with binding global targets. Its members have participated as observers in all the negotiations of the INCs. The network believes that, at this stage of the negotiations, it is important to ensure that the voices of the Latin America and the Caribbean region are heard, as they are directly affected by the consequences of plastic production. Some of these consequences include the problems associated with the export of plastic waste to the region, deemed to be waste colonialism, and the false solutions that have affected the lives and health of communities and ecosystems in their territories.

Indigenous Peoples Decry Lack of Recognition in Negotiations

The Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus published a response to the Revised Zero Draft (attached), emphasizing several glaring problems with the existing text including not recognizing Indigenous Communities as rights holders as enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples– therefore giving them the right to self-determination and free, prior, and informed consent. They also pushed back against the use of the term “plastics circularity,” stating that this framing fails to address the root of the plastics problem in extraction and production– which have disproportionately impacted Indigenous communities. The Indigenous People’s Caucus has also exposed UNEP’s failure to provide them with a room in INC venues, which is mandated to Indigenous Peoples as rights holders.

Plastics and Colonialism

The same communities who have been subjected to colonialism past and present are also at the frontlines of the impacts of plastics from extraction to disposal, and this cycle of harm must finally be broken. On Saturday Society of Native Nations, the Indigenous Peoples Caucus, and allies organized a press conference to highlight this historical injustice. 

Rochelle Driver, Anishinaabe – Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe, and representative to the International Indian Treaty Council, stated, “How are we not all exhausted? We fight one thing after another after another, and it just seems to never end.” Rachelle Diavram. 

Contact:

Claire Arkin, Global Communications Lead

claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869

References: 

For more information about GAIA’s treaty advocacy, please visit  no-burn.org/unea-plastics-treaty, follow us on X @gaianoburn, and read our Press kit.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: APRIL 28, 2024

Ottawa, Canada– Global South leaders–including a Member State Delegate, frontline community leader, policy expert, and youth activist– will share their perspectives on the lastics treaty negotiations thus far. The stakes could not be higher–what happens in the rooms of the Shaw Center will have a direct and profound impact on our lives and the lives of our families and communities.

The imbalanced power dynamics between the Global North and Global South in the plastics treaty negotiations mirror the circumstances of the plastics crisis itself. The Global South has long been wrongfully accused as the source of plastic pollution, despite the fact that most plastic production and consumption is centered in the Global North. Furthermore, we have been the target of choice for illegal traffic and dumping of plastic waste, and are made to suffer its most severe impacts to our health, and natural environments. 

29 April, 1 PM Room 203, Shaw Centre
Ottawa, Canada 
Register for zoom livestream HERE.  

Panelists  

Santos Virgilio, Delegate of Member State Angola: Experience Negotiating for the Global South 

Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director, GAIA (Tanzania):  Policy Update on the Negotiations  and What it Means for the Global South

Dorothy Otieno, CEJAD, Kenya , GAIA Africa: Financial Mechanisms &  False Solutions

Alejandra Parra, GAIA Latin America and the Caribbean, RADA (Chile) 

Aeshnina Azzahra, River Warrior Indonesia, GAIA Asia Pacific: Waste Colonialism in the Global South

Press contacts:

GAIA Africa: Carissa Marnce, +27 76 934 6156,  carissa@no-burn.org

GAIA Asia Pacific: Sonia G. Astudillo, +63 9175969286, sonia@no-burn.org

GAIA América Latina: Camila Aguilera, +56 9 5 111 1599, camila@no-burn.org 

GAIA Global: Claire Arkin, +1 973 444 4869, claire@no-burn.org

For more information about GAIA’s treaty advocacy, please visit  no-burn.org/unea-plastics-treaty, follow us on X @gaianoburn, and read our Press kit.

###

GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. 

INC-4 Day 4, April 26, 2024

Mid-Week Plenary: The Clock is Ticking

After days of slow progress in negotiations, tonight the dam seemed to break open. Many countries expressed their realization of how little time we have left to negotiate this critical, legally binding agreement to stop plastic pollution. 

And, observers were finally given an opportunity to intervene and they came ready. A series of powerful interventions from Soledad Mella of the International Association of Waste Pickers, Rafael Eudes from Aliança Residuo Zero Brasil and GAIA, and Nina Azzahra of ECOTON Indonesia, Break Free From Plastic, and GAIA, culminated in a moving intervention by Janelle Nahmabin with Aamjiwnaang First Nation in so-called Canada about the state of emergency her Nation was forced to declare because of ongoing benzene discharges from a nearby industrial facility, during which dozens of comrades and relatives stood in solidarity behind her. 

We’re hoping the delegates listened and heard what so many civil society observers have been saying for ages: plastic is pollution, it’s harming our communities and the environment, we need this binding treaty, and Member States have to act now.

Rwanda-Peru Speak Out for Plastic Reduction Targets

Rwanda and Peru were the visionaries behind the resolution that formed the basis of the mandate for a legally binding plastics treaty that covers the entire life cycle.

This partnership has once again provided an ambitious north star for the negotiations when late Thursday night, the two countries released a paper urging Member States to enshrine a global primary plastic polymer reduction target based on the available science, similar to the 1.5°C in the Paris Agreement. The countries put forward a 40% reduction by 2040 against a 2025 baseline, which by GAIA’s analysis would not be enough to avoid breaching the 1.5°C, but nevertheless is the first concrete proposal put forward by a Member State in the negotiations, which is worth celebrating. 

The paper also proposes including a transparency framework for countries party to the treaty to accurately report on their progress towards this collective reduction goal. They also recommend a “start and strengthen” approach mirroring that of the most successful environmental treaties like the Montreal Protocol and Stockholm Convention. This means that the reduction target can be made more ambitious over time as new science and strategies become available. 
On Friday evening GAIA had the opportunity to interview Yesica Fonseca Martinez, National Focal Point of the Peru delegation, who reinforced the country’s strong position on reduction: “We seek to regulate the reduction of primary plastic polymers, that plastics be regulated, and products of concern, and that chemicals are also regulated that are contained in the production process of plastics. All of this is designed to take care of the health of our citizens. And we expect Latin American countries to join us in this process.”

      Contact:

      Claire Arkin, Global Communications Lead

      claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869

      References: 

      For more information about GAIA’s treaty advocacy, please visit  no-burn.org/unea-plastics-treaty, follow us on X @gaianoburn, and read our Press kit.

      Our Work
      Global Community
      Donate