Some environmental groups in the plastics treaty talks say President Joe Biden's administration is dialling back support for limits on virgin resin production, but a White House statement said it's committed to an ambitious agreement that addresses the supply of plastic.
Some, but not all, environmental groups participating in a treaty briefing call on Nov. 12 with U.S. officials said they interpreted comments as the Biden administration signalling a shift away from virgin resin production caps.
In August, the administration had said it would back global targets limiting plastics production, shifting its support toward what has been a contentious issue in the talks.
That was a switch from its earlier, more middle-ground position. The August announcement was praised by environmentalists and slammed by the plastics industry. Now, some environmental groups are interpreting the Nov. 12 call as backing away.
"The U.S. has backtracked from the signal they gave in August that their position would be shifting to support global production caps and timelines," said Sarah Martik, executive director of the Center for Coalfield Justice, during a Nov. 15 online news conference organised by Break Free From Plastic and other groups.
"Members of the U.S. delegation confirmed that they would not be supporting universal obligations for production caps or time lines that would phase down the production of primary plastic polymers," Martik said. "By doing so, they indicated that they did not see a landing zone for those measures at the upcoming negotiations."
In a Nov. 15 statement, however, the White House Council on Environmental Quality said it supported measures to address the "supply of primary plastic polymers."
"The Biden-Harris Administration remains committed to concluding negotiations at [the fifth round of treaty talks] and securing an ambitious, legally binding global instrument to tackle plastic pollution based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full lifecycle of plastic," a CEQ spokesperson said. "Among other items, the United States supports ensuring that the global instrument addresses plastic products, chemicals used in plastic products, and the supply of primary plastic polymers."
CEQ said it supported using a draft treaty text called a "non-paper" as the basis for talks. The non-paper was developed in recent weeks by the chair of the treaty's Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to try to break deadlocks that stymied the first four rounds of the talks.
The fifth and final negotiating round, called INC5 is scheduled from Nov. 25 to Dec. 1 in Busan, South Korea, but some observers have debated whether governments should extend the talks.
NGOs deeply disappointed
Greenpeace, which was not part of the Nov. 15 news conference, echoed themes of speakers there and said it was "deeply disappointed" after the Nov. 12 call between the government and stakeholder groups.
"In August, the White House said that they will be supporting measures to reduce plastic production," said John Hocevar, oceans campaign director for Greenpeace USA. "They were still vague on the details, but the intention was clearly articulated.
"This week, they said they will not be supporting production caps," he said. "They did not offer any specifics on what other means they would support to reduce plastic production, never mind what evidence they had that these alternate approaches could be successful."
He also questioned whether the Biden administration was changing its position on global ban lists in the treaty.
"In August, they told us they would be supporting measures to protect people from harmful chemicals," Hocevar said. "This week, they seemed to be hiding behind questions about what authority they have to act, despite all the options for action they have at their disposal."
Not all environmental groups in the Nov. 12 call left thinking the U.S. was switching its position. One group, speaking on background, said it "didn't hear this as a walk back."
Some observers pointed to a general statement from a senior U.S. diplomat at a U.N. meeting in September that called for a "North Star" goal of reducing global production and consumption of plastics.
Biden backs ambitious treaty
The CEQ spokesperson called plastics pollution a crisis and said the U.S. wants an agreement to address the problem, including the "outsized proportion" caused by the growth in single-use plastics.
"Global plastic production is projected to triple by 2060, overwhelming solid waste management systems and contributing to pollution," the CEQ said. "The urgency of addressing this issue is high and we are committed to delivering a global instrument on plastic pollution that will address the crisis affecting communities and harming public health and the environment in the U.S. and around the globe."
The Busan talks will open as the first since the U.S. presidential election that will return Donald Trump to the White House.
In October, Republicans in the House and Senate wrote the Biden administration to attack its support for production caps, saying it would hurt the treaty's chances of getting through the Senate, which also flipped to Republican control in the November elections.
Martik said U.S. officials on the call, which included staff from the State Department, the CEQ, the Environmental Protection Agency and other departments, said they had not previously explicitly called for caps.
"The thing that they reiterated was they don't see production caps as having a landing zone at INC5 and reiterating that they had not called for caps previously, that's kind of how they were indicating their shift in position here," Martik said.
Frankie Orona, executive director of the Society of Native Nations, said political changes were impacting the U.S. position.
"I honestly feel that some of this walking back is because of the political atmosphere that's about to change," Orona said.
Graham Hamilton, U.S. policy officer at Break Free from Plastic, said caps would be in a better position in the treaty if the United States took a stronger position.
"There's no landing zone for production caps at the moment because countries like the United States, who have outsized influence in these negotiations, are not leading on production caps," Hamilton said.
Orona urged the U.S. to step back and not impede countries that want caps.
"We look forward to working with those countries that are ambitious and are looking for a meaningful treaty moving forward, and hoping that the U.S. at this point steps aside and stays out of the way," he said.
Industry supports effective treaty
The head of the American Chemistry Council said during a Nov. 15 ACC treaty press call that it does not believe the U.S. has changed its position.
"The short version of that is they kind of reiterated that there's been no change in position here," said Chris Jahn, ACC president and CEO. "They are obviously aware of the election and it's their intent to work productively to seek an agreement in Busan."
Jahn said ACC would support a treaty that had the right policies. The association was very critical of the Biden administration's August announcement supporting production limits.
"Certainly, change is afoot here in the United States, but from our perspective, nothing has really changed," he said. "Our positions and priorities are the same and if they can land an effective agreement in a week or two, we're happy to support that, with the Biden administration helping lead the charge and the [Donald] Trump administration implementing it."
"By the same token, if there's an agreement that, in our view, does not land in the right zone, we'd indicate our opposition to that," Jahn said. "If we land in that [right] zone as we like to say, I'm confident we can get it done regardless of who the leadership is in Congress or who the president of the United States is."