Speaker 1: Already and this is this is the daily Art, This
Speaker 1: is the Daly ohs oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 2: Good morning, and welcome to the Daily Os. It's Wednesday,
Speaker 2: the thirteenth of August.
Speaker 3: I'm Emma Gillespie, I'm Billy Fitzsimon's.
Speaker 2: High level officials from more than one hundred and seventy
Speaker 2: countries are in Switzerland right now to finalize the first
Speaker 2: legally binding treaty on plastics. Negotiations began in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: two when the United Nations Environment Assembly that's the world's
Speaker 2: highest decision making body on the environment, agreed on the
Speaker 2: need to address the environmental and health impacts of plastic
Speaker 2: pollution and waste.
Speaker 3: Since then, five negotiation sessions have failed to reach a consensus.
Speaker 3: This time, protesters outside the UN are calling for courage,
Speaker 3: not compromise, But with a record number of fossil fuel
Speaker 3: lobbyists attending the latest of talks in Geneva, there are
Speaker 3: concerns that global efforts could stall further. Doctor Nicholas Charters
Speaker 3: is a senior Research fellow with the University of Sydney's
Speaker 3: Faculty of Medicine and Health. As a leading authority on
Speaker 3: the health impacts of plastic pollution and microplastics. He's part
Speaker 3: of a group of experts who have made several recommendations
Speaker 3: for the un Plastics Treaty.
Speaker 1: The amount that's already in the environment, this is the
Speaker 1: really scary bit. We can't get it out. It's in everything,
Speaker 1: It's in every type of soil sentiment. You know. The
Speaker 1: particles are so small in the ocean, they're already in
Speaker 1: our body, and so that for me is probably the
Speaker 1: most concerning piece.
Speaker 2: Nick joins us for today's deep dive to unpack everything
Speaker 2: you need to know about these negotiations and the current
Speaker 2: state of play. Doctor Charters, Welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 1: Thanks Harymy.
Speaker 2: For people who are listening who might not have heard
Speaker 2: about this treaty at all, firstly, can you explain to
Speaker 2: us what it actually is and why it's being discussed
Speaker 2: right now?
Speaker 1: Sure? So, Back in twenty twenty two, the United Nation
Speaker 1: Member States adopted a resolution to negotiate the first international
Speaker 1: legal binding treaty to end plastic pollution. So this has
Speaker 1: been ongoing for the last three years. There has been
Speaker 1: a series of meetings to develop the language that we're
Speaker 1: going to the treaties. Though, what it will actually do
Speaker 1: and what the member states will have to commit to essentially,
Speaker 1: And one of the main sticking points or challenges with
Speaker 1: this is that the majority of member states are wanting
Speaker 1: to cap plastic production and they also want to end
Speaker 1: the use of non toxic chemicals in the production of plastics.
Speaker 1: Not many people realize that plastics are made from oil
Speaker 1: and gas, but they also have thousands of additive chemicals
Speaker 1: in them to essentially give them the characteristics the plastics have.
Speaker 1: And obviously there's lots of different types of plastics. And
Speaker 1: then there's a small coalition of fossil fuel producing, a
Speaker 1: petrochemical producing member states that are pushing back against this
Speaker 1: idea of capping plastic production and also cap in the
Speaker 1: use of these chemicals. And that's essentially because they want
Speaker 1: to see a focus on recycling and waste management so
Speaker 1: that they can continue to essentially produce and make plastic
Speaker 1: because it's such a huge revenue stream for them.
Speaker 2: I want to focus in a little bit on the
Speaker 2: problems that the treaty is trying to solve. You've touched
Speaker 2: on there, but how urgent is a treaty like this
Speaker 2: and can you tell us more about those problems?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean absolutely. I think most people would just
Speaker 1: know from their own experience in their lived environment that
Speaker 1: plastic's becoming more and more of an issue. And I
Speaker 1: think in Australia we have always thought we live in
Speaker 1: such a pristine, an amazing environment, and we certainly still do.
Speaker 1: But I mean you only need to take a walk
Speaker 1: on a beach, or look at the streets, or just
Speaker 1: look at your own house and look at how any
Speaker 1: plastic products are now in that environment. They're abiquitous and
Speaker 1: there everywhere, and these are the ones that we can see.
Speaker 1: So I'm talking about like the larger sized pieces of
Speaker 1: plastic just to give you an understanding of how big
Speaker 1: the problem is. We make about four hundred and ninety
Speaker 1: million metric tons of plastic a year, and so of like,
Speaker 1: well what does that look like. Well, it's doubled since
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight. And if you think it looks
Speaker 1: bad now, only if you think the beaches in the
Speaker 1: water from your own experience looks polluted. It's going to
Speaker 1: triple in the next thirty years. So we're in a
Speaker 1: triple plastic production in the next thirty years. Based on
Speaker 1: the projections that have been made on how the oil
Speaker 1: and gas industry are going to essentially use plastics as
Speaker 1: an new revenue stree. So as the world starts to
Speaker 1: transition away from energy and transport for a primary source
Speaker 1: of oil and gas, about fifty percent of oil and
Speaker 1: gas will be used by twenty sixty for making plastics.
Speaker 1: So it's going to become an even bigger shuit of
Speaker 1: what we're currently experiencing. What I mentioned before about the
Speaker 1: plastics that you can see, I mean, that's one thing,
Speaker 1: and so we think about plastics often, and we've drown
Speaker 1: up thinking about plastics as these larger pieces of over
Speaker 1: material that we can pick up, put in and recycling
Speaker 1: bin and essentially just happens and we get new products
Speaker 1: made from them. And that's what we've been told. It's
Speaker 1: a story, a narrative. It's shaped by the fossil fuel
Speaker 1: industry back in the seventies and eighties that we can
Speaker 1: recycle our way out of this problem. About eight nine
Speaker 1: percent globally. Different averages, different estimates have been put forward,
Speaker 1: but that's the ballpark number for how much plastic we recycle,
Speaker 1: eight to nine percent globally each year. And there's about
Speaker 1: one percent of plastic that gets recycled twice in its lifetime.
Speaker 1: So the idea that we can actually recycle plastic is
Speaker 1: a fallacy, and there's a lot of health issues with
Speaker 1: that concept as well. So when we're thinking about plastic
Speaker 1: that we can see, obviously it's a huge issue based
Speaker 1: on what we really know, but another really concerned anything
Speaker 1: of these tiny particles that we can't see, not its microplastics.
Speaker 2: I think a lot of people would be really surprised
Speaker 2: to hear the scale of plastics production that it's doubled
Speaker 2: since two thousand and eight, because you know, socially, culturally,
Speaker 2: we've become so much more aware of plastics use. I'd
Speaker 2: say in our data day lives, we're more conscious about
Speaker 2: the plastic we use. Where is all of that manufacturing
Speaker 2: coming from and what's it going towards?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a good question. So over fifty percent is
Speaker 1: single year still, so there's single use products are still made,
Speaker 1: including things like food packaging. And then there's this one
Speaker 1: of the second well I think it's the third largest
Speaker 1: is which most people often don't make the association is textiles.
Speaker 1: So anyone out there that wears athleisure, where anyone that's
Speaker 1: wearing any type of spandex material you're pretty much wearing
Speaker 1: oil and gas. So polyester materials, polyethylene, they're essentially the
Speaker 1: materials are made from an oil and gas backbone. We
Speaker 1: still have a huge line in things like food manufacturing.
Speaker 1: This is a huge issue as well. So if you
Speaker 1: think about our food systems now, we're highly dependent on
Speaker 1: food packaging and obviously that's made from plastic. If you
Speaker 1: think about obviously coat bottles or soft drink bottles, you
Speaker 1: think about the level of consumption, there's still huge sources
Speaker 1: contributing to this. And one of the again the keys is,
Speaker 1: like I said, is that we often will purchase products
Speaker 1: that may have the recycling so we call them the
Speaker 1: chasing arrow symbols of the Three Arrows, and people look
Speaker 1: at it and it's a very clever bit of marketing.
Speaker 1: So people look at them and they go, oh, water relief,
Speaker 1: it's got that recycling logo on, and I can drink
Speaker 1: this without in the environment, and we're drinking and pop
Speaker 1: it in that bin over there and know that it's
Speaker 1: going to go back and be reused. And again that's
Speaker 1: a fallacy and one of the things people need to
Speaker 1: become aware of is that we can't, unfortunately, protect ourselves
Speaker 1: and the environment from the impacts of plastic through recycling,
Speaker 1: and that's because of the chemicals in them, and it's
Speaker 1: also because of the tiny fragments that break down from
Speaker 1: them over time. And we're learning more and more, but
Speaker 1: those signed fragments are getting into us and they bioaccumulating,
Speaker 1: So basically we can't get released little particles and we're
Speaker 1: getting more and more into our bodies.
Speaker 2: I want to talk a little more about the specifics
Speaker 2: of the treaty in a second, but before we get there,
Speaker 2: can you speak to me about the health impacts of
Speaker 2: these plastics, particularly microplastics. You know, as you mentioned, we
Speaker 2: do hear a lot about plastics polluting the oceans. We
Speaker 2: have that, you know, the pollution that we can see
Speaker 2: and the understanding of its place in the environment. But
Speaker 2: what health risks does all of this pose to the
Speaker 2: average person?
Speaker 1: Yeah, So, thinking about plastic kicks of two main constituents,
Speaker 1: which is the first one is the backbone. The polyme
Speaker 1: backbone is made from oil and gas, so essentially plastic
Speaker 1: is petrol. So not many people realize that. So the
Speaker 1: main part of the plastic material that you're holding a
Speaker 1: single use, single use plastics ninety act centum are made
Speaker 1: from oil and gas, but any type of plastic will
Speaker 1: have that type of petrol backbone essentially. And then there
Speaker 1: are all these additional additives I mentioned before included into
Speaker 1: the plastic to give it its characteristic depending on what
Speaker 1: it's trying to do. So things like PFAS, which has
Speaker 1: been in the media a lot lately, forever chemicals, ye,
Speaker 1: forever chemicals exactly. But another one which most people don't
Speaker 1: really know about, something called a phthalate, which is basically
Speaker 1: these classic chemicals that we know are endocrime disrupting chemicals,
Speaker 1: and what that means is they essentially alter our body's
Speaker 1: natural hormone system. So these chemicals are getting included into
Speaker 1: that oil and gas backbone that I mentioned before, with
Speaker 1: very little transparency on the reporting as well. So when
Speaker 1: these plastics are made, we often don't know what's in
Speaker 1: the plastic. But what we're now learning, which is probably
Speaker 1: the most concerning component of all this, is that the
Speaker 1: plastic particles are breaking down to these tiny fragments, to
Speaker 1: what we call a microplastic, which is essentially smaller than
Speaker 1: half a centimeter, but they can go right down to
Speaker 1: the size of something like a human blood cell or
Speaker 1: smaller than your human hair, so you wouldn't actually see
Speaker 1: these particles in the environment. So they're essentially every wedding,
Speaker 1: and so a lot of research in the last two
Speaker 1: to three years has come out looking at both how
Speaker 1: they accumulate in our bodies so they get in and
Speaker 1: they don't leave. But we've just done a review last
Speaker 1: year looking at what are the health effects of these
Speaker 1: microplastic particles. It's been tricky to study, so you know
Speaker 1: a lot of authoritative bodies around the world have to
Speaker 1: regulate chemicals using animal studies because that's all we have.
Speaker 1: And what we found across large number of animal studies
Speaker 1: were these really consistent effects in the respiratory, digestive and
Speaker 1: also reproductive system. So we saw the impact of fertility.
Speaker 1: We also saw that increase these biological markers in our body,
Speaker 1: things like chronic inflammation in both the lung and also
Speaker 1: in the column. So we saw these suspected links to
Speaker 1: these cancers. So we're starting to see more and more
Speaker 1: evidence coming out to show that yeah, once these things
Speaker 1: around our body, it makes sense they're oil and gas
Speaker 1: and these chemicals I mentioned before they're going to lead
Speaker 1: to a raft at health effects, which is the thing
Speaker 1: that is probably most concerning.
Speaker 2: When it comes to the treaty. I suppose there are
Speaker 2: so many facets that you have mentioned as concern areas,
Speaker 2: from transparency, through production to marketing. What are some of
Speaker 2: the big sticking points or the disagreements between countries in
Speaker 2: these negotiations, or between even kind trees versus health experts.
Speaker 1: Sure, I mean, if that's interesting point about countries birth
Speaker 1: health experts. At the moment, I think in Geneva, there's
Speaker 1: three hundred and thirty five last estimates industry lobbyists fossil
Speaker 1: fuel and chemical companies, and I think they're out numbering
Speaker 1: academics at five to one, or scientists at five to one,
Speaker 1: and you know, indigenous communities at ten to one. So yeah,
Speaker 1: these negotiations are flooded by the invested interests of these
Speaker 1: corporations that want to produce plastics. And the main sticking
Speaker 1: point very simply is that a number of fossil fuel
Speaker 1: producing countries is coalition of countries which now includes the
Speaker 1: United States. They do not want to cap plastics production
Speaker 1: very simply. You know, they don't want to stop extracting
Speaker 1: oil and gas out of the ground. But if we
Speaker 1: are going to be using it for energy and transport,
Speaker 1: the world starts transitioning regards to what the United States
Speaker 1: is currently doing, they need a new revenue stroom, and
Speaker 1: plastics is the obvious one because they can argue that
Speaker 1: we are relying on them in society and we have
Speaker 1: become but it doesn't mean they're essential. So the very
Speaker 1: simple takeaway at the moment is that they don't want
Speaker 1: to cap plastic, and over one hundred and ten nations
Speaker 1: at the moment do and that's essentially where the treaties
Speaker 1: still lie. Can we get agreement on.
Speaker 2: This if the influence of these manufacturers and lobbyists is
Speaker 2: so intense, Is there a middle ground? Is there a
Speaker 2: way to switch at scale for some change?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean this is the tricky part. So one
Speaker 1: of the I don't want to say critical flaws or flaws,
Speaker 1: but the actual rules of procedure and how the treaty
Speaker 1: is going to be finalized. There's been one of the
Speaker 1: main issues with it. Essentially, these countries are saying that
Speaker 1: it needs to be a consensus so everyone has the
Speaker 1: route and the draft rules of procedure actually allow for
Speaker 1: what they call a qualified majority voting when consensus fails. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, if you can't get consensus, can we
Speaker 1: get a majority of votes to essentially move the treaty
Speaker 1: language forward and start finalizing something that is legally binding.
Speaker 1: Because at the moment this is the fifth meeting, it
Speaker 1: was actually meant to be the final meaning back in
Speaker 1: November last year, and again language could not be finalized
Speaker 1: because there was a consensus. So what may happen here
Speaker 1: is that there is you know, this country is just
Speaker 1: won't agree to consensus and they are also with their
Speaker 1: recognize this idea of a qualified majority voting if it
Speaker 1: does take place. So what may need to happen is
Speaker 1: the countries that are say, look, we want to we
Speaker 1: want to come up with a global plan on how
Speaker 1: we redgise plastics. Is it they essentially develop it, and
Speaker 1: they're going to have to try to do that, you know,
Speaker 1: with those those countries removed from the process, because otherwise
Speaker 1: just nothing will take playing some fortunate we are just
Speaker 1: going to be in this essentially a whole wind pattern.
Speaker 2: What role is Australia playing in these negotiations? Are we
Speaker 2: leading or lagging with the pack? And how does that
Speaker 2: take into our own plastics manufacturing here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, Australia at the
Speaker 1: moment is in alignment with the idea that there needs
Speaker 1: to be reduction in plastic production. So in Australia is
Speaker 1: supporting this idea that we don't want, that we should
Speaker 1: be trying to catch to a sustainable level. It's a
Speaker 1: little bit vague in terms of I guess you know
Speaker 1: what our complete commitment is, and we certainly can still
Speaker 1: do a lot more back in Australia immediately as well.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's no reason why we don't immediately ban
Speaker 1: on essential plastics since you use plastics in Australia. There's
Speaker 1: lots we can do that current environment, which is important
Speaker 1: and we're not a huge global player. But I mean
Speaker 1: the fact that we are supporting a reduction in plastic
Speaker 1: I think is important.
Speaker 2: What are some of the key points that you think
Speaker 2: belong in a successful treaty? What would be your kind
Speaker 2: of priority areas for the most urgent things that if
Speaker 2: you could change tomorrow you would enact.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the obvious one, as we've talked about,
Speaker 1: is capping. This keeps me up at night. Because I
Speaker 1: don't think people fully understand how much this is going
Speaker 1: to impact generations to come, particularly if you have children,
Speaker 1: which I do. Even if we start to cap plastics,
Speaker 1: and if we move towards reducing the volume, the amount
Speaker 1: that's already in the environment, this is the really scary
Speaker 1: but we can't get it out. It's in everything, It's
Speaker 1: in every type of soil sediment. The particles are so
Speaker 1: small in the ocean, they're already in our body, and
Speaker 1: so that for me, is probably the most concerning piece.
Speaker 1: But we do need to take action, and so capping
Speaker 1: is absolutely critical to this, and there's a need to
Speaker 1: look immediately at non essential materials. So just very simply
Speaker 1: what is not critical for society to function. A critical
Speaker 1: piece of material may be something like a medical device,
Speaker 1: but even still there may be alternative materials that could
Speaker 1: be used. The second thing is chemicals. You mentioned chemicals before.
Speaker 1: We already have a list of four thousand knowe toxic
Speaker 1: chemicals in plastics is about sixteen thousand that have been identified,
Speaker 1: and so we need to bound those immediately being used
Speaker 1: because once they're into the plastic, as I mentioned before,
Speaker 1: we can't recycle those plastics. If those toxic chemicals are
Speaker 1: in there or it's incredibly difficult to do that. So essentially,
Speaker 1: once they're put in, we know that they're going to
Speaker 1: end up in landfill. And there needs to be global
Speaker 1: implementation of databasic chemicals that are identified as toxic, similar
Speaker 1: to the stock Own convention where they just get banned,
Speaker 1: we can't use them. So that's the second thing when
Speaker 1: it's bound these toxic chemicals. A third thing is the
Speaker 1: transparency around it. It needs to be reporting. So when
Speaker 1: plastics are made, we need to know what's in them.
Speaker 1: Currently we have very little idea of how many added
Speaker 1: into these plastics. And then finally, how are we going
Speaker 1: to pay for all this and implement it? And this
Speaker 1: is critical, this is happening. This is an issue, a
Speaker 1: key issue with a lot of environmental catastrophes, similar to pafas,
Speaker 1: where we have manufacturers and producers of these chemicals and
Speaker 1: these environmental contaminants that essentially externalize the costs. So what
Speaker 1: do I mean by that is they can make it,
Speaker 1: they make it a very cheap price, and then they
Speaker 1: sell it. We consume it, but then we pay for
Speaker 1: the health implications, both human health and environmental and so
Speaker 1: we're burdened with the ongoing impact and costs of these products,
Speaker 1: even when we know that they're toxic low we do
Speaker 1: now at plastics, So it's critical. It's really critical that
Speaker 1: the implementation of a tree, but also just moving forward
Speaker 1: globally in terms of how we remediate and how we
Speaker 1: reduce the impact or repair the impact of these contaminants
Speaker 1: is that we put the burden back on the pluta.
Speaker 1: So the fossil full industry is the petrochemical companies and
Speaker 1: the plastic companies that are making these need to bear
Speaker 1: the costs for the impact that it calls into the environment.
Speaker 1: So capping plastic, removing toxic chemicals, increasing transparency on what's
Speaker 1: going into them, and making the pluters pay for this
Speaker 1: have been the four main things I'd want to see
Speaker 1: in this treet you.
Speaker 2: My last question for you, I think for individuals and
Speaker 2: as young people much of our audience are young Australians,
Speaker 2: it can feel a little bit hopeless or overwhelming when
Speaker 2: we consider these ongoing negotiations. You know, a bunch of
Speaker 2: faceless suits at a table overseas trying to determine ways
Speaker 2: around this. What can we do or can we do
Speaker 2: anything to actually make a difference beyond just recycling. As
Speaker 2: you've mentioned, that's its own flawed beast. What would your
Speaker 2: advice be.
Speaker 1: Put it on the ballot. We know that civil action
Speaker 1: and engagement around an issue can lead to change because
Speaker 1: there are a lot of community action groups out there
Speaker 1: at the moment on this, and also consumer action will
Speaker 1: lead to a lot of manufacturers changing. People can talk
Speaker 1: to their local members. We need to ensure that governments
Speaker 1: know that this is something that potentially could lead to
Speaker 1: their position in parliament changing. There is an opportunity for
Speaker 1: people to get around this as an idea and to
Speaker 1: get governments to start responding in a timely way, because
Speaker 1: if we wait thirty years and plastic production triples, the
Speaker 1: amount of plastic that's going to be in this world
Speaker 1: and this environment's going to be near and possible to remove.
Speaker 1: The idea is not to scare people. I think it's
Speaker 1: important for people to be aware of what's happening. It's
Speaker 1: a difficult concept to understand, and we've all been misinformed
Speaker 1: about recycling idea that we can take care of it
Speaker 1: through that process and we simply can't. But we can
Speaker 1: take action, and certainly I think people may informed. It's
Speaker 1: more important than you're not having that information to make
Speaker 1: your own decisions.
Speaker 2: Nick, thank you so much for your time, fascinating and terrifying,
Speaker 2: and we will keep an eye on all the developments
Speaker 2: out of these negotiations.
Speaker 3: Thanks you Ta, such a fascinating chat there. Thank you
Speaker 3: so much to doctor Nicholas Charters for that chat, and
Speaker 3: to Emma for doing that amazing interview. And thank you
Speaker 3: so much for listening to this episode of The Daily Os.
Speaker 3: We'll be back this evening with your evening headlines, but
Speaker 3: until then, have a great day.
Speaker 1: My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Adunda
Speaker 1: Bungelung Calcuttin woman from Gadighl country. The Daily Os acknowledges
Speaker 1: that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Speaker 1: Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres
Speaker 1: Straight Island and nations. We pay our respects to the
Speaker 1: first peoples of these countries, both past and present.