A

fter 11 days of intense negotiations at the United Nations offices in Geneva, efforts to finalize the world’s first legally binding treaty to tackle plastic pollution ended in failure on Friday, leaving governments and environmental groups expressing frustration and disappointment.

The breakdown marks the second major collapse in talks within a year, following a similar stalemate in South Korea in 2024. The meeting had been billed as the last opportunity to reach an agreement on a “landmark” treaty aimed at curbing the global plastic crisis — but deep divisions over whether to cap production and impose binding limits on toxic chemicals proved insurmountable.

The 184 participating countries remained split on a central question: Should the treaty directly target the exponential growth in plastic production?

A coalition including the European Union, Norway, Australia, and small island nations such as Tuvalu pushed for global, legally binding controls — including reductions in production and tighter chemical regulation — arguing that pollution cannot be solved solely through waste management.

On the other side, countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, both major petrochemical producers, opposed production caps and sought to narrow the treaty’s scope to waste handling. Saudi negotiators argued that production issues lie outside the agreement’s remit.

Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chair of the negotiating committee, attempted to bridge the divide by presenting two draft texts. Neither included a hard cap on production, though they acknowledged that current production and consumption levels are “unsustainable” and exceed the planet’s waste management capacity. However, both drafts were rejected as the basis for further negotiation.

Strong words from both sides

The mood in Geneva turned sharply critical as the final session closed. David Azoulay, health program director at the Center for International Environmental Law, called the outcome an “abject failure.”

“In the final days of the negotiations, we have clearly seen what many of us have known for some time — some countries did not come here to finalize a text. They came here to block any attempt at advancing a viable treaty,” Azoulay said. “It’s impossible to find common ground between those who are interested in protecting the status quo and the majority who are looking for a functional treaty that can be strengthened over time.”

Jessika Roswall, European Commissioner for Environment, Water Resilience and Competitive Circular Economy, said she was “deeply disappointed” to be leaving without a deal but stressed the EU would continue to push for a strong agreement.

“While the latest text on the table does not yet meet all our ambitions, it is a step forward — and the perfect must not be the enemy of the good,” Roswall wrote on social media.

Calls for a new approach

With no immediate plan for resuming formal talks, some environmental advocates are calling for a radical change in the negotiation process. Azoulay urged pro-treaty nations to form a “treaty of the willing” outside the current consensus model, which allows a small number of countries to block progress.

“We need a restart, not a repeat performance,” he said. “That process must include voting options that deny the tyranny of consensus we have watched play out here.”

Delegates remain in Geneva for informal consultations but have not decided on next steps.

Plastic pollution has become one of the most pressing environmental issues of the 21st century. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), global plastic production has more than doubled in the past two decades, reaching 460 million tones in 2019 — and is projected to triple by 2060 without intervention.

Once produced, plastics are persistent, with microplastics now found in oceans, rivers, the atmosphere, and even human bloodstreams. United Nations Environment Program research shows that mismanaged plastic waste kills hundreds of thousands of marine mammals each year, while also contributing to climate change through its fossil fuel-based production.

Small island states and low-lying nations have been among the strongest advocates for aggressive action, pointing to the devastating effects of marine debris on fisheries, tourism, and coastal livelihoods.

“Momentum is not lost”

Despite the collapse in Geneva, many countries insist that momentum is not lost. Norway’s delegation said they will work with allies to “keep the ambition high” for a binding deal, while Tuvalu called for “courage and leadership” in future rounds.

However, without consensus on production limits, the treaty risks being watered down into a non-binding framework focused mainly on recycling and waste management — measures environmental groups say are inadequate given the scale of the crisis.

The next steps remain uncertain. Options include reconvening the full negotiating body under the current UN framework, attempting a smaller coalition agreement outside the UN, or extending the timeline for negotiations. For now, though, the promise of a historic plastics treaty remains out of reach.

(Source: Euronews)

T

he European Union, in a groundbreaking policy overhaul, has reached a consensus to revise its waste shipment regulations, curbing the export of specific waste types to countries outside of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that are ill-equipped to process it safely. The EU Parliament announced this resolution on Friday, November 17, 2023 marking a pivotal shift towards enhancing global environmental protection and public health standards.

The EU’s decision aims to restrict the export of non-hazardous waste to non-OECD countries unless these nations explicitly consent and prove their ability to handle the waste responsibly. This move is expected to reduce the longstanding practice of offloading pollution onto less affluent nations and ensure adherence to international labor rights.

The reform aligns with the European Commission’s 2021 proposal, which sought to impede EU states from offloading their waste onto poorer countries, signaling a significant stride in assuming accountability for waste, particularly plastic waste. Danish lawmaker Pernille Weiss has highlighted this as a crucial step towards the EU finally assuming responsibility for the environmental impact of its waste.

Steering towards a circular economy

Under the provisional political agreement, which awaits formal ratification, the EU intends to update shipment procedures to reflect the principles of the circular economy and improve enforcement mechanisms. The regulation sets stringent guidelines to guarantee that waste shipments do not threaten human health and the environment, thus endorsing waste as a resource within the EU’s circular economic model.

The new regulation extends its objectives to encompass the EU’s ambitions for climate neutrality and achieving a zero-pollution, circular economy. It governs waste shipments within the EU, as well as imports and exports involving third countries, and notably prohibits all waste shipments intended for disposal within the EU, barring exceptional circumstances that meet strict criteria.

Notably, the agreement introduces tougher restrictions on the export of plastic waste. It prohibits the export of non-hazardous plastic waste to non-OECD countries and outlines conditions under which these countries may request to import EU plastic waste, provided they meet rigorous waste management standards.

Next steps and international impact

To reinforce the new policies, the EU will impose stringent penalties for breaches of the regulation, which may include fines and the revocation or suspension of waste management authorizations. The establishment of a waste shipment enforcement group will further strengthen compliance, ensuring effective coordination among member states to curb illegal waste shipments.

The provisional agreement will be presented to member states’ representatives within the Council and to the Parliament’s environmental committee for endorsement. Following approval and legal-linguistic revision, the agreement will be formally adopted and published in the EU’s Official Journal before coming into force.

The EU’s reform of its waste shipment regulation heralds a new era in the bloc’s environmental policy, with far-reaching implications for global waste management practices. It underscores the EU’s dedication to mitigating its ecological footprint and championing sustainable development.

For more information, inquiries can be directed to the European Parliament press office or Reuters correspondents covering the story.

Sources: Reuters and the European Parliament

T

he Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) has recently unveiled its annual Ecological Threat Report (ETR), revealing a grim future where ecological degradation could become the catalyst for escalating conflicts and mass displacements globally.

According to the report, by 2050, an estimated 2.8 billion people will be living in countries facing severe ecological threats, a significant increase from the 1.8 billion noted in 2023.

The comprehensive report, which assesses 221 countries and territories, suggests that without urgent, concerted action, the world could witness a worsening of current levels of ecological degradation, leading to intensified conflicts and a spike in forced migration. This year’s findings underscore the pressing need for global strategies to build resilience and address the drivers of ecological decline.

Key findings and alarming trends

The 2023 ETR sheds light on the interconnected nature of ecological threats like rapid population growth, water scarcity, and food insecurity—all expected to be exacerbated by climate change. The research indicates that a 25% increase in food insecurity could heighten the risk of conflict by 36%, while a similar rise in populations lacking access to clean water could see an 18% surge in conflict likelihood.

The report pinpoints that currently, 1 billion people reside in 42 countries already facing severe food insecurity, with a quarter of the global population without regular access to safe drinking water. The situation is particularly dire in cities, with over 60% of the world’s rapidly growing megacities situated in countries with high levels of violence or conflict, lacking the financial resources to support their burgeoning populations.

Implications for peace and security

The IEP’s report emphasizes the cyclical relationship between ecological degradation and conflict, particularly in regions like the Sahel, which grapple with governance challenges, poverty, and climatic variations. The study also highlights how conflicts tend to spill over borders, affecting regional stability and beyond.

There is a distressing increase in the number of displaced individuals, with over 108 million people currently uprooted, marking a 24% rise since 2020. A notable portion of these migrations, including illegal entries into Europe, originates from countries stricken by ecological threats and conflict, with Syrian and Afghan nationals making up a significant percentage of such movements.

Urgent call for action

Steve Killelea, Founder & Executive Chairman of IEP, remarked on the importance of the upcoming COP 28 summit, calling for leaders to act decisively to counter the impending ecological crisis. “Countries with high levels of Positive Peace have the societal resilience to solve these challenges,” Killelea stated, emphasizing the need for programs that foster resilience and promote economic progress.

The report also stresses the challenges facing cities, which are expected to house 70% of the global population by 2050. The majority of these urban expansions will occur in countries with low incomes and high levels of violence, raising concerns over potential increases in crime, poverty, and pollution.

The path forward

The ETR serves as a stark warning to global leaders and policymakers about the impending ecological challenges and their potential to disrupt peace and security worldwide. It calls for a multi-faceted approach that includes investing in ecological conservation, building infrastructure resilient to climate change, and fostering international cooperation to manage the shared resources crucial for global stability.

As the world gears up for future climate summits and global policy discussions, the findings of the Ecological Threat Report will likely shape debates and inform the strategies deployed to navigate the complex landscape of ecological challenges and their implications for global peace.

Source: The Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP)

P

lastic, a marvel of modern innovation, has permeated nearly every facet of our lives. From the convenience of disposable utensils to the durability of plastic packaging, it has become an integral part of our daily routines. However, this very convenience has ushered in a quiet and insidious threat that now looms large on the world’s environmental stage: global plastic pollution.

The statistics surrounding this crisis are nothing short of staggering. Each year, an estimated 8 million metric tons of plastic waste find their way into our oceans, equivalent to dumping a garbage truck full of plastic into the sea every minute. By 2050, if current trends persist, there could be more plastic than fish in the ocean by weight.

The problem extends far beyond our coastlines, as microplastics, tiny fragments of broken-down plastic, have infiltrated our food chain and bodies, with one study estimating that the average person ingests the equivalent of a credit card’s worth of plastic particles every week.

Similarly, in March 2020, a groundbreaking discovery marked the first instance of microplastic contamination in human blood. This finding emerged during a scientific examination of blood specimens collected from 22 healthy adult volunteers, revealing the presence of plastic particles in approximately 80% of the tested samples.

Beyond its impact on marine life and human health, plastic pollution exacerbates climate change. The production of plastic generates significant greenhouse gas emissions, and as plastic waste decays, it releases harmful compounds into the atmosphere. Furthermore, the environmental toll of extracting the fossil fuels needed to produce plastic cannot be overlooked.

In the face of such alarming statistics, it has become evident that global plastic pollution is not merely an environmental concern but a complex crisis that demands immediate attention. Furthermore, the far-reaching effects of plastic pollution calls for an interdisciplinary approach to the topic.

In Global Plastic Pollution and its Regulation: History, Trends, Perspectives, the authors delve into one of this urgent environmental challenge of our time. They meticulously examine the current scope of this crisis and scrutinize contemporary strategies aimed at its control. Employing a robust interdisciplinary approach, the book effectively encapsulates the primary hurdles and potential remedies associated with this universally relevant issue.

M

icroplastics are plastics smaller than 5 mm. They have become an issue of concern in recent years due to their widespread presence and potential impact on the environment and human health. Like air pollution, microplastics pose a hidden threat that is not always immediately attributed to their toxic nature.

Despite our limited knowledge in this area, early studies are alarming about the potential harms of microplastics. These tiny plastic particles can damage human cells and have been compared to dangerous substances such as asbestos and lead, which were once considered beneficial until researchers discovered their harmful effects. Scientists are urging caution and action, as we cannot afford to wait for the unequivocal verification of all the possible unintended effects of conventional plastics.

Microplastics originate from various sources, including the decomposition of larger plastic waste into smaller fragments. Among them are microbeads, a specific category of microplastics, which are tiny pieces of polyethylene plastic that are added to personal care products such as detergents and toothpaste. These particles can easily bypass water filtration systems and end up in oceans and freshwaters, posing a serious threat to aquatic life.

Microbeads have been found in honey, sea salt, beer, tap water, sugar, and even dust. Their presence spans the globe, from Arctic snow to the Mariana Trench. Microplastics have also infiltrated unexpected places like the human respiratory tract and bloodstream, raising concerns about their potential impact on human health. Scientists have even detected microplastics on remote, uninhabited island beaches as well as in ice samples from Greenland and Antarctica, highlighting the global scale of the problem.

The plastic cycle

Around eight million tons of plastic waste enter the sea every year. Over time, the sun’s ultraviolet rays, the movement of ocean waves, and the presence of salt cause this plastic to break down into smaller and smaller fragments known as microplastics. Small marine organisms like zooplankton eat these microplastics. That is how they enter the food chain. Small fish eat the zooplankton, larger fish eat the small fish, and so on. Eventually, fish end up in our food and water ends up in our bottles. Microplastics are in everyday products like shampoos, soaps, toothpaste, and facial cleansers. They travel through sewage systems and rivers and eventually end up in the ocean. In addition, car tires shed microplastic particles, which is another pathway for their diffusion.

Polluting our bodies?

In March 2020, microplastic pollution was found in human blood for the first time. This revelation came about when scientists tested blood samples from 22 healthy anonymous adult donors and found plastic particles in nearly 80% of those tested. Of those samples, 17 had plastic particles.

Specifically, PET plastic—commonly used in beverage bottles—was detected in half of them, while a third of the donors had polystyrene in their blood, which is used for food and product packaging. In addition, a quarter of the blood samples contained polyethylene, the material used to make plastic shopping bags.

Another similar study showed that these tiny particles can stick to the outer membranes of red blood cells, which could impair their ability to carry oxygen efficiently. The scope of the problem extends beyond the bloodstream; microplastics have also entered the placentas of pregnant women. Experiments with pregnant rats have also shown that microplastics can rapidly cross the lungs and enter the heart, brain, and other organs of developing fetuses.

In a study published in 2022 in the multi-disciplinary natural science journal Science of the Total Environment, a significant pioneering achievement was announced: the detection of microplastics in the lung tissue of living humans. The tiny size of these plastic particles allows them to penetrate our bronchioles and become trapped in various sections of the airway branches.

Recently, microplastics have been detected in human heart tissue, raising new concerns about their impact on long-term health. A team of researchers from China made this discovery while examining tissue samples from 15 patients who had undergone heart surgery.

Although there is a possibility that exposure to microplastics might have occurred during the surgical procedure, medical experts point out that the presence of certain chemicals in the human body —such as acrylic, also known as Plexiglas—provides direct evidence of microplastics in patients before they have undergone heart surgery.

From crop to plastic harvest

The problem of microplastics extends to agricultural practices as well. Sewage sludge, a byproduct of wastewater treatment, is often repurposed as organic fertilizer in agriculture. This practice has led to European farmland becoming a considerable repository of microplastics. Estimates suggest that tens of thousands of tons of these particles contaminate European farmland each year.

In 2022, an analysis by the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit environmental organization, revealed that nearly 80,937 sq km of cultivated land in the United States had been contaminated by sewage sludge, carrying per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals.” These substances, commonly found in plastic products, defy environmental breakdown.

Catherine Wilson, an author and deputy director of the Hydro-environmental Research Center at Cardiff University, states that the magnitude of microplastics in agricultural lands might be underestimated. Additionally, microplastics can endure within soils for extended periods. Research by soil scientists from the University of Marburg in Germany found microplastics as deep as 90 cm below the surface of agricultural fields where sewage sludge had been deposited over three decades before.

Plastic odyssey

Another alarming fact is the migration of microplastics from initial sewage sludge deposition sites to aquatic environments. A study conducted in Ontario, Canada revealed that 99% of microplastics journey away from these sites to aquatic ecosystems. Before their aquatic journey, microplastics can liberate toxic chemicals into the soil, exacerbating environmental consequences.

Plastics, such as polyester, acrylic, and nylon, constitute approximately 60% of clothing materials. Yet, garments fashioned from these synthetics shed microplastics, termed “microfibers,” during washing and wear. A United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) report (2020) on the global textile value chain indicates that about 9% of annual microplastic emissions result from clothing and textiles.

Experts suggest elongating garment lifespans and reducing washing frequency to curb emissions. When selecting new clothes, choosing sustainably produced natural materials can minimize the risk of unintended microplastic release, even at the cost of other environmental considerations.

Elisa Tonda, head of the Consumption and Production Unit at UNEP, stresses that involving all stakeholders is vital to usher the textile industry towards circularity and tackle microfiber emissions. Effective policies and an environment that fosters sustainable textile design are crucial, alongside brands assuming responsibility for end-of-life product management.

A

t a time when norms are increasingly pushed aside in the international arena, one great quagmire stands to impact us all: climate change. Humanity seems to be gambling its present and future, while corporations aim to delay transition for profits. It is not just an issue that effects those of us alive today, but also the distant strangers of the next generation.

Who bears the responsibility? How can we deal with climate change fairly? Should one resent the “burden” or embrace the “challenge”?  In The Pivotal Generation: Why We Have a Moral Responsibility to Slow Climate Change Right Now, political philosopher Prof. Henry Shue helps the reader dissolve the separateness between the past, present, and future, and oversee their responsibility towards climate change. Shue encourages the reader to face the historic challenge of our generation, like past generations have with the complex challenges they faced.

Q. Why are we “the pivotal generation”? Why is it a privilege to be us?

We’re the pivotal generation because we just happen to live at the time when either we do enough to prevent climate change from getting out of hand or we don’t – and this is going to be decided in the next 10 or 20 years.

We know from the science that greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide emissions, have to reach net zero by 2050 if climate change is not to be even more severe than it’s already going to be.

It’s just common sense that if we have to go all that way by 2050, then we need to get halfway by about 2030 since reducing emissions by the second half is going to be much harder than the first half.

We have a chance to make an enormous difference and really deeply influence the course of human history. That’s the privilege – and almost an honor: to be an absolutely crucial generation. In some ways, those of us alive now are the most important people in human history, because we’re going to determine whether climate change stays relatively moderate or it becomes even more severe.

One can also think of this as a burden as we have to carry on a lot of tasks. But I find it sort of exhilarating to think that we’re in the position to accomplish as much as we can accomplish, if we get serious about the problem of climate change.

We have a chance to make an enormous difference and really deeply influence the course of human history. That’s the privilege – and almost an honor: to be an absolutely crucial generation.

Q. What makes climate change stand out as the main challenge of our generation?

It’s because so much of a difference will be made in the short time. It’s not that there are no other very important problems, we need to prevent nuclear war, xenophobia etc. But as far as we know, we don’t have to deal with those problems in the next 10 or 20 years, but in the case of climate we really do have to bring about a revolution in our energy system in the next 10 or 20 years.

Since World War II, there has never been a year when carbon dioxide emissions weren’t more than they were in the previous year, except for the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Every year, except for 2020, emissions are going up. That’s a deep, built-in trend, and it has to be reversed very quickly. We need to turn things around, use much less fossil fuel, and do it right away.

There are other problems that are also very important, though dealing with climate change will help with a number of other problems. For example, it will help with health. A lot of people have lung and heart disease because of the particulate matter that burning coal puts into the air.

If we burn less fossil fuel, we won’t only deal with the climate; we will greatly improve health and also save a lot of money. One of the really hopeful things already is that it’s cheaper to build a new solar energy farm and then use it than it is to keep using a coal-burning plant that’s already there. The prices of some alternatives, particularly solar, have already gone below the price of fossil fuels.

Q. Nowadays, with limited time and energy, we are made aware of an incomprehensible number of topics and are often left feeling overwhelmed. Your book highlights responsibility. How can we take responsibility for climate change in our lives?

I do, as you say, talk about responsibility. That’s partly because this is what I work on as a political philosopher, but it’s also very much in our interest to deal with climate change.

However, the thing I wanted to emphasize especially is our responsibility toward future generations. I think we picture future generations as strangers, people who we’ve never met or who we don’t know and don’t have anything much to do with us in our daily life.

In fact, in our daily life, we are shaping the world that future generations are going to live in, and so they’re not distant at all. We are shaping their world, and we have a very tight, intimate connection with them. And so, I think we do have responsibility for the problems that we leave them with. They may be able to solve some of the problems, but we’ll see to it that they have less of them.

For example, there’s going to be sea level rise, and this is going to cause problems for coastal cities. They can move or try to build sea walls or all sorts of things, so they won’t be entirely helpless, but it is true that they will inherit problems like sea level rise from us. The less we do about climate change, the more problems that they are going to inherit.

Q. What are the developed nations’ historical responsibilities?

They’re huge. It’s countries like the one I was born in, the United States, and the one I live in, the United Kingdom, which are mainly responsible. I believe the way to think about responsibility is to look at total cumulative emissions over history and the country with the greatest total cumulative emissions is the United States.

China currently has the most emissions per year, but their cumulative emissions are still quite a bit less than the U.S. I think a reasonable way to look at this is to the extent that you’ve emitted the gases that cause climate change, you are to that extent responsible for the problem. Therefore, this means most of the responsibility goes to the most industrialized countries.

There are complications to this. Saudi Arabia, for example, sells enormous amounts of fossil fuel, and they haven’t generated a lot of greenhouse gas emissions because they’re not a heavily industrialized country. But for the most part it’s the industrialized countries in North America and Western Europe, and Japan which have done the most to cause the problem. I think, the common sense principle is, if you’ve made the mess, then you should clean it up.

And one thing this means is that to get to zero emissions all countries have to stop using fossil fuel, but poorer countries can’t just find a lot of money all of a sudden, and install renewable energy everywhere. However, it’ll be bad for the climate if they follow the same route to development that countries like mine did. So, one of the ways in which a country like the U.S. or the UK can exercise its responsibility is to finance, to some extent, and, at least, invest in sustainable development in poorer countries. In this case, this means leapfrogging over the fossil fuel and going straight to non-fossil fuels like solar, wind, even nuclear. There are problems about nuclear, as everybody knows, but it doesn’t generate greenhouse gas.

Q. In your book, you talk about the fossil fuel interest having entrenched allies within the U.S. government and banking sector. Can we break up that cycle?

We’ll see. That’s the crucial battle, because even the richest countries which talked the most about doing something about climate change are all still subsidizing fossil fuels. In the U.S., there is accelerated depreciation for companies that drill new oil wells. That’s absolutely absurd! We don’t need new oil wells, and we certainly don’t need to give tax breaks to companies that drill new oil wells. This shows that a big section of our politicians is basically captured by fossil fuel interests.

I think the only hope is essentially democracy and social change brought about by people. Many fossil fuel companies say they are committed to the Paris Agreement and to net zero by 2050, but they are not doing anything to get there.

If they wanted to, they could develop plans that would change them from being oil companies to being energy companies, which is what they say they’re doing but it’s not what they’re actually doing. Since they’re not voluntarily making the transition, the only way to get them to do it is to have a political action.

There are a lot of different possible kinds of political action, like carbon taxes or border taxes. There are also many complicated questions about what exactly to do. I think we need our governments to take forceful actions that will require the transition away from fossil fuel, and that will, for a start, put a stop to additional extraction.

New oil wells are drilled using loans from the major banks, and, once again, the worst banks in the world are all American: JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank, Bank of America. It’s hard to put pressure on banks, but we can try, and you can.

This spring, for example, there’s going to be a day when people cut up their credit cards if they have a credit card from these banks. By the way, there’s a report that anybody can access on the web called “Banking on climate chaos.” It’s revised every year, and it shows exactly which banks are making how many loans for the extraction of fossil fuel. And so, you can find out who the main offenders are and not give them your business.

Q. How can activists and decision-makers approach the sociopolitical implications of climate change, such as climate refugees who are projected to reach one billion by 2050?

The best thing to do is to prevent flows getting worse than they are. As I mentioned before, this means enabling countries which have a lot of poverty and quite rightly want to eradicate the poverty to do it by a path that doesn’t mean more use of fossil fuel, and, therefore, more emissions.

The countries that are wealthier should invest and assist with this. For example, India has a huge amount of coal, and it happens to be particularly dirty coal. We really need India not to burn that coal. The way to do it is to invest in their solar power. The more quickly we can bring down the amount of fossil fuel that’s burned and the amount of emissions that are released, the less the sea level will rise, and for example, the fewer people will have to flee from coastal cities.

The important thing to do is try to take actions that prevent people having to flee. People don’t want to leave their own country. It’s not only in the interest of the potential receiving countries, but if we don’t act fast, movements of refugees are going to be really very serious.

Q. In the broader global context, we see an era of international relations drifting away from norms. However, actors cooperate in certain areas while having relatively hostile relations. As far as interests are involved, it’s a kind of double standard. Should we expect states to act morally?

States do tend to pursue their own national interest, but one thing about climate change is that it is in everyone’s interest to deal with it. I think the best that any given nation can do is to carry out its own responsibilities and hope that others will respond.

Now, for exactly the reasons you gave, people worry that others will be so-called free riders. The U.S., in particular, has worried endlessly about whether if it spends a lot of money on climate change, it’ll end up having to carry the burden for everybody. If everyone holds back waiting for other people to do things, nothing will happen, and that’s where we are right now.

People have been holding back and worrying about whether they’re going to get stuck with the bill. I think the only hope is to stop worrying about whether other people are going to take advantage of you and start showing some leadership to what needs to be done and hope that others will respond by doing something similar.

They may not, and if they don’t, then one can take tougher action. For example, the EU now is going to introduce border tariffs on products that are made in ways that generate more emissions than the products would have generated if they had been made inside the EU. This is a way of putting pressure on other countries to reduce their emissions.

The hope is that rather than paying the border taxes, other countries will crack down on their own emissions. That’s a way of pressuring others: it’s not violent, but it’s pressure, and it’s not just waiting for other people to do the right thing. It is, however, tricky. We don’t want to start wars, and even trade wars if we can help it. At the same time, this is very important and we need to take measures that will be effective. Actually, the EU has been showing some leadership, and, on the whole, has been the most effective set of countries on climate change. So, there are some countries trying to do the right thing.

Q. Do you think that climate technology investments could be used as a foreign policy tool in global competition. Are we seeing such developments?

I think the best thing any country can do for its own national interest is to be leading the world in non-fossil fuel technology. A country like the U.S. or countries in the EU need to develop alternative technology in order to deal with climate change since these are going to be the technologies that the world is going to be using for the next century, or many centuries. It is also in their interest to be the ones who develop it.

If other nations are smart, they’ll be developing the technology too. The last thing you want to do is end up being a country that’s still burning coal and oil when everybody else has the alternatives. This is actually a very clear case where doing the right thing is also very much in your long-term self-interest, and can enhance your competitive position economically.

I think the best thing any country can do for its own national interest is to be leading the world in non-fossil fuel technology.

We are on the brink of irreversibility in some cases when it comes to climate change, which can squelch all hope. Do you have any optimistic concluding words for our readers?

The truth is, we’re in a real battle. We could win or we could lose, but there are some good things happening. The youth movement, the Greta Thunbergs of the world, is the most hopeful thing. Just in the last few years, young people across the world have gotten really angry at the old goats like me, who’ve been here for decades and have not dealt with the problem. And they’re getting really fired up – that’s good!

Another very good thing that I mentioned already is that the prices of alternative energy are way down, and so it’s much cheaper to install and use solar than it is to just keep using coal, for example. But as you mentioned, we know that there are so-called tipping points, cases where something in the climate passes a point of no return, and you can’t go back.

Particularly with ice sheets, which means with sea level rise, it is possible that we’ve passed at least one tipping point for West Antarctica, and we know that Greenland and East Antarctica are not too far away, especially Greenland.

This is another reason why the next decade or so is really crucial. We’ve got to turn around the emissions and the speed of the rise before we pass any more tipping points. But people are finally getting fired up and so I have some hope. We’re not doomed – there are things we can do and things we’re beginning to do. We have to keep doing them and do more of them.

Water has been acknowledged by the United Nations as crucial to the fulfilment of all human rights as a key element of life and sustainable development. Water that is safe, clean, accessible, and cheap is an essential component of the right to life, an acceptable standard of living. Despite this, Palestinians who in the occupied Palestinian territories continue to face serious water shortages.

During the COVID19 pandemic, the limitation of access to water and the impact of increased demolitions on WASH infrastructure are of particular concern, a recent UN report noted. The pandemic has acted as a stark reminder of the significance of water, putting even more strain on communities already struggling to get clean, cheap water. The inability of afflicted homes to take preventative measures and curb the spread of the virus is severely hampered by a lack of access to water. As a result, Israel’s ongoing targeting of WASH infrastructure exacerbates an already grave security situation.

Population growth

The Palestinian population in the West Bank is one of the world’s fastest growing, and so is their need for water. However, since Israel‘s control of the West Bank began in 1967, meaningful access to and equitable distribution of water has been a major concern. The Occupied Palestinian Territory’s population is now estimated to be 5.2 million, with a projected growth to 7.2 million by 2030.

The Jordan River, which supplies the majority of the Occupied Palestinian Territory’s available surface water, is now inaccessible to Palestinians. Previous ideas, like the 1955 Johnston Plan, aimed to divide the Jordan River’s waters among the coastal nations, with the Palestinians receiving roughly 200 million cubic meters per year through the projected West Ghor Canal.

The West Bank’s Water Occupation

Military Order 158, issued by Israeli authorities in November 1967, declared that Palestinians may not construct any new water facilities without first receiving permission from the Israeli army. Since then, extracting water from any new source or developing new water infrastructure has necessitated obtaining licenses from Israel, which are very hard to get. Palestinians living under Israel’s military occupation are still suffering the repercussions of the occupation.

In addition to being prohibited access to the Jordan River and freshwater springs, they are unable to dig new water wells, install pumps, or deepen existing wells. Israel even regulates the collecting of rainwater in most of the West Bank, and Palestinian villages’ rainwater harvesting cisterns are frequently damaged by the Israeli army.

Amnesty International “As a result, some 180 Palestinian communities in rural areas in the occupied West Bank have no access to running water, according to OCHA,” according to Amnesty International.

The Interim Agreement: Key points

The Interim Agreement’s Article 40 lays out the rules for water administration between Israelis and Palestinians. It specifies not only how it should be divided, but also how the shared resource should be maintained and what efforts each side should take to ensure water sustainability and coexistence. (A) Palestinian Water Rights in the West Bank are recognized and shall be negotiated in the Permanent Status Agreement. (B) Establishment of a permanent Joint Water Committee (JWC) to deal with all water and sewage related issues in the West Bank. All decisions of the JWC shall be reached by consensus. (C) Recognition from both sides of the necessity to develop additional water for various uses. (D) Existing water and sewage systems shall be operated, maintained and developed in a coordinated manner.

Institutionalized discrimination

In the occupied West Bank, Israel imposes severe military law and enforces segregation, with Palestinians being mainly barred from accessing settlements which inevitably affects access to water. Israel is given four times the Palestinian share of water resources under the Oslo II Accord, but it has been found that Israel has been taking 80 percent more water from the West Bank than it committed to.

We learn more about the climate crisis every year. The evidence is pouring in: increasing temperatures, enormous deforestation, and record rains. And, once a year, we learn more about the human cost of climate change, when data on the deaths of land and environmental activists, the same individuals who are highlighting and resisting the disintegration of our climate, is revealed. According to Global Witness’s annual report, that number increased to a record 227 murders globally in 2020.

The 2021 Global Witness report has gathered data on the death of land and environmental activists over a nine-year period, beginning in 2012. During this period, a bleak picture emerged. There are signs that as the climate crisis worsens, violence against individuals who defend their land and the planet is on the rise as well. The inexplicable exploitation and greed that exacerbated the climate crisis also contributed to violence against earth and environmental activists.

The report states that “[i]n 2020, we recorded 227 lethal attacks – an average of more than four people a week – making it once again the most dangerous year on record for people defending their homes, land and livelihoods, and ecosystems vital for biodiversity and the climate.” The authors of the report claim that an average of more than four individuals are killed each week, which is more than double the amount recorded in 2013. They also linked the increase in violence against climate change and earth activists to the worsening of the climate catastrophe.

Murders, Threats, and Much More

According to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, environmental activists struggle to exercise assembly and civil rights around the world.

Kenya

Activists in Kenya’s Lamu County have been trying to raise awareness about the environmental, health, and climatic consequences of the Lamu Port-South Sudan-Ethiopia-Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor project, which includes a proposed coal-fired power station. According to Human Rights Watch, at least two activists were kidnapped by persons posing as police officials on Lamu, a Kenyan island, in 2016, and are still missing.

Brazil

People in Brazil are risking their lives to save the Amazon rainforest, which is one of the world’s most significant carbon sinks. Intimidation, threats, and violence are used by criminal networks involved in illegal deforestation against anybody who stands in their way by denouncing their unlawful operations, including Indigenous peoples, small-scale farmers, community leaders, and even environmental law enforcement officers. Human Rights Watch recorded 28 homicides, four attempted homicides, and more than 40 death threats connected to illegal forestry between 2015 and 2019, the majority of which took place between 2015 and 2019. Only two of the offenders in these incidents have been brought to justice.

Speaking on the relationship between big corporations and the dissolving rights of Indigenous communities, environmentalist and academic Bill McKibben stated,

[Defenders are] at risk because they find themselves living on or near something that some corporation is demanding. That demand – the demand for the highest possible profit, the quickest possible timeline, the cheapest possible operation – seems to translate eventually into the understanding, somewhere, that the troublemaker must go.

Can We Fix This?

In the 2021 Global Witness report, suggestions were presented for stemming the tide of violence against environmental activists. The report urges the UN to acknowledge that human rights are linked to a safe environment , to ensure that pledges made at the upcoming climate change conference are consistent with human rights duties, and that governments safeguard defenders by regulating extractive industries and putting a stop to any efforts to criminalize protest and land defense. Furthermore, the report urges businesses to enact due diligence procedures to prevent violence from taking place anywhere in their supply chain, to adopt a zero-tolerance policy against all violence, and to offer reparations when it occurs.

The head of U.S. Communications and Global Partnerships at Global Witness Miranda Brobeck spoke to EcoWatch about the recent report, by emphasizing the relationship between the climate crisis and the economic effects of the pandemic, and how it affects environmental activists. She stated, “I think it’s also really important that we recognize the threat to earth and environmental activists on the ground, who not only are facing the health threats from the pandemic and the economic impacts of the pandemic, but are also facing the worst of the climate catastrophe and are just trying to defend our planet and their homes.”

A letter was sent by a group of environmental activists from around the world to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calling on him to push the UN to support a global implementation of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.

Environmentalists are the first line of defense against socio-ecological collapse and the climate crisis. Because the world needs them, it should also support them.

We have not known coffee for very long. Most accounts take us only as back as the 15th century, when it was first used by the mystics of Yemen. Yet, coffee somehow got the lion’s share of blame in many conspiracies around the world. Attempts were made with varying level of success by those who valued order over thrill to get it banned in the Ottoman Empire, Persia, Sweden, and Italy.

Now, the sublime beans seem to have had more than their due share of trouble, and are calling it a day.

Scientists have warned that 60% of the species of coffee are at risk of extinction. Out of 124 known types of coffee species, we actually use just two for our beverage: Coffea Arabica and Coffea robusta. But Arabica, the most popular one, is in trouble too.

Most of the species facing the risk of extinction are not used for making coffee. But even those must be conserved, scientists say, for cross-breeding and production of more resilient new varieties, which are sensitive to climatic threats.

According to experts, while global coffee demand is expected to double by 2050, at least half of the land used for coffee production may become unsuitable by then.

While coffee will not disappear anytime soon, the quantum of the problem is significant. Ethiopia, the original source of the enigmatic beans, is still the largest African exporter of coffee. But 60% of the land that is used for coffee production there will become unsuitable by the end of this century.

A very nice-tasting species of coffee, the Coffea stenophylla, was seen in December 2018 for the first time since 1954. This was only a single plant, in an area that itself, scientists reported, was threatened by human encroachment and deforestation.

Rising global demand

According to experts, while global coffee demand is expected to double by 2050, at least half of the land used for coffee production may become unsuitable by then.

Even though a higher demand may support price in the short to medium run, we will actually be pushing the planetary boundaries in the longer run beyond what the Earth can sustain.

In the absence of appropriate support mechanisms, a higher demand will lead to a greater environmental stress, that is worsened by a warmer planet. Challenges to coffee production may increase in scope, as well as intensity, over time. The need to strengthen and augment the coffee ecosystem is urgent.

Anatomy of environmental stress

Human-induced climate change, diseases and pests, and deforestation are some of the reasons why certain species of coffee are already under threat.

Take Costa Rica, for example, where farmers are leaving coffee plantation in favor of orange production due to erratic weather, and more storms and droughts. This has meant an increase in the cost of the production of coffee. On the other hand, farmers find oranges to be more resilient in the face of climatic threats. This must be a difficult decision in a country where people feel a deep connection between Coffea and who they are.

But the damage from climate change does not stop here. As a result of the hotter climate and increasing rainfall levels, fungi such as the coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix) and pests like the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) are appearing in areas that were previously free of them.

Meanwhile, growers in other areas, like Australia, which represents a potential substitute area to the more conventional centers of coffee production, lament less-than-usual rainfall, due to changing weather patterns.

Even if rainfall were optimal, Australian coffee is less environmentally stressed otherwise, and therefore, has 10-15% lesser caffeine. Caffeine production being a defense mechanism, a less stressful environment means less caffeine.

It, therefore, seems like there is also an optimal level of stress at which nature thrives. However, instead of respecting such subtleties and the intricate forces of balance in our world, we revel in the excesses that we cheer as the era of mass consumption.

Danger to livelihoods

As we see these problems from a distance, we may be tempted to conclude that there is still enough time to act and that appropriate measures will probably prevent something as extreme as coffee disappearing from the planet.

Yet, for those whose livelihoods depend on coffee, the question is rather irrelevant. For them, the coffee either stays feasible, or has to be replaced by some other crop as soon as possible. The falling prices of coffee worldwide have made things even more difficult, especially for smaller farmers.

Already 40% of coffee farmers are estimated to be living below the poverty line. Small farmers owning less than 5 hectares (12 acres) of land account for two-thirds of global coffee supply. They are not only poor to begin with but cannot compete with big producers in mechanization, automation, or cost-effectiveness.

Compare the small producers, with the big producers of Brazil, for example, which accounts for a third of global coffee production. Owing to greater sophistication, big Brazilian producers can produce more at a lower cost.

This is bad news for smaller farmers. When the overall production in the world is high – sometimes driven solely by Brazil – the price falls. This, again, effects small farmers disproportionately, who are producing at very low profit margins already. When the prices are too low, it is not unusual for them to have to sell below cost.

At the end of the day, poorer farmers may end up producing lower quality beans, at a higher relative cost, and not being able to incorporate more sustainable agricultural practices, like soil enrichment.

The result is that these farmers are trying to switch to other crops where they can. But switching to other crops is not a costless process, and may not always be a success. The disturbances from climate change and an erratic pricing system, have resulted in psychological health problems in poor farmers ranging from anxiety and depression to suicide.

Healing the world

The indifference of the world to the raging inequalities is heartbreaking. As we grab a $5 cup of coffee, on the go, we should think about the farmer who must have worked for 48 hours to make the same amount of money.

At the very least the world needs a mechanism to ensure a fair price to the coffee farmers, as their already challenged livelihoods are disrupted by the environmental footprint of the richer world. The richest 10% in the world account for more than 50% of global carbon emissions, after all.

So, where are we right now?

The Fair Trade movement is said to be helping farmers with a “fair” price. But even they admit that a price higher than what they are able to offer would be more desirable. Starbucks claims to procure 99% of its coffee “ethically,” where they have data going down to the name of the farmer who they bought the beans from along with the price (which they do not disclose publicly).