Purpose of the articles posted in the blog is to share knowledge and occurring events for ecology and biodiversity conservation and protection whereas biology will be human’s security. Remember, these are meant to be conversation starters, not mere broadcasts :) so I kindly request and would vastly prefer that you share your comments and thoughts on the blog-version of this Focus on Arts and Ecology (all its past + present + future).

Premium Blogger Themes - Starting From $10
#Post Title #Post Title #Post Title

Imperial Hypocrisy of the US-China Climate Talks

The US orders China to contribute more to countering climate change, all while treating China’s growing dominance over the “green economy” as a security threat. 

  • Sep 26, 2024


  • Earlier this month, US climate envoy John Podesta met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing to discuss climate financing for the upcoming years. The US has long criticized China’s approach to confronting the climate threat, and continuously pushes Chinese leaders to do more.

    At the same time, US leaders label China’s investment into green energy technology as “exploitative” and attempt to sabotage its efforts with high tariffs, driving up the cost of Chinese imports, and making it more challenging to make the transition to green energy.

    "They get less attention but they’re fully half of what’s causing global warming,” Podesta commented.

    Former President Donald Trump officially cut off climate talks with China in 2017 after withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. This past year, Biden has made increasing efforts to engage with China on the topic before the end of his term.

    This month’s climate talks are underscored by Beijing’s doubt over the upcoming election and the knowledge that any agreements would be undermined by another Trump win. Foreign Minister Wang Yi has also voiced concerns over US “pan-securitism and protectionism”— kind words for describing US actions that are accelerating a new cold war with China, including steps for conflict escalation by 2027.

    Still, in the face of Washington’s increasingly threatening posture, Yi emphasizes the importance of US-China climate cooperation, saying the talks are “a positive signal to the outside world that as two major powers, China and the US not only need to cooperate but can indeed work together.”

    Discussions under the Biden administration began with former climate envoy John Kerry, who stepped down earlier this year. Kerry was one of the chief negotiators of the Paris climate agreement and had built strong rapport with top Chinese officials over the years. New climate envoy John Podesta got his start in climate policy under the Obama administration, but is well known for serving as the White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton, and for his consummate insider status in wealthy liberal circles. He co-founded the Podesta Group with his brother, which operated as one of the most powerful lobbying firms before it was shut down following its association with the Robert Mueller investigations. He’s also the founder of the progressive think tank Center for American Progress, which was created with the support of other liberal elites.

    As the newest climate envoy, Podesta joins a long line of wealthy US political leaders more inclined to imperialist finger-wagging fueled by western superiority and fears that China’s rise threatens US global hegemony. So while the US pushes China to do more, it also strategically undermines its efforts.

    Let’s break it down.

    Is China doing “enough?”

    First, it’s important to note that China’s population makes up approximately 18% of the world, and its CO2 emissions per capita fall short of many other countries, including the US, Canada, Australia, South Korea, and the UAE.

    Additionally, China is a relatively new industrial power, and the total amount of CO2 emitted over the last three centuries is incomparable to the 400 billion metric tons produced by the United States since 1750. It was only in recent years that China saw a sharp growth in emissions.

    China’s early 20th century was marked by a political and social struggle of internal instability after the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911. After the establishment of the PROC in 1949, the challenge became improving the lives of its citizens. The Chinese government has been working to increase living standards across the country, and is, in fact, the only country to rise from low to high on the UN Development Index since the program was created. Over 840 million people were taken out of extreme poverty, leading to a sharp rise in life expectancy, literacy rates, and quality of life.

    In the early 2000s, as China became increasingly aware of the negative impacts of its fossil fuel use, leaders sought solutions that would create opportunities for future populations and not negate any of the progress made in the last century. Thus began China’s turn to manufacturing renewable technology in industries from solar to wind, green hydrogen, and geothermal energy. 

    Today, China has approximately 80% of the world’s capacity for solar manufacturing. The mass production of renewable tech enabled lower sales costs, paving the way for nations in the Global South to afford making the move to green energy. In fact, China’s production of wind and solar tech enabled other nations to reduce CO2 emissions by over 800 million tons in 2023 alone.

    In 2020, President Xi Jingping announced the plan for China to become carbon neutral by 2060, with a carbon peak no later than 2030. The declaration spurred new green projects and policies aimed at accomplishing the goal. 

    The National Energy Administration (NEA), which regulates China’s energy, launched the Whole County PV program, which aims to install solar panels in half of China’s rural administration (a quarter of the population). China’s desert regions were deemed ideal locations for massive wind and solar farms, which will connect to towns and cities through high-speed transmission lines. 

    In 2022, China installed as much solar capacity as all other nations combined, then doubled that number the following year– which was over twice as much as the United States.

    It’s true that China still has a long way to go when it comes to switching away from fossil fuels, but it’s currently on track to reach its goals– and the Chinese government has a plan, which includes the construction of a unified power grid to better manage supply and demand.

    So why the criticism?

    Ultimately, the US and China have different strategies of approaching the climate issue, and the US isn't happy with China’s methods. In fact, US criticism over China’s green energy strategy lay partially in its condemnation of China’s monopoly over green energy tech, and the effects affordable prices could have on other US business sectors, such as car manufacturing. 

    Just last week, the US locked in steep tariffs of 100% on incoming EVs from China, 50% on chips, and 25% on batteries. Chinese company BYD is the biggest Electric Vehicle (EV) manufacturer, with costs as low as $10,000 per car. Though not currently operating in US markets, BYD electric cars with imposed tariffs would still be the cheapest option for US consumers.

    It seems likelier that US politicians will protect the auto industry, which poured $85.5 million into lobbying efforts in 2023, a record high, rather than allow affordable, environmentally friendly electric cars from China to take over the market. Unfortunately, many politicians continue to call climate change a hoax and refer to EVs, like Trump did, as “green new scams.”

    Chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, Pierre-Olivier Gourincha, commented on the matter, warning that the high tariffs will “make it harder to coordinate policies that address global challenges, such as the climate transition.” Similarly, David Victor, Professor of innovation and public policy at the University of California San Diego, wrote that these policy moves are “bad for the environment” and will only “slow down the transition.”

    The US also continues to push China to contribute more money to fund countries in the Global South under the Copenhagen Accord drafted at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15), in which multiple countries pledged to contribute to a $100 billion goal annually by 2020. However, while Podesta and Yi were talking about climate finance, other Chinese leaders were hosting the 2024 Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation with leaders from over 50 states across Africa. 

    The summit concluded with China announcing an additional $50 billion in funding over the next three years, with a heavy focus on green energy transitioning. Additionally, President Xi announced plans to launch 30 new clean energy projects, as well as plans for EV manufacturing.

    China’s rapid economic growth and growing global influence has enabled it to be an alternative source of investment for developing nations across the world. Western powers have been quick to criticize China’s global initiatives, brushing them off as self-interested and negatively impactfully– though only when it’s outside the bounds of western institutions like the International Monetary Fund. This is hypocritical, over-simplified, and misleading.

    According to a McKinsey Global Institute report, delays in the global green energy shift will produce catastrophic results. As of right now, only 10% of the necessary low-emission technology needed to reach carbon neutrality by 2050 has been deployed. It’s crunch time, and slowing the transition due to political or economic interests is unacceptable.

    Essentially, the US orders China to contribute more to countering climate change, all while treating China’s growing dominance over the “green economy” as a security threat, and labeling China’s efforts to invest in green energy projects in the Global South as “geopolitical expansionism.” The message is clear: China needs to contribute to the climate effort, but only in ways the US deems acceptable.

    This strategy is ultimately counterproductive– it will only hinder the global effort to convert to renewable energy and delay climate goals, setting the stage for future potential environmental disasters. Instead, the US and China need to work together as two of the most powerful countries to pave the way to net global carbon neutrality. This means removing tariffs on green energy tech, and providing avenues for all countries to make the transition. At the same time, the US needs to make internal change, and defund the world’s highest polluting institution– the US military. 

    Megan Russell

    Megan Russell is CODEPINK's China is Not Our Enemy Campaign Coordinator. She graduated from the London School of Economics with a Master’s Degree in Conflict Studies. Prior to that, she attended NYU where she studied Conflict, Culture, and International Law. Megan spent one year studying in Shanghai, and over eight years studying Chinese Mandarin. Her research focuses on the intersection between US-China affairs, peacebuilding, and international development. 

    (Sources: LA Progressive)

    [ Read More ]

    China pilots ‘sustainable aviation fuel’

    September 26, 2024 

    China has launched a “sustainable aviation fuel” (SAF) pilot project that will see 12 flights officially burning SAF in its first phase this year, China Civil Aviation News reports.


    SAF is liquid fuel made from biological or synthetic feedstocks considered more sustainable than kerosene. It can be made from waste materials such as used cooking oil, food waste or forestry waste. SAF is currently mixed with kerosene, usually at a ratio of no less than half, but there is no technical reason why planes can’t be fully fuelled by it.


    Energy Magazine, a WeChat-based analyst of the energy transition, said that SAF is the most economical option for cutting aviation emission, and has the potential to bring down the industry’s emissions by between 70% and close to 100%.


    The 12 pilot flights will be operated by Air China, China Eastern Airlines, China Southern Airlines and involve airports in Beijing, Chengdu, Zhengzhou, and Ningbo.


    The second phase will happen across 2025, with the number of participants increasing. The report did not mention the SAF-to-kerosene ratio of the flights.


    China’s first SAF test flight took place in 2011, according to the Civil Aviation Administration. But large-scale commercial use is still a long way off and there remains no top-level policy to develop the sector nor market to promote SAF production. China’s 14th five-year plan for civil aviation for 2021-2025 aims for consumption in 2025 of more than 20,000 tonnes of SAF. This would account for “about 0.2% of annual domestic aviation kerosene consumption,” states the plan.


    The accounting firm Deloitte predicted in a 2023 report that China’s SAF demand will reach 3 million tonnes per year by 2030 and 86 million tonnes in 2050.


    “The biggest challenge for airlines to use SAF is that its price is still three to five times higher than traditional aviation kerosene,” Xie Xingquan, regional vice president (North Asia) of the International Air Transport Association, told China Business News.


    A previous report released by Peking University’s Institute of Energy pointed out that China’s SAF development still needs policy promotion. Han Jun, deputy director of the Civil Aviation Administration said that to achieve “large-scale application, it is necessary to promote various pilot projects and strive to build a SAF development path that conforms to national conditions.”


    Read Dialogue Earth’s analysis from last year on SAF development in China.


    (Sources: Dialogue Earth)

    [ Read More ]

    Just transitions in the Mekong: China’s role in trade and investment

    Second of four workshops sheds light on China’s influence in the Mekong region and opportunities for better engagement with Chinese stakeholders. 

    Thitinan Pongsudhirak, professor and senior fellow of the Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS Thailand), speaking at the public panel event held at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, on 28 August, 2024 (Image: Soraya Kishtwari / Dialogue Earth)

    In collaboration with the Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS Thailand) at Chulalongkorn University, Dialogue Earth and the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (RWI) held a public panel and closed-door workshop in Bangkok, Thailand, between 28-30 August.

    The panel explored China’s influence on sustainable development in the Mekong region, while the workshop focused on four key topics: China’s role in the Mekong subregion; operationalising the right to a healthy environment in Southeast Asia; media and environmental journalism; and understanding “Global China”.

    This was the second in a series of four workshops (Latin America, Southeast Asia, Africa and Europe) aimed at building knowledge and dialogue on China’s involvement across these regions.

    China’s expanding role in the Mekong

    China’s strategic engagement in the Mekong subregion is rapidly growing, particularly in resource management, cooperation and infrastructure. In geopolitical terms, this involvement extends beyond the economic, touching political and cultural spheres, positioning China as an unmatched regional player. However, discussions highlighted that China’s role is highly nuanced and must be understood in the broader context of regional power dynamics.

    Perceptions of China in the region are varied. For developing countries, China is seen as a crucial ally, with its infrastructure projects boosting connectivity and trade, while generating goodwill. Some argued that this is key for China as it aims to legitimise its investments and reduce the risk of opposition.

    Sam Geall, CEO at Dialogue Earth, during group discussions held at the closed-door workshop on 29-30 August, 2024 (Image: Soraya Kishtwari / Dialogue Earth)

    However, caution remains around the risks of debt, foreign ownership and undue influence. Laos and Cambodia, highly indebted to China, were discussed, with the Kunming-Laos railway (70% Chinese-owned) cited as an example of inequitable control and influence. 

    The environmental and social impacts of China’s projects also raised concerns. Hydropower projects along the Mekong and its tributaries have disrupted the river’s natural flow, raising concerns about the impact on fisheries and agriculture that depend on its nutrient-rich sediment and seasonal floods. Displacement of local communities and chemical pollution were highlighted as further negative outcomes of some Chinese investments. Participants emphasised the need to scrutinise why host countries allow such projects despite clear environmental and social risks.

    There are alternative ways to engage with China, including promoting stricter adherence to environmental and social regulations. Participants called for greater coordination among Mekong countries and emphasised the proactive roles that media, civil society and businesses must play in both preventing and spotlighting harmful projects. Special attention was also drawn to the responsibility of governments in preventing negative impacts and ensuring that human rights are upheld.

    China and Canada’s presidency of the Convention on Biological Diversity, including its leadership in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (2022), offers another opportunity for meaningful engagement on environmental issues. The leading role played by China in these instances is an opportunity to examine how the right to a healthy environment is implemented by China and others in the region. 

    Understanding local political dynamics

    A key discussion point was the importance of understanding local political economies when examining the China-Mekong relationship. Some participants argued that focusing solely on geopolitical and international factors overlooks important regional dynamics. For example, what motivates Mekong countries to engage with Chinese stakeholders? When they do, how do they attempt to shape that engagement? What approaches have succeeded or failed from the perspective of Mekong governments and people? These are important questions that too regularly get sidelined in discussions on Global China – a concern that was similarly raised in our workshop in Chile earlier this year.

    Media and civil society are important actors in terms of holding stakeholders accountable on their social and environmental pledges. However, civil society spaces and the media landscape vary across Mekong countries. While Thailand’s media operates with relatively more freedom than its neighbours, MyanmarLaos, Cambodia and Vietnam face significant restrictions, similar to China, which severely limits civil society’s ability to influence decision-making.

    Geopolitical influence further shapes media and civil society. China’s concerted campaign to strengthen its so-called “discourse power” was highlighted, with initiatives like the Mekong News Network and media “junkets”, where Mekong journalists are invited to China for heavily-choreographed media tours designed to amplify its narrative. Chinese state media also cooperates with local outlets, which often lack the resources for independent reporting and therefore rely on materials provided by Chinese sources. 

    Mekong countries also face their own internal challenges, with one participant listing corruption, cronyism, income disparities and poor governance as persistent problems. These shortcomings make it easier for foreign investors to bypass safeguards, further complicating China’s impact in the region.

    A clean, healthy and sustainable environment

    An important part of the workshop discussions focused on what “just transitions” mean for the Mekong region. One guest speaker emphasised that it’s not about a singular just transition, but rather about multiple transitions — ecological, social and economic. This broadened perspective highlights the need to ensure fairness not only to human beings but also to ecosystems and other species. The discussions revealed an interesting convergence: human rights advocates in the room underscored the importance of ecological approaches, advocating for fairness to the environment, while environmental experts stressed the need for people-centred approaches, ensuring that local communities are central to any development discussions. Both perspectives underscore that development should not just focus on economic growth, but must also consider the impacts on communities, their livelihoods and the ecosystems they depend on.

    Ching Kwan Lee, professor at UCLA, Robert Kibugi, associate professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Nairobi, and Tom Baxter, project manager at Dialogue Earth (Image: Soraya Kishtwari / Dialogue Earth)

    Stronger legal and political frameworks are needed to support fair transitions. Although ASEAN is developing an environmental rights framework, it lacks the robustness of Latin America’s Escazu Agreement. The 2022 United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) landmark resolution on the right to a safe, clean and sustainable environment is a significant international development in human rights law, furthering just transitions by building on regional, national and international commitments, including Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on access to information, participation and justice.

    The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, also adopted in 2022 and referenced earlier in this article, was highlighted again for its connection to the UNGA’s recognition of the right to a healthy environment. While green projects under the Belt and Road Initiative were also discussed, participants noted that, despite the legal and policy terminology which underpin them, enforcement and accountability remain weak, limiting their overall effectiveness.

    Participants cautioned that green energy projects are not inherently just, responsible or even green, when considering their broader socio-ecological impacts. Examples included nickel mining in Indonesia and Myanmar linked to electrical vehicle manufacturing and dam projects affecting ecosystems and river communities. A key takeaway was that so-called “green” energy projects should also be responsible energy projects, minimising harm to both people and planet. Participants acknowledged that transitions involve trade-offs, with change inevitably creating some losers. While at the normative level all human rights are interdependent and indivisible, in practice, tensions often arise — particularly between the right to development and the right to a healthy environment. It is the role of policymakers to manage these competing interests and ensure that tailored and effective measures are put in place so that policies do not reinforce, but instead address pre-existing inequalities that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.

    Engaging China for green and just transitions

    The workshop concluded with a discussion on how to better understand and foster more effective engagement with China to achieve green and just transitions, focusing on identifying and addressing existing gaps in knowledge and strategies.

    China’s overseas trade, investment and engagement are shaped by a complex network of stakeholders, including government agencies, private and state-owned companies and banks, which often have competing interests. “Unpacking” this web of stakeholders is crucial to gaining a more nuanced understanding of China – a point also previously raised in the workshop in Chile – though the opacity of Chinese governance and business structures makes this difficult. Tools are needed to help policymakers, journalists and activists navigate these complex challenges.

    Malin Oud, director of the Stockholm office and China Programme at RWI, giving the closing remarks at the last day of the closed-door workshop on 30 August, 2024 (Image: Soraya Kishtwari / Dialogue Earth)

    China’s actions should also be understood in relation to other global and regional powers. While China’s overseas investments, particularly the prevalence of state-owned companies, differ from those of Western countries, Japan and other big sources of foreign direct investment in the region, it is not unique in using its economic clout to influence its neighbours.  Seeing “Global China” in a relational context – as one participant put it – is important, as it does not operate in a vacuum; rather, it interacts with, and is influenced by, other global economic and political forces.

    On a less conceptual level, participants stressed the need for greater knowledge sharing between regions. Mekong countries can learn from how Africa and Latin America engage with China; case studies of these interactions were cited as useful resources.

    Although there is no shortage of high-quality information on China’s overseas trade and investment, this information needs to be better curated, made more accessible to non-native English speakers, targeted to non-academic audiences and better disseminated. 

    The insights from Bangkok will inform the next round of discussions in Kenya next year, which will focus on China’s role in just transitions on the African continent.

    [ Read More ]

    Could ocean plastic cleanups be doing more harm than good?

    Critics say removing ocean plastic can be expensive, harmful to animals and detract from efforts to stop waste at source. 

    A beach strewn with plastic on the Indonesian island of Bali (Gerold Grotelueschen / Alamy)

    When fishers in China’s Zhejiang province return home each day, they haul ashore more than fish. Over the past four years, 11,000 fishers have together unloaded over 2,800 metric tonnes of plastic, mainly fishing nets.

    They are paid around 1 USD per kilogram by Chinese environmental initiative Blue Circle for this, along with a share of the profit from the sale of recycled plastic pellets to manufacturers who make new goods out of the processed waste.

    The fishers “all know that they are contributing to environmental protection and making the ocean cleaner”, says Xianhua Mao, a technical expert with the organisation.

    The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has recognised Blue Circle for its achievements. It is part of a growing group of organisations and companies worldwide that have responded to the environmental threat of plastic with projects to sift out, slurp up, net, and otherwise trap tonnes of waste from beaches, rivers and oceans.

    But as plastic-fishing projects attract public attention and millions in funding, some experts are sceptical. They fear some schemes can do unintended harm and may even stall efforts to reduce plastic waste in the first place.

    The toll of drones, bots, and nets

    One thing is clear: plastic is an environmental threat of epic proportions. An estimated 1.7 million tonnes enters the ocean each year, where it entangles, starves, and kills millions of animals; smothers coral reefs; and breaks down into micro- and nano-sized particles that enter the food chain.

    But “plastic pollutes habitats, ecosystems, places where animals already live”, says Rebecca Helm, a marine ecologist at Georgetown University. “So taking plastic out using something like big nets is going to take life out with it.”

    In a 2023 paper, Helm joined a group of concerned researchers who cautioned against what they called “the fallacy of plastic cleanup technology”.

    Drones and robots designed to skim plastic off water surfaces risk pulling in creatures, they say. Other devices have been shown to capture significant amounts of sea life along with plastic.

    The technology keeps advancing. Small, industrious robots are now proliferating across beaches worldwide, constantly sieving out plastic.

    When conducting research for the study, Melanie Bergmann, the paper’s lead author, was alarmed by examples of such sand-sieving robots. “What kind of ecosystem will be there after that?” asks Bergmann, a marine ecologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany. “It’s a habitat; it’s full of organisms that live there, and if you destroy it all the time, that’s not very beneficial either.”

    Garbage patch or ecosystem?

    The so-called Great Pacific Garbage Patch is home to the most widely publicised plastic-fishing projects. Here, Netherlands-based outfit The Ocean Cleanup has a huge net-fringed boom that uses ocean currents to herd in plastic from the surface of this gyre in the North Pacific. It has also deployed dozens of plastic-catching booms in rivers worldwide and describes its efforts as “the largest cleanup in history”.

    But the gyre is home to an array of surface-dwelling organisms that can be swept up with the plastic, including sea dragons, by-the-wind sailors, and snails. Running a cleanup operation through it could significantly disrupt the ecosystem and trap marine animals, scientists including Helm have warned. “It’s an extremely rich habitat in the North Pacific, so much so that I don’t even like calling it the Garbage Patch,” says Helm. “It is an ecosystem.”

    The Ocean Cleanup’s own environmental impact assessment states that almost 700 kg of fish, including sharks, molluscs and turtles, were ensnared in one of its systems over the course of 12 cleanup trips.

    Though this is “less than a percent of the total amount of plastic catch”, it raised concerns because “we are here to protect marine life, not kill it”, says Matthias Egger, head of environmental and social affairs at The Ocean Cleanup. He adds that the organisation submits to regular independent environmental impact assessments and that its systems have been designed to allow turtles to escape. It has made changes both to the design and use of its system over the years to try and reduce the impact on marine life.

    An upstream battle

    Cleanups face mind-boggling quantities of waste. By 2040, global plastic production could increase by 66% on 2019 levels. With landfills under increasing strain, researchers estimate it could nearly triple the amount of plastic entering the ocean by the same year.

    The Ocean Cleanup estimates that since its operation started, it has removed 0.5% of the plastic from the North Pacific gyre, or just over 450 tonnes. In April, the organisation announced it had cleaned up 10,000 tonnes worldwide since it started collecting in 2019. Estimates of plastic ending up in the ocean every year range from 1 to 2.4 million tonnes.

    A vessel that supports The Ocean Cleanup at a port in Vancouver in 2019 (Image: The Canadian Press / Alamy)

    “The efficiency of the whole thing is very, very limited,” says Ewoud Lauwerier, a plastic policy expert at the nonprofit Ocean Care.

    The Ocean Cleanup’s core goal is to remove 90% of floating plastic from the global ocean by 2040. Egger says the organisation’s data shows this is achievable if it deploys dozens more cleanup devices in rivers and the ocean. The organisation believes humanity needs to reduce plastic production to stem the flow of marine waste, but that this could take years, Egger says.

    There are also questions over what becomes of the plastic that cleanup efforts retrieve. Some groups claim to recycle ocean plastic into new goods, but a glut [$] of cheap new virgin plastic has shrunk the market for recycled materials, and ocean plastic is often low quality. This raises the question of how much of the retrieved plastic will end up in landfills or incinerators.

    The cost of cleaning up

    The stakes have been raised by work towards creating an international treaty to end plastic pollution, which nations have pledged to finalise by the end of 2024. The treaty could establish a global cap on the amount of plastic produced. But there also exists increasing political and financial interest in downstream measures, including cleanup.

    The Innovation Alliance for a Global Plastics Treaty brings together dozens of companies and nonprofits that are developing ways to tackle plastic pollution, and is spearheaded by The Ocean Cleanup. It has already requested that the treaty include mechanisms to finance innovators in all areas of plastic to the tune of USD 30 billion a year.

    It would cost The Ocean Cleanup more than USD 10 billion each year to collect 90% of the plastic that enters the ocean annually, according to a report published by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and Ocean Care. This figure doesn’t include plastic already in the ocean.

    Discarded fishing gear retrieved from the North Pacific by Ocean Voyages Institute. Volunteers use hooks and poles rather than nets to limit bycatch (Image: Eric Risberg / Associated Press / Alamy)

    Millions of dollars have already been channelled towards cleanup projects via donations from major users of plastics, petrochemical producers of plastic, and an industry-funded organisation called the Alliance to End Plastic Waste.

    “The amount of money that it might cost us to manage all the waste we’re potentially going to produce in the future … it’s almost unfathomable,” says Jacob Kean-Hammerson, a campaigner for the EIA’s ocean programme.

    If the focus remains on plastic retrieval, “we’d be stuck in a situation of perpetual cleanup”, he adds.

    To clean or not to clean?

    Despite the uncertainties, even sceptics believe cleanups are needed in some circumstances. Experts agree there is a clear case to intervene in locations like trash-choked rivers, or the coastlines of small island states that receive tonnes of tidal waste.

    Jannike Falk-Andersson, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Water Research, says that where cleanup is needed, it should be regulated. Projects could also be required to report what happens to the retrieved plastic, she says. China’s Blue Circle, for instance, uses blockchain technology to trace plastic, which is how they know that over 40% of plastic that fishers deliver to them has been recycled.

    Ocean cleanup need not cost billions, as several experts Dialogue Earth spoke with noted. They mentioned the Ocean Voyages Institute as a cost-effective example. Its volunteer sailors use hooks and poles in the North Pacific Gyre to retrieve “ghost gear”, or discarded fishing equipment. This low-tech method limits bycatch and has collected 362 metric tonnes of plastic from the North Pacific.

    Ultimately, prevention, by limiting plastic production and stopping plastic waste from entering the sea, is the best long-term action we can take to realise a largely plastic-free ocean.

    In the meantime, Falk-Andersson says there is one thing everyone can do to play a part: “The best way of doing cleanups is by hand. Don’t walk past the next piece of plastic: pick it up.”

    [ Read More ]

      Powered By Blogger