This month’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, popularly referred to as COP26, resulted in a historic final agreement on climate action. However, underneath this collaboration rests the continued tense coexistence between developed and developing nations, with both of them holding the other responsible for the failure to agree to more ambitious goals. At the intersection of these disagreements lies a critical international mechanism that continues to be conveniently ignored: hazardous waste export and disposal systems, particularly of plastic. This intentional oversight is a microcosm of the debate on who bears responsibility for the current climate crisis and who should lead the change going forward, as waste disposal illustrates how richer countries are not just exporting waste, but the pollution and blame that come with it.
According to a World Bank study titled “Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean,” around eight to 12 million metric tonnes of plastic enter the ocean each year. 370 million tonnes of plastic were produced in 2019 alone, resulting in 850 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. This is equal to the emissions of 190 coal power stations that produce 500 megawatts of power.
Yet, rather than focusing on overhauling the plastic disposal system, the concluding remarks at COP26 centred around developed countries taking India and other developing nations to task for watering down the joint agreement. At the conference, the Like Minded Developing Countries, a group of 24 countries that collectively account for around 50% of the world’s population, pushed for coal to merely be “phased down” rather than completely “phased out,” drawing the rebuke of Western leaders such as Boris Johnson.
What Johnson and others failed to mention, however, is that developed countries export over 80-90% of their plastic waste to low-income countries. In order to absolve themselves of the political and social impacts of their exorbitant plastic consumption, developed countries declare the plastic as “recycled” once it is exported to developing countries, whose businesses need cheap pre-used plastics. Though it may appear to be a simple business transaction, it is in fact a carefully weighted manoeuvre by affluent countries to avoid disposal and environmental costs.
The impact of developed countries passing the buck is clear to see. In 2018, it was reported that 78% of the United States (US) “recycled” plastic was exported to countries with over 5% mismanagement rates, which is considered acceptable by international standards. Many of these importing countries, though, are well above this 5% mark, such as India (85%), Indonesia (81%), and Vietnam (85%). Crucially, this mismanaged plastic waste either ends up in oceans or is incinerated, resulting in either water or air pollution.
Moreover, this continued exploitation of developing countries’ weak policies on waste imports continues despite an international convention on the issue. In 1989, 187 countries signed the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wate and their Disposal. The document aims to reduce the burden faced by developing countries due to the export of hazardous waste from developed countries. Further, it seeks to push developed countries to adopt sound waste management techniques and restrict their export of hazardous waste.
One major flaw in the system, though, is the failure to completely ban the export of hazardous waste in all its forms. Such a change has been supported by several non-governmental organisations and a majority of developing countries. Unsurprisingly, however, developed countries have resisted such proposals and called for a more flexible approach to exporting plastic and other hazardous waste. Yet, developing countries are reluctant to offer the same flexibility to developing countries regarding their stance on coal.
Consequently, rich countries continue to export “recycled” plastics to developing countries unabated. In fact, they do not even differentiate between recyclable plastic and contaminated mixed plastic waste. This allows for the export of all types of plastic to developing countries, irrespective of whether it is recyclable or contaminated. It comes as no surprise then, that recipient countries, in a bid to project themselves as active participants in global climate action, frequently underreport how much waste they import.
The Basel Convention also conveniently overlooks that developing countries only accept this waste because they feel as though they have no other choice. The Convention asserts that the export of such waste must be contingent on “informed consent,” allowing countries to enter into bilateral agreements. As a result, completely restricting the export of garbage requires recipient countries to impose bans on such imports individually. However, this is bound to be ineffective, considering that many importing countries are cash-strapped and at a stage of their economic development when the environment is not a priority, thereby reducing their negotiating power and their ability to say no.
Several Asian countries have sought to introduce laws to restrict the import of plastic waste. However, local businesses, who rely on these cheap imported plastics, have opposed these measures. In other cases, there is a lack of administrative will or indeed finances to invest in effective waste recycling systems, instead relying on cheaper alternatives and burning the plastic waste despite the hazardous fumes it creates.
Concerningly, this problem is unlikely to go away even if these countries achieve the necessary level of economic development to prioritise sustainable practices, as the Basel Convention and other international regulatory mechanisms are fundamentally broken. For instance, in 2018, after years of being considered the global dumping ground and receiving over 45% of the world’s waste, China introduced the National Sword Policy to restrict the import of plastic waste to develop domestic recycling capacities and capabilities. As a result, the waste that was previously destined for China is now simply redirected to other parts of Asia, such as India and Thailand. To illustrate this point, Thailand reported that plastic imports from the US between November and December 2018 doubled. Other developed countries, such as the United Kingdom, chose to incinerate what they would have otherwise exported to China due to a lack of plastic waste management capacity and capability, resulting in even greater greenhouse gas emissions.
Taking all of this into consideration, the solution seems clear. Aside from drastically overhauling the Basel Convention, developed countries must finance the climate action strategies of their developing counterparts. In the case of hazardous waste disposal, climate financing would help poorer countries develop their own domestic waste management systems to ensure the clean disposal of hazardous waste. More importantly, it can help make sustainable practices more economically viable. Lastly, it can also rebalance the priorities of low and middle-income countries, who often prioritise economic growth to the detriment of the environment.
Like in most international negotiations, the developed world has once again portrayed itself as the flagbearer of climate action, while ignoring its own past and ongoing contributions to the issue. Hence, the criticism of developing countries and major polluters such as China and India, while not entirely devoid of merit, must be viewed with scepticism, particularly in light of the hypocrisy exhibited in the disposal of hazardous waste.
Why Was “Phasing Out” Coal a Bigger Priority Than Plastic Waste Disposal at COP26?
In 2019, 370 million tonnes of plastic was produced, resulting in 850 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, the COP26 meet entirely ignored the issue of plastic waste exports.
November 23, 2021
IMAGE SOURCE: PLASTIC SOUP FOUNDATION