
Plastics campaigners warn Australia's pledge at UN needs to be matched with ‘high ambition at home'
The five-day meeting in Nice, France finished on Friday, and conservationists celebrated some key steps towards protecting wildlife in international waters.
But on plastics, campaigners warned that Australia's drive for an international treaty needed to be matched with ambition domestically.
In 2022, Australia joined a 'high ambition coalition' to push for a global treaty on plastics, but talks in December failed to produce the treaty.
The treaty aims to cut the production and consumption of virgin plastics, phase out problematic plastics and introduce design rules to minimise environmental harm and make recycling and re-use easier.
Cip Hamilton, the plastics campaign manager at Australian Marine Conservation Society, said attention on the treaty would now focus on talks in Geneva in August, when she would travel with Indigenous rangers from north-east Arnhem Land.
That community in Australia's Northern Territory was being inundated by so-called ghost nets – discarded or lost industrial fishing gear – and other plastics washing up onshore, Hamilton said.
Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton's Clear Air column as a free newsletter
'There is about 250kg of plastic leaking into our environment every minute. Once it gets into the environment, it's almost impossible to get it out and it's causing devastation to our wildlife,' she said.
'We need to be enacting domestic solutions … Recycling alone won't end plastic pollution.'
Jeff Angel, a leading plastics campaigner and director of the Boomerang Alliance, said Australia's desire for a global plastics treaty 'must also mean high ambition at home'.
Australia had a substantial 'unfinished' agenda dealing with plastics, he said, with recycling and recovery rates stuck at just 12.5%.
'The vast majority of plastic polluting our coasts, waterways, public spaces, soil and air is generated domestically,' Angel said.
While in Nice, Australia joined nine other countries, including France, the UK and Spain, in a new coalition to halt the extinction of sharks and rays.
A federal government spokesperson said this would 'generate momentum for urgent, coordinated conservation efforts'.
Watt told the conference Australia would expand its ocean area protected from fishing, drilling and mining to 30% by 2030.
Sign up to Clear Air Australia
Adam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisis
after newsletter promotion
The Albanese government also said it would bring in legislation before the end of the year to ratify a landmark global high seas treaty it signed in 2023, and had been two decades in the making.
The French president, Emmanuel Macron, said enough countries had committed to ratifying the treaty that it could come into force as early as January 2026.
The treaty covers the 60% of the ocean that is beyond the jurisdiction of any individual country – about 90% of the ocean by volume.
Prof Tim Stephens, an international law expert at the University of Sydney, said the treaty would probably be 'very widely ratified' around the world.
'The high seas has remained an ungoverned area,' Stephens said. 'Australia has been an incredibly strong supporter of this treaty process that at several points could have fallen over.
'The high seas is an area where states have freedoms, like navigation, research and fishing, but that also means they haven't been adequately managed and protected.'
The treaty – an agreement under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea – would allow for countries to nominate areas of the high seas for protection and would regulate access to marine genetic resources (which, for example, could be used in research or to develop new technologies).
Stephens said the treaty would require signatories, including Australia, to assess any impacts that new activities in domestic waters, such as major fossil fuel projects, could have on the high seas.
This would reinforce that members of the UN convention had obligations to protect the marine environment, he said.
This would mean countries could be held to account under the treaty for protecting the high seas 'in a way we have not seen before', he added.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Mayhem as ten Greenpeace activists abseil down from Scotland's Forth Road Bridge 'to protest Manchester United owner Jim Ratcliffe'
Ten Greenpeace activists abseiled down Scotland's Forth Road Bridge to protest plastic plant owned by Manchester United owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe. The group said it wanted to block an Ineos tanker carrying fracked gas to a plastics plant at Grangemouth. The site is near Edinburgh and part of Ineos - a company owned by Sir Ratcliffe that produces virgin plastics. The activists suspended themselves using ropes 25 metres from the water level at high tide and held banners saying, 'Plastics Treaty Now'. The stunt has already halted traffic but the group say they plan to stay in place for 24 hours - using hammocks to make themselves comfortable if they need to. They also have a support team on the bridge itself and on the water. The protest comes ahead of Donald Trump's visit to Scotland this weekend. Greenpeace spokeswoman Amy Cameron told The Telegraph: 'The Global Plastics Treaty offers us a once-in-a-generation chance to tackle the problem for good, so it's no surprise Ineos and its billionaire boss, Jim Ratcliffe, are doing everything they can to stop it. 'Ratcliffe tries to distract us with sports teams and sponsorships, but we're not going to let him fill our planet with plastic, so he can fill his pockets with profit.' They said petrochemical companies like Ineos are blocking progress for an international agreement on plastics. She added: 'We are here today to say that if you're going to try and block the plastics treaty, we're going to block you.' Ms Cameron said she expected the protest to be 'safe and peaceful', and precautions had been taken, adding: 'From our perspective, we don't think there's any need for the police to be here.' Asked about any disruption for travellers, she said: 'It's definitely not our intention to cause any disruption to any member of the public. 'Our climbers have access to bridge via the pedestrian walkway, which is separated from the roads - which is separated from the roads. 'So there was no need to close the road bridge, if that's a decision that Police Scotland have taken, then that's their decision.' Police Scotland said they were alerted at 1.05pm and officers were 'engaged with those involved'. The public were asked to avoid the area. The bridge is one of three crossing the Firth of Forth in central Scotland which links Edinburgh to Fife.


Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Sustainable Switch: World Court tells countries they must address climate change
This is an excerpt of the Sustainable Switch newsletter, where we make sense of companies and governments grappling with climate change, diversity, and human rights on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. To receive the full newsletter in your inbox for free sign up here. Hello! I'm back! You've probably been missing all your latest environment, social and governance news, but not to worry as today's newsletter is worth the wait. This week, the United Nations' highest court delivered an opinion set to determine future environmental litigation, as the United States Environmental Protection Agency plans to reverse its scientific determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health. Both the World Court opinion and EPA decisions take place as countries around the world struggle to stave off the effects of a heating planet. Keep scrolling for today's "Talking Points" stories for more on the impact of rising temperatures on Egypt and China. Let's start with the landmark legal opinion by the International Court of Justice which said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change by cooperating to curb emissions. The ICJ said failure by countries to meet their climate obligations could, in specific cases, lead other states affected by climate change to litigate. Judge Yuji Iwasawa said countries were obliged to comply with the "stringent obligations" placed on them by climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law. 'Human right to a sustainable environment' Judges were asked by the U.N. General Assembly to consider two questions after two weeks of hearings last December: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? Developing nations and small island states at greatest risk from rising sea levels made their case for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Under international law, Judge Iwasawa said: "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights." Historically, rich industrialised countries have been responsible for the most emissions. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the lead in addressing the problem and not doing so could pave the way for other states affected by climate change to seek reparations in litigation in specific cases. Check out today's "In Conversation" comment by a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, on the ICJ ruling. EPA re-thinking greenhouse gas emissions While the ICJ's ruling mentioned the "existential threat" to the world posed by greenhouse gas emissions and the need for countries to cooperate on reduction targets, the U.S. EPA will reverse its scientific determination that those emissions endanger public health, removing the legal foundation that underpins all major climate regulations, two sources familiar with the discussions told Reuters. Reversal of the "endangerment finding" would gut one of the most consequential federal standards that had enabled the U.S. to tackle climate change by regulating vehicles, industries, and energy-producing facilities that emit heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Without the finding, the EPA could more easily undo major regulations that limit greenhouse gas emissions, the sources said. One source said the proposal would focus on EPA's legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, not the scientific basis for it. Lawyers have said that challenging the scientific basis of the finding would be difficult because the body of evidence that humans are causing climate change is 'unequivocal.' The U.S. is the largest historical greenhouse gas emitter and currently the No. 2 emitter after China. IN CONVERSATION Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, shares her thoughts on the ICJ opinion: 'The verdict is out: polluters must pay. The Court declared the era of fossil fuel impunity over. 'This ruling's message is clear: under international law, there is no exemption for climate destruction. 'It sets a new global standard for urgent and effective climate action and clearly affirms that those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy and reparation. 'This offers a vital lifeline to frontline communities and nations, with far-reaching consequences for climate litigation and multilateral negotiations. 'This case started with a petition by the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change in a classic 'David vs Goliath' case. This victory for climate justice is a powerful testament to the leadership of Pacific youth, young campaigners across regions, and frontline nations. 'Advisory opinions are authoritative rulings anchored in binding international law and carry substantial legal weight. The reasoning behind this ruling will appear in judges' rulings and lawyers' briefs in numerous climate cases worldwide. 'This opinion will guide climate litigation at the local, regional, and national courts. It provides a foundation for climate policy-making and will ground local legislation and global negotiations in legal obligation.' Today's Sustainable Switch was edited by Jane Merriiman Think your friend or colleague should know about us? Forward this newsletter to them. They can also subscribe here.


Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Economists doubt Trump outlook that US will sell 'so much' beef to Australia
WASHINGTON/CANBERRA/CHICAGO, July 24 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said that the United States would sell "so much" beef to Australia after Canberra relaxed import restrictions on Thursday, but economists and traders said that high prices and tight supplies make major American exports unlikely. Australia said it would loosen biosecurity rules for U.S. beef. The move will not significantly increase U.S. shipments, though, because Australia is a major beef producer and exporter whose prices are much lower, analysts said. U.S. companies export small quantities of beef to Australian buyers. They import much more in the form of lean beef used to make hamburgers, particularly as U.S. production has declined due to tight cattle supplies. U.S. beef prices set records this year and the number of beef cattle fell to the lowest level since 1961 after ranchers slashed their herds due to drought that burned up pasturelands used for grazing. A ban on cattle imports from Mexico because of New World screwworm, a devastating livestock pest, and steep tariffs on Brazilian beef that are set to take effect on Aug. 1 could further tighten supplies, and require additional imports of Australian beef. "We can't get enough beef in the U.S. right now, so we're bringing it in from Australia and Brazil," said Dan Norcini, an independent U.S. livestock trader. "We're not going to be selling anything significant to anyone." Last year, Australia shipped almost 400,000 metric tons of beef worth $2.9 billion to the United States, with just 269 tons of U.S. product moving the other way. "They have more cattle than people," said David Anderson, an agricultural economist at Texas A&M University. "That's why they export so much." U.S. and Australian beef also taste different. Many Australians like the grass-fed beef raised there, not marbled beef from U.S.-raised cattle that are generally fed with grain, said Jerry Klassen, chief analyst for Resilient Capital in Winnipeg. He predicted the United States will not export substantial amounts of beef to Australia in the next five years. "We just aren't in a position to export much beef to anyone, and the reality is Australia doesn't really have much need for U.S. beef," said Karl Setzer, partner at Consus Ag. The barriers that remain to exporting significant volumes of U.S. beef to Australia appeared to be lost on Trump this week. "We are going to sell so much to Australia because this is undeniable and irrefutable Proof that U.S. Beef is the Safest and Best in the entire World," Trump said in a post on Truth Social. "The other Countries that refuse our magnificent Beef are ON NOTICE." Trump has attempted to renegotiate trade deals with numerous countries he says have taken advantage of the United States – a characterisation many economists dispute. "For decades, Australia imposed unjustified barriers on U.S. beef," U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement, calling Australia's decision a "major milestone in lowering trade barriers and securing market access for U.S. farmers and ranchers." Australian officials say the relaxation of restrictions was not part of any trade negotiations but the result of a years-long assessment of U.S. biosecurity practices. Canberra has restricted U.S. beef imports since 2003 due to concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease. Since 2019, it has allowed in meat from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. but few suppliers were able to prove that their cattle had not been in Canada and Mexico. The U.S. sources some of its feeder cattle from the two neighboring countries. On Wednesday, Australia's agriculture ministry said U.S. cattle traceability and control systems had improved enough that Australia could accept beef from cattle born in Canada or Mexico and slaughtered in the United States. The decision has caused some concern in Australia, where biosecurity is seen as essential to prevent diseases and pests from ravaging the farm sector. "We need to know if (the government) is sacrificing our high biosecurity standards just so Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can obtain a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump," shadow agriculture minister David Littleproud said in a statement. Australia faces a 10% across-the-board U.S. tariff, as well 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium. Trump has also threatened to impose a 200% tariff on pharmaceuticals. Asked whether the change would help achieve a trade deal, Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell said: "I'm not too sure." "We haven't done this in order to entice the Americans into a trade agreement," he said. "We think that they should do that anyway."