People collect plastic waste at a landfill in North Sumatra, Indonesia on March 27, 2024. (Photo: Kartik Byma/AFP via Getty Images)
“The question for every government now is this—will you negotiate a treaty to protect the health of your people; or will you negotiate a treaty to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry?”
A report released Thursday estimates that countries worldwide are on pace to generate 220 million tonnes of total plastic waste this year, a finding that comes as governments are set to convene in Ottawa, Canada later this month to hash out a binding global treaty to limit the toxic pollution that is inundating waterways and communities across the planet.
The new report from EA – Earth Action (EA) projects that Plastic Overshoot Day—the point at which the amount of plastic waste produced exceeds the capacity of global management systems—will arrive on September 5 this year. Over a third of the total plastic waste created this year will end up in nature, according to the analysis.
On average, each person globally contributes 28 kilograms of plastic pollution per year. Previous research has shown that just 20 companies are responsible for more than half of the world’s total single-use plastic waste.
“The findings are unequivocal; improvements in waste management capacity are outpaced by rising plastic production, making progress almost invisible,” EA co-CEO Sarah Perreard said in a statement Thursday, criticizing the “assumption that recycling and waste management capacity will solve the plastics crisis.”
That assumption has been peddled for decades by the fossil fuel industry, which has a major interest in thwarting attempts to curb the production, use, and waste of plastics. Nearly all plastic is made from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels.
Sian Sutherland, co-founder of A Plastic Planet, said the new report underscores that “plastic pollution has set humanity on the road to ecological and humanitarian disaster.”
“We have a narrow window of opportunity this year to create a global plastics treaty that will protect not only our ocean, our air, our soil but our own children,” said Sutherland. “The question for every government now is this—will you negotiate a treaty to protect the health of your people; or will you negotiate a treaty to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry? Viable solutions are already available at scale, giving us materials and systems that work in harmony with nature, not against it.”
“Close to 50% of the world’s population currently lives in areas where waste generated has already exceeded the capacity to manage it.”
Late last year, the third round of U.N. plastics treaty talks ended without a breakthrough as major oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia obstructed the proceedings, the fossil fuel industry worked to sabotage the negotiations, and the U.S. declined to forcefully push for a global pact that meaningfully curtails plastics production.
The U.S. is among the world’s leading generators of plastic waste, producing nearly 100 kilograms per capita each year. The U.S. and other rich nations also export tremendous amounts of plastic waste around the world, undercutting efforts to tackle the pollution crisis.
A Greenpeace International survey released earlier this month found that two-thirds of the U.S. public wants a global plastics treaty that bans single-use plastic packaging. A separate poll commissioned by WWF and the Plastic Free Foundation showed that 88% of global citizens support banning “unnecessary single-use plastic products” such as shopping bags.
In an op-ed for Euronews Green on Thursday, Perreard of EA wrote that “whilst policy has been mooted, schemes devised, and initiatives launched, plastic has continued to rise, and our planet and its people have sat under an ever-darkening cloud of pollution that showers its toxic consequences upon us.”
“Close to 50% of the world’s population currently lives in areas where waste generated has already exceeded the capacity to manage it, with the figure projected to rise to 66% by 5 September,” Perreard noted. “With the fourth round of negotiations in Ottawa at the end of this month, we can no longer ignore the facts, we can no longer afford to resist the change that should be set in motion through the treaty.”
A young woman protects herself from the sun in São Paulo, Brazil, on 14 November 2023. Photograph: Sebastião Moreira/EPA
Global concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide climbed to unseen levels in 2023, underlining climate crisis
The levels of the three most important heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere reached new record highs again last year, US scientists have confirmed, underlining the escalating challenge posed by the climate crisis.
The global concentration of carbon dioxide, the most important and prevalent of the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity, rose to an average of 419 parts per million in the atmosphere in 2023 while methane, a powerful if shorter-lasting greenhouse gas, rose to an average of 1922 parts per billion. Levels of nitrous oxide, the third most significant human-caused warming emission, climbed slightly to 336 parts per billion.
Through the burning of fossil fuels, animal agriculture and deforestation, the world’s CO2 levels are now more than 50% higher than they were before the era of mass industrialization. Methane, which comes from sources including oil and gas drilling and livestock, has surged even more dramatically in recent years, Noaa said, and now has atmospheric concentrations 160% larger than in pre-industrial times.
Noaa said the onward march of greenhouse gas levels was due to the continued use of fossil fuels, as well as the impact of wildfires, which spew carbon-laden smoke into the air. Nitrous oxide, meanwhile, has risen due to the widespread use of nitrogen fertilizer and the intensification of agriculture.
…
Because of a lag between CO2 levels and their impact, as well as the hundreds of years that the emissions remain in the atmosphere, the timescale of the climate crisis is enormous. Scientists have warned that governments need to rapidly slash emissions to net zero, and then start removing carbon from the atmosphere to bring down future temperature increases.
The Institute of Economic Affairs has its headquarters on Lord North Street, Westminster. Credit: Des Blenkinsopp (CC BY-SA 2.0)
A senior figure at the influential Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) think tank contributed to a new documentary that spread numerous myths about climate change.
Stephen Davies, an academic who has worked in educational outreach roles at the IEA since 2010, appeared several times in Climate The Movie: The Cold Truth – a new film directed by climate science denier Martin Durkin.
In the documentary, Davies claims that climate activists want to impose an “austere” life on ordinary people. “Behind all the talk about a climate emergency, climate crisis” is “an animus and hostility towards” working-class people, “their lifestyle, their beliefs and a desire to change it by force if necessary,” he says.
According to the website Skeptical Science, which debunks climate misinformation, Climate The Movie contains more than two dozen myths about climate change. The film suggests that we shouldn’t be worried about greenhouse gas emissions, because plants need carbon dioxide. “We’re in a CO2 famine,” one interviewee claims.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s foremost climate science body, has stated that carbon dioxide “is responsible for most of global warming” since the late 19th century, which has increased the “severity and frequency of weather and climate extremes, like heat waves, heavy rains, and drought”.
Climate The Movie producer Thomas Nelson told DeSmog that “I see the misguided fight against carbon dioxide as being as crazy as fighting against oxygen or water vapour, and I think scaring innocent children about this is deeply evil”.
The IEA said that “Steve firmly believes that climate change is happening and carbon emissions are having an impact. His view that climate policy imposes costs, particularly on working-class communities, is entirely mainstream. IEA publications and spokespeople have supported action on climate change, including carbon pricing.”
A screenshot of Stephen Davies of the Institute of Economic Affairs in Climate The Movie: The Cold Truth. Credit: Climate The Movie / YouTube
In 2018, Greenpeace’s investigative journalism unit Unearthed revealed that the IEA had received funding from oil major BP every year since 1967. In response to the story, an IEA spokeswoman said: “It is surely uncontroversial that the IEA’s principles coincide with the interests of our donors.”
The IEA also received a £21,000 grant from U.S. oil major ExxonMobil in 2005.
The IEA has extensive influence in politics and the media. It was pivotal to Liz Truss’s short-lived premiership as prime minister, and has boasted of its access to Conservative ministers and MPs. During the year ending March 2023, the IEA appeared in the media on 5,265 occasions, a figure 43 percent higher than its previous peak in 2019.
The group has also received donations from a number of philanthropic trusts accused of channelling funds from the fossil fuel industry and helping to support climate science denial groups. The IEA is a member of the Atlas Network – an international collaboration of “extreme” free market groups that have been accused of promoting the interests of fossil fuel companies and other large corporations.
It’s not known if the IEA has received funding from BP since 2018.
The IEA is a prominent supporter of the continued and extended use of fossil fuels. The group has advocated for the ban to be lifted on fracking for shale gas, calling it the “moral and economic choice”. The IEA has also said that a ban on new North Sea oil and gas would be “madness”, has criticised the windfall tax imposed on North Sea oil and gas firms, and said that the government’s commitment to “max out” the UK’s fossil fuel reserves is a “welcome step”.
The IEA is part of the Tufton Street network – a cluster of libertarian think tanks and pressure groups that are in favour of more fossil fuel extraction and are opposed to state-led climate action. These groups are characterised by a lack of transparency over their sources of funding. The IEA does not publicly declare the names of its donors.
“From Brexit to Trussonomics, the IEA has consistently peddled and promoted destructive and damaging policies,” Green Party MP Caroline Lucas told DeSmog. “Yet perhaps nothing will prove more dangerous long term than the stream of climate denialism and calls to delay action that have been pouring out of Tufton Street for many years.
“Clearly the IEA is now ramping up its climate culture war and the Conservative Party has been following suit. The cross-party consensus on climate action we used to have in Parliament is under strain like never before.”
The IEA and Stephen Davies were approached for comment.
Climate The Movie
During the documentary, Davies suggests that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is being used to limit the freedom of individuals. He claims that climate activists want to impose “a much more austere simple kind of lifestyle” on people “in which the consumption choices of the great bulk of the population are controlled or even prohibited.”
Davies adds that: “What you have here is a classic example of class hypocrisy and self-interest masquerading as public spirited concern. You could take these kinds of green socialist more seriously if they lived off grid, they cut their own consumption down to the minimum, they never flew. Instead you get constant talk about how human consumption is destroying the planet but the people making all this talk show absolutely no signs of reducing their own.”
The documentary also features an interview with Benny Peiser, the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) – the UK’s leading climate science denial group. Peiser has previously claimed that it would be “extraordinary anyone should think there is a climate crisis”, while the GWPF has expressed the view that carbon dioxide has been mischaracterised as pollution, when in fact it is a “benefit to the planet”.
The film was favourably reviewed by commentator Toby Young in The Spectator magazine, who described it as “a phenomenon”. Young has previously said that he’s sceptical about the idea of human-caused climate change.
The IPCC has stated it is “unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land”, while scientists at NASA have found that the last 10 years were the hottest on record. Earth’s average surface temperature in 2023 was the warmest since records began in 1880.
The IPCC has also warned that false and misleading information “undermines climate science and disregards risk and urgency” of climate action.
The documentary also features Claire Fox, a member of the House of Lords who was nominated for a peerage by former prime minister Boris Johnson in 2020.
Fox used the documentary to claim that, by tackling climate change, people will be forced to pay more “to simply live the lives that they were leading”.
She suggests that supporters of climate action are trying to “take away what we consider to be not luxuries but necessities.”
The UK’s Climate Change Committee, which advises the government on measures to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, estimates that the combined policies will cost less than one percent of the country’s national output.
The Office for Budget Responsibility, the UK’s independent economic forecaster, has also said that “the costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero”.
Claire Fox and the GWPF were approached for comment.
A Charitable Cause?
The IEA is a registered charity, meaning that it receives generous tax breaks.
The group justifies this charitable status partly on the basis of its educational outreach programme, which aims to “equip tomorrow’s leaders with a deep understanding of free market economics”.
The IEA claims that: “Our aim is to change the climate of opinion in the long term and our work with students is a key part of this.”
In the year ending March 2023, the group claimed to have engaged with 3,500 students and 1,200 teachers via its seminars, internships and summer schools.
Formerly the IEA’s head of education and now a senior education fellow, Davies is a senior member of the group’s outreach programme. He is the first person listed in the IEA’s student speakers brochure, which advertises the IEA staff members who are available to speak at schools or universities.
The brochure also lists the IEA’s chief operating officer Andy Mayer, who has said that the government should “get rid of” its target of achieving net zero emissions by 2050, which he called a “very hard left, socialist, central-planning model”.
The non-profit Good Law Project recently made a complaint to the Charity Commission about the IEA, claiming that the libertarian group had breached charity rules. Namely, the Good Law Project claims that the IEA is in breach of rules stating that charities must avoid presenting “biased and selective information in support of a preconceived point of view”.
The Charity Commission rejected this complaint, stating that: “We have assessed the concerns raised and have not identified concerns that the charity is acting outside of its objects or the Commission’s published guidance.”
Good Law Project campaigns manager Hannah Greer told DeSmog: “It won’t be a surprise to anyone that the IEA is cementing its role as a major mouthpiece for climate change scepticism. It’s a huge scandal that the IEA is still allowed to peddle fringe views under the guise of being an ‘educational charity’ while benefiting from taxpayer subsidies.
“This has been allowed to happen because we have seen alarming and unambiguous regulatory failure from the Charity Commission – who have been presented with evidence of how the IEA is flouting charity law, but have chosen to look the other way.”
“It is morally reprehensible for companies to continue expanding exploration and production of carbon fuels in the face of knowledge now for decades that their products are harmful,” said Richard Heede, who established the Carbon Majors dataset.
A report released by Carbon Majors on Thursday says that 57 companies were responsible for 80% of the world’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and cement production between 2016 to 2022.
Saudi Aramco, Russia’s state-owned energy company Gazprom, and state-owned producer Coal India were at the top of the list. Carbon Majors has been keeping track of which companies are contributing the most to the climate crisis since 2013.
“The Carbon Majors research shows us exactly who is responsible for the lethal heat, extreme weather, and air pollution that is threatening lives and wreaking havoc on our oceans and forests,” Tzeporah Berman, international program director at Stand.earth and chair at Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, said in a statement. “These companies have made billions of dollars in profits while denying the problem and delaying and obstructing climate policy.”
📢 @InfluenceMap's latest report using #CarbonMajors database found 57 fossil fuel and cement producers linked to 80% of global fossil CO2 emissions since the #ParisAgreement
The report states that nation-state producers account for 38% of CO2 emissions in the database. That’s the highest percentage of any of the types of companies listed in the database.
“The Carbon Majors database finds that most state- and investor-owned companies have expanded their production operations since the Paris agreement. Fifty-eight out of the 100 companies were linked to higher emissions in the seven years after the Paris agreement than in the same period before,” the report reads.
In terms of investor-owned companies, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP contributed the most to CO2 emissions. ExxonMobil alone was responsible for 3.6 gigatons of CO2 emissions over a seven-year period.
“It is morally reprehensible for companies to continue expanding exploration and production of carbon fuels in the face of knowledge now for decades that their products are harmful,” said Richard Heede, who established the Carbon Majors dataset, told The Guardian. “Don’t blame consumers who have been forced to be reliant on oil and gas due to government capture by oil and gas companies.”
The Trans Mountain project would not have been possible without considerable direct federal government financial support. Credit: Adam Jones/Flickr(CC BY 2.0 DEED)
A new Environmental Defence analysis reveals that despite government promises to cut, the amount of taxpayers’ money given to the industry remains high.
Last year was one of the worst on record for climate change-related disasters, yet Canada’s federal government spent $18.6 billion supporting the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry.
A new report by the nonprofit Environmental Defence indicates that, despite record profits for the fossil fuel industry and Canadian claims to eliminate subsidies, the government of Justin Trudeau continues to spend massive quantities of public money supporting the primary cause of climate change.
“As people across Canada faced a fossil fuel affordability crisis, and climate disasters continued to ravage the country and the world, the government of Canada continued providing financial support to an industry that we need to be winding down in order to avoid catastrophic levels of warming,” Julia Levin, associate director of National Climate at Environmental Defence told DeSmog.
“Taxpayer handouts to Canada’s wealthiest companies means that less money is available for the types of investments that could actually help people across the country who are deciding between food and energy bills,” she said.
To put that in context, Environmental Defence’s “Canada’s Fossil Fuel Funding in 2023” report estimates that the Canadian government’s accumulated subsidies to the oil and gas sector over the last four years was at least $65 billion.
“That level of support could have fully funded every major wind and solar project in Canada from 2019 to 2021 12 times over,” said Levin. “It is 10 times what the government has invested in climate change adaptation since 2015. Around half of that, $35 billion, is enough to double transit ridership across the country over the next 12 years.”
The report identified specific subsidies including loan guarantees of $8 billion for the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline (TMX), and $7.3 billion in public financing through Crown corporation Export Development Canada. The report also noted over $1.3 billion in subsidies for carbon capture and storage projects, and approximately $1.8 billion in tax breaks for the oil and gas and related sectors.
The Trans Mountain project, controversially acquired by the Trudeau government early in 2018, would not have been possible without considerable direct federal government financial support. Initially estimated to cost $5.4 billion to complete, the most recent cost estimates are $34 billion. In addition to the added climate risk of a new pipeline exporting Canadian oil, with an anticipated drop in the global demand for oil, the project remains a substantial financial risk—one of the reasons Kinder Morgan abandoned it in the first place. The pipeline has been called a ‘global warming machine.’
Major Cost to Society
Environmental Defence’s report further notes the oil and gas sectors’ cost to society — in terms of air pollution, climate change-related natural disasters, and/or extreme weather — is estimated at $52 billion for 2023 alone.
Environmental Defence has been tracking the Canadian government’s subsidies to the oil and gas sector for several years, and as Levin explained in an interview with DeSmog, the organization has noticed certain trends.
“With the exception of 2020 as a COVID year, federal support to the oil and gas industry has been consistently around $18 to 20 billion in recent years,” she said. “We are seeing an increase in subsidies for carbon capture, and we know these are set to rise as the CCUS [Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage] investment tax credit gets finalized.”
Carbon capture and storage is the oil and gas industry’s preferred solution to addressing climate change, and the Canadian and American federal governments have heavily subsidized the technology. Critics warn that, rather than lowering emissions, carbon capture is emissions intensive and will be used to increase oil production through a technique called “enhanced oil recovery.” As previously reported by DeSmog, federal and provincial governments in Canada are preparing to spend billions in carbon capture subsidies.
Similarly, so-called blue hydrogen (hydrogen derived from natural gas using carbon capture) is also a costly, carbon- and resource-intensive false solution promoted by industry and government alike.
Levin called carbon capture and hydrogen “dangerous distractions.”
“The government of Canada is finalizing a carbon capture investment tax credit as well as a hydrogen investment tax credit,” Levin pointed out. “Recent budget analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that these two tax credits will collectively provide over $11 billion to carbon capture and hydrogen projects by 2028.”
“Despite 50 years of investment, carbon capture has never worked as promised,” said Levin.
Delaying Clean Energy Transition
“Most projects never make it off the ground; the few that do fail to deliver the promised emissions reductions,” she said. “Oil and gas companies know this is a dead-end technology that won’t make a dent in emissions but they are promoting it to delay the clean energy transition and wring out even more subsidies.”
Levin noted that hydrogen is also being used by oil and gas companies to justify continued, and even expanded, fossil fuel production.
The government’s misuse of public money isn’t limited to unproven technologies masquerading as climate change solutions. Environmental Defence’s report reveals that the same funds could have been used for new green energy projects and the development of public transit infrastructure, and could also have taken a bite out of Canada’s affordability crisis.
“At a time when Canadians are dealing with a cost of living crisis, that level of funding could have retrofitted millions of homes to make them more energy efficient, therefore reducing energy bills,” Levin said. “It could have been used to reduce Canadians’ dependence on fossil fuels by switching our cars, furnaces, and stoves to electric options, which shields households from the inflationary pressures caused by fluctuating oil prices.”
Levin notes that there are other types of subsidies that Environmental Defence did not include in their inventory.
“The climate pollution created by oil and gas companies has massive costs, including health costs, property damage from extreme weather events, and decreased agricultural productivity due to changing weather patterns,” she said.
The report also found that oil and gas companies get considerable breaks on carbon pricing, which forms yet another kind of subsidy.
Canada’s continued subsidies to the fossil fuel sector defy explanation in this era of climate change. But they also contradict the government’s official messaging on fighting global warming, and the Canadian public’s expectations of their government.
“Ending fossil fuel subsidies should be the low hanging-fruit of climate policy,” said Levin. “It’s painfully obvious that when you’re in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging.”
While the government has promised to end funding to the fossil fuel industry, far more action is needed, Levin believes.
“Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland must use Budget 2024 to announce the immediate steps the government is taking to eliminate all of its financing to the oil and gas industry, as was promised back in 2021,” said Levin.
“Rather than subsidizing fossils we should be taxing their massive profits – and investing the revenues into clean energy measures that will benefit Canadians.”
