Shell, Exxon, Total, Dupont, Dow en anderen lobbyen bij Trump om afval plastic te exporteren naar Afrika

De American Chemistry Council (ACC), een lobbyorganisatie van chemische bedrijven, waar ook oliemaatschappijen als Shell deel van uitmaken, is tegen nieuwe wereldwijde regels om de stroom van plastic naar arme landen op het zuidelijk halfrond te beperken....

Niet vreemd dus dat oliemaatschappijen als Shell, Exxon en Total, plus een aantal grote chemische bedrijven waaronder Du Pont en Dow Chemical, die zijn aangesloten bij de ACC, de Coronacrisis hebben aangegrepen om bij de, wat betreft milieu maatregelen totaal onverantwoorde, Trump administratie te lobbyen tegen beperkingen die zijn opgelegd aan het exporteren van afval plastic.....

Eén van de landen die men wil gebruiken voor het onverantwoord dumpen van gigantische hoeveelheden plastic is Kenya, waar al een enorme stroom plastic uit de VS naartoe gaat........

Als je nu denkt dat genoemde bedrijven en anderen zich inzetten om de productie van eenmalig te gebruiken plastic te verminderen, heb je het helemaal mis, nee zelfs daar weigert men actie op te ondernemen.....

Nogmaals geven dit soort bedrijven aan dat ze lak hebben aan het redden van de planeet zoals wij die kennen, nee: 'Geld über alles....'

Vergeet niet dat Shell al een paar jaar bezig is om haar naam op valse gronden groen te wassen (greenwashing), terwijl de praktijk laat zien dat het bedrijf alles behalve duurzaam bezig is, of zelfs maar poogt echt duurzame doeleinden na te streven, zoals ook uit dit bericht weer blijkt......

Lees het volgende artikel van Unearthed (onderdeel Greenpeace) over deze zaak en zegt het voort, de hoogste tijd dat deze bedrijven tot de orde worden geroepen (boycot Shell, Total en Exxon benzinestations!!), zeker als je ziet dat een aantal van die bedrijven zoals Shell, zich zoals gezegd in het openbaar voordoen als duurzaam bedrijf dat 'zich echt inzet om de klimaatverandering af te remmen en vervuiling tegen te gaan.......'

Oil-backed trade group is lobbying the Trump administration to push plastics across Africa 


Thousands of plastic bottles lay on the ground at the Dandora rubbish dump, an eastern suburb of Nairobi, Kenya's capital. Photo: Jan Hetfleisch/Getty
 

The American Chemistry Council also pushed back against new global rules that will restrict the flow of plastic waste to the global south

A lobby group representing oil and chemical companies, including Shell, Exxon, Total, DuPont and Dow, has been pushing the Trump administration during the pandemic to use a US-Kenya trade deal to expand the plastic and chemical industry across Africa.

Documents obtained by Unearthed show the same lobby group – and the US recycling industry – also lobbied against changes to an international agreement that puts new limits on plastic waste entering low- and middle-income countries.

Several of the companies in the American Chemistry Council (ACC) – including Shell, Exxon and Total but not BP – were the founders of a $1bn initiative that pledges to create “a world free of plastic waste”.

In public letters to top officials at the US Trade Representative (USTR) and US International Trade Commission (USITC), the ACC writes: “Kenya could serve in the future as a hub for supplying U.S.-made chemicals and plastics to other markets in Africa through this trade agreement.” 

The letters also call for the lifting of limits on the waste trade, a move which experts say amounts to an attempt to legally circumvent the new rules on plastic waste, rules which – the documents reveal – the firms had also vigorously opposed. 

Kenyan environmentalists said the proposals would mean that “Kenya will become a dump site for plastic waste”.

US Democratic Senator Tom Udall, who last year introduced legislation to tackle the plastic waste crisis accused the companies of “double dealing.” 

He told Unearthed: “It is outrageous that petrochemical and plastic industries claim the solution to our mounting plastic waste crisis is to produce more disposable plastic. These same companies and corporations then point the finger at developing nations for the plastic waste showing up in our oceans. This double-dealing makes clear what the true source of our plastic waste crisis is: companies and corporations off-shoring their responsibilities to make billions of dollars… Requiring these companies to take responsibility for their excessive waste and pollution is the only way we will tackle our colossal plastic waste problem.”

Workers sort recycling material at a waste management facility in Maryland. US waste, including plastic, is often shipped overseas to poorer countries. Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty

The ACC is a major trade association for chemical companies, including Dow and DuPont, as well as the petrochemical arms of some of the oil majors. Although BP is a member, it does not produce any plastics and last month sold off its petrochemicals business to Ineos. A spokesperson told Unearthed that their work with the ACC focuses on Castrol lubricants, which are used in the automotive industry. 

Basel Convention

Following public outcry about plastic waste, in May last year, new rules agreed under a global treaty called the Basel Convention mean that as of 2021, almost all countries outside the OECD will be prohibited from trading mixed, contaminated or unrecyclable plastic with the US, because it is one of the few countries not party to the Convention. 

The OECD has not yet ruled on whether it will accept the new plastic waste rulings, following objections from the US. The Basel Convention provides a limited exception which would allow continued trade between the US and the 37 member countries of the OECD, but only if those countries adopt standards on plastic waste as strong as those in the Convention. 

The 187 countries that are part of the treaty will have to partake in a procedure to obtain prior informed consent from importing countries, a procedure which requires checks on environmental processing facilities. 

Unpublished documents obtained by Unearthed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show that the oil and chemical industry lobby group wrote to the Secretariat of the Basel Convention in March 2019. 

It objected to the new rules on the basis that they would create a “regulatory burden”, lead to shipping delays, logistical issues and increased costs. It forwarded its letter to the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) two weeks later, requesting a meeting to discuss its concerns. 

The documents also reveal that the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) – a major trade association representing the US recycling industry – lobbied against the new rules on the basis that they could severely limit US exports, discourage legitimate trade and exacerbate marine litter by preventing plastic from reaching recycling facilities.

“In principle, we would prefer the proposals not be adopted and maintain the status quo,” they wrote in an email sent to USTR on 3 April 2019.

A spokesperson from the ACC told Unearthed the basis of their concerns regarding the new Basel restrictions was that they “could very well limit the ability of African and other developing countries to properly manage plastic waste,” because they will restrict their capacity to export materials to other countries.

Academics, civil society and politicians are concerned that Kenya - and other African countries - do not have the infrastructure to manage increasing plastic production and exports. Photo: Simon Maina/AFP via Getty

ISRI echoed these concerns. A spokesperson told Unearthed that the new restrictions “will prevent countries that lack materials management infrastructure – such as for collection, sorting and recycling – from sending what they can collect to countries that do have recycling and disposal capacity… Without this outlet for developing countries, ISRI worries that an already bad situation will become much worse.”

According to ISRI, in 2018 the US imported more than 92,000 metric tons of plastic waste from non-OECD countries. 

However, in the first six months of that year, US exports to China, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam alone – all countries outside the OECD – totalled 480,432 tons. These exports are five times the US imports in half the time. 

The Trump administration backed the industry position – opposing the implementation of the new rules at the OECD. US opposition has led to concerns over whether the country will seek ways around the changes. 

Dr. Innocent Nnorom, an associate professor in environmental chemistry at Abia State university in Nigeria, who co-authored a recent inventory of plastic consumption in Africa, told Unearthed: “Most countries in Africa do not have the recycling infrastructure for managing increasing plastic waste.

“It appears that loopholes are being sought to continue the trade in plastic waste. Once in Africa, the emerging free trade routes could be used to facilitate transboundary movements to other African countries. The African Union and its member states should be on the look-out.”

Demand for petrochemicals is expected to rocket in coming decades, with companies expected to be looking to low- and middle-income countries to expand the market. Plastic is already the US’ biggest export to Kenya, with sales totalling $58m in 2019.

In their letters to the Trump administration regarding the US-Kenya FTA* earlier this year, the ACC called for it to “prohibit imposition of domestic limits on production or consumption of chemicals and plastic and restrictions on cross-boundary trade of materials and feedstocks”. Feedstocks could include plastic waste for recycling.

They added that the US and Kenya should “enable trade in waste for the purposes of sound management and recycling consistent with relevant international commitments”.

Even so, David Azoulay, an attorney and director of the environmental health programme at the Center for International Environmental Law told Unearthed: “The suggestion to use this potential agreement to preempt any national limitation on plastic production and consumption is a clear indication of the ACC’s objective to leverage such a trade agreement to circumvent global efforts to curb plastic production and use, as well as newly adopted provisions from the Basel Convention to better control the global plastic waste trade.”

US president Donald Trump shakes hands with Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta during a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in 2018. Photo: Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty

Jim Puckett, executive director of the NGO Basel Action Network commented that it would also contradict the Bamako Convention, a separate treaty in Africa.

“The effort to enlarge trade in waste and harmful chemicals in between the US and Kenya is a rather insidious effort that, if taken across Africa would go head to head against Africa’s Bamako Convention – a treaty which prohibits virtually all plastic waste imports into Africa as well as the import of many hazardous chemicals,” he told Unearthed.

Kenya

Environmentalists are concerned the deal could also undermine national efforts to limit plastic consumption, including new rules on plastic bags. 

Sub-Saharan Africa is thought to lead the world on plastic bag laws, according to reports, with 34 countries adopting taxes or bans.

Dorothy Otieno, the plastics programme co-ordinator at the Centre for Environment, Justice and Development (CEJAD) in Kenya, told Unearthed that this trade deal could threaten the momentum and change created by these efforts. 

“As a country we have made strides to reduce the plastics that are used here, and which end up as waste – there is a ban on use and manufacture of carrier bags and recently a ban on plastic in protected areas – so this trade deal would diminish what we have achieved as a country.” 

But Kenyan politicians and trade groups said such fears will be addressed. Negotiations began several weeks ago, but have recently stalled due to coronavirus concerns.

Cornelly Serum, an MP for the ruling Jubilee Party and member of the Trade and Industry Parliamentary Committee, told Unearthed: “Fears that under the trade deal use of plastics might be reintroduced into the country are valid… Trade associations planning to expand their businesses in Africa – and mainly in Kenya – are welcome but cannot use the deal to introduce materials that have so far been banned and as a parliament we will not allow any protocols likely to ruin our economy.”

Carol Karuga, CEO of broad-based lobby group the Kenya Private Sector Alliance, added: “It does not augur well to ban use of plastics materials in the economy and later reintroduce the same through a trade deal… The deal before it is finally agreed will have to be checked at all levels.”

Otieno also expressed concerns about the impact of more waste. “There would be an increase in waste – some will be reused and recycled but the majority will end up in dump sites. We will end up in a situation where Kenya will become a dump site for plastic waste,” she said.

“It clogs our waterways and our drainage systems and leads to flooding. We also see the effect of pollution from the burning of plastics – it produces dioxins and furans that lead to respiratory diseases… Somebody can burn these wastes right next to your house and suffer the impacts. We also see the aesthetic value of our towns being reduced because of plastics.”

Last year, some of the ACC companies – including Shell, Exxon and BASF – alongside major consumer goods and waste management companies launched the Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW), committing $1bn, in part to finance waste management projects to clean up and prevent plastic waste in Africa and Asia. 

In the public letters, the ACC wrote that: “There is a global need to support infrastructure development to collect, sort, recycle, and process used plastics, particularly in developing countries such as Kenya. 

“Such infrastructure will create opportunities for trade and investment and help keep used plastics out of the environment, thereby reducing marine litter… The U.S. and Kenya can play a strong role together in promoting innovative circular economy solutions in East Africa that enable universal access to better waste management capacity and for used plastics in all countries.”

Voor de rest van het artikel, zie het origineel.

* FTA: Free Trade Agreement, ofwel vrijhandelsverdrag.

Zie ook:

'Microplastics doden ons lichaam, tijd voor actie!!'

'Microplastics ongevaarlijk aldus TNO en kunststofverwerkende industrie......'

'Alarmerende hoeveelheid microplastics gevonden in het lichaam van kinderen'

'Shell en Exxon lobbyen voor het behoud van eenmalige plasticverpakkingen'

Fracken verboden in Schotland!!

Ondanks flink wat oppositie heeft de Schotse regering Sturgeon besloten dat er geen schaliegas en oliewinning zal plaatsvinden middels fracken. Vanmiddag maakte de Schotse premier Nicola Sturgeon* in het Schotse parlement bekend dat er geen addertje onder het gras zit en er geen vergunningen afgegeven zullen worden, zelfs niet meer voor proefboringen, fracken is verboden! Dit zwaar tegen de zin van Ineos, die al had geïnvesteerd voor het fracken in Grangemouth.

De Schotse regering heeft het publiek gevraagd zich uit te laten over fracken en een groot aantal mensen heeft laten weten tegen te zijn. Daarnaast bleek uit onderzoek dat de economie er amper of geen baat bij zou hebben, KPMG berekende een winst van 0,1%, bijzonder weinig dus en bovendien is dat cijfer nog  twijfelachtig.

In Schotland is er zelden gebrek aan wind en dat wil de Schotse regering verder uitbouwen, i.p.v. in te zetten op fossiele brandstoffen die het leven op aarde langzaam maar zeker onmogelijk maken. Food and Waterwatch, dat zich van meet af aan heeft verzet tegen fracken, riep de VS en de landelijke regering in Londen op hetzelfde te doen.

Daarover gesproken, gisteren voerde de 'onafhankelijke' regeringsgetrouwe BBC World Service een 'deskundige' op, die verklaarde dat er totaal niets mis is met schaliegas en schalie-oliewinning....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Nu maar hopen, dat het nu al onzalige Rutte 3 niet toch besluit fracken hier wel toe te staan.........

Despite Opposition, Scotland Announces Fracking Ban — Calls for US to Do the Same

In a four-month public comment period, 99 percent of the 65,000 Scots who responded expressed opposition to fracking. (Photo: Friends of the Earth Scotland/Flickr/cc)

October 3, 2017 at 11:06 am
Written by Julia Conley

“We have so much wind and wave power that it is retrograde in the extreme to lend any support to the fracking industry.”

(COMMONDREAMS) — Environmental groups from around the world applauded Scotland on Tuesday for its decision to ban fracking, following an overwhelming public outcry against the practice—and called for the United States and the rest of the United Kingdom to follow suit.

The Scottish government held a public comment period in recent months on fracking, attracting about 65,000 responses—the majority of which came from people in communities where the natural gas extraction would take place. An overwhelming 99 percent of Scots who participated were opposed to the practice.

Another added that the practice was “likely to be entirely detrimental as Scotland’s international reputation as an innovator in design and engineering projects is undermined by our agreement to proceed with fracking…We have so much wind and wave power that it is retrograde in the extreme to lend any support to the fracking industry.”    

Food and Water Watch gave credit to the Scottish people for standing up to corporate entities that supported fracking. “Giant energy company Ineos, which invested heavily in its Scottish facility at Grangemouth, fought hard against this ban, even threatening to explore legal action against the government if it passed,” said executive director Wenonah Hauter in a statement. “But people power prevailed, and it will continue to prevail.  We can’t let companies like ExxonMobil and Ineos stop the inevitable march towards clean energy. Bold and swift policy change is our only hope for addressing our climate goals. We applaud the Scottish government for doing what’s right for people and the planet.

Scotland’s decision leaves its neighbors, England and Wales, alone in their embrace of fracking.

“With all our nearest neighbours having banned or halted fracking, our government is increasingly out on a limb in pursuing it in England,” said Rose Dickinson of Friends of the Earth.

Hauter also called on the U.K. as well as the U.S. to follow in Scotland’s footsteps.

“Banning fracking is a necessary step towards beating the worst effects of climate chaos, and the U.K. and the U.S. should follow Scotland’s example,” she said. “In the U.S., we already have the means to start moving off of fracking swiftly—the Off Fossil Fuels For a Better Future Act, which would mandate a just transition to 100 percent clean renewable energy by 2035, starting with 80 percent within the next 10 years.”

As in Scotland, public opinion in the UK and the US is not in fracking’s favor, despite officials’ insistence that the practice creates jobs and revenue. A poll by England’s Business and Energy Department this summer found that only 16 percent of citizens support fracking, down from 21 percent last year.

In the U.S., opinions are more evenly split, but a 2016 Gallup poll found that 51 percent of Americans oppose fracking, while 36 percent support it.

By Julia Conley / Creative Commons / Common Dreams / Report a typo

=========================================================

* Nicola Sturgeon, niet mijn politieke keus, maar wel één van de beste premiers die er zijn en die er in het verleden waren. Ze heeft een fenomenale kennis van allerlei zaken en vergeleken met Rutte, is deze laatste een slechte voorzitter van een kleuterklas.