“Plastic Production vs. Renewable Energy: The Impossible Choice”

2023-05-25 11:57:00

Sometimes there is no perfect solution and you have to choose between two bad choices. That’s how they explain The gas companies why it is impossible to rely almost exclusively on renewable energies (which is true) and this is how the companies also explain now why it is not worthwhile to produce less plastic. The companies that produce plastic today warn that if they don’t produce plastic then it means “disrupting the global supply chains, delaying the development of sustainable solutions” and the result will be that they will “replace the plastic with materials with a much higher carbon footprint”, according to Joshua Baca, Vice President of Plastics In American Chemistry Council.

So obviously, they have an interest. But the environmental organizations are sinning in their duty when they claim that there are perfect magic solutions that if we only do them the most will be perfect. They are right that the current reality is too gloomy, but in reality – it is impossible to manage without coal and gas, certainly without gas, in the foreseeable future,

The Greenpeace report claims that recycling plastic makes it more toxic and does not solve the problem of plastic pollution. According to them, “the toxicity of plastic increases with recycling. The plastics industry – including fossil fuel companies, petrochemicals and consumer products – continues to present plastic recycling as a solution to the plastic pollution crisis,” said Graham Forbes, leader of the plastic campaign at Greenpeace USA, adding that “plastic has no place in a circular economy.” So what do they offer there? “Massively reduce” plastic production.

It should be said – there is a lot of plastic in the world, the production is increasing. The amount of plastic waste will increase almost threefold by the year 2060, when about half will end up in landfills and less than a fifth will be recycled, according to the OECD report for 2022. Greenpeace says the situation is worse and only less than 9% of the world’s plastic ends up being recycled in the world.

And just to mention – there is no company that is not legitimate to invest in. In the end, investment managers have to choose what to invest in, choose according to economic criteria, how to generate value for investors. Investment houses that did not purchase shares of the oil and gas companies in the last two years lost their savers twice a return of 60%. That’s a lot. So Elstoller basically admitted that they were wrong and now we have confirmed their strategy. I wonder if too The financial management giant BlackRock, who decided to boycott the oil and gas companiesare regretting it today, after missing out on the returns in the big jump in stocks in the oil and gas sector in the last two years.

A global meeting in an attempt to reach an agreement on reducing plastic pollution in the world

Next week, world leaders will meet in Paris, France, to discuss a ‘Global Plastics Agreement’. Last December, they met in Uruguay for the first round of negotiations. The talks ended with a global agreement to end plastic pollution, but there remains disagreement over whether the goals and efforts should be global and binding, or voluntary.

The US has advocated for an agreement similar to the Paris climate agreement in which countries would set their own national voluntary targets and plans. Others, including the European Union, want binding global regulations for countries and companies. Greenpeace called for an ambitious treaty “that will accelerate and provide the necessary conditions for a just transition away from plastic dependence.” The convention, it said, should promote safer, non-toxic materials and reuse-based, waste-free economies.

But why should companies probably not be under pressure?

Because it’s likely that what happens next week will end up much like last year’s climate conference – lots of noise and bells and whistles, but very little real action. The world plays with me. The air on Earth is becoming more and more polluted. The largest countries in the world pollute, and apart from making noise and ringing – the truth is that all climate conferences are One big show. Everyone knows that the countries pay lip service but do not actually reduce their emissions. The biggest polluters in the world are not making sounds of stopping. China and India for example, two of the three biggest polluters in the world are telling the West in other words ‘stop confusing our minds with the quality of the environment. You have polluted for years and thanks to this your countries have progressed and your citizens live at a high level. Now it’s our turn. There is quite a bit of justice in their words, the population in these countries is very poor compared to the West and why would they voluntarily stop polluting, just because it will someday harm the population of the earth? I mean, they say, the ideology of climate and protecting the environment is nice, but practically we need to move forward and become western countries.

China is responsible for 30% of all pollution. The US is responsible for 14% of emissions, India is in third place with 7% and then Russia with 3%. So when the largest countries in the world are not really partners in reducing carbon emissions, the situation is not good. Does this mean that it is impossible to do without them? It is possible, but It is much less effective.

What is the world doing in the meantime? Trading carbon emissions, or using ‘credits’ – companies receive ‘points’ depending on how much they don’t pollute the environment. They can sell these points to other companies. Those who buy the points are polluting companies that need the points in order not to pay high fines for the air pollution they cause, i.e. an attempt to price the air pollution so that those who pollute understand the meaning and pay a realistic price for it, or trade emissions and pay to environmentally friendly entities. This is how an entire market of trading in air pollution was created, with the goal being that, in aggregate, carbon dioxide emissions into the air in the world will be reduced – through market forces, and without the countries trying to decide from above which of the factories should become more efficient and how. Trade allows companies that rely on pollution to continue polluting, but on the other hand, other companies reduce pollution. Carbon emissions trading Galgal in 2021 no less than 850 billion dollars.

Comments to the article(0):

Your response has been received and will be published subject to the system policy.
Thanks.

for a new comment

Your response was not sent due to a communication problem, please try again.

Return to comment