‘David and Goliath battle’ as talks begin over deal to reduce plastic pollution

Published

4 months ago

August 5, 2025

admin

The scientist who first raised the alarm over microplastics in the world’s oceans has warned of a “David vs Goliath” battle between scientists and the plastics industry – as delegates begin to negotiate a global deal to reduce plastic pollution.

As United Nations talks begin this week, Professor Richard Thompson, head of the International Marine Litter unit at Plymouth University, said: “We’re seeing some coercion and some pressure being put by some of those that have got conflicts of interest that fear they stand to lose from the treaty progress.”

Representatives of 175 countries will meet in Switzerland today, for what should be a final round of negotiations over a legally binding treaty to reduce plastic pollution.

The United Nations says while some countries are taking action on plastic, pollution is a global problem that needs a global agreement – but there is no official scientific presence at the talks.

Professor Thompson, who is attending the negotiations, said: “We’re only there as observers with a limited capacity to speak, whereas those from the industry have got a massive vested interest. They’re funded to be there. And it’s a bit of a David and Goliath battle.”

He continued: “It concerns me that I see some nations that are taking an increasingly short-sighted view, a view that’s perhaps driven by political cycles or short-run profits.

“You know, we need those leaders of countries, those negotiators, to take the long-term view to protect our planet for future generations.”

More than 430 million tonnes of plastic is produced each year.

But according to environmental charity WWF, around 11 million tonnes end up in the ocean each year as pollution.

And that’s expected to rise to 29 million tonnes a year by 2040.

There is wide consensus among countries that plastic pollution is a problem, but they are split over what to do about it.

The UK and more than 70 other nations that are part of a “High Ambition Coalition” want production and consumption of plastic reduced to sustainable levels.

But major oil producing nations and the chemical industry oppose any cuts.

The previous round of talks, in South Korea last year, collapsed in disagreement.

Professor Thompson is a founding member of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty.

‘Strong treaty’ still possible

He said previous negotiations have been swamped by lobbyists from the chemicals industry putting pressure on delegates – and that if a good agreement cannot be achieved, leading countries should look to work outside the United Nations framework.

Professor Thompson said: “Given that there are more than 100 nations that are already backing the level of ambition that’s required, I think it could be possible to take this out of the UN process, to have a strong treaty that will function to end plastic pollution, to start with those 100 or 120 or so countries and to add others over time.

“I think there’ll be a realisation for those that aren’t on board initially, that if they don’t join forces with that coalition of the willing, they’re going to suffer in terms of their own international trade and that it’s better to be part of that strong treaty than not to be.”

Plastic is so widely used because it’s cheap, durable and can take many forms. So production of new plastic will only fall if better use can be made of the material that already exists.

The company Project Plan B is working with the charity The Salvation Army to recycle polyester textiles.

They’ve installed the first machine of its kind to turn the material into plastic pellets that can be used to make yarn for new clothes.

‘Terrible waste’

Just a handful of the pellets is enough to make a T-shirt.

Tim Cross, the director of Project Plan B, said the aim is to make the recycling process a closed loop, so as little as possible escapes as waste or pollution.

“This makes much better use of that plastic,” he said.

“If we’re wasting it and losing it into the environment, that’s a terrible waste, and we mustn’t allow that to happen.”

The UK produces around 700,000 tonnes of textile waste each year. Almost all is landfilled or incinerated.

A major problem is that most clothes are made of mixed materials, which makes it uneconomical to recycle them.

A polyester shirt may have nylon buttons and cotton thread.

But Project Plan B has been working with school uniform maker David Luke on a blazer made completely out of polyester and 100% recyclable.

“These garments normally last on children’s backs for a couple of years and used as goalposts a few times. And then what?” said Mr Cross.

“We wanted to make sure that we can fully recycle the blazer through the system that we’ve got here, so we had to completely redesign it.

“This is groundbreaking, changing the way that clothing can be made.

“When you’ve got something that is recycled and recyclable, you’ve got an instant solution.”

World

‘Cheap ceasefire’ between Ukraine and Russia would create ‘expensive peace’ for Europe, Norway’s foreign minister warns

Published

5 hours ago

December 9, 2025

admin

'Cheap ceasefire' between Ukraine and Russia would create 'expensive peace' for Europe, Norway's foreign minister warns

A “cheap ceasefire” between Ukraine and Russia – with Kyiv forced to surrender land – would create an “expensive peace” for the whole of Europe, Norway’s foreign minister has warned.

Espen Barth Eide explained this could mean security challenges for generations, with the continent’s whole future “on the line”.

It was why Ukraine, its European allies and the US should seek to agree a common position when trying to secure a settlement with Vladimir Putin, the top Norwegian diplomat told Sky News in an interview during a visit to London on Tuesday.

Ukraine war latest: Trump says Putin has upper hand in peace talks

“I very much hope that we will have peace in Ukraine and nobody wants that more than the Ukrainians themselves,” Mr Eide said.

“But I am worried that we might push this to what in quotation marks is a ‘cheap ceasefire’, which will lead to a very expensive peace.”

Explaining what he meant, Mr Eide said a post-war era follows every conflict – big or small.

How that plays out typically depends upon the conditions under which the fighting stopped.

“If you are not careful, you will lock in certain things that it will be hard to overcome,” he said.

“So if we leave with deep uncertainties, or if we allow a kind of a new Yalta, a new Iron Curtain, to descend on Europe as we come to peace in Ukraine, that’s problematic for the whole of Europe. So our future is very much on the line here.”

He said this mattered most for Ukrainians – but the outcome of the war will also affect the future of his country, the UK and the rest of the continent.

“This has to be taken more seriously… It’s a conflict in Europe, it has global consequences, but it’s fundamentally a war in our continent and the way it’s solved matters to our coming generations,” the Norwegian foreign minister said.

Russia ‘will know very well how to exploit vagueness’

Asked what he meant by a cheap ceasefire, he said: “If Ukraine is forced to give up territory that it currently militarily holds, I think that would be very problematic.

“If restrictions are imposed on future sovereignty. If there’s vagueness on what was actually agreed that can be exploited. I think our Russian neighbours will know very well how to exploit that vagueness in order to keep a small flame burning to annoy us in the future.”

Progress being made on peace talks

Referring to the latest round of peace talks, initiated by Donald Trump, Mr Eide signalled that progress was being made from an initial 28-point peace plan proposed a couple of weeks ago by the United States that favoured Moscow over Kyiv.

That document included a requirement for the Ukrainian side to give up territory it still holds in eastern Ukraine to Russia and Mr Eide described it as “problematic in many aspects”.

But he said: “I think we’ve now had a good conversation between Ukraine, leading European countries and the US on how to adapt and develop that into something which might be a good platform for Ukraine and its allies to go to Russia with.

“We still don’t know the Russian response, but what I do know is the more we are in agreement as the West, the better Ukraine will stand.”

World

Lithuania declares state of emergency over Belarus balloons

Published

12 hours ago

December 9, 2025

admin

Lithuania declares state of emergency over Belarus balloons

Lithuania has declared a state of emergency over smuggler balloons from Belarus that have disrupted aviation.

Vilnius airport has been closed because of the balloons, which Lithuania says have been sent by smugglers transporting cigarettes in recent weeks.

It also says they constitutes a “hybrid attack” by Belarus, which is a close ally of Russia.

Lithuania is a NATO member and ally to Ukraine during its fight against Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

On Tuesday Lithuania’s interior minister Vladislav Kondratovic told a government meeting: “The state of emergency is announced not only due to civil aviation disruptions but also due to interests of national security.”

Mr Kondratovic added that the Lithuanian government had asked parliament to grant the military powers to act with police, border guards and security forces during the state of emergency.

Should parliament agree, the army will be given permission to limit access to territory, stop and search vehicles, perform checks on people, their documents and belongings, and to detain those resisting or suspected of crimes.

Lithuania’s defence minister Robert Kaunas said the military would be permitted to use force for these functions.

Belarus has denied responsibility and accused Lithuania of provocations.

This includes sending a drone to drop “extremist material”, which Lithuania denies.

The emergency measures in Lithuania will last until the government calls them off.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on 1 December the situation at the border was worsening.

She described the balloon incursions a “hybrid attack” by Belarus, and branded it “completely unacceptable”.

World

Ukraine war: The signs Putin is expecting more conflict, not less – and the frank conversation Keir Starmer needs to have

Published

13 hours ago

December 9, 2025

admin

Ukraine war: The signs Putin is expecting more conflict, not less - and the frank conversation Keir Starmer needs to have

With more than a thousand troops being killed or wounded every day, there’s no sign that Donald Trump’s push to end Russia’s war in Ukraine is reducing the battles on the ground.

Quite the opposite.

Ukraine‘s military chief says Vladimir Putin is instead using the US president‘s focus on peace negotiations as “cover” while Russian soldiers attempt to seize more land.

That means much greater pressure on the Ukrainian frontline, even as Russian and American, or American and Ukrainian, or Ukrainian and European, leaders shake hands and smile for cameras before retreating behind closed doors in Moscow, Alaska, and London.

Putin’s not counting on peace

The lack of any indicators that the Kremlin is looking to slow its military machine down also makes the risk of war spreading beyond Ukraine’s borders increasingly likely.

It takes a huge amount of effort, time, and money to put a country on a war footing as Putin has done, partially mobilising his population, allocating huge portions of government spending to the military and realigning Russia’s vast industrial base to produce weapons and ammunition.

But when the fighting stops, it requires almost as much focus and energy to switch a society back to a peace time rhythm.

Deliberately choosing not to dial defence down once the battles cease means a nation will continue to grow its armed forces and weapons stockpiles – a sure sign that it has no intention of being peaceful and is merely having a pause before going on the attack again.

The absence of any preparations by Moscow to slow the tempo of its military operations in Ukraine – where it has more than 710,000 troops deployed along a 780-mile frontline – is perhaps an indicator that Putin is anticipating more not less war.

How could the war end?

What happens next in Europe will depend on the content of any peace deal on Ukraine.

An all-out Russian defeat is all but impossible to conceive without a significant change of heart by the Trump White House and a massive increase in weapons and support.

The next best result for Ukraine would be a settlement that seeks to strike a fair balance between the warring sides and their conflicting objectives.

This could be done by pausing the fighting along the current line of contact before substantive peace talks then take place, with Ukraine’s sovereignty supported by solid security guarantees from Europe and the US.

But such a move would require Europe’s NATO allies, led by the UK, France and Germany, genuinely to switch their respective militaries and populations back to a wartime footing, with a credible readiness to go to war should Moscow attempt to test their support of Ukraine.

Will Starmer level with the public?

That does not just mean increased spending on defence at a much faster rate – in the UK at least – than is currently planned. It is also about the mindset of a country and its willingness to take some pain.

France is already openly saying that parents may have to lose their children in a war with Russia, while Germany is requiring all 18-year-old men to undergo medical checks for possible national service.

No such tough but frank conversation is being attempted by Sir Keir Starmer with the British public.

The furthest his military chief has gone is to say “warfighting readiness” is his top priority.

But that is meaningless jargon for most of the public. Being ready for war is about so much more than what the professional armed forces can do.

Armies fight battles. Countries fight wars.

Worst case scenario?

The other alternative when it comes to Ukraine is a scenario that sees a sidelined Europe unable to influence the outcome of the negotiations and Kyiv forced to agree to terms that favour Moscow.

This would include the surrender of land in the Donbas that is still under Ukrainian control.

Such a deal – even if tolerated by Ukraine, which is unimaginable without serious unrest – would likely only mean a temporary halt in hostilities until Putin or whoever succeeds him decides to try again to take the rest of Ukraine, or maybe even test NATO’s borders by moving against the Baltic States.

With Trump’s new national security strategy making clear the US would only intervene to defend Europe if such a move is in America’s interests, it is no longer certain that the guarantees contained in NATO’s founding Article 5 principle – that an attack on one member state is an attack on all – can be relied upon.

To have a sense of how a war with Russia might play out without the US on NATO’s side, Sky News and Tortoise ran a wargame that simulates a Russian attack on the UK.

In the scenario, Washington does not come to Britain’s defences, which leaves the British side with very few options to respond short of a nuclear strike.