Republicans slam Biden for backing production caps in plastic treaty | Plastics News

Republican lawmakers in Washington are attacking President Joe Biden's administration for its support for resin production caps in a global plastics treaty, saying it would hurt the U.S. economy and weaken the government's negotiating position as talks enter their final phase.

In two letters, one released Oct. 16 from 26 members of the House and a second from Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, the Congress members questioned whether the government could enforce caps and said they could jeopardize getting any treaty through the Senate.

"I call on the State Department to return to a negotiating position that can achieve the bipartisan support that is needed for the ratification of the treaty," Sullivan wrote in an Oct. 16 letter to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.

The letter from House members, led by Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, questioned the federal government's authority to impose caps and said backing such limits could hurt Washington's position in the talks, which enter the last of five scheduled rounds of negotiations in late November in Busan, South Korea.

"Instead of focusing on increasing recycling and improving plastic waste management, this administration has decided to endorse unworkable plastic production caps," Crenshaw said. "It's a short-sighted, feel-good policy that won't make a positive impact."

The letters come after Biden's administration in August changed its negotiating position to back some form of caps, along with supporting a global list of chemicals used in plastics on which to develop obligations in the treaty and having global criteria to identify avoidable plastic products.

Countries that support some limits on plastic production made a push at a U.N. General Assembly session in September, with France, the U.S. and the United Kingdom joining other countries in speaking in favor of them.

A diplomat from France said in a public session that while it will take time to identify collaborative mechanisms for a cap, it would prove impossible to control plastic pollution without some limits on production.

Sullivan's letter also called on the Biden administration to back away from its support for treaty provisions listing chemicals of concern in plastic and problematic plastic applications.

"Since this treaty has no enforcement provisions and relies on the good faith and self-reporting of signatory countries, the treaty needs to be common sense and future looking, building on reducing demand for single-use plastic, on technical innovation, and on implementing measures that enhance the circularity of plastic," Sullivan wrote, advocating for a risk-based approach to identify high-leakage products.

Sullivan, who was the lead Republican author of the two Save Our Seas laws, said it appeared the White House and its Council on Environmental Quality had "usurped" the lead in the negotiations from the State Department.

On the House side, a news release from Crenshaw's office included a comment from Matt Seaholm, CEO of the Plastics Industry Association.

"Limiting the production of a material that is essential to the function of countless industries throughout our economy is not the solution," Seaholm said. "This move would increase our reliance on foreign supply chains and threaten over one million American jobs supported by the plastics industry, and millions more throughout the manufacturing sector, without delivering intended environmental benefits."

A delegation of five Democrats in the Senate and House attended the last round of treaty talks, in Canada in April, to push for tougher U.S. negotiating positions.

Do you have an opinion about this story? Do you have some thoughts you'd like to share with our readers? Plastics News would love to hear from you. Email your letter to Editor at [email protected]

Please enter a valid email address.

Please enter your email address.

Please verify captcha.

Please select at least one newsletter to subscribe.

Find more newsletters at plasticsnews.com/newsletters.You can unsubscribe at any time through links in these emails. For more information, see our Privacy Policy.