Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

U.N. Considers Global Ban on Chemical Essential to Manufacture Plastics

U.N. Considers Global Ban on Chemical Essential to Manufacture Plastics

Proponents of the plastics industry intend to fight these plans…in order to prevent “climate change.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxObQBjOUqY

The globalist community spent years targeting the life-essential compound carbon dioxide by blaming its release from the burning of fossil fuels for “global warming.” Now they are eyeing another chemical to demonize.

The world produces over 270 million tons of plastics each year, used in nearly every aspect of life in the civilized world. The compound the globalists are targeting for the stringent new regulations is called UV-328. A lot of plastic packaging uses the substance.

These actions are considered the “beginning of the end” for plastics.

Scientists supporting a ban said it would be a ‘watershed’ moment heralding the end for plastics because the additives are an ‘essential’ component of consumer plastic products.

…The Swiss government has put forward a proposal to ban or limit UV-328 to the Stockholm Convention, the UN’s global treaty on cross-border pollutants. Documents obtained from the US Environmental Protection Agency via freedom of information requests show industry attempts to thwart any regulation.

Karissa Kovner, a senior policy adviser at the EPA, has also spoken against action at a UN meeting.

The agency told the Mail its scientists had found the chemical had not met the convention’s requirements in terms of bioaccumulation, long-range transport and adverse effects and so they believed the proposal should be put aside until further studies were completed.

But Professor Hideshige Takada, of Tokyo University, said it should be ‘strictly banned’. He added: ‘Regulation of UV-328 is the beginning of the end of plastics.’

The compound UV-328 is one of the various ultraviolet-light (UV) stabilizers used to protect products such as building materials, automotive parts, waxes, and paints from harmful UV radiation. This way, the products retain structural or color integrity. Typically, it is 0.1-1% in concentration within a plastics formulation.

Scientists suspect these chemicals are endocrine-disrupting compounds. UV-328 supposedly adversely impacts the reproductive system during tests on zebrafish. Therefore, scientists classified it as harmful to aquatic life.

If all this regulatory excess were not enough, the United Nations wants to have its first official meeting about plastics pollution in February 2022.

Other initiatives discussed at the conference include an effort to globally restrict use of a plastic additive; Canada’s proposal to ban or restrict certain single-use plastics; a European Commission proposal to tighten regulations of polymers, which are used to make plastic and other materials; and a Basel Convention amendment that, effective Jan. 1, began to control trade in plastic waste.

The proposed justification to regulate some of the chemicals under debate—including a widely used plastic additive, UV-328—could have serious ripple effects for other chemicals, speakers said.

A committee advising the Stockholm convention decided in January, that UV-328, made by BASF SE, met the convention’s criteria for possible restriction, said Martin Kayser, the company’s senior vice president of product safety.

The treaty targets chemicals that remain in the environment for years, build up in the food chain, are toxic, and circulate globally. UV-328 meets many of those criteria, but it doesn’t meet the convention’s definition of long-range, global transport, Kayser said.

Under the convention, a chemical might meet the long-range transport criteria if it moves through the air, water, or migrant species, said Karissa Kovner, a senior EPA policy adviser for international affairs. But the committee decided UV-328 is transported via marine debris, a means not discussed in the treaty and a rationale the agency has concerns about, she said.

Using a chemical’s presence in marine debris as a way to meet the treaty’s transport criteria would set a “dangerous precedent for many more chemicals,” Kayser said. And the science on UV-328 doesn’t support that conclusion, he said.

The next step is for the same committee to review the economic and societal implications of restricting UV-328.

There is at least one humorous aspect to these developments. Proponents of the plastics industry intend to fight these plans… to prevent “climate change.

America’s Plastic Makers and value chain partners are working to build a more sustainable and circular economy that ends plastic waste and addresses climate change.

We’ve set a goal to reuse, recycle or recover all plastic packaging in the U.S. by 2040, and we look forward to collaborating on workable, constructive solutions, such as by developing a national recycling strategy to standardize and expand local programs, supporting development of recycling education and infrastructure through material-neutral packaging fees, accelerating advanced recycling, and developing recycled content goals for packaging and products.

If these plans go forward as proposed, I predict China will manufacture all plastic in the not too distant future. But given how the UN has acted during the COVID-19 pandemic, it could be argued that this development would be a feature and not a bug.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

2smartforlibs | June 29, 2021 at 11:29 am

You might want to think past the knee jerk on this, MORONS.

These people will not be happy until we all have to run around naked and eat nuts and berries out of wood bowls.

    scooterjay in reply to lhw. | June 29, 2021 at 11:37 am

    Their goal is depopulation.
    Unfortunately, that plan does not apply to the ones pushing it.
    They will get their depopulation after starting WWIII where half the planet dies thanks to a new virus.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to lhw. | June 29, 2021 at 2:36 pm

    What makes you think that we could have wood bowls?

Is there a viable alternative to UV-328 that also provides UV protection? I’m guessing the proponents of this ban really have no clue how many products use this, including paints, stains and automotive clear coat.

    mark311 in reply to Sanddog. | June 29, 2021 at 1:51 pm

    Actually probably the opposite they are likely aware it’s highly pervasive. Which is kinda the point given it’s toxic effect on marine life etc

      Barry in reply to mark311. | June 29, 2021 at 3:58 pm

      Marxist311 is surrounded by plastic. Her brain is plastic.

      vinnymeyer in reply to mark311. | June 29, 2021 at 11:21 pm

      The “toxic effect on marine life” had better be more than a single “reproductive study” on zebra fish. What concentration is actually found in the environment? Is this level actually toxic? What level actually is toxic?

      Also, this is a chemical that protects plastics from ultraviolet radiation. Would banning it possibly cause MORE plastic waste? Because as plastics start to degrade, they often need to be replaced.

      It’s great we all want a healthy planet. I remember pollution levels in the 1960’s, we have a much cleaner environment now then we did then. I’ll settle for intelligent steady progress over stupid knee jerk reactions.

    n.n in reply to Sanddog. | June 29, 2021 at 2:32 pm

    They evaluate risk in isolation, not the real world, and are notably Pro-Choice, thus the pervasiveness of social and judicial gerrymandering by environmentalists, governmental and corporate patrons, and sympathizers.

      henrybowman in reply to n.n. | June 30, 2021 at 1:56 am

      More to the point, they perform what should be a cost/benefit analysis by listing all the costs and ignoring all the benefits. This is a common trick of leftists, especially the ones who want to ban guns.

How are they going to accomplish their goal? By using F-15s and nuclear weapons in the world war they will start. In other words, the planet is now toxic and useless but gosh, did we ever get rid of those pesky Humans, huh?

The UN is always in need of attention, and more money, mainly ours. Keep plastic and ban the UN.

Once again, “scientists”. All solutions today require banning, cancelling, stripping people of God-given civil rights, making life as difficult, inconvenient or or uncomfortable as possible or hating white people. Do these people EVER have something good to say? No constructive solutions for anything? And always those “scientists”.

I’ve had enough of “scientists”.

    mark311 in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 29, 2021 at 1:54 pm

    Since when was plastic a god given right. It’ll be replaced, preferably with something that isn’t toxic and widely found in eco systems

      stevewhitemd in reply to mark311. | June 29, 2021 at 2:38 pm

      You have any ideas? Perhaps a trip to the patent office is in order for you…

      Barry in reply to mark311. | June 29, 2021 at 3:59 pm

      You, marxist311 are toxic. When are you scheduled for replacement?

      Ironclaw in reply to mark311. | June 29, 2021 at 7:29 pm

      They’ll try to replace it with something largely inferior and hugely expensive.

      vinnymeyer in reply to mark311. | June 29, 2021 at 11:25 pm

      Good. I’m all for it. Let me know when your product is ready for testing. Until then, you’ve got nothing other than ban the existing product and hope it gets replaced with something that makes you feel better.

      henrybowman in reply to mark311. | June 30, 2021 at 1:57 am

      Good luck lugging your groceries home in piles of cowshit.

      Arminius in reply to mark311. | June 30, 2021 at 10:15 pm

      Yes, it’s all so simple really. We can all take up basket weaving. After all grasses and rushes used to make baskets are widely found in eco systems and aren’t toxic. Maybe we can even learn how to bring our grocery-filled baskets home by balancing on our heads as we walk home from the store.

      Except then the environazis will accuse us raping the land as we roam around looking for and plucking suitable plants for our baskets.

      As an engineer friend of mine burst out when he could no longer take airhead AOC talk breezily about her Green Nude Eel, “Everything is really simple when you DON’T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!”

    There’s always the Green blight, intermittent/renewable energy, which is inoculated from social and environmental scrutiny.

      Arminius in reply to n.n. | June 30, 2021 at 10:21 pm

      Yes, it’s all so simple really. We can all take up basket weaving. After all grasses and rushes used to make baskets are widely found in eco systems and aren’t toxic. Maybe we can even learn how to bring our grocery-filled baskets home by balancing on our heads as we walk home from the store.

      Except then the environazis will accuse us raping the land as we roam around looking for and plucking suitable plants for our baskets.

      As an engineer friend of mine burst out when he could no longer take airhead AOC talk breezily about her Green Nude Eel, “Everything is really simple when you DON’T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!”

      Arminius in reply to n.n. | June 30, 2021 at 10:32 pm

      I don’t know what happened with the double post. I apparently hit some button that autofilled the field with my old post.

      I meant to say that my favorite fun fact is that the average commercial wind turbines used in wind farms requires 47 tons of non-recyclable plastic in its construction (not to mention more tons of concrete and steel; try making steel using only solar or wind power). What is non-recyclable plastic? It means it’s made from hydrocarbons. And what are hydrocarbons, boys and girls? Fossil fuels.

      https://nawindpower.com/used-wind-turbine-blades-pose-a-growing-waste-problem

      The article speaks of fiberglass. For the uninitiated fiberglass is glass-reinforced PLASTIC.

      Yeah, you’re not getting rid of plastics or the oil industry anytime soon.

        Arminius in reply to Arminius. | June 30, 2021 at 11:06 pm

        As I not so subtly hinted, it’s impossible to make steel in large quantities without fossils fuels. In the developing world such as Africa they think this push for green energy is just a plot to keep them poor forever by preventing them from industrializing. That’s why in Africa they look at the wind turbines the greenies are pushing same way they look at those national parks. The reason those parks are so good at growing animals is the same reason they’re good at growing crops. And it isn’t like the locals didn’t know that. They used to live and farm on what used to be their best farmland until the colonialists and later sometimes their own governments kicked them outside the boundaries of the park onto marginal farmland. Where the locals can barely scratch out a living. Some years they don’t.

        So now African governments are turning to China to build hundreds if not thousands of coal-fired power plants across the continent. They decided you can take your wind turbines and shove them up your collective asses.

A goat herding village in Afghanistan will be the photo-typical endpoint for their world. Oh..wait…green house gases…. Just how far back in history is the goal the scientists.

Fuck me, these people really couldn’t wait for Trump to be out of the way could they.

    scooterjay in reply to mailman. | June 29, 2021 at 2:36 pm

    They sold him out….betrayed him for a few sheckels of silver.
    Actually, they sold us all off for their profit.
    Probably why they will.confiscate arms soon.

Environmental justice goes hand in hand with social justice and the persistent conditions in third-world, second-world, and first-world nations.

The Friendly Grizzly | June 29, 2021 at 3:07 pm

The Swiss government .. wait. Aren’t plastics essential to the making of cuckoo clocks?

UN does not make laws. They are not a government.

‘Regulation of UV-328 is the beginning of the end of plastics.’

Also the end of cell phones, automobiles, computers, eyeglasses, and about 300 million other products people use every day. John Q. and Jill Public will not be enthused.

Awesome! I guess we can just shut down global healthcare or be content with setting it back 100+ years. You think there are blood shortages today, think about putting blood back in glass bottles and having a shelf life of 5 days in stead of 42.

The left doesn’t care how many people die for their ideology, except that perhaps they like to see as high a death toll as possible.

    Arminius in reply to jim_m. | June 30, 2021 at 11:14 pm

    Yes, I do believe the left always likes to see the death toll as high as possible. That’s why Lenin and Stalin decided to get into a competition with Mao over who could kill the most millions of their own. Although I do believe Pol Pot punched above his weight on a per capita basis.

These morons have no clue how many things are made of plastic that not only make life better for everyone but are essential in medicine, physical therapy, prosthetics, and health, industry, etc.

They obviously don’t know that even school crossing guards wear plastic safety belts.

Literally millions of products are made from plastics.

Hey iron ore to make steel requires mining, so lets ban that and see what that does to our economy and life style.

These morons haven’t yet figured out that if you eliminate fossil fuels there won’t be enough green energy to recharge their electric cars that are already too expensive for the poor and middle class.

    Arminius in reply to BMF5533. | June 30, 2021 at 11:21 pm

    I’ve got news for you. They know. They just don’t care. It’s like with EVs. They’re pushing Electric cars simply because they know they will never replace fossil fueled cars. So they want people to give up what works for vaporware.

    In dictatorships the peasants must not have individual means of transportation. And just as in feudal Europe centuries ago where the serfs had to have written permission to leave the lord’s lands, or in North Korea today where travel documents are needed to leave your village, now we have vaccine passports. But what good are those for restricting travel if we can still drive?

Guilty until proven innocent. The U.N. works in weird and unusual ways.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend