FPC TRANSCRIPT: Negotiating A Global Agreement on Plastic Pollution
Video of this briefing for download can be found here:
https://vimeo.com/925080592/d50871bbe0
Photos of this briefing for use in reporting can be found here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/foreignpressctr/albums/72177720315554048
FOREIGN PRESS CENTER BRIEFING WITH MARGARET SPRING, CHIEF CONSERVATION AND SCIENCE OFFICER AT MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM
MODERATOR: Good morning, and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center. My name is Leah Knobel, and I’m the moderator for today’s briefing. Today, it is my pleasure to introduce Margaret Spring, chief conservation and science pfficer at the Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey, California.
Today, Ms. Spring will be discussing the next session of UN negotiations taking place in Ottawa, Canada next month to adopt a global resolution on plastic pollution. This discussion is on-the-record, and we will post a transcript and a video of the briefing on our website, fpc.state.gov, later today. And a reminder that remarks for today’s briefing do not represent the views of the United States Government.
For the journalists joining us on Zoom, please take a moment now to rename yourself in the chat window with your name, outlet, and country. And I would now like to invite Ms. Spring to share some opening remarks.
MS SPRING: Thank you, Leah. And good morning. I hope everybody’s well today. I’m really pleased to be here. I’m Margaret Spring. I’m the chief conservation and science officer at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and I’ve also spent most of my career here in Washington, so it’s lovely to be back, especially during the cherry blossom time.
Today I’m here to talk about plastic pollution. Though the aquarium is engaged in a range of ocean actions, from advancing the global sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture to the recovery of the iconic and threatened sea otters that we see off our shores, I want to take – point your attention to this picture that’s on this title slide. Benjamin Von Wong, a Canadian artist, created this sculpture called Turn Off The Plastic Tap. It was first set up on the grounds of the UN Headquarters in Nairobi, in Kenya in 2021. At that time, the United Nations Environment Assembly, also referred to as UNEA, was considering a resolution to develop a treaty to address plastic pollution. Since then, a lot has happened, and I’ll give a quick overview of the situation and action to date at an upcoming meeting in this artist’s home country, Canada.
So between 1950 and 2019, global plastic production has ballooned from an estimated 2.2 million tons per year to 460 million – metric tons per year – excuse me – million tons per year. And if industry has their way, it’ll be more like 1.5 billion by 2050, and estimates are that there’ll be a tripling of plastic use by 2060, according to the OECD.
One thing you should know is that almost all plastic right now is made from fossil-based petrochemical feedstocks, oil, and natural gas. If people curb their demand for fossil fuel energy as a result of responding to the climate crisis, the industry is really looking to plastic to keep their profits afloat. Plastic production leads to plastic waste and inevitably plastic pollution. We can work on fixing waste management, which right now isn’t able to handle the volume of plastic waste, even in the U.S. But if we don’t slow plastic production, we can’t expect to keep up.
And we have an updated number for plastic waste that goes into the ocean, which is something of great concern to the aquarium – which is still an estimate; it’s based on modeling. But we’ve been using a conservative estimate of 9 million tons per year, and now it’s up to 12 million, and it’s just going to keep growing. So this is a problem that every minute that ticks away it gets worse.
So it’s an ocean problem, of course. Plastic waste is present in almost every marine habitat on Earth, from the ocean surface to deep-sea sediments to the ocean’s vast midwater region. It’s just not at the surface. It’s everywhere, including on the bottom, and there’s new scientific information coming out, including from the aquarium on that point. Sea turtles, marine mammals, seabirds, fish, and other marine life are impacted by plastic by becoming entangled in it or eating it, and there’s a large body of evidence that ingested plastic travels through the food web and ultimately to humans.
But of course, it’s becoming clearer that plastic pollution is also an issue of environmental equity. Low-income communities and communities of color in the U.S. and around the world bear the brunt of plastic pollution from production, waste disposal, use, and incineration. Plastic pollution also disproportionally impacts people in poorer in countries, communities in the United States, where more plastic waste leaks out into the environment due to insufficient waste collection and management systems, which exacerbates the impacts of climate and other major crises around the world.
So just to recap – oops, okay. Most plastic is from fossil sources, as I said, and this has impact not only the environment from extraction all the way through the life cycle of plastic, but on society and the costs that are associated with that – the cleanup cost but also the health cost. And then the climate impacts, there’s growing evidence that the production of plastic is increasing the greenhouse gas emissions and, of course, that climate impacts are exacerbating the impacts of plastic in these countries that are affected by sea-level rise and other challenges. And of course, the economy is not going to be able to withstand this. The cost of cleaning up for governments and for prevention is going to increase the longer we wait.
So it’s everyone’s problem, which is why there is a treaty discussion going on right now. We basically have to start from the beginning to the end, and there’s a couple of studies that I was involved in that will elucidate this. Human health and equity, as I said before, is a major issue. Human health hazards are now taking center stage. There have been a number of reports on that, which I’ll talk about. And there’s really a lot more scrutiny on toxic chemicals within plastic that is coming to the fore.
And just to center ourselves where we are, the United States is a part of this problem. It produces plastic. We actually generate a lot of waste – probably the most plastic waste. We actually have probably a more advanced waste management system, but in the end there is still leakage into the environment, which is of concern, and our recycling and disposal infrastructure is not going to be able to bear this. And of course, we do export waste too and that has changed a little bit because of some changes in China, but essentially we still – there’s just too much for us to manage at this point.
So in 2022 and 2023, I was involved in two expert reports. So one was at the U.S. scale and one was at the global scale, which it will explain how we are approaching the treaty. In December 2021, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released a report on the U.S. role in the global ocean plastic waste crisis, and it was requested by Congress in legislation established in 2020. I chaired the committee that came out with this report, and it’s made up of experts from all sorts of disciplines. We spent a year and a half researching this. What our conclusion was – oops, sorry. Well, this is one of our conclusions that the U.S. plays a significant role. Just so you know, it came from that report. I’m having trouble here, Leah. Okay.
Our top – there was – we found there was no one solution. Everyone was looking for one solution. Everyone sees the plastic problem from their perspective. If you’re a fisherman, you think that we need to clean it up. If you see it in your neighborhood, you want to have a – have this dealt with and you’re concerned about use of plastic products that are leaching chemicals and what the impacts on your children, you’re going to see it in a different part of this. But our finding was that there’s no one solution. Action needs to be made at every stage of the plastic life cycle from production all the way through disposal or leakage into the ocean, which is the ultimate sink for all of this plastic.
Our recommendation was as the U.S. as a key player needed to come up with a systemic federal policy and research strategy quickly. And so just – and we need to have to address the front end of the problem, which is that’s circled. What we found was that there was more action at the far end, which was the cleanup which is, of course, the natural reaction, and then we needed look farther up the chain. We identified also waste reduction as a critical policy, and part of those – and also reduction of plastic products and plastic production.
After that – one of the things that this report did not do was look at actual health impacts. And so we – I also was a member of the Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health, which was chaired by Phil Landrigan, a pediatrician, and a number of doctors and health exports were part of it. And the major finding of that report, which was geared towards the UN treaty, was to look at what was the impact of plastics on human health across the life cycle.
Taking a step back, in 2022, 175 countries adopted a resolution at the UN Environment Assembly, UNEA, and just after released the U.S. report and before we issued the Minderoo report. The nations agreed to negotiate this binding agreement, which is very exciting, to end plastic pollution, setting a goal of completing the text by the end of this year.
And so when we entered the space of the treaty, I’ve been at all of the meetings so far representing the scientific community through the International Science Council, and we – what was brought to the attention of the negotiators at that first meeting, their findings of the Minderoo-Monaco Commission Report, which were plastic harms human health and the environment; plastic itself causes disease, impairment, and premature mortality at every stage of its life cycle; toxic chemicals added to plastic, routinely detected in people, increases the risk of miscarriage, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and cancers; and health repercussions disproportionately affect vulnerable, low-income, minority communities, particularly children; and the annual costs are astounding. And I won’t go too far into that, but you can read the report. Also, plastic production has fueled climate change, so that is another issue of concern in that report.
And so the solutions offered were to address plastic production, establish health protective standards, improve production practices, improve the recycling and other mechanism, have regulations on hazardous chemicals, and prioritize the protection of human health and the environment, especially the protection of vulnerable and at-risk people. So at this treaty, all those issues are on the table. Primary plastic polymers are part of an – a zero draft of the text. Chemicals and polymers of concern, problematic and avoidable plastics, product design – all of those elements are in the framework for a treaty.
And so at our last meeting in Nairobi, there was a delay in taking action to further develop the text. The text was made longer, and so much – a bit more complicated. So looking ahead at our next meeting, which is kicking off on April 22nd – we’ll be welcomed by the Canadian Government on Earth Day, and then the negotiations start on the 23rd – there’ll be a lot of attention to the text and trying to get to agreement, because we have that meeting and then one more meeting.
And all of these issues are critically important. The question that will be ahead of us is what can we come to agreement with – on within this time period to be sure we address the whole life cycle of plastic, to address human health and the environment, and make sure the marine environment is protected, and also have a just transition and have enough financing to get this done. So – and there’s a lot of need for data transparency, tracking, and monitoring.
So those are all issues on the table, and there’s a lot of attention being paid to preparing for country positions, and all of us in the civil society and as observers are doing the same. And so we’re looking forward to seeing how far we can get in this meeting. And the last meeting will be in Seoul, Korea in the fall, and then ideally the treaty would be signed at an event, the plenipotentiaries meeting next year in 2025.
So that’s probably the fastest international treaty agreement timeline I’ve even seen, and so we’re all mobilizing quickly. So I just wanted to give you a sense of how important this issue is to people here in the United States as well as around the world. I’ve spoken to many people, and as a representative of the International Science Council we have given presentations to many delegations at this treaty and to answer questions about science, which is so critical.
So thank you for your time. Happy to answer any further questions, knowing that I’m not a scientist but I represent them and their interests in this treaty process. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you. We will now take some questions. For those of you in the room, if you have a question, please raise your hand and wait to be called on. Please also state your name and media outlet before your question and project so we can hear you well. A reminder for journalists joining us on Zoom: Please be sure your screen name includes your name, outlet, and country; click on the raised hand icon to indicate that you have a question; and please turn on your video if you like. We will start by taking any questions from journalists in the room. Go ahead.
QUESTION: It’s okay? Yes?
MODERATOR: Yeah. Go ahead, please.
QUESTION: I’m Roku Goda for Japanese national newspaper, Asahi Shimbun. Let me ask three question questions regarding the INC process. First, what made the delay in Nairobi to improve the draft text? This is the first question.
MS SPRING: Say that again? I’m sorry. I didn’t catch it.
QUESTION: So what made the delay you said the – regarding the draft text?
MS SPRING: Okay. I think, so I don’t know what was going on behind the scenes and among the delegates, but what occurred was that there was expressed a concern by a group of countries saying that they felt that their views were not reflected in the text that was shared and developed by the secretariat of the treaty. And so each of them had to – brought up a lot of questions about what was in there, and so there was a lot of time spent adding more text and options to each part of the treaty. So while it started as a – maybe a 30-page document, it’s now a 70-page document, which makes it a bit more complex. It’s – and so there is – that’s one reason.
But also there was not agreement on doing – on performing intercessional work. Many of the scientific groups and other delegates, who were very concerned that they needed to understand the issues better wanted to proceed with intercessional work, which means special, topical work that would go between that meeting and this coming meeting to help tee up some issues in an official way as part of the official process, and no agreement was made. So that has left us a little bit behind in developing the information that the delegates need to make decisions.
And so that doesn’t mean work isn’t going on, but it’s not going on in the same way that had been anticipated. And there were contact groups created that were developing those lists of topics that people wanted to understand, like polymers of concern, or problematic plastics, or financing. All those issues are all being discussed among observers as well as some of – and the delegations, but not as an official stream of work. So that will put – that’s delaying things a bit.
QUESTION: Thank you. And number two, what outcomes is the INC for in Ottawa? What do you expect the result?
MS SPRING: Ah. I’m not a magician; I can’t predict everything. I predict it’ll be very hard work. It’s going to be a much longer meeting. It’s going to go from the 23rd to the 30th, which is far longer than the Paris meeting, which was before the Nairobi meeting. And so there’ll be some earnest efforts.
The other thing that’s changed is there is a new chair of the INC process. He’s from Ecuador. His name is Luis Vayas Valdivieso; he’s an ambassador. And he is taking stock; he’s taken stock of this. I think there was – a number of delegates met at the stock-taking meeting in Nairobi around UNEA-6, which is the sixth meeting of UNEA, to take stock of how things were going. And so I don’t know. We look forward to hearing from him about how he wants to proceed in that process. But I believe the focus will be on the text itself, and I assume that countries will share their views based on the work they’ve done during the intercessional with their own experts. But it will – that’s why it’s going to be longer, I think.
I’m hoping that there will be more opportunity for side – continuing to develop more information. The scientific community is very concerned about making sure that their voice is heard. So we will continue to try and do that with other groups. And so I feel like it will be very heavy work. However, Canada is probably going to welcome us to and ask us to move quickly with an effort to get a very strong treaty – at least a framework done – by the end of the year.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. And this is the last question. So when it comes to – right in November, right? Yes?
MS SPRING: Yeah. The dates aren’t quite set, but –
QUESTION: Okay.
MS SPRING: Yes, they are. Maybe before Thanksgiving.
QUESTION: Do you believe – so they can finalize their texts? And what is their biggest obstacle at this time?
MS SPRING: Probably our biggest obstacle is time, as you can imagine. I know there is a commitment by leadership from UNEP all the way to the secretariat to complete the task, certainly to have the text done and ready for signature by next year. I feel like the question is how much detail will be in the text that’s concluded by the end of this year, and which – what will be left to future meetings. The goal will be to make sure that the entire lifecycle of plastic, at least from our perspective, the scientific perspective, and also many of the countries, including members of the High Ambition Coalition, which is a very large group, to make sure production is included. That doesn’t mean there’s going to be agreement on that.
And so the question is what can be done. But there are many ways to reduce production, and there are many concerned about not reducing production. There’s a lot of modeling of impact of changes in policies that should be informative. I’m hoping that will help elucidate it. But I think it’s going to be some text will be done; we don’t know how detailed it will be yet. And judging from how other international agreements have proceeded, there will probably be some follow-on work.
MODERATOR: Go ahead, please, in the back.
QUESTION: Yusuke Tomiyana, Yomiuri Shimbun, Japanese daily. So I have two questions. The (inaudible) – let me know the U.S. plastic industry’s attitude or reaction for this treaty?
MS SPRING: What’s their reaction to the treaty? Well, they’re attending. (Laughter.) There’s a lot of attendance by industry, and lots of different industries. So there’s oil and gas production, there is plastic production, which is usually connected, and then there are – then there’s the many other industries that use plastic in their products. And there is – so their reaction to the treaty is they’re taking it seriously, and I think that they would like to see more emphasis – at least the plastic production industry would like to see more emphasis on recycling, which we have – many experts have concluded is not going to solve the problem. So there is a difference of opinion.
However, there is a business coalition for an effective plastic treaty that is moving for – is asking for global standards so they can compete, and – because this is a globally traded commodity. So in terms of U.S. business and other global scale businesses, they’re very concerned that this treaty must be done and establish global standards to help set the stage and set a level playing field for innovation and change. And so there’s different views all along the spectrum, and the scientific community has expressed very strong opinions that I think would not be in line with the plastic industry, but there may be areas that we can come together.
One of the things we’ve heard from the plastic industry is they’re willing to be more transparent about what they’re putting in the plastic. We have yet to see that, but we’re interested in seeing that, because that will help us understand what is in them and how we can start removing – detoxifying plastic if we can. That’s a very tall order. Safety is very important, but we’ve proliferated plastic to the extent that it’s hard to roll it back, so there will have to be some new standards set. So that is how we’re setting it up. I do – I can’t speak for them, though, because I think that they’re evolving in their position. I am hoping they are, because this is also undermining – plastic production is also undermining our greenhouse gas goals.
QUESTION: What is the most (inaudible) point for U.S., also global plastic industries are regulated by this treaty?
MS SPRING: What would be the most effective? Well, of course, if you take your lesson from previous treaties – whether it’s the ozone treaty, Minamata Convention, or even the climate convention – we need to have targets for reduction in everywhere we can measure it, and also timelines. Many countries have done this. And we can – it’s hard to say which is the most – you can’t say which is the most effective. As we said in the National Academies report, you have to address every step.
If we don’t, we will never fix the problem, because we’ve created a system that’s not working. The production cannot be managed at the end of life, and so unless you work in it all – but I think what we’ve found is that years of experience here in the United States is that trying to clean it up is not working. Trying to manage the waste is not working alone. We have got to get at the upper end and the production, and so how many different levers are there to do that?
Another thing that we have been experimenting with here in the United States and elsewhere is to have – is to reverse the burden so that polluters pay for and are responsible for the production of waste from plastic and the harms associated with it. Because right now, that’s borne by everybody else, and the cheap cost of plastic is just making it worse. So if you change the financial responsibility, that helps a lot, and that will be critical.
The other thing is – that’s going to be happening is that as the health information becomes more public and the science advances, the health risks and the liability to these companies will rise. So I used to work for industry, and I will say that they do respond to risk. So there are multiple issues, and a level playing field is what I think everyone needs to do is – how is this whole system going to work together? And it will require not only fighting but cooperation; you need both. So that’s what I would say.
QUESTION: I’m afraid to ask you such – so basic point, but let me know: Why plastics affect the global warming or climate change?
MS SPRING: So to produce – so there are many places in which – and the estimates are still being made. So first of all, there’s the production of fossil fuels and the – and that actually emits greenhouse gases, and the use of energy in the plastic production process creates greenhouse gases, and so all those things plus their development of products. So they’re being compartmentalized. There is a new study that’s going to be coming out soon, I think, but essentially we think it’s – right now it’s about four – I think the OECD said it was about 4 percent of greenhouse gas budget, and it’s expected to double, which actually starts to change the trajectory over time.
And so those are – and there are emissions – there’s other science that says there are emissions from the actual plastic products themselves as they degrade in the ocean or in the environment. Also, more plastic waste and badly mixed plastic waste creates greenhouse gases from landfills. So it’s – they’re starting to catalogue it. I’m very interested to see – there’s a project that’s looking at it, but it’s not going to help us in the long run because it’s starting from the same place. And so even if it’s made from another product, it’s possible it will still increase but not as fast.
QUESTION: Reducing plastic production mean that reducing greenhouse gas?
MS SPRING: Uses?
QUESTION: The reducing – reduce – lower plastic production means lower greenhouse gas?
MS SPRING: Yes. That’s what the estimates say so far.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS SPRING: Thank you.
MODERATOR: We’ll now take a question from zoom. Alex, would you go ahead and unmute yourself and turn on your video, please?
QUESTION: Yes. Good afternoon. I’m sorry, I’m having issue with my camera. I hope it’s okay.
MODERATOR: That’s fine.
QUESTION: This is Alex Raufoglu from news agency Turan. Thank you so much for doing this, and welcome back to D.C. Sorry I couldn’t be there in person. I have two questions, just to build off on what you just said. Can you please speak a little bit on other urgent climate implications of plastics? We do need healthy ocean, of course, the costal ecosystem, to store carbon and build resilience to climate change. Azerbaijan will be hosting COP29. It has its own issues with Caspian Sea is being subject to that as well. Look, do you think – can there be an adaptation in a sea of plastic? I think that’s my question on that part.
And second part of my question – you mentioned the 2022 resolution, which were agreed by over a hundred countries. The ugly truth is that they say when push comes to shove, with issues like plastic pollution, the problem is that some nations benefit from increased plastic production while others bear a disproportionate burden, if you want, and consensus can be difficult. So what do you expect from the upcoming COP29? What role will the private sector play here, and how should the governments respond? Thank you so much.
MS SPRING: Very good question. So on the first, I think we’re still learning about the different ways that climate and plastic are connected, because they’re mutually reinforcing, of course. And the number one issue is they’re both carbon, right. So what we don’t know is even if – if you add more carbon to the ocean, what is the impact, for example, if it starts to degrade? But there’s also feedback loops and warming.
So I do think that – that adaptation is going to be harder with plastic in the ocean for sure. What we’ve seen in the countries – for example, low-lying countries – is that if plastic is clogging drainage areas, if you see in places in Africa and Southeast Asia, you will see that – areas that are already impacted by flooding are just becoming more impacted because of these – this – this clogging of these areas, and also it’s undermining the ability of countries who are already suffering from climate change to feed themselves from the ocean, et cetera. And with – and that includes dumping of waste from vessels, but also lost fishing gear and aquaculture gear. So there’s lots of ways this is happening; it’s going to be made much worse.
I do look forward to seeing more information on those feedback loops, particularly the impact on our carbon cycle in the ocean and how that happens. There’s a – there’s some research, if you read the National Academies report, we identify a few early research projects. There’s also a project called – it’s called the Plastic Climate Project. It’s starting up to sort of pull all that information together. But Antonio Guterres, the secretary of the UN, has been speaking about this issue a lot. So it is – it’s a question of how do we manage our transition to decarbonization, essentially. We have to decarbonize for many reasons, and it’s a major challenge for the Earth.
And plastic – and you’ll see that the EU has made plastic part of their green new deal. It’s all part of a strategy to move forward on climate. So it is connected. But you can address them separately, and the solutions are similar. But essentially we have – it’s pollution, like we deal with every pollution. Too much of something that’s not good for the planet and good for people should be reduced.
The second question, which is a very good one, is yes, there is going to be conflict about whether – what should be – where does the life cycle of plastic start. I think scientifically and technically and factually, it does start with extraction and production. There are a number of countries that do think that really this is a waste problem, and it’s not a production problem. But if you do the math, it’s very clear that production cannot be managed by waste management.
So the business community does play a role, and particularly in seeing the future. Where is this leading us? Just like in sustainable seafood, companies are thinking, where am I going to get my fish? Well, I can’t overfish because – so at some point, some companies have come together and said, well, we’re going to be supporting sustainable seafood. Similarly, you will see some companies seeing that their profit margins over time will erode because consumer confidence declines, concerns about the plastic health impacts rise. And you’ve seen a number of other studies that just come out recently from the New England Journal of Medicine that have indicated very strong correlations with heart disease. So this starts getting people very worried.
Now, a long-range-thinking company who depends on a consumer audience will be thinking very strongly about what the future looks like for them. And a number of them have made public-facing pledges.
So I think those voices have to be stronger than the voices that are saying that we want to stay for – with business as usual. And so I think that that’s – and also having these collaborations of solutions have been something that I’ve seen emerging more and more. And so the concern with civil society is that – is this greenwashing, or is this real progress? And I think the more we get to know each other in this negotiating process and the more we see the results, the more we’ll build trust. But right now it’s very – there’s a lot of concern.
So I do think building trust from – between industry and the civil society is important. And I’m not sure how – if that happens at a treaty or between treaty meetings, but that is very important because of the health issues as well as the existential issues around our food systems. This isn’t just an ocean issue. I’m focusing in the ocean, but there’s – there’s microplastics in the air, there’s microplastics in your food, in your drink, in your water. The state of California is the first state to monitor microplastics in drinking water. That’s – I can’t believe it, that that’s the first state that’s ever done that. So we don’t know so much about what is happening, though it is a – there’s a mountain of evidence about to be growing, and it’s important to get ahead of it. And that would be the important role of people who think about the future in the longer term, not in the short term.
QUESTION: Thanks so much.
MODERATOR: This ends the Q&A portion of today’s briefing. Ms. Spring, do you have any final remarks you’d like to share?
MS SPRING: Well, I’d just like to say thank you for having an interest in this issue. I do think that this next meeting deserves coverage and attention, because it is a critical moment. It’s not only Earth Day, global Earth Day, but – which is the theme of it, is global – is planet or plastic. And they see a lot of that concern being raised, so this is a pivotal meeting. I think shining a light on what countries are willing to do and telling stories about where the concerns are and where the solutions are are all important, because I do think that this process, it’s moved so quickly, the public does not know much about it. And I think that they would be interested in knowing that there’s potential solutions at a global scale as we work at the national scale.
And we have not – we are focusing here in the United States on moving our U.S. national plan too, and we’ve been doing some research that would help support faster progress on a U.S. plan of action that would be very forward leaning. The U.S. has said that their goal is to eliminate the release of plastic in – plastic pollution into the environment by 2040, which is indeed the goal of the High Ambition Coalition. But how do we get there, and what’s the pathway for getting there? How can science play a role?
So I do think that there’s a lot more to be done here, in every country, and we’re very supportive of hearing how other countries are speaking at these treaty meetings. So learn what your country is doing, how they are advancing and showing that it’s possible. We at the Monterey Bay Aquarium have eliminated single-use plastic from our front of house, from our – and we actually still make money. So – at those – not us, but our vendor makes money. And so we can – you can actually have profits and have no single-use plastic, for example. Those are the easiest things to remove from your life.
And just ask yourself: Do you need it? I find that until you raise this question with your public or with your family or your friends, they don’t even see the plastic. And I’m not saying plastic doesn’t have beneficial uses. It certainly does. But we’ve overdone it. That’s my view personally and probably of the Monterey Bay Aquarium. So – and many of my colleagues. So I hope you personally take action. I hope you pay attention to what’s happening in your country and reflect what people think, because this is really about people. Thank you.
MODERATOR: This concludes our briefing. I want to give a special thanks to our briefer for sharing her time with us today and to the journalists who joined us. Thank you.
For more information or to find more FPC programs, visit our website. Follow us on Twitter/X @ForeignPressCtr
Washington Foreign Press Center
National Press Building
529 14th Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20045
Phone: (202) 504-6301