Tackling plastic pollution: Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) updates

Erin: 0:08

Hello, and welcome to About Sustainability..., a podcast by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). It's your co-host, Erin. This time, Alice, Simon and I invited our colleagues Matthew Hengesbaugh and Chochoe Devaporihartakula, two experts following the ongoing international negotiations on plastics, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution, or INC for short, is a process that was agreed in a historic resolution at the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2), in 2022. For a review of what happened at UNEA, check out our UNEA-5.2 episode. So the aim of the INC is to develop an internationally legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. And this involves using an approach that addresses the entire lifecycle of plastics. Our previous episode focusing on lifecycle approaches to plastics shows how challenging this actually is, and we learned that it continues to be a major contention at the actual negotiations. Be sure to check out our show notes for those references. We caught up with Matthew and Chochoe after they came back from the most recent INC meeting called INC-3, which concluded in November. We covered the major contentions at INC-3, who is responsible and what is needed to reach a global agreement on tackling this issue. Let's get into it. Plastic pollution is obviously a really serious problem globally, but how serious is it in this particular region, the Asia-Pacific region?

Matthew: 1:57

Yeah, that's an excellent question. Um, I would say it's serious. Um, there's been a lot of research dating back now a number of years. For example, in 2017, some research came out discussing how the top 20 plastic-polluting rivers in the world are mainly located in the Asia region. Um, I think this study actually found that it was upwards of very close to 70%. A large bulk of the global total of plastics were being emitted from these rivers in Asia. The research shows that many of them are located in Southeast Asia. But actually, if you look- take a more global perspective, you find that a lot of the problem is actually originating in more advanced economies, of course. And there was a lot of debate around, uh, this- the INC, with certain countries calling for, for example, some identification of what they call the downstream countries that were actually fully getting the brunt of a lot of this plastic pollution.

Erin: 3:05

What you mean by downstream is- are countries basically getting the plastic from some other country? Is that- like for processing? Is that what you're referring to, or?

Matthew: 3:16

It's difficult to really pinpoint where the problem originates.

Erin: 3:20

Mmm hmm.

Matthew: 3:21

And a lot of this has to deal with what we think of in terms of lifecycle. So you have certain countries for example, a lot of countries that, you know, maintain very large petrochemical industries... They would say that plastic, the issue itself must be dealt fully downstream. So that's at the end of life, right? Um, where, you know, the most visible aspects of plastic pollution, you know, your single-use products that are discarded in the environment, the discarded fishing nets, etc. But there's other countries, and rightfully so, point out that, well, plastic actually begins very much upstream, and this was a real issue at INC because they- the countries, the member states were not able to really forge any consensus around this issue of polymers and chemicals of concern, because, you know, a lot of people would say that, you know, plastic actually begins very much at the base level- you know, basically the compounds that make up plastic, those- that is the issue in itself. So when I refer to downstream countries, these are countries who took a stance that plastic being a transboundary issue, a lot of these countries, particularly in the developing world, face issues with waste management, collection, sorting and disposal. And a lot of that plastic waste winds up on their shores and they just don't have the capacity to deal with it. So again, this goes back to the idea that there are many different perspectives when we talk about the lifecycle of plastics. And it remains to be seen whether or not countries will be able to really come to a broad consensus on how to tackle the many stages across the lifecycle.

Simon: 5:12

It sounds to me as if there is a discussion or contention around whether primarily the consumer of the plastic product should be responsible for the waste, or the producer of the raw plastic material should be responsible for it. So who's actually responsible for that? Like the country that created the industry that creates it, or the sector that creates the plastic bottles or the country that- in which the people consume the beverage that is in those plastic bottles but do not have the capacity to properly manage it, and it ends up in the rivers? Can you say something, Matt, about who are the biggest producers of plastic, and who are the biggest consumers of plastic in terms of countries or companies? I'm just not clear on that.

Matthew: 5:54

Sure. Well, no, that actually touches on the point that again, plastic is not- I mean, it's multi-sectoral, right? So you have, for example, countries that rely heavily on their petroleum industries. Well, that's, you know, a major building block for the production of plastics. And then you have other countries that host very large chemical industries. That also is another factor that goes into the manufacture of plastics. And then you have countries that actually import the final products at their end of life. Right? So the plastic waste that other countries dispose of and don't necessarily deal with domestically. So it's a very multi-dimensional issue. This point that you make around, you know, how much is the consumer responsible- this is, uh, really a controversial issue because it's actually- a lot of the regulations that could be put in place really should fall on governments and how they regulate the corporations that are involved in the plastic trade. So for me, my personal perspective is that, you know, just putting all the responsibility on the consumer is a bit of a distraction.

Erin: 7:11

Hmmm.

Matthew: 7:12

Again, given the multi-dimensional nature of how plastics are produced and manufactured and the ways that we consume them, if governments were to step in and really start enforcing some very strong regulations, including, for example, making use of extended producer responsibility-type approaches and ensuring that the companies, the corporations that are involved with the manufacture and distribution of plastics- they are clearly regulated.

Erin: 7:40

I mean, there's a lot of like eco-campaigning going on, right at the consumer level, you know, sustainable lifestyles, etc., encouraging people to reuse their bags, reuse cups... So what you're saying basically is that it's really something that should be tackled on a more systemic level and not just, you know, at the consumer level. Is that right?

Matthew: 8:02

Right. And this goes back to that central tension again about what we mean by "lifecycle". And how can we- how could countries come together to agree on a series of interventions that, you know, tackle first the upstream, the midstream and the downstream. Upstream being the very production, you know, again, the raw compounds, the polymers that make up the plastics, then midstream in terms of product design and how plastics are actually produced. And then downstream, of course, you know, at the waste management level- how plastics should be properly handled and disposed of. And the objective is to complete this by next year. It's a very, very ambitious undertaking.

Erin: 8:48

Wow. Next year that's- We don't have much time, do we?

Matthew: 8:53

No we don't, no we don't.

Erin: 8:55

Okay. Um, so how many meetings are there overall before they're supposed to agree on a new treaty?

Matthew: 9:03

Set out to be a total of five INC meetings.

Erin: 9:06

Okay.

Matthew: 9:07

This being the third.

Erin: 9:09

Okay. And then this final instrument is supposed to be unveiled.

Matthew: 9:15

So that's right. And they refer to that as the internationally legally binding instrument. But the acronym was thrown around was "ILBI".

Erin: 9:23

ILBI. Alright.[Laughs] What kind of instrument is that, exactly? Is it something like the Paris Agreement for plastics?

Matthew: 9:31

Well, it's too early to tell, but yeah, there's a lot of, a lot of- Again, the debate is around whether or not there'll be any global targets that are set, for example. So that would entail a lot of, you know, mandatory actions on the part of all countries kind of following a kind of systematised, harmonised kind of approach. And then there's also other countries that feel very strongly that the treaty should resemble something like Paris, uh, and being very much determined by nationally-set targets.

Erin: 10:03

Okay. So were you able to follow the previous INCI meetings? If so, can you maybe give us like a little bit of a recap on what happened at those meetings before the third meeting, which concluded recently?

Matthew: 10:16

Sure. Well, I was fortunate enough to take part in INC-2, and that took place in Paris earlier this year and INC-2 basically- it was again held up very much due to procedural issues.

Erin: 10:31

Sorry, what do you mean by "procedural issues"?

Matthew: 10:34

So I mean, it gets a little bit complicated here, but we're talking about issues of rules or procedure, disagreements over how the negotiations would proceed on that basis. And basically countries were able to come together in the end to mandate the development of a zero draft for the new treaty, which would be very much discussed during this interim period and developed and presented by the Presidency at the INC-3 that took place in Nairobi. So, basically, after getting over a lot of these procedural challenges, countries were able to come together to at least agree on the idea that a treaty, a zero draft, would be developed, and then it would be taken up again for consideration and discussion at INC-3.

Erin: 11:26

Right. So maybe let's turn it over to Chochoe. What happened on INC-3?

Chochoe: 11:32

So the main focus of the inquiry was the revised zero draft text and also discussions around synthesis report that was aimed to address the global agreement on plastic pollution and also the marine pollution as well. So all of the delegates[formed] three groups to discuss different part of the zero draft, for example, the objectives, principles, scope of the treaty, chemicals and polymers of concern, waste management, existing plastic pollution, just transition, implementation, compliance and more. So all of these issues can be found in the zero draft. And there were proposals and also options presented for each of the sections, which also reflected the diverse view and also approaches of the member countries as well.

Alice: 12:34

Can you just tell us what your role was at INC-3?

Matthew: 12:38

I'm part of the IISD- you know, IISD is a partner organisation of IGES. It's the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Then they've got this wing. It's called the Earth Negotiations Bulletin. And basically it's a reporting service for all these intergovernmental negotiating processes. Basically, it's like an auxiliary rapporteuring team for the UN. They refer to themselves as a kind of the largest neutral reporting service in the world. Basically, your task is to go in and report what each country says and what their position is in that meeting in real time.

Erin: 13:17

Okay, great. And what about you, Chochoe? We know that you had maybe a side event?

Chochoe: 13:22

Sure. IGES was selected as one of the co-organisers for the thematic side event at INC-3 on monitoring the situation, progress of the future instrument, with the focus on objectives, targets, baseline indicators and timelines. So the sessions serve as a critical platform for discussing the measurement and monitoring of progress in a future treaty. The session was held on 15 November 2023, and was structured to explore different perspectives on who should be involved in this process, what should be measured and monitored, and how these activities should be carried out. So my presentation was specifically focused on the ASEAN region's progress and challenges in tackling plastic waste and marine debris. So we emphasised the need for setting realistic and achievable targets, and also highlighted the crucial need for transparent, consistent and harmonised data collection. We also advocate for standardised approach to data that also take into account, you know, the specific context of local regions. We also underlie the importance of both regional and global collaborations in the ongoing battle against plastic pollution. So this session actually [was] led by a representative from IUCN and [was] convened [with] a broad spectrum of participants, ranging from government officials and environmental specialists to NGO representative academics and the private sector. The session's importance lies in its ability to gather diverse insight and practical experience, which are quite essential for crafting a robust, inclusive and effective draft of the INC agreement.

Erin: 15:33

Okay, were you also part of, like, observing the negotiations?

Chochoe: 15:37

Yeah.

Erin: 15:37

Like Matthew? Okay.

Chochoe: 15:39

So for me, apart from co-organising a side event, I was also one of the representatives from IGES who participated in INC-3 and had a unique chance to participate in both the Contact Groups and also Plenary sessions, thanks to a floating badge that granted me flexible access. The event itself was really quite intense in my view. The official sessions could start as early as 8 a.m. in the morning and occasionally running until midnight.

Erin: 16:16

Oh my gosh.

Chochoe: 16:18

It's also worth noting that a key debate at the INC-3 was also about the role of industry in drafting the treaty as well. There were concerns about conflict of interest due to the industry involvement in plastic and also fossil fuel production, and there were calls for strong policy to manage these conflicts within the UNEP and also the INC Secretariat as well.

Matthew: 16:48

Yeah, it was interesting to learn- for example, I'm just citing this press release that came out - I only was able to come across this in part because I was sitting next to somebody that was representing one of these advocacy groups. This in particular is for the Center for International Environmental Law. But they found that over 143 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists were registered, which was upwards of 36% increase from INC-2. And these representatives actually outnumbered- these lobbyists outnumbered many of these smaller member state delegations that were there on-site. This was actually raised a few times. I had the good fortune of speaking to some representatives from some SIDs countries, small island developing states. Yeah. Among these small island developing states, there's clear agreement that, you know, we need very ambitious actions, in part because the impacts of plastic pollution are quite visible and posing a real threat to their- not only their ecosystems, but also their economies. And they were calling for real, clear action. But they were also saying that, look, you know,"we're here, we're only a member of- two or three members of our team. And, you know, we're far outnumbered by some of these other larger countries who aren't really willing to take action and really move forward on a very ambitious treaty". And then you look at a press release like this and you learn like, well, wait, you actually have many vested interests that are part of this process, and-

Chochoe: 18:21

I heard that some organisations also raised this to the INC Secretariat as well, but I'm not sure if any progress has been made or any action has been made.

Erin: 18:32

Hmm.

Chochoe: 18:33

But despite challenges, the Contact Groups made a lot of progress based on country feedback. There were different approaches with some favour[ing] upstream measures to prevent plastic pollution and other actually support[ing] downstream industry-allied strategy. So the discussion actually, you know, emphasised the need for leading nations in fossil fuel, petrochemical and plastic product production to take decisive action. The talks also highlighted the importance of trade provisions, legally binding treaty aspects and the urgency of reducing plastic pollution. Um, apart from that, frontline representatives like waste pickers, indigenous peoples, activists and scientists also contrasted with the industry suggestion by presenting the effect of plastic pollution and also emphasised the importance of focusing on reuse and including indigenous knowledge in treaty negotiations as well. So, um, what struck me the most about the INC-3 were the intense negotiations in the Contact Groups, really. So these talks were time-consuming, you know, and, um, very unpredictable and sometimes challenging to actually find common ground. I myself, for example, I tried to make [an] intervention four different days, but the schedule was packed with member states' discussion. And sometimes, you know, I was told that there were 50 observers were waiting for speaking. So despite this, I also kept engaging with representatives from various countries to understand their views on compliance mechanism, a topic I found fascinating and something that I've been working for a decade.

Erin: 20:45

Right. So by compliance, you're talking about whatever agreement they come to, whether they can keep it or like some kind of monitoring and evaluation process?

Chochoe: 20:55

So if I could go into a little bit detail about my proposed intervention, which was unfortunately never considered, it was actually focused on the ambiguous language in the current zero draft, particularly the frequent use of "necessary or appropriate measures" without specific definitions. I also suggested that adding a clear definition to ensure consistent understanding throughout the treaty, and incorporating this language into sections where it was absent for enhanced clarity, I also proposed developing a set of compliance and enforcement principles to support [national] implementation of this comprehensive treaty, including, you know, guidelines for drafting law, anticipating non-compliance, ensuring robust monitoring, specifying reporting requirements, and encouraging public disclosure for oversight. And this principle would also cover incentives for self-auditing, early compliance training and restorative justice mechanisms, and also consideration for product life cycle and design to prevent non-compliance as well. So I think it was very unfortunate that my proposal was never really considered due to the time limitation. But overall I felt the process was really interesting.

Erin: 22:29

Hmmm. So it seems to me- this is just my general impression- that both you (Chochoe) and Matt believe that this meeting wasn't super successful. I mean, what's your verdict on that?

Chochoe: 22:42

Well, if you actually compare this INC-3 with the second one, I could say that a lot of progress was made by members, by the INC Secretariat. No question about that. Progress was made. But we also couldn't deny the fact that the fundamental issue, like, for example, why we were there, was to actually end plastic pollution. But at the end of the day, the most important thing that should be discussed during INC-3 and also should actually reach the consensus, which was the intersectional work was not achieved.

Erin: 23:25

Okay, so what was supposed to be achieved by this point?

Chochoe: 23:28

So, um, you know, some of the countries actually dominated the discussion, meaning that if some other countries- like the majority of the countries actually propose something, then it doesn't mean that it would go through, right?

Erin: 23:46

Uh huh.

Chochoe: 23:47

Just simply because[of] some- a few dominated countries that maybe are influenced by industry. Then it could also, you know, hinder the negotiation process as well. For example, something like, you know, the chemicals and polymers of concern and so many things there should be discussed and also that should be ready for the INC-4, but that didn't really happen.

Alice: 24:15

I'm just having a hard time understanding how the presence of the petrochemical industry's lobbies can affect the decision making process of this INC. What is the actual voting system ? Is it decided on a majority base?

Matthew: 24:30

So the voting system is not yet decided because the treaty has not been fully formulated. But it's fair to say that just by nature, by virtue of having some of these lobbyists there on-site, it shows that they have a much more amplified voice and how they advise the country delegations, especially some of the larger country delegations. And yeah, how they participate in the process and basically how they're having their voices heard. And again, it just relates to some of these other- these countries and many of them, as we spoke upon earlier, representing some very large petrochemicals and other industries- how they, you know, are really, it seems, steering the process away from an ultimate goal, which is having a very ambitious treaty. So I can just speak on one. I mean, for example, you have many different coalitions that are formed, right? One of which is this High Ambition Coalition (HAC) that started out very strongly right out the gate from, you know, the first ink calling for very, very strong actions to address plastic across the lifecycle. Their voice was hardly heard at all at INC-3, but you did have another newer coalition that must have- again, a lot of this probably happens not so much in the Plenary, but behind the scenes- But this new coalition refer to themselves basically as "the like-minded group". But then we learned they represented a much, much broader, diverse range of countries, probably many countries that, again, are dominated by very, very large petro- or chemical industries, who yeah, without singling out any particular countries that are very much looking to focus the ultimate ILBI probably more on downstream actions, so waste management, as opposed to very much upstream addressing those primary polymers and polymers and chemicals of concern.

Alice: 26:28

Yeah, so you just mentioned the High Ambition Coalition. So if you could just tell us if we know what countries are part of it and what are their objectives as part of the INC.

Matthew: 26:38

Yep. So the High Ambition Coalition again, not very visible or present, at least by our observations, at INC-3. But it's made up of a broad sweep of countries from all around the world, you know, advanced, middle-income, And low-income countries. And again, just going back to an earlier point, it's fair to say that a lot of the calls for ambitious action are taking place among countries of the lower economic strata. But, yeah, this is many, many countries. And I can read off a few, you know, EU, Netherlands, Uruguay, Ghana, Colombia, Jordan, a number of others. So very diverse range of viewpoints, but they basically agree on a number of main objectives or strategic goals, and one of which involves, you know, reducing plastic production to sustainable levels. Another is to promote a more circular economy. Another one is to ensure the environmentally sound management and recycling waste. So yeah, it's- they're calling for basically or at least starting from the early on in the process- they're looking for, you know, minimising plastics and ensuring safe and sound collection and disposal of plastics. But may the main focus on based on these points are really on the midstream to downstream aspects of plastic waste.

Erin: 28:05

Hmmm.

Alice: 28:06

And I actually just read recently that Japan had recently joined the HAC, and I was wondering if by any chance, you knew what motivated that reasoning?

Chochoe: 28:17

So I think with Japan deciding to join HAC- that was like a significant shift in the approach [to] plastic pollution. That's simply because, you know, that Japan was a major producer, consumer [and exporter] of plastic waste as well, and they rely heavily on incineration for plastic waste management.

Erin: 28:41

Uh huh.

Chochoe: 28:42

Joining the HAC is like, kind of like big thing, I guess. Like big commitment. And it actually shows that the Japan[ese] government is really taking plastic pollution seriously. And this can be demonstrated through many of their initiatives throughout the negotiations.

Erin: 29:03

Great. So I guess that's some progress, right?[Laughs]

Matthew: 29:08

But yeah, it's some progress and it's really encouraging that Japan joins. I just very much hope that more discussion can be around on the reduction of plastic, not only reduction of production of conventional plastics as we know them, but also reduction of the demands of plastic. This is something that comes out very clearly from the HAC. Unfortunately, at least my observations of INC-3, nobody is really talking about reduction.

Erin: 29:39

Hmmm.

Matthew: 29:39

Everyone is talking about-Yes, exactly. Everyone's talking about how plastics can be managed. Very, very little was spoken on how we might- behavioural changes that are necessary for us to reduce our consumption of plastics or whatever alternative material. So I'm hopeful that the High Ambition Coalition will continue to grow and be a countervailing voice or force against maybe some of these other coalitions that are calling for less ambitious actions.

Chochoe: 30:09

I just agree with Matthew that reduction was not widely addressed. Some country did. But, you know, then it was not really addressed effectively during the negotiation process. The discussion more focused on, you know, solid waste management. And if we would like to end plastic pollution, we would like to take measures, then it needs to be done according to- I think the word that they use is like"national jurisdiction", meaning that the country will be able to decide by themselves the target and not necessarily, you know, the collective one.

Matthew: 30:55

Right. And that is a real tension, isn't it? Because, as we know, plastics is a transboundary challenge. And for countries to come together and try to establish some kind of treaty to address, you know, this global challenge, planetary crisis, national actions alone probably will not be sufficient, uh, to do so and in a kind of unified, systematic way. So that's a real- that's a real issue.

Erin: 31:23

When you're talking about reduction, I think there are many ways, I guess we could interpret that word. And I just want to make sure wha- that I understand what you're trying to argue for.

Matthew: 31:33

That's great. I mean, Chochoe, feel free to come in here, but when I refer to reduction, I mean reduction of both supply and demand.

Erin: 31:41

Okay.

Matthew: 31:42

So across the market. This also lends to the idea that maybe alternatives or some kind of other quote unquote"sustainable materials" might come and take the place of plastics. But, you know, here's where the science is not entirely clear. I think just recently we found that- there was a paper that just came out a couple of weeks ago that shows that actual plastics recycling often emits a lot of other hazardous chemicals into the environment. Just by the process- by way of the process itself. Same goes with the identification of some kinds of alternatives. We find that biodegradable often isn't biodegradable. And it can also have kind of negative impacts on the environment.

Chochoe: 32:27

I think for me, production should be reduced in the first place. You know, I'm not saying that you can't produce it, but the main discussion during the INC-3 was all about the waste management- was about the recycling. Does that make sense that we are talking about recycling? Because how many years-

Erin: 32:48

We can't do it well.

Chochoe: 32:49

Yeah, we are not doing that well. Right? So and then at the INC-3, when it comes to the financial mechanism during the intersessional work- this was also not achieved as well. So how can we be sure that, you know, those countries, for example, in developing countries like ASEAN, they have good infrastructure to actually do all this kind of recycling. Right? And how many years that is going to take to actually end all of these things. So I think that it would be better for us to try to reduce in the first place. But at the same time, we also advocate with people in the community or people that we work with or even ourselves to also reduce the consumption as well. I think that's the way how we should look at it, but that was not really widely addressed during the INC as well. I mean, when it comes to the outcome.

Matthew: 33:48

And there's just no way that we can recycle out of this problem. Um, it really comes down to reducing the production and consumption of plastics. Full stop.

Erin: 33:59

Right. Yes. So that's really, you know, the whole idea about taking a lifecycle approach. Right. Okay, so I mean, it looks like INC is slowly but surely moving forward. We hope?

Matthew: 34:13

Very much hope.

Erin: 34:14

Yes, with lots of hope.[Laughs] Are there other apart from this idea, you know, incorporating the idea of reduction mechanisms or actions that are necessary to end plastic pollution in your view?

Chochoe: 34:29

Um, so basically I think from my side, I feel that the countries have to take the compliance mechanism more seriously and also harmonise data and also, um, monitoring tools. So basically what happened in many countries in ASEAN region now or- and also elsewhere, it's like we have got so many tools. Really. Maybe one country has so many tools. And then, you know, if we can actually harmonise all of these tools in one single tool or something, then, and then we apply this globally or regionally, you know, then I think it will be possible for us to actually monitor if the country has made any progress, because I can tell you that based on my experience with some ASEAN member states and also other countries, they have set their targets very high and they don't actually have the baseline. And then they don't actually have the monitoring. So, I think all these things should be in place and should be, you know, well-structured and formed. And then, of course, countries will not have the capacity to do that by themselves. International organisations, you know, all of the funders, the financial mechanism need to be there for them and to provide this support so that we will be able to hopefully address plastic pollution in an effective manner.

Erin: 36:05

Right.

Matthew: 36:05

Yeah. Just chiming in there. I think that really important point that Chochoe raised is the need for multi-stakeholder actions. You need to be talking about government-, country-led action together with businesses, together with, you know, research institutions, together with the citizens themselves in trying to address the problem. I think really fundamental to driving the change will be education. Especially among young people. And again, it's hard to put any definite timelines on how quickly we'll be able to draw down, the issue of plastic pollution at least over the next 10, 20 years. But it's important to ensure that, you know, young people are not only have the capacity and the understanding to know how to deal with these issues, but also are inspired and don't feel like this existential challenge that we face - whether it be climate or pollution or biodiversity loss- is insurmountable. And yeah, so it's important to highlight the role of not only governments, policymakers, but also educators and advocates. And some of the work that is ongoing by IGES - sorry if it sounds like a shameless plug - But we're doing some excellent work in the educational level in Sri Lanka, as part of this Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm transboundary pollution project and very much working with young people to identify sources of plastic pollution and devise solutions to address them, very much following a kind of citizen science-type approach. So I think that maybe if this kind of approach or these kinds of practices can be scaled up and replicated in other locations, other countries, starting locally and then moving upwards, maybe to, you know, more nationally, I think we stand a real chance of really addressing whatever challenge- environmental challenges we might face, plastics included.

Bob: 38:10

Thank you for listening to About Sustainability... Please subscribe at podcast.iges. jp. Or search for About Sustainability... wherever you normally get your podcasts. If you've got feedback, you can review us on your podcast directory of choice or reach out on Twitter at IGES_EN. About Sustainability... is produced by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. Any views expressed during the podcast are those of the speaker at the time of recording, and do not necessarily reflect the views of IGES. Thank you for choosing to spend your time with us. We don't take that lightly and we hope you'll join us next time.