Politics
Talks on global plastic pollution treaty end with no agreement – National TenX News
Talks on a treaty to address the global crisis of plastic pollution in Geneva ended without an agreement Friday as the session was adjourned with plans to resume at a later date.
Nations were meeting for an 11th day at the United Nations office to try to complete a landmark treaty to end the plastic pollution crisis. They remain deadlocked over whether the treaty should reduce exponential growth of plastic production and put global, legally binding controls on toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Most plastic is made from fossil fuels.
Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said despite challenges, despite the disappointment, “we have to accept that significant progress was made.”
This process won’t stop, she said, but it’s too soon to say how long it will take to get a treaty now.
The Youth Plastic Action Network was the only organization to speak at the closing meeting Friday. Comments from observers were cut off at the request of the U.S. and Kuwait after 24 hours of meetings and negotiating.
The negotiations at the U.N. hub were supposed to be the last round and produce the first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution, including in the oceans. But just like at the meeting in South Korea last year, they’re leaving without a treaty.
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, wrote and presented two drafts of treaty text in Geneva based on the views expressed by the nations. The representatives from 184 countries did not agree to use either one as the basis for their negotiations.
Valdivieso said Friday morning as the delegates reconvened in the assembly hall that no further action is being proposed at this stage on the latest draft.
After a three-hour meeting, he banged a gavel made of recycled plastic bottle tops from a Nairobi landfill.
A ‘deeply disappointing’ outcome
Representatives of Norway, Australia, Tuvalu and others nations said they were deeply disappointed to be leaving Geneva without a treaty. Madagascar said the world is “expecting action, not reports from us.”
Get daily National news
Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
European Commissioner Jessika Roswall said the European Union and its member states had higher expectations for this meeting and while the draft falls short on their demands, it’s a good basis for another negotiating session.
“The Earth is not ours only. We are stewards for those who come after us. Let us fulfill that duty,” she said.
China’s delegation said the fight against plastic pollution is a long marathon and that this temporary setback is a new starting point to forge consensus. It urged nations to work together to offer future generations a blue planet without plastic pollution.
The biggest issue of the talks has been whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic or focus instead on things like better design, recycling and reuse. Powerful oil- and gas-producing nations and the plastics industry oppose production limits. They want a treaty focused on better waste management and reuse.
Saudi Arabia said both drafts lacked balance, and Saudi and Kuwaiti negotiators said the latest proposal takes other states’ views more into account. It addressed plastic production, which they consider outside the scope of the treaty.
That draft, released early Friday, did not include a limit on plastic production, but recognized that current levels of production and consumption are “unsustainable” and global action is needed. New language had been added to say these levels exceed current waste management capacities and are projected to increase further, “thereby necessitating a coordinated global response to halt and reverse such trends.”
The objective of the treaty was revamped to state that the accord would be based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics. It talked about reducing plastic products containing “a chemical or chemicals of concern to human health or the environment,” as well as reducing of single-use or short-lived plastic products.
It was a much better, more ambitious text, though not perfect. But each country came to Geneva with a lot of “red lines,” said Magnus Heunicke, the Danish environment minister. Denmark holds the rotating presidency of the Council of Europe.
“To be very clear, a compromise means that we have to bend our red lines,” he said.
For its part, Iran said it’s a disappointing moment and faulted “nontransparent and non-inclusive processes on unrealistic elements,” particularly chemicals.
The plastics industry also urged compromise. The Global Partners for Plastics Circularity said in a statement that governments must move past entrenched positions to finalize an agreement reflecting their shared priorities.
For any proposal to make it into the treaty, every nation must agree. India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Vietnam and others have said that consensus is vital to an effective treaty. Some countries want to change the process so decisions may be made by a vote if necessary.
Graham Forbes, head of the Greenpeace delegation in Geneva, urged delegates in that direction.
“We are going in circles. We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result,” he said as Friday’s meeting was ending.
The International Pollutants Elimination Network said what happened in Geneva showed “consensus is dead” for the process to move forward.
Thursday was the last scheduled day of negotiations, but work on the revised draft continued into Friday.
Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tons of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70 per cent by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production. Many have said it’s also essential to address toxic chemicals used to make plastics.
Science shows what it will take to end pollution and protect human health, said Bethanie Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicology professor at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg who coleads the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. The science supports addressing the full lifecycle of plastics, beginning with extraction and production, and restricting some chemicals to ensure plastics are safer and more sustainable, she added.
“The science has not changed,” she said. “It cannot be down negotiated.”
Environmentalists, waste pickers and Indigenous leaders and many business executives traveled to the talks to make their voices heard. Some used creative tactics, but are leaving disappointed.
Indigenous leaders sought a treaty that recognizes their rights and knowledge. Frankie Orona, executive director of the Texas-based Society of Native Nations, said the best option now is to move forward with more negotiations to “fight for a treaty that truly safeguards people and the planet.”
Prime Minister Mark Carney arrived in Doha on Saturday as part of a push to attract foreign investment and deepen Canada’s economic partnerships beyond its traditional allies.
Carney’s visit comes on the heels of his visit to China and follows the recent presentation of a new federal investment budget aimed at positioning Canada as a stable, attractive destination for global capital.
In a news conference on Saturday, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said Canada is working to broaden its economic relationships as global trade patterns shift.
Qatar is viewed by Ottawa as a strategic partner, with officials pointing to the country’s significant investment capacity and growing influence on the global stage.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.
“We need to reduce our dependence and increase our self-reliance to find a strategic path forward,” Champagne said.
“Engaging with the Middle East and China is necessary for Canada, just like our European partners have done,” Champagne added. “We buy more from the U.S.A. than anywhere else, but the trading climate right now is different.”
The conference highlighted Canada’s industrial capacity and trade advantages as key selling points for potential investors.
Champagne also said international engagement is critical as Canada works to raise its profile among global investors.
“We are one of the G7s with very big industries. We build cars, planes, ships, we have an abundance of energy, and we are the only one with free trade with all G7,” Champagne said. “With the way the world is changing, you better diversify, supply chain is changing and we need to adapt.”
Prime Minister Carney is expected to meet with senior Qatari officials, including Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, as well as representatives of the Qatar Investment Authority.
His office says the talks will focus on expanding trade access and forging partnerships in artificial intelligence, infrastructure, energy and defence.
The visit comes amid heightened geopolitical tensions in the region, though officials say the schedule remains unchanged.
© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
The possibility of a forceful U.S. takeover of Greenland is raising many unprecedented questions — including how Canada, the European Union and NATO could respond or even retaliate against an ostensible ally.
A high-level meeting between Greenlandic, Danish and U.S. officials this week did not resolve the “fundamental disagreement” over the territory’s sovereignty but did set the stage for more talks. The White House made clear Thursday that U.S. President Donald Trump’s desire to control Greenland has not changed after the meeting.
“He wants the United States to acquire Greenland. He thinks it’s in our best national security to do that,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
Denmark and European allies are sending more troops to the territory in a show of force and to display a commitment to Arctic security.
Experts say there are other, non-military measures available in the event of a U.S. annexation or invasion of Greenland, or which could at least be threatened to try and get Trump to back down.
Whether those economic measures are actually used is another matter, those experts say.
“I think it remains highly unlikely that we’ll get to that point where we have to seriously discuss consequences for a U.S. move on Greenland,” said Otto Svendsen, an associate fellow with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“So it remains contingency planning for a highly unlikely event. That being said … Denmark would certainly do everything in its power to rally a very robust European response.”
Here’s what that could entail.
EU trade, tech disruptions?
Experts agree the biggest pressure points that can be used in the U.S. surround trade and technology.
The European Parliament’s trade committee is currently debating whether to postpone implementing the trade deal signed between Trump and the EU last summer to protest the threats against Greenland, Reuters reported Wednesday.
Many lawmakers have complained that the deal is lopsided, with the EU required to cut most import duties while the U.S. sticks to a broad 15 per cent tariff for European goods.
Get daily National news
Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
An even bolder move would be triggering the EU’s anti-coercion instrument — known as the “trade bazooka” — that would allow the bloc to hit non-member nations with tariffs, trade restrictions, foreign investment bans, and other penalties if that country is found to be using coercive economic measures.
Although the regulation defines coercion as “measures affecting trade and investment,” Svendsen said it could feasibly be used in a diplomatic or territorial dispute as well.
“EU lawyers have proven themselves to be very creative in recent years,” he said.
However, David Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said in an email that economic measures against the U.S. are unlikely “given the massive asymmetry in the defence and economic relationship between the U.S.” and other western nations.
“Any kind of sanction against the U.S. doesn’t make sense for the same reason they can impose tariffs on others: they have the power,” Perry added.
Target U.S. tech companies?
The likeliest — and potentially least harmful — scenario for retaliation in the event of an attack on Greenland, Svendsen said, would be fines or bans against U.S. tech companies like Google, Meta and X operating in Europe.
That’s because the Trump administration has taken particular focus on preventing what they call “attacks” on American companies by foreign governments seeking to regulate their online content or tax their revenues, which has led to calls on Canada, Britain and the EU to repeal laws like digital services taxes.
“I think that would be a really smart and targeted way to get to economic interests very close to the president, while minimizing the direct impact on the on the European economy,” Svendsen said, calling such a move “low-hanging fruit.”
He also compared a future U.S. tech platform ban to how Europe moved to wean itself off Russian gas after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
“If you told anyone back then that Europe would basically rid itself of its dependence on Russian gas basically within a two-year period … that would have been considered completely impossible,” he said.
“Weaning the European economy off of U.S. tech would certainly be painful in the short term, but they’ve proven that they can get off those dependencies quickly if there is political will behind it in the past.”
A U.S. hostile takeover of Greenland would mean the “end” of the NATO alliance, experts and European leaders have said.
Trump himself has acknowledged it could be a “choice” between preserving the alliance or acquiring Greenland.
There is no provision within the NATO founding treaty that addresses the possibility of a NATO member taking territory from another, and how the alliance should respond to such an act.
A NATO spokesperson told Global News it wouldn’t “speculate on hypothetical scenarios” when asked how it could potentially act.
“None of this would be actionable in a NATO sense,” Perry said. “It’s an alliance that’s organized to bind the U.S. to European security, and revolves around the U.S. So there’s no scenario of NATO doing that to the U.S.”
Denmark and other European nations could move to reduce or close U.S. military bases in their countries as a possible response, experts say.
Balkan Devlen, a a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and director of its Transatlantic Program, said in an interview that a U.S. annexation of Greenland would force Canada to focus entirely on boosting its defences in the Arctic.
That may include trying to decouple from NORAD, the joint northern defence network with the U.S., in favour of a purely domestic Arctic command, he said — although that process would take years and require Canada to increase defence spending even further.
“Never mind five per cent (of GDP) — we will probably need to go like seven, eight, nine per cent on defence spending to be able to do anything of that sort,” he said. “It’s not even clear that we’ll be able to have enough people to do that.”
Devlen added that any retaliatory action, whether military or financial, needs to be targeted and proportionate to what the U.S. does.
“The problem with nuclear options is that once you use it, it’s gone,” he said. “And if it doesn’t do the damage or make the change of behaviour on the other party, you’ve basically lost a lot of leverage and you might actually sustain a lot more loss yourself.”
A trip to the world’s most-visited museum is about to cost Canadians significantly more.
France has hiked ticket prices at the Louvre by 45 per cent for visitors from outside the European Union, a move that is fuelling debate over so-called dual pricing and the growing backlash against overtourism.
Starting this week, adult visitors from non-EU countries, including Canada, must pay €32 to enter the Paris landmark, up from €22. That’s an increase from about $35 to $52 Canadian.
Visitors from EU countries, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, will continue to pay the lower rate.
The price hike comes as the Louvre grapples with repeated labour strikes, a high-profile daylight jewel heist last October that prompted a costly security overhaul, and years of chronic overcrowding. The museum attracts roughly nine million visitors annually.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.
Some Canadian tourists told Global News they feel unfairly targeted.
“We didn’t cause the robberies or some of the other issues that happened and we are paying the consequences,” said Allison Moore, visiting Paris from Newfoundland with her daughter. “[In] Canada we don’t discriminate over pricing like that.”
Others argue tourists already shoulder higher costs simply by travelling long distances.
“In general for tourists, I think things should be a little cheaper than for local people, because we have to travel to come all the way here,” said Darla Daniela Quiroz, another Canadian visitor. “It should be equal pricing, or a little bit cheaper.”
Even some Europeans question the two-tiered system. A French tourist interviewed outside the museum said there was “no reason” to charge non-Europeans more and that the fee should be the same for everyone.
Tourism experts say the Louvre’s financial pressures help explain the decision.
“The Louvre is really cash-strapped right now and needs to do something,” said Marion Joppe, a professor at the University of Guelph. “It can’t really look to the government, which is already struggling with its own budget.”
The move also reflects a broader global pushback against mass tourism. Anti-tourism protests have spread across parts of Spain, New Zealand has increased its entry tax, and the United States recently raised national park fees for foreign visitors.
“You take Paris — it gets about 50 million tourists a year,” said Julian Karaguesian, an economist at McGill University. “That’s roughly a million a week. The city simply wasn’t built for those kinds of numbers.”
Despite the higher price, many visitors say they will still line up to see the Mona Lisa and other of the museum’s famous artworks.
“It’s one of the main attractions. It’s on everybody’s list,” Moore said. “We’re still going to go, and hopefully it will be worth it in the end.”
© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
Canada talks trade with Qatar as Carney touches down in Doha – National TenX News
How could Canada, EU, NATO respond to a U.S. takeover of Greenland? – National TenX News
Louvre raises ticket prices for non-Europeans, hitting Canadian visitors TenX News
-
Fashion10 months agoThese ’90s fashion trends are making a comeback in 2017
-
Entertainment10 months agoThe final 6 ‘Game of Thrones’ episodes might feel like a full season
-
TenX Exclusive10 months agoअमर योद्धा: राइफलमैन जसवंत सिंह रावत की वीरगाथा
-
Politics8 months agoBefore being named Pope Leo XIV, he was Cardinal Robert Prevost. Who is he? – National TenX News
-
Politics9 months agoPuerto Rico faces island-wide blackout, sparking anger from officials – National TenX News
-
Fashion10 months agoAccording to Dior Couture, this taboo fashion accessory is back
-
Tech10 months agoIndian-AI-software-which-caught-30-thousand-criminals-and-busted-18-terrorist-modules-its-demand-is-increasing-in-foreign-countries-also – News18 हिंदी
-
Politics9 months agoScientists detect possible signs of life on another planet — but it’s not aliens – National TenX News