As scrutiny by scientists and consumers grows on chemicals polluting our soil, water and air, experts are asking: why shouldn’t manufacturers bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to health and the environment?
An international group of environmentalists and lawyers is pushing for a tax on manufacturers to finance the safer management and disposal of chemicals across borders.
The Center for International Environmental Law and the International Pollutants Elimination Network submitted the proposal last month to an international forum under the umbrella of the UN Environment Programme.
More than 100 governments, civil society groups and inter-governmental organizations have committed to achieving the goal of better chemical safety by 2020 under the Strategic Approach to International Management initiative, adopted almost two decades ago.
Experts from the environmental groups have proposed a 0.5% tax, or “polluter-pays fee,” on more than 30 basic chemicals which would generate about $11.5 billion annually. That’s 85 times the sum currently estimated to finance waste management and cleanup globally, according to their report.
In the Nov. 9 online briefing, IPEN senior adviser Joe DiGangi told participants that the idea behind the proposal is a lesson “we have all learned as children, which is that we should clean up our own mess.”
“The industry should pay for the true cost of its products,” which includes pollution as well as health costs associated with chemicals that are known to disrupt normal hormone production in humans, DiGangi said.
In 2018, global sales of basic chemicals ー considered the building blocks of products such as plastics, fertilizers or pesticides ー totaled $2.3 trillion, according to estimates by the American Chemistry Council.
In comparison, in 2017, the industry reported spending $14 billion for what it calls “environmental, health and safety,” which includes hazardous waste cleanup and pollution abatement.
That is not enough to pay for the monitoring, control and disposal of the chemicals, which also requires infrastructure and personnel, the environmentalists said.
The American Chemistry Council didn’t respond to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists’ request for comment. The International Council of Chemical Associations said it does not support mandatory industry contributions, Chemical Watch reported.
The European Chemical Industry Council didn’t comment on the specifics of the proposal but a spokeswoman said the European industry supports “global voluntary initiatives promoting the sound management of chemicals” and takes “exposure to hazardous substances” seriously.
According to the World Health Organization’s most recent estimates, 1.6 million people died in 2016 due to exposures to a number of chemicals. Still, it’s difficult to assess the real scale of the problem because many chemicals produced by companies are not known, the WHO report said.
Just last month, officials in New Jersey, U.S., sued chemical giant Solvay alleging the Belgian company had released toxic compounds into water, soil, and air near its facility for years, and prevented the state from publishing data on the health effects associated with its chemicals. The state has already paid $3 million for cleanup, the state said in a 2019 directive.
A Solvay spokesperson said in an email to ICIJ that the allegations are “inaccurate, overly broad, and meritless,” and that the company is “committed” to investigating and remediating impacts caused by synthetic chemicals known as PFAS which are “scientifically attributable” to its New Jersey facility. The case is pending.
Claiming the protection of trade secrets, chemical manufacturers often use potentially polluting compounds for years before scientists and regulators learn of the dangers and are able to intervene.
Last year, a report by a German environmental charity found that major cosmetics, medicine and plastic producers, including top selling companies like BASF and INEOS, were breaking European laws by using millions of tons of chemicals without completing important safety checks. The industry’s trade organization responded to the findings saying companies are already working on the issues highlighted in the report.
Source International Consortium of Investigative Journalist (ICIJ)