Our economies have for too long been built on the relentless extraction, use and wasting of resources, which destroys nature, warms the climate, pollutes ecosystems, feeds inequalities and throws away resources that still have huge value to economies.
So, reducing the resource intensity of key economic sectors and adopting circular models is central to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. To hitting the targets set by global agreements on climate, biodiversity, chemicals and pollution. To delivering equity, justice and a healthy planet for all.
Please allow me to highlight some trends, drawing on the Global Resources Outlook, which was released during the sixth United Nations Environment Assembly – a gathering that also called on nations to develop resource efficiency and circular economy strategies.
Resource use has risen by more than three times over 50 years. It grows by an average 2.3 per cent each year. The impacts put the goals of the Paris Agreement and Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework out of reach. There is also an equality issue. High-income countries use six times more materials per capita than low-income countries.
But we can reduce resource use while growing the economy, reducing inequality, improving well-being and reducing environmental impacts.
We have compelling evidence of the positive impact of resource efficiency and circularity. True circularity is not just recycling. Yes, true circularity ensures that what goes out comes back in. But it also ensures that less goes in through refuse and reduce. And that what goes in has value that is retained in the economy for as long as possible. To achieve this, we need to take a life cycle approach to transformations.
So, let’s look at some key areas in which G7 nations can take concrete action.
One, plastics.
As mentioned this morning, UNEA two years ago green-lit negotiations for an internationally legally binding instrument on plastic pollution that covers the full lifecycle of plastics. The fourth round of these negotiations are wrapping up in Ottawa today.
The goal is to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. To achieve this, we must eliminate unnecessary single use and short-lived plastic, roll out refill and reuse models and produce less problematic plastic. Design for circularity, invest in solid waste management and recycling – so that we can use, reuse and recycle resources more efficiently. All while ensuring a just transition and space for the private sector to thrive in new sustainable markets. And, of course, we will need to address chemicals of concern.
As I said earlier, we will only achieve this with an ambitious global deal. This is where the G7 can lead the way. While INC-4 may end today, the work does not stop. We ask for your active political engagement in the process, including constructive engagement at the intersessional work that will follow the Ottawa talks. Likewise, a political lift will be required to strike a meaningful deal at the final round of talks in South Korea. Our request is that the G7 sends ministerial delegations to Busan and encourages other countries to do the same.
If we get this multilateral agreement right, we will bring huge benefits to human and ecosystem health. We will deliver justice, through new jobs and protect communities such as waste-pickers. Businesses are calling for global rules and our economies will also benefit. Some 95 per cent of the material value in plastic packaging is lost to the global economy after one use.
Two, buildings and construction.
There is no credible path to addressing climate change and nature loss without a shift in the building and construction sector. Half of the buildings that will exist by 2050 have not been built, mainly in the Global South. So, we have an opportunity to reimagine buildings to prioritise resilience, renovation and reuse, renewable energy, and low-carbon construction, all while addressing social inequalities.
At the Global Buildings and Climate forum in March in Paris, we heard solutions to the challenge of doubling energy efficiency. This includes developing building energy codes aligned with Zero-Emissions Building, increasing the rate and impact of retrofitting existing buildings, use of energy efficient appliances and promoting open standards.
Three, textiles and fashion.
Fast and cheap fashion has taken over the world. As many people struggle with the cost-of-living crisis, this is understandable. But the models still don’t make sense. Less than one per cent of material used to produce clothing is recycled. Over 3.3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases are emitted across the value chain per year, more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined.
Switching to circular business models – including resale, rental, repair and refurbishment – would benefit the environment and contribute up to US$700 billion to the economy
Four, minerals and metals.
The same approach applies to the minerals and metals we need for the energy transition. Products need to be designed for repair, remanufacturing, recovery and recycling to keep minerals and metals in the economy instead of gouging them from the Earth and throwing them away.
This will also reduce pressure on people and communities who live and work under poor conditions. Protect the rights and land of Indigenous Peoples. And ensure that these minerals can be used and reused far into the future.
Friends,
The Global Resources Outlook outlines a package of measures that can deliver these shifts.
Institutionalizing resource governance and defining resource use paths. Improving the ability of countries to benchmark and set targets. Redirecting finance by reflecting the true costs of resources in the economy. Ensuring consumers can recognize and afford sustainable goods and services. Creating a level-playing field in which the environmental and social costs of goods are reflected in prices.
If the world follows these shifts, growth in material use could fall by 30 per cent. Greenhouse gas emissions could fall by over 80 per cent. We would help to achieve the goals of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework by reducing pressure on nature. We would enable sustainable land management, with benefits ranging from increased food security to climate resilience. We could have a global GDP three per cent larger than predicted. And we would have a fairer world with a more equitable distribution of wealth.
And that is a world well worth pursuing.
