COP26 sponsor Unilever is among world’s biggest plastics polluters
Unilever, the world’s third-biggest polluter of plastics, has signed on to sponsor the upcoming United Nations climate conference where leaders hope to set ambitious goals to curb global emissions.
The consumer products brand is behind only the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo. regarding plastics pollution, according to the report published Monday by the environmental group Break Free From Plastic (BFFP). In July, Unilever announced that it would be a principal partner for the United Nations’ upcoming high-level climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland.
“But it’s not up to governments alone to solve the climate crisis,” Unilever CEO Alan Jope said in a statement announcing the sponsorship agreement. “Without decisive action on a global scale, climate change is the biggest long-term risk to Unilever’s business, and I know we are not unique in this.”
“Taking decisive action to help address climate change is not only important for people and the planet, it’s also critical for business,” he added.
Jope said Unilever was committed to achieving net-zero emissions from operations by 2030 and from its products by 2039, according to the announcement. He added that world leaders, in both the public and private sector, must work together to promote ambitious climate policies.
However, the company has risen in the ranks of top plastics polluters, the BFFP report showed. Since the group began tracking the data, Unilever had never been a top three contributor in plastics pollution before 2021.
“For the first time since global brand audits began in 2018, Unilever has risen to become the #3 top polluter during the same year that the company is serving as a Principal Partner for the UN climate change summit COP26 in Glasgow,” BFFP said in its release Tuesday.
“Given that 99 percent of plastic is made from fossil fuels, and that the fossil fuel corporations are actively shifting their focus to plastic as an increasing source of revenue, Unilever’s role in COP26 is particularly insulting,” it continued.
Research from Yale University and Columbia University has documented how mass plastic production contributes to global warming.
The upcoming UN conference, COP 26, is slated to take place between Oct. 31 and Nov. 12. World leaders hope to agree to a fresh round of policies aimed at reducing global emissions and avoiding catastrophic climate change.
Unilever did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the matter.
See more here: bizpacreview.com
Header image: Good News Network
Editor’s note: Climate hysteria and virtue-signalling are rising towards fever pitch ahead of the COP26 lie-fest in Glasgow.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Peter F Gill
| #
It is a reasonable criticism to accuse Unilever hypocrisy and of jumping on the bandwagon, as many many others have done. However, in doing so there are a number of conflations that are in my view a problem for those opposing the naïve view that anthropogenic emissions are the main, if not in some minds, the only cause of climate change. Firstly, yes most plastics are made from fossil fuels. This is because this is the most efficient and optimum economic method. We should not be worried that a little carbon dioxide maybe emitted in the processes concerned. The use of the words “polluter of plastics” is clearly wrong. Plastics that become a problem in the environment because they have not been dealt with appropriately by users and societies in general . Recycling plastics, as such, has rather limited application. Most plastics have been round for less than 100 years and so bacteria have yet in the main not yet got round to using them as a food source, in land fill or in the general environment (maybe one should emphasise the word YET!) Countries that have no proper waste collection infrastructure obviously don’t help the situation. Those who don’t like combustion and pyrolysis are preventing the obvious main method of avoiding plastic waste problems by objecting to both incineration and methods that allow recovery of reusable gases and liquids. It maybe modern practice to blame manufacturers for problems with their products at end of use but it would probably be wiser to develop partnership strategies instead to solve such problems probably with some additional legislation because experience has demonstrated that for environmental problem relying on people “doing the right thing” has never worked,
Reply
ron cirotto
| #
Peter F Gill well said!
What you say is truthful. logical and correct but people in general and the greeny do gooders who worry about the planet and pollution are incapable of understanding your message. Making littering fines starting at a minimum of $1000 and enforcing those laws would be the obvious solution because education in Canada and the USA is not working out so well.
Reply
A Reasonable Man
| #
I think at some point when enough citizens are left cold broke and hungry they will re-examine these net zero policy’s .
Reply