The world is ditching plastics with reuse and refill laws and practices- a report from Greenpeace Canada

 

Here is a report I found by Greenpeace Canada

Sarah King, Caroline Wagner

13 January, 2022

Many people around the world just rang in the new year. There are often mixed emotions when saying goodbye to a year and welcoming a new one, and this is likely amplified in the current public health and environmental climate. There is no shortage of pressing issues that global governments must act on; losing steam is not an option. But the start of a new year can spark hope for a fresh start at getting things right. When it comes to tackling a preventable global challenge we face — plastic pollution — 2022 is the year for global governments to ramp up, refocus and redirect their efforts to phase out non-essential plastics and accelerate the shift we desperately need towards the types of systems that would foster a greener, just and healthier future for all. 

Luckily, thanks to pressure from millions of people around the world, governments are finally beginning to acknowledge that the only way to tackle the plastic pollution crisis is through shifting towards a system based on reuse.  Slowly we have seen reuse and refill business models advance around the world, but it’s time for us to act faster in order to scale these models industry- and community-wide, especially through policy and legislation. 

Globally, we have the opportunity to negotiate a binding Global Plastics Treaty and this is what we need in order for governments and big businesses to act with immediacy to drastically reduce their plastic footprint and move to reuse & refill. The good news is that recently, we’ve witnessed some important policy changes & amendments on reuse globally that are worth highlighting. 

Setting Standards 

Last November, Austria was the first European country to implement binding and enforceable reuse targets in their Waste Management Act by mandating a beverage reuse quota of 25% by 2025. This law mandates that specific beverage categories provide a minimum reusable packaging quota ranging from 10% to 15%. This means supermarkets are obligated to provide at least 15% of beer and water in reusable packaging, and a 10% reuse packaging quota for non-alcoholic beverages, juices and milk. 

Greenpeace Austria staged a protest with 100.000 plastic bottles — compressed into bales forming a mountain — at the iconic landmark St. Stephan’s cathedral square in the city centre of Vienna, to raise awareness on the harmful environmental impacts of single-use bottles in February 2021. © Mitja Kobal / Greenpeace

Up until 25 years ago, Austria had a reusable beverage rate of around 80%, and with the convenient switch to single-use plastic bottles, Austria nowadays has a meager reuse rate of 19%.

Reuse on the rise

France already has a reuse packaging target law which requires 10% of packaging placed on the market to be reusable by 2027 and has recently introduced a 3R (Reduction, Reuse & Recycling) decree. The latter sets reduction and reuse targets until 2025, highlighting that 50% of the 20% reduction in single-use plastic packaging should be obtained through reuse. It is also worth noting that France allocated an impressive €40 million towards reuse investments for 2021 – 2022 as part of their circular economy fund. Its close neighbour, Portugal, has amended its law that states that by 2030, 30% of all packaging put on the market, of any material, must be reusable. Similarly, Romania has included a 5% annual reusable packaging increase till 2025 (reaching a minimum of 25% by 2025) in their ordinance policy. And still underway, Spain has drafted a national decree, that would make significant leaps forward by outlining several reuse propositions; one of them being beverage reuse quotas in the hospitality sector (HORECA) for water, beer, juices and soft drinks, as well as a general beverage packaging reuse target for domestic consumption at home. Notably, the Spanish regions Navarra and the Balearic Islands have had progressive beverage reuse packaging laws since 2018.

Greenpeace activists stage a plastic spill at bottling plant in Austria asking Coca-Cola to switch to reusable bottles instead of single-use. Banner says “Stop the plastic flood” © Mitja Kobal / Greenpeace

Global South leading the way

The Global South is no stranger to reuse models, and uptake of such systems can be hastened with policies incentivizing their adoption while mandating a reduction of plastic production and use. It’s vital, however, that reuse systems are designed with the local context, affordability and accessibility for low-income communities in mind.

Chile is the most advanced country in the Americas, which introduced a plastic regulation bill in August 2021.  It promotes and encourages the sale of reusable beverage containers; suppliers must offer reusable bottles and must take-back the returnable bottles. Moreover, after 3 years of enactment of said law, at least 30% of bottles for sale in supermarkets must be returnable for reuse.

In India, the government has announced that plates, cups, cutlery (and further unnecessary single-use plastic items) will be prohibited starting 1 June 2022. While this ban is indeed necessary, nevertheless, we must not forget that many countries in the Global South still have traditional reuse based systems that are not reliant on single-use plastics in the first place such as the Dabbawala system in India. Incorporating these reuse based systems through policies is far from legislatively visible. Apart from policies, countries such as Indonesia have numerous game-changing reuse ventures that are redefining refill convenience through digital apps such as KoinPack, Qyos by Algramo and other initiatives. 

Plastic waste among other litter. For World Clean-up Day, Greenpeace coordinates a clean-up activity and plastic polluter brand audit in Don Valley, Toronto. The audit seeks to identify the major corporate contributors to plastic waste polluting shorelines, green spaces and communities. © Stan Williams / Greenpeace

What about Canada?

Unfortunately, reuse has been largely omitted from Canada’s zero plastic waste by 2030 action plan. While the federal government recently released regulations outlining the ban on six single-use plastic items, a lack of reuse targets or replacement requirements means that single-use plastics will mostly likely just be swapped out for other throwaway alternatives and the broken disposal-centric product and service delivery systems we all rely on in our daily lives get further entrenched. Canada needs to get serious about investing in reuse infrastructure and a swift and just transition to truly zero waste, community-centred reuse and refill based systems. Instead of subsidizing plastic production and false waste and pollution solutions, 2022 must focus on incentivizing and supporting reuse and reduction initiatives. It can start by ensuring the $100 million innovation fund for reuse and recycling goes to helping to support burgeoning reuse and refill initiatives and scaling reuse infrastructure, models and systems.

What next? 

While these are all steps in the right direction, the clock is ticking and we must encourage more governments to prioritize reuse and refill alongside plastic reduction in their policies on a global scale. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation recently released their yearly progress report, a report that monitors the plastic reduction commitments the consumer goods sector makes, in which the foundation states that “there is a concerning lack of ambition and action on reuse.” 

There are numerous environmental and economic benefits of scaling up reuse, which have the potential of contributing to circular economy objectives as outlined by the Realising Reuse report released earlier this year. In fact, scaling up reuse in the food & beverage sector by 50% by 2030 has the opportunity to use 27.1 million tonnes less resources.

Dispensers of dried food products at a refill station that offers customers a range of unpackaged products with the aim of saving thousands of tonnes of unnecessary plastic. © Isabelle Rose Povey / Greenpeace

In order to tackle the plastic and the climate crisis, we need governments to come together and implement binding policies to develop reuse-based systems. In reality, we have an immense opportunity to move to a Reuse Revolution through a binding Global Plastics Treaty that sets out a framework for countries to reduce their plastic production and consumption, and move towards a plastic-free-future. And these legislations need to include strong reuse and refill all together.

We call on governments around the world and big brands to make a commitment towards a global plastics treaty, to reduce the amount of plastic packaging produced and to invest into refill and reuse to save our planet.  

Sarah King is the head of Greenpeace Canada’s Oceans & Plastics Campaign. Caroline Wagner is Global Plastic Campaigner.

It is good to read that here in the Balearic Islands we are viewed as being making progress, however in reality the amount of plastic waste I see in the summer is absolutely amazing,the most unfortunate thing is that most of it is not being recycled, for some reason people think that recycling goes on holiday with them too.  I cannot blame the tourists entirely because a majority of the hotels do not provide the facility to recycle, however if a person recycles at home then you would think that they would at least investigate?

The blog song for today is: "It's a mystery" by Toyah Wilcox

TTFN

France Bans Plastic Packaging for Most Fruits & Veggies by Sarah Lozanova from Earth911

 

France Bans Plastic Packaging for Most Fruits & Veggies

BySarah Lozanova

Feb 10, 2022 plastic packaging

In an effort to curb plastic pollution, the French government is rolling out a ban on plastic packaging for some produce. The ban took effect on January 1, 2022, for 30 fruits and vegetables. However, vendors can use disposable plastic packaging for another six months to use up existing supplies.

Other types of plastic packaging are also banned, including plastic sleeves for newspapers and advertising. In addition, tea sachets must be biodegradable, plastic produce stickers must be compostable, fast food restaurants cannot offer free plastic toys with menu items, and locales open to the public must have drinking fountains to curb the use of plastic water bottles.

Similarly, Spain is introducing a plastic packaging ban for produce, starting in 2023. Officials are encouraging shoppers to bring their own containers.

French President Emmanuel Macron has referred to the plastic produce packaging ban as “a real revolution.” He sees it as an opportunity for France to lead the way in reducing plastic waste. Although these bans will not have a direct impact on the U.S., they could help set the stage for future legislation.

What produce is included in the plastic packaging ban?

The new French law applies to oranges, pears, apples, clementines, pineapple, mango, passionfruit, plums, kiwis, carrots, bananas, cucumbers, and round tomatoes. However, it doesn’t apply to some of the most fragile types of produce, including mushrooms, aromatic herbs, asparagus, spinach, lettuce, and many types of berries. These items are exempt until January 2025. Also, packs over 3.3 pounds (1.5 kilograms) are exempt.

What is the purpose of phasing out plastics in packaging?

According to the French government, this ban will prevent about 1 million pieces of plastic waste annually. In France, 45% of plastic use is for packaging. Consumers commonly discard packaging quickly; it provides only fleeting value – if any – to consumers. Numerous environmental issues plague plastic, such as its limited recyclability and toxicity as well as the use of fossil fuels in production.

This legislation aims to reduce waste at the source and encourage a circular economy. Ideally, such bans will promote innovation and new low-waste ways to package produce. When considering the waste management hierarchy, prevention and reduction are the most effective. Therefore, the most effective solutions will involve preventing waste before it occurs.

While shoppers understand the need to reduce plastic, some 

worry that eliminating the plastic packaging will result in food 

spoiling more quickly. Photo: monticellllo – stock.adobe.com

Are citizens responding positively to the plastic ban?

According to French journalist Anne-Elisabeth Moutet, the public response to the new ban has been mixed, partially due to the pandemic. “It’s a bit schizophrenic because, on the one hand, the French are very much aware of the need to reduce plastic use. There is broad support for not using so much plastic. At the same time, once you buy vegetables yourself, you realize that nothing has been done to find new ways of wrapping that stop the produce from decomposing too fast,” she said.

This is concerning because less plastic packaging waste does not necessarily help the environment if the end result is more food waste. However, government policies can also inspire finding new solutions and changes in consumer behavior, such as bringing reusable produce bags.

“The other thing is that this comes right in the time of COVID,” continues Moutet. “And quite frankly, people were just happy not to have others pawing their vegetables, trying them and smelling them and buying or not buying them. People do not know how exactly to take it. There are pluses and minuses on this.”

How will the plastic packaging ban impact shoppers?

While plastic packaging comes at a steep environmental and social cost, some shoppers find it convenient — particularly for ready-to-eat produce. One of the likely plastic alternatives is cardboard packaging, which breaks down in the environment far more quickly than plastic and is easier to recycle. But what does this mean for consumers who buy prepared produce, such as washed salad greens?

Some packaging manufacturers criticize that the ban includes recycled plastic. Allowing the use of 100% recycled plastic packaging could provide a more eco-friendly option for businesses that sell ready-to-eat produce such as washed greens and sliced watermelon.

Such a loophole could appease the business owners in Spain who express concern that the ban will impact the healthy eating habits of consumers. “We need to consider both the purchasing and eating habits of Spaniards and the benefits for food waste of long-lasting packed products,” Aurelio del Pino, president of the Spanish Association of Supermarkets (ACES), told Euronews.

On the other hand, a strong stance against single-use plastic is likely the best way to get traction on eliminating the hard-to-recycle plastic packaging plaguing the planet. “We need to reduce, as much as we can, the use of disposable plastics, and opt firmly for reusable packaging,” says Julio Barea, the Head of the Spanish Greenpeace Waste campaign.

Barea questions the validity of the “selling point of convenience” offered by packaged food for immediate consumption. “This is what creates the problem. And they are going to try to sell us more and more products in these types of containers,” Barea says. “That’s why we need an ambitious law that will prevent any twists and turns from manufacturers to continue selling disposable containers.”

We cannot expect the supermarkets to do everything and ourselves nothing, it is a joint effort at the end of the day.

Here in the shops and supermarkets I see more and more people using the mesh reusable bags which is great, but there are still plastic bags (even though they are compostable- which doesn't really mean that much because if they are not desposed of properly they still take a long time to decompose)to weigh all the fruit and vegetables in.  The supermarkets here have reduced the amount of plastic packaged fruit and vegetables but nowhere near enough.

The consumers need to stop picking up these items and buy loose. It will never stop otherwise.  We cannot blame the supermarkets for selling them if we keep buying them.  The pre-packed trays of meat are just as bad.  For one thing, how long have they been packed for? Have they been re-packed and re-labelled? When I do buy meat ( I have cut down a lot)I like going to our local butchers and buying from them. It is 100% from Menorca.

The blog song for today is: " Every day I write the book" by Elvis Costello.

TTFN

Climate change: Seven ways to spot businesses greenwashing By Beth Timmins Business reporter, BBC News

 

    

How do you spot greenwashing?

Most of us are trying to be greener and for some that means seeking out brands and companies that are environmentally-friendly. But how can you check firms really are as green as they make out?

Greenwashing - branding something as eco-friendly, green or sustainable when this is not the case - misleads consumers into thinking they are helping the planet by choosing those products.

And businesses are being held to account on this in the way they advertise. But what do customers need to look out for to spot greenwashing? 

1. False claims or vague language

 

Image source, Ryanair

Image caption,

A Ryanair ad claiming it was the airline with Europe's lowest emissions was banned

The Advertising Standards Authority says this is the area it receives the most complaints about. And some firms have already had adverts banned.

In 2019, the advertising regulator banned a Ryanair ad claiming it was the airline with Europe's lowest emissions without sufficient evidence to support the claim. And a Hyundai advert, claiming a car "cleaned the air", was also judged by the ASA to be misleading.

Ingredients in a product being described as "natural", "organic" or "eco-friendly", when only some of the ingredients can be described as this, can also fall into this category.

Sue Davies, head of Consumer Protection Policy at Which? says, in general, customers should try to find a secondary, authoritative source of information to back up manufacturers' claims.

"Think about the bigger picture. For example, can environmental claims made on a single-use plastic water bottle be taken seriously?"

2. Images of nature or 'green' buzzwords

 

Image source, Getty Images

Image caption,

Buzzwords like "eco" and "natural" are often not backed by scientific evidence

Phrases such as "eco", "sustainable" and "green" are commonly used by companies to make the business appear environmentally conscious - but they rarely pertain to any scientific standards.

A website for HDS Group's Amazing Cleaners, seen in July 2016, featured the claim "100% eco-friendly". A complaint was upheld after it was found the statement was made without any evidence or explanation.

And an advert for Alpro Almond milk was also banned for a misleading environmental claim. The ad said the milk was "good for the planet", branding it: "Your recipe to a healthier planet." Alpro said customers would understand the ad's slogan referred to plant-based products having a lower environmental impact.

But while the ASA said it understood the almonds used by Alpro were not sourced from areas where production could have a negative environmental impact, such claims must be clearer.

In another example, Edward Bulmer Limited claimed in 2018 that its paint was "the most eco-friendly paint on the market". However, the Advertising Standards Authority held in 2019 that Edward Bulmer Limited (the company that then produced and sold Edward Bulmer Paint) "had not supplied evidence of certification for their paints, nor had they supplied evidence which showed their paints scored more favourably in terms of their impact on the environment than other paints on the market."

3. Hiding information

Fashion brands may promote clothes made of "sustainable" fabrics, even if the rest of their clothing line is damaging to the environment.

For example, a firm could claim to be environmentally-friendly, but not take into account supply-chain emissions from a coal-powered overseas factory used to make part of a product.

Other industries have fallen foul of this. As far back as 2007, the ASA ruled against Shell for an ad implying it used waste carbon dioxide to grow plants, when the regulator actually found the quantity used was only a small fraction of its emissions. 

4. Look out for carbon offsetting

A government, business or individual can attempt to balance their own emissions by finding other ways to remove an equivalent amount of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The process is called carbon offsetting.

But environmental groups argue this is kicking the problem into the long grass rather than dealing with the issue of actually cutting emissions.

David Barmes, senior economist at the campaign group Positive Money, says offsetting is the most popular form of greenwashing.

"It's riddled with fraud and allows firms to claim they're meeting emissions targets while they continuously pump emissions into the air." He adds: "The whole point of offsets is to allow these corporations to keep emitting with impunity and allow governments to claim they are meeting targets."

5. Check company ownership

Larger firms, or conglomerations, with a high environmental impact have often bought smaller brands to target environmentally conscious customers who otherwise might not have chosen to spend with them. So knowing what, or who, the ultimate owner of a firm is could be important if you want to find out their entire environmental impact.

Accountability and authenticity, Prof Eccles says, are serious problems. An entire businesses' carbon emissions, he says, should be like calorie labels on a product, where "everyone pays attention to them, they are certified independently and they influence consumer decisions".

Professor Kimberly Nicholas, senior lecturer in sustainability at Lund University, in Sweden, told the BBC that the most effective action is for companies to commit to eliminating fossil fuels from each part of their supply chains: "Customers need to direct their money away from all firms that are producing or connected to financing fossil fuels." She said: "Without this action is useless."

6. Eco-friendly products in a wider range

Some firms will market environmentally beneficial products, but will omit information about the impact of their other products.

Food company Quorn had an ad banned which involved the way carbon was certified for one of their products. ASA said the advert did not clarify what the claimed reduction of the carbon footprint was being measured against, and viewers would therefore not know what the basis of the reduction was.

Ms Davies, from Which?, says a lack of transparency is a key indicator that the company doesn't have a wholly positive environmental impact. "If you're struggling to find environmental information about a product, brand or service, take that as a warning sign."

"Companies that have something to hide - or no good stories to tell - often make it harder for consumers to check out their eco credentials," she adds. 

Food company Gousto was found to have made false claims that its packaging was "100% plastic free and recyclable" last year

7. Is the product and its packaging recyclable?

The "recyclable" label on some plastic items can be used for products that are not easy to recycle.

In 2018, McDonald's announced it was going to get rid of single-use plastic straws in its restaurants, and offer paper straws instead. But the following year, it was accused of greenwashing when it was revealed the straws weren't actually recyclable.

In 2019, the ASA said Ancol Pet Products was misleading customers by advertising dog waste bags as biodegradable after it was found that they would not biodegrade in their most likely destination of landfill or incineration. 

Just when you think that we are steaming ahead, we realise that it is actually like riding a bike with one wheel, painfully slow, but we can make changes.

At the end of the day, it still means that everybody has to do their bit, we cannot rely on the governments to keep to the promises made at COP26. We as consumers have a lot of power!

The blog song for today is: "Time" by Pink Floyd

TTFN

 

 

                                            

Google, YouTube ban ads on climate misinformation - A BBC climate report

 

Google, YouTube ban ads on climate misinformation

 

Google says it will stop ads running on climate change-denying YouTube videos and other content, and prohibit ads promoting these claims.

The company says it is responding to concerns from advertisers.

The ban will cover ads for - and the monetization of - content that contradicts the "scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change".

It will be enforced by "automated tools and human review".

The policy will apply to content "referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change".

Misinformation money

The changes mean YouTube creators will be stopped from earning advertising revenue from content which denies climate change.

A 2020 report by Avaaz - a US not-for-profit organisation which promotes activism on issues such as climate change - accused YouTube of "incentivizing this climate misinformation content via its monetization program".

Fadi Quran, who runs Avaaz's disinformation project, told the BBC it "could turn the tide on the climate denial economy".

This move from Google marks a first step in trying to disincentivize those looking to profit from denying and downplaying the very real threat of climate change, on social media.

Creating emotive content that's wrong about climate change attracts views, likes, and therefore money through advertising. This new policy aims to put an end to that last part - on Google platforms at least.

But critics are calling for social media sites to tackle climate change disinformation in the same way - and with the same seriousness - as falsehoods about the pandemic.

That would include introducing labels for false information - and demoting videos and content which mislead about climate change from the sites' algorithms - so that they aren't suggested to users.

The human cost of anti-vaccine and coronavirus conspiracies appears to be in part what eventually inspired the social media sites to act.

The human cost of climate change has become clear over recent months - and the question remains: will social media sites act decisively and quickly enough to combat harmful lies that could hinder efforts to save the planet?

Greenpeace's Silvia Pastorelli welcomed the announcement, but told the BBC it was "nowhere near enough to stop the overwhelming amount of climate disinformation, greenwashing and outright climate denial on big tech's platforms".

Stopping the monetization of content does not remove it or reduce its prominence. But Google says it does both, and strives to provide authoritative information, even when people search for climate-related conspiracies.

The announcement by Google's advertising team follows a blog post  by Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai, in which he announced a range of measures to help tackle climate change including:

• In the US, Google Maps will display the most fuel-efficient route if it isn't already the fastest one.
• Adding carbon emissions information to Google Flights, including emissions per seat.
• A new feature for Nest thermostats, helping users maximise clean energy use.
  

So,on paper it looks like these companies are doing more but will it be enough, or is it just to look good.  We will have to wait and see.

The blog song for today is:"That's all" by Genesis

TTFN