Rishi Sunak announces £5bn windfall tax on energy firms- A guardian newspaper report

 

Rishi Sunak has announced a £15bn package of support for households struggling with the cost of living crisis, part-funded by a £5bn windfall tax on energy companies.

The chancellor set out what he called a “significant set of interventions” to help offset the impact of rocketing inflation.

These will include a £650 one-off payment for families on means-tested benefits, and an extra £200 for all energy bill payers that will not have to be repaid.

The package will be partly funded by what Sunak called a “temporary, targeted energy profits levy” – a windfall tax.

Cost of living payments and a windfall tax – Rishi Sunak’s measures at a glance.

“The oil and gas sector is making extraordinary profits, not as the result of recent changes to risk-taking or innovation or efficiency, but as the result of surging global commodity prices driven in part by Russia’s war,” he said.

He therefore announced what he called a “temporary, targeted energy profits levy” of 25% but with a 90% tax relief for firms that invest in oil and gas extraction in the UK.

Sunak said he was also “urgently evaluating” the scale of excess profits made by electricity generators.

Responding to Sunak’s statement in the House of Commons, the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, said his adoption of a windfall tax showed Labour was “winning the battle of ideas in Britain”.

“Today it feels like the chancellor has finally realised the problems that the country is facing. We first called for a windfall tax on oil and gas producers nearly five months ago to help struggling families and pensioners. Today he has announced that policy but he can’t dare say the words. It’s a policy that dare not speak its name,” she said.

Sunak told MPs: “The high inflation we are experiencing now is causing acute distress for the people of this country.” Annual inflation hit 9% in April, the highest rate for 40 years.

He said the public would understand that ministers could not offset all of the increase in prices. But he said: “This government will never stop trying to help people”, adding: “We will get through this.”

“We will send directly to around 8 million of the lowest-income households a one-off cost of living payment of £650 – support worth over £5m – to give vulnerable people certainty that we are standing by them at this challenging time,” the chancellor said.

He also announced that more than 8 million pensioner households that receive the winter fuel payment would receive an extra £300, while 6 million disabled people would get a one-off payment of £150.

He said one-third of households would receive the targeted support, which is worth £9bn in total.

In addition to the targeted support, all households would receive an extra £200 discount on their fuel bills in October, in addition to the £200 already promised.

But in a U-turn on the rebate scheme announced in February, Sunak said households would now not need to repay this £400 in the coming years. Previously, they had been expected to repay the discount over the coming five years.

Sunak said spending measures to tackle the crisis had to be “timely, temporary and targeted” to avoid stoking inflation.

He set out the plans just two months after giving a spring statement that was criticised across the political spectrum for failing to do enough for the poorest households.

The energy regulator, Ofgem, warned earlier this week that the annual price cap limiting household power bills was likely to rise by a further £800 in October, after the £700 increase in April.

Several cabinet ministers, including the energy secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, had previously expressed opposition to a windfall tax, an idea that has been advocated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

But the Treasury and No 10 have increasingly warmed to the idea as it became clear they would have to take more action to offset the once-in-a-generation increase in household energy bills.

 At last, let us hope that this tax carries on.  It is obscene that these companies are making such huge profits and getting tax concessions when normal people struggle to find the money to pay for everyday costs. 

The blog song for today is: "Telephone line" by ELO

TTFN

Mica in Makeup : An earth911 report

 

Mica in Makeup

ByGemma Alexander

May 9, 2022 ethical, makeup

Whether you want to glitter like a disco drag queen or just want a subtle shimmer to brighten your face, the ingredient that gives your makeup its sparkle is mica. Unfortunately, the mineral that makes you look pretty has a pretty ugly backstory that might make you decide au naturel is a good look. But if the thought of going out bare-faced gives you nightmares, there are some better options for shine.

Safe Makeup

It’s no secret that personal care and beauty products are among the least regulated industries in the U.S. American consumers looking for safer cosmetics turn to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the EWG Skin Deep Database to find nontoxic personal care products. EWG rates mica as an ingredient with a relatively safe score of 2. That’s good news for your health, since mica is present in nearly every type of cosmetic product – not just the ones that promise shimmer. Even products like deodorant and shaving cream frequently employ mica as a thickener.

Impacts of Mica

Mica is a group of 34 naturally occurring silicate minerals with a layered structure that makes it shine. People have been using it to bring sparkle into their lives since the ancient Maya mixed it with stucco. The mica that is used in makeup mostly comes from small mines in India. Although small-scale mining can be a better choice than industrial mining, up to 70% of the mica in India is collected illegally from former industrial mines. These mines officially closed when the forests in which they are located became protected by India’s Forest Conservation Act. Illegal mine operators supplement their income through illegal logging, which clears more area to expand their operations

The layered structure of this Muscovite mica makes it shine, 

but mica mining comes with ethical issues including child labor. 

Image: Adobe Stock

Ethics of Mica

Worse than the environmental impact of mica mining is the direct human cost. Many destitute families scavenge mica fragments with their bare hands from abandoned pit mines where they inhale mica dust and damage their lungs in exchange for 150 rupees (about $2) for 20 kilograms (44 pounds) of mica. A Dutch NGO reports that up to 20,000 children as young as age five or six are working in illegal Indian mica mines. An investigation by the Thompson Reuters Foundation revealed that in three months in 2016, several children were killed while working in illegal mica mines in India. The Dutch study also found evidence of child labor and illegal mining in Madagascar and identified China, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Brazil as suspect based on discrepancies between production and trade figures for mica.

Mica-free Makeup

There are several brands that offer mica-free makeup. Most Rejuva products are mica-free, and Omiana’s website is searchable with a mica-free filter. There is no third-party verification for mica-free products. If you want to avoid mica completely, you will have to read ingredient lists carefully. Mica can be listed as muscovite, fluorophlogopite, or sericite.

Some products use glitter instead of mica. But glitter is made from small pieces of plastic, which behave like microplastics when they enter waterways – which they do. There are some new biodegradable glitters, but they don’t appear to be any less harmful in aquatic ecosystems. Glitter is not a great alternative to mica.

Ethical Mica?

The Responsible Mica Initiative (RMI), an international nonprofit organization based in France, aims to create responsible, traceable mica supply chains. Working in partnership with local stakeholders in India, their programs aim to simultaneously develop supply chain maps and workplace standards; empower communities in mining areas; and establish an enforceable legal framework for continued mining. There are now more than 75 companies participating in RMI, including Burts Bees, L’Oreal, and Sephora.

Synthetic mica may be a better option for cosmetics, 

but the environmental impacts of producing it are unclear. 

Image by AdoreBeautyNZ, Pixabay

Synthetic Mica

There is a synthetic alternative to mined mica, and some companies – most vocally Lush – advocate it as a better material for use in cosmetics. They claim better purity and a particle size that makes for brighter colors. Synthetic mica is created in a lab from magnesium aluminum silicate sheets. There doesn’t seem to be any information on the environmental impacts of producing synthetic mica, but its laboratory origin should at least guarantee that it’s free from child labor.

The Best Choice

The simplest solution would be to avoid makeup altogether. Your personal boycott of mica cosmetics is not going to make a difference. Mica is also used in auto paint, gypsum wallboard, electrical insulators, and dozens of other products. There isn’t a clear winner between RMI and synthetic mica. Whatever you buy, the most effective way to make a difference is by reaching out to cosmetic companies. Let them know you care about the environmental impact of your cosmetics and that you do not want your money supporting child labor.

An interesting report, I dread to think how much money goes into the make up industry! I don't use make up just because I have very sensitive skin and I like the natural look! The other point that it is in a lot of other products too is a valid one, it is like most things on this subject,change has to start somehow and what better way than changing some things slightly?

The blog song for today is: "Champagne supernova" by Oasis

TTFN

 

Día del reciclaje: recicla, pero que no te engañen - Entrada de blog por Greenpeace España - 13-05-2022

 

Día del reciclaje: recicla, pero que no te engañen

Día del reciclaje: recicla, pero que no te engañen.

Entrada de blog por Greenpeace España - 13-05-2022

---

Día del reciclaje: recicla, pero que no te engañen

Este martes es el Día Mundial del Reciclaje y verás a muchas empresas diciéndote lo mucho que reciclan y que tú debes contribuir a ese reciclaje, pero NO verás o verás a muy pocas a empresas decirte qué hacen ellas para cambiar su modelo de negocio para no generar más residuos.

Siento ser portadora de malas noticias, pero el reciclaje no acabará con la contaminación por plásticos, por moda, por tecnología, etc… No acabará con esa contaminación que asola océanos y hasta desiertos, como el de Atacama. Las empresas y los gobiernos nos han hecho creer que la única solución y la más sostenible es comprar algo y depositarlo en un contenedor de reciclaje porque alguien lo gestionará. Los datos nos dicen lo contrario: solo se recicla el 9% de los envases de plástico a nivel mundial; en España, el 25%. Las cifras de reciclaje en textil son muy bajas, no superan el 12% y, además, nos dedicamos a exportarlo a países de África para que contamine allí. El reciclaje ha tocado techo, porque hemos producido demasiado y ahora necesitamos buscar otras opciones, porque este sistema no funciona. 

Las empresas y los gobiernos nos han hecho creer que la única solución y la más sostenible es comprar algo y depositarlo en un contenedor de reciclaje

Y ¿por qué el reciclaje no es la única solución?. En este post ponemos dos ejemplos. 

En el caso de la moda, se produce demasiada ropa, se compra y se tira sin pensar. Cuando reciclamos ropa, creemos que se gestionará, pero muchas veces acaba en montañas de toneladas de basura, que exportamos a terceros países. Muchas de las exportaciones de ropa usada se utilizan también para deshacerse de los restos textiles que no somos capaces de gestionar en Europa. Pensamos que somos afortunadas porque no vemos las toneladas de residuos que la industria nos asegura que se reciclan, pero no es así. Solo en Alemania se recogen cada año más de un millón de toneladas de ropa vieja. Menos de un tercio se revende como artículos de segunda mano. En España, se estima que cada año en torno a 990.000 toneladas de productos textiles van a parar a los vertederos. Sin embargo, las tasas de reciclaje textil siguen siendo bajas: solo entre el 10-12 % de los residuos textiles post-consumo se recoge por separado para su reutilización y/o reciclado, y menos del 1% de la producción total se recicla en ciclo cerrado, es decir, con el mismo uso o similar.

Menos del 1% del textil se recicla en ciclo cerrado, para el mismo uso o similar

 

Una reciente investigación de Greenpeace ha destapado la realidad oculta tras la ropa que se envía desde Europa y China para su reventa en algunos países africanos. Toneladas de ese material textil acaba en vertidos incontrolados. En la foto, Kibera Slum sostiene una zapatilla de Adidas en Nairobi.

¿Y los plásticos? Cada año, los mares y océanos reciben hasta 12 millones de toneladas de basura. La situación mundial es dramática, más aún teniendo en cuenta que la producción de plásticos se acercó en 2020 a los 350 millones de toneladas (un 900% más que en 1980). Los podemos encontrar en la playa, en las rocas, flotando en el agua e incluso en las zonas más profundas. Su uso está asociado a los modos de consumo de usar y tirar, ya que la mayoría de estos plásticos (39,7%) se emplean para envases de un solo uso. Un modelo insostenible del que España, como cuarto mayor productor de la UE, es partícipe. Sin embargo, de todos los envases de plástico que compramos, Ecoembes apenas recupera y recicla en su contenedor amarillo el 25%, pasando el resto a contaminar el medioambiente.

De todos los envases de plástico que compramos, Ecoembes apenas recupera y recicla en su contenedor amarillo el 25%, pasando el resto a contaminar el medioambiente.

Cada vez son más las empresas que se suman a la moda de añadir en sus envases que son reciclables, cuando antes también lo eran o poner en sus tiendas contenedores de reciclaje, pero ofreciendo un bono para que sigas comprando sus productos. Puro greenwashing. 

Dentro de todo esto hay una buena noticia: la Economía Circular es el futuro. Pero la verdadera economía circular, la que se basa en modelos alternativos que no cierran con el reciclaje, sino que nunca llegan a él. Cada persona consumidora puede, y debe, formar parte de esta economía que trata de respetar los límites del planeta, que van mucho más allá de reciclar. Algunos ejemplos:

El lado bueno

Moda: hay marcas de moda slow fashion que recogen vaqueros viejos y los convierten en nuevas prendas o complementos. Hay profesionales que te ayudan a darle una segunda vida útil a las prendas que ya tienes en tu armario, enseñándote a combinarlas de manera distinta. Modelos de negocio dónde las prendas circulan entre usuarias y usuarios para “estrenar” ropa diferente cada mes, pero que ha sido usada por varias personas. O bueno, quizá llevar esos zapatos al zapatero para que queden como nuevos. 

Plásticos: Botellas reutilizables o rellenables, envases de cristal, champú sólido, pasta de dientes en pastillas… la vida sin plásticos está aquí, y hay muchas alternativas. Cuando veo  algunas de ellas en los grandes supermercados siento esperanza, porque están ahí por la demanda de las personas que consumen responsablemente más que por la mayor conciencia o  mejor labor de los grandes centros de consumo.

También hay más buenas noticias, , la nueva ley de residuos, recién aprobada plantea eliminar los microplásticos y microesferas de cosméticos y otros productos de consumo, fomenta que el agua servida en restauración proceda del grifo y no de envases plásticos, erradica utensilios plásticos como pajitas, removedores, cuberterías de usar y tirar, abre por fin la puerta a poder disfrutar de un sistema de devolución y retorno de envases (lo que se conoce como devolver el casco a las tiendas)… También permite que los excedentes de tecnología y textil que no se venden, no sean destruidos y puedan darles salida por otros canales de reutilización o donación. Aunque está lejos de alcanzar el objetivo de Economía Circular que necesitamos, es un paso más en el buen camino. 

Entonces, ¿celebramos este martes el Día del Reciclaje o no? Sí, celebremos que las cosas se pueden hacer de otra forma, que tenemos en nuestra mano ser parte del cambio necesario. Antes de la R de Reciclar, hay muchas y varias opciones, practica la R de Reducir tu consumo de forma consciente, y también la R de Reutilizar, la de Reparar antes de adquirir nuevos productos. Y sólo si ya has hecho todo lo anterior y no puedes alargar la vida útil de ese elemento, solo si has llegado a ese punto, entonces sí, recíclalo.

Descarga o copia esta imagen para tus COMPARTIR en tus redes sociales.

Este muy bueno y informativo! 

El cancion del blog este; "Time" de Pink Floyd

TTFN

 

How we can help the planet by eating less meat- a greenpeace report

Meat and dairy products have been a source of food for millennia. But modern industrial farming practices and the sheer number of animals involved is causing huge environmental damage, squeezing out wild animals and accelerating climate change. 

In the last few decades food companies have filled our shelves with meat, chocolate, cheese and eggs, which has resulted in an explosion of livestock numbers – especially cows, pigs and chickens. There are now so many that an estimated 60% of all mammals on the planet are livestock, while just 4% are wild (the other 36% is us). Farmed poultry account for an incredible 70% of all birds.

This rapid growth in meat and dairy production has been driven by profit-hungry companies and has led to drastic consequences for our planet. All these animals need a lot of food and vast areas of forests, grasslands and wetlands have been destroyed to feed livestock. Giant chunks of the Amazon rainforest and other South American forests and savannas have been replaced with fields of soya, wiping out the wildlife they support.

This is a disaster for the climate. Agriculture and deforestation contribute a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, and animal farming is responsible for 60% of the emissions from agriculture. These emissions come from a variety of sources. Converting forests and other landscapes into fields for animal feed releases greenhouse gases, and removes trees that help suck up and store carbon dioxide in the first place. Artificial fertilisers use a lot of energy to produce and they release another greenhouse gas – nitrous oxide – which traps much more heat than carbon dioxide. And cows produce a lot of methane – it’s no laughing matter that farts from billions of cows are warming our planet. 

Common questions answered

Why is meat bad for the environment?

From climate change to forest fires to human rights abuses, the global industrial meat industry leaves a trail of destruction all over the world. And it’s not just red meat that’s the problem.

How can I eat less meat and dairy?

One of the most useful things everyone can do to take action on climate change *right now* is to eat less meat and dairy. Here are 10 tips to increase the amount of plant-based foods in your diet.

How much meat is ok to eat?

We need to end the system that’s churning out meat at an unsustainable rate – and in turn eat a lot less meat. Lots of people have already started. But if reduction is the key, how much meat is it ok to eat?

If forests are being cut down for soya, are vegan burgers just as bad?

Forests are being slashed and burned to make room for giant soya plantations. But where is all this soya going, and are vegetarian soya burgers really to blame for the destruction?

More tips and stories

Chicken is often seen as a more environmentally friendly choice compared to beef, but global chicken consumption has almost doubled since 1990. Producing chicken at that scale comes with a host of problems – notably vast amounts of animal feed. 

Animal agriculture is a really inefficient way to produce enough food for everyone on the planet. For every 100 calories of crops fed to animals, we get 40 calories in the form of milk, 12 calories of chicken, and just 3 calories of beef.  Instead, that grain could be used to feed people directly and would help ensure everyone has enough food. 

Industrial farming also comes with a host of other serious problems. Converting land for agriculture can disrupt water supplies and lead to soil erosion, while fertilisers escape the fields to pollute rivers and oceans. Animals in factory farms are kept in brutal conditions and bred to maximise meat production at the expense of their own welfare. And eating more meat and dairy is increasingly being linked to a host of health impacts such as obesity, diabetes and various cancers, jeopardising our own health.

There’s still time to stop the damage, but we need to radically change the way we think about food. The best advice comes from writer Michael Pollan: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” As he suggests, we can eat less meat and dairy, not just as individuals but at a global level. To keep global temperature increases below 1.5ºC, we need to reduce the amount of meat and dairy we’re eating by more than half by 2030. That means big companies need to start producing tasty, healthy plant-based meals – and reduce the amount of meat and dairy products too. What meat we do eat has to be produced ecologically, respecting both the environmental impacts and the welfare of the animals themselves.

We also need to hold governments and companies accountable for the damage food production is causing and demand a more responsible approach. In this way, we can stop destroying forests to rear animals and grow crops to feed them. In 2006, Greenpeace pioneered a collective agreement between soya growers, traders and food companies to protect the Amazon from further destruction, which is still in place today. 

A better attitude towards meat and dairy means we’ll be healthier, the animals we farm will be healthier, and our planet will be healthier.

 A very interesting report, as usual from the wonderful people at Greenpeace!  Always on target!

The blog song for today is: "over the hills and far away" by Led Zeppelin

TTFN