End Plastic Pollution Plastic-free living for the whole family

Here is a little bit of information from Earthday.org!  I have found it very informative and helpful. The person who wrote the article is based in the United States, but the contents can be applied to anywhere in the world.  I have taken bits out of it and applied it to here in Menorca.

"Making the change to plastic-free living can be difficult as an individual, and can be even more difficult when living at home with others. Routines and habits are often passed down from older family members to younger ones, which can perpetuate certain lifestyle habits that are plastic heavy or unsustainable.

Engaging family members or roommates is an important step toward building plastic-free habits.

While changing your shower and sink routines is a highly personal action that is dependent on each individual person, household-wide changes including food shopping, household cleaning and food storage can encourage a group to participate together.

The key to saving our oceans and local marine ecosystems is to reconfigure our personal waste habits and limit our plastic use.

Need an extra push to get started going plastic free? I’ll show you just how I did it by starting small and thinking big.

After transitioning to a plastic-free shower, I moved onto making my sink-based routines plastic free. Looking at the overwhelming amount of plastic on my sink worktop, I realised that I needed to do something about it. Many of the products that we use for hygiene purposes — toothbrushes, toothpaste, soap, deodorant, hand sanitiser — are packaged in single-use plastic containers.

Oftentimes, people don’t recycle or don’t do so correctly because it’s confusing to understand what can or can’t be recycled and how. For example, some containers for deodorants must be disassembled and toothpaste tubes mailed back to manufacturers in order to be properly recycled instead of trashed. An easier solution is purchasing products that are entirely recyclable, compostable and plastic free.

I purchased glass bottles that can be reused for hand soap by using water-activated tablets, natural (paraben, sulfate and aluminum free) deodorant sold in recyclable push tubes and hand sanitiser sold in aluminum cans with reusable pumps. I even discovered a plastic-free toothpaste alternative by using toothpaste tablets that I bite down on and active with water along with my compostable toothbrush. 

Overall, I’m now spending about $276 per year on my sink products versus the $288 per year I spent when they were plastics based. The prices are quite comparable, meaning you don’t have to spend more money to have a plastic-free sink. All it takes to get started is some research and a little bit of trial and error to make an impact.

Up-and-coming companies understand that the plastic-free movement isn’t going away anytime soon, and that to stay in the game they have to adapt their products for climate literate and eco-conscious citizens. You can make a pledge the to switch out one product at a time to a plastic-free substitute. Over time, the benefits will add up and we can begin reducing the amount of plastics we encounter on a daily basis.

Modifying food purchasing habits can go a long way in reducing plastic. Most products we come across in the grocery store rely on plastic in some way — whether that be for transport or packaging. By bringing our own grocery and produce bags, my family has reduced the amount of plastic we use each week.

While we had made plastic-free switches for shopping, we noticed how much food we were still wasting at home. So, we began composting to grow closer to becoming entirely waste free. Composting can reduce the amount of food waste that your household contributes to landfills on a daily basis and create nutrient-dense compost that can be used for gardening. 

Other plastic-free group activities include cleaning and storage of shared groceries. A number of companies have created plastic-free alternatives to cleaning products, including window cleaner, dishwasher tablets and washing machine tablets. All of these products have reduced my family’s plastic footprint.

Another household change that we decided to make was using plastic-free produce containers for leftover food. By using a mixture of glass containers and reusable produce bags, we have reduced the need for single-use plastic ziploc bags and takeout containers.

It’s important to remember that while living sustainably and plastic free is beneficial to the planet, previously purchased products should still be used instead of thrown away. As we had found new products, we decided to donate the previous products to a women’s shelter. Sustainability isn’t yet accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities and individuals living in poverty, so we made sure that our products would still be put to use by those in need.

For more tips and tricks on how to reduce your overall plastic consumption sign up for EARTHDAY.ORG’s End Plastic Pollution campaign. Become a member to support our work against plastic and to join a growing community of environmental advocates working to protect the planet we all rely on"

 Some of the actions are so easy to do and are so small that we should be able to do at least one of them, which is a start!

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

TTFN

---

I have discovered a great company that does not use plastic in any way!

 Great news, I have discovered a company that doesn´t use plastic!  It was quite by accident but a gain none the less!  I ordered some Soap Nuts from this company and when they arrived I was very pleasantly surprised to find that no plastic had been used at all !

I have yet to buy other items from them, I will keep you posted on that!

This gave me a great boost!  I have heard about companies who are moving away from plastic packaging but have only encountered a few genuine ones!

I had to find another company that sells those wonderful soap nuts! and purely by luck I found this one!

As you may have read before I am a big fan of soap nuts and all the various uses of them!  All natural!

The blog song for today is: " a little bit of soap" by Showaddywaddy.

TTFN

Forever chemicals’ widespread in disposable food packaging from popular fast-food chains across Europe, new study shows

 

Study in Europe Find "Forever Chemicals" Are Widespread in Disposable Packaging

19 May 2021

Prague/Brussels/London A recent study by Arnika found PFAS in a huge percentage of food packaging materials and tableware in popular fast-food chains across Europe. In cooperation with six other NGOs including IPEN, the study found that 76% of the samples tested were intentionally treated with PFAS, which is a class of chemicals frequently used for their oil- and grease-repellent properties. Additionally, traces of PFAS were detected in all samples, which should not be surprising given how they do not break down easily and migrate into water and the enviroment, earning them their "forever chemicals" moniker. All of the materials tested were items intended for a single use, including items for which sustainable alternatives exist.

“It is high time for the European Union to act and immediately and permanently ban the entire class of PFAS in food packaging, to protect the consumers in the first place. It is clearly not essential to use highly toxic and persistent chemicals, posing such a serious health and environmental risk, in throw-away food packaging, especially when there are safer alternatives,” says Jitka Strakova, the main author of the study and Arnika/International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) science advisor.

Read the press release

Unnecessary uses, double standards, and safer alternatives

Where regulation has been put in place, it has effectively incentivized companies to move away from using PFAS compounds. In Denmark, the use of forever chemicals in paper and board food packaging has been banned since July 2020. The study found that none of the sampled McDonald’s french fries bags bought in Denmark exhibited PFAS treatment. However, intentional PFAS treatment was found for the same items bought in the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom. This shows that legislation can and does protect people from exposure to harmful chemicals. It also highlights that the lack of EU-wide harmonized regulations for food contact materials results in different levels of protection across countries.

“When Europe's stated objective is zero pollution for a non-toxic environment, we cannot accept that food packaging disposed of within a matter of minutes is treated with chemicals that persist and accumulate in the environment and are increasingly being associated with severe health impacts. The large European PFAS restriction under development is a once-in-a-century opportunity to address such uses and work towards phasing out the production and uses of PFAS, wherever they are unnecessary and it is possible,” says Natacha Cingotti, Health and Chemicals Lead at the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL).

“PFAS pollution is so ubiquitous that we found PFAS even in products which have not been intentionally treated with these chemicals. The same PFAS contaminants have been found in the Arctic air, snow and wildlife. Every year of delay in regulating this group of ‘forever chemicals’ increases the pollution burden for future generations of people and wildlife. A ban on all non-essential uses of PFAS chemicals should be urgently implemented,” says Dr Julie Schneider, PFAS Campaigner at CHEM Trust.

As shown by the study, alternatives to PFAS-treated take-away packaging exist and are available on the market, including disposable paper and board packaging (e.g., sandwich and fries’ bags, and cardboard bakery and pizza boxes). Durable and reusable alternatives to moulded fibre tableware are also largely available for consumers, restaurants and retailers. The safest way for consumers is to move away from single-use packaging and to bring their own reusable containers when purchasing take-away food, according to the experts. To easily find out the presence of PFAS in fast-food packaging, consumers can do the bead test themselves.

We know that PFAS are used in UK food packaging. We also know that they spread from food packaging into our environment where they can cause harm. But what we don’t know, is how widespread their use is… that’s where you come in!

You can help us ‘Find the PFAS’ using this simple test. Anyone can do it, at home, with nothing more than some food packaging, a pencil and some olive oil. So why not give it a go today and let us know what you find!

For more information, you can check out the results to see where, and in what, other people have found PFAS so far.

What type of packaging should I test?

PFAS are used to prevent oil and grease soaking into paper and cardboard packaging, so focus on these if you can.

For further information:visit this site: https://www.pfasfree.org.uk

The study was conducted in six different countries including United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic between May and December 2020. Samples collected included items such as sandwich and bakery bags, take-away food boxes, and tableware. Participating in the testing were BUND (Germany), CHEM Trust (UK), Danish Consumer Council (Denmark), Générations Futures (France), the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) (Belgium), Tegengif-Erase all Toxins (Netherlands), IPEN (International), and ClientEarth (UK).

 Yet another thing to think about!!!!

Luckily, there are very few takeaway places on Menorca, but they are growing!  The obsession with Pizza here is getting a bit worrying, as far as the health our our young people, as in the growing obesity problem!

The blog song for today is: ¨"Fat Bottomed girls" by Queen

 

TTFN

Consumer goods companies are missing the mark with false solutions to the plastic pollution crisis

June 22, 2021 —- Top fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies are churning out plastic pollution ‘solution’ projects that do very little to solve the plastic pollution crisis. The Break Free From Plastic global movement has tracked and analysed projects that seven major companies and eight alliances claim are part of their response to plastic pollution. Titled “Missing the Mark: Unveiling Corporate False Solutions to the Plastic Pollution Crisis”, the report categorizes 265 corporate projects to determine how much attention companies are giving proven solutions such as reuse, compared to false solutions. Out of a total of 265 projects running from 2018 to April 2021, only 39 were focused on reuse and a total of 226 projects were designated as false solutions to the plastic pollution crisis as defined by experts from the Break Free From Plastic movement. The report analyzed the initiatives of  Procter & Gamble, PepsiCo, Mars, Inc., Mondelez International, Nestlé, Unilever and Coca-Cola Company, consistent top polluters in the global brand audits conducted by Break Free From Plastic. 

“The world’s top polluting companies claim to be tackling plastic pollution, but the evidence for how serious they are is in the numbers. These companies are pursuing false solutions that range from potentially damaging at worst, and simple wishful thinking, at best. What the findings reveal is that only 15% of the projects are proven solutions like reuse, refill, and alternative delivery systems. Instead, these companies are investing in projects that do little to eliminate single-use plastics.” said Emma Priestland, Break Free From Plastic Corporate Campaigns Coordinator. 

The report ranked the companies from absolute worst to least worst. It finds that Procter & Gamble is the absolute worst at solving plastic pollution, and Unilever the least worst, but still performing poorly. 

Greenpeace USA Global Project Leader Graham Forbes said: 

“This report offers yet another example of big brands failing to prioritize reuse and the reduction of throwaway packaging. It is clear that reuse-based alternatives are essential for these companies to remain viable in a climate-safe future and end their contributions to the plastic pollution crisis. Instead of working with the fossil fuel industry to promote false solutions, these companies must end their reliance on single-use plastics and scale-up systems of reuse globally.”

Yuyun Ismawati of Nexus3 Foundation in Indonesia and  a member of the expert panel which analyzed the corporations’ initiatives, said:

“In Asia, we’ve been seeing a lot of these false solutions that these companies and their alliances are peddling. Chemical recycling creates new toxic waste; plastic to fuel or Refuse Derived Fuel is contrary to the circular economy, and plastic offsetting is upsetting because it fails to answer the plastic crisis. These types of initiatives show a lack of ambition and prioritization of alternative product delivery methods. Multinational corporations have more than enough resources to invest in new delivery systems, reuse, refill and redesign, that would allow for a dramatic reduction in the use of single-use plastics. They should change the way of doing business and stop greenwashing.” #ends 

 

Below are the categories of false solutions as used in the report:

Un proven-at-Scale Technology

Technologies that are technically feasible or are operational on a small scale, but have yet to be proven at scale. Often unknown environmental impacts.

Third Party Collect/Dispose

When a company pays another entity to collect a certain amount of waste from the environment and dispose or recycle it. The disposal method is often burning.

False Narrative

When public claims are made or implied by the company messaging around a project that is problematic, such as ‘beach clean ups are a solution’.

Announced-then-Nothing

No information on a project other than the initial press release announcement can be found or projects that were launched but quickly failed.

 We all know about these things don´t we!

As usual, it´s up to us to watch out for these little tricks that they keep pulling.  Keep buying products in glass or cans, anything is better than plastic.

I am still making my own soaps, shampoos, shower gels and all those things, along with cleaning products, we have not bought any of these things now for nearly 10 months! 

Keep up the good work everyone!

The blog song for today is: "Goody Two Shoes" by Adam and the Ants

TTFN

Recycling Mystery: Rechargeable Tool Batteries

 

Many power tools use batteries to run instead of corded electricity or the muscle of the user. You can find rechargeable batteries in a variety of common household power tools such as drills, drivers, saws, blowers, work lights, and trimmers, and more. Most people find it more convenient to use battery-powered tools than to be tethered to an electrical outlet. And rechargeable batteries are easy to charge when their power runs low. However, eventually, these batteries wear out and need to be disposed of. Are rechargeable tool batteries recyclable?

Rechargeable Batteries 101

Rechargeable batteries work the same way that standard batteries do. Both make power by means of an electrochemical reaction involving an anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte. In a rechargeable battery, the reaction has the capability to be reversible but a standard battery does not. A rechargeable battery is recharged by reversing the negative-to-positive electron flow that occurs during use. This resets the battery cells’ charge, making the battery usable again.

Common types of rechargeable batteries include lithium-ion (Li-ion), lithium-ion polymer (LiPo), lead-acid, nickel-cadmium (NiCad), and nickel-metal hydride (NiMH). But most home power tools use the familiar Li-ion batteries. These are also commonly used in electronic devices such as cellphones, laptops, and tablets. Li-ion batteries use lithium ions to move from the negative electrode to the positive electrode during use and then back again when charging. Today, Li-ion batteries hold a charge longer, can be used in a wide range of temperatures, and are lighter than other battery varieties.

The Need To Recycle

It’s very important to recycle spent rechargeable batteries as they can be very volatile. When not properly sorted, carefully transported, and safely taken apart, battery components can easily cause fires and even explosions. To visualize this hazard, watch Mythbusters Junior’s demonstration of how common batteries can cause fires when compacted as could happen in a garbage truck.

Of the more than 100 material recovery facilities surveyed by Call2Recycle, 50% have seen an increase in battery-related fires in 2018. A nonprofit program that encourages businesses and battery users to recycle batteries properly, Call2Recycle runs the United States’ largest consumer battery stewardship and recycling program.

Additionally, batteries contain many reusable materials. Recycled lithium-ion batteries can be made into new batteries, steel, or stainless steel products. Nickel-based batteries can also be recycled into new batteries or products such as cutlery, golf clubs, and cooking tools.

And if you need another reason to recycle your batteries, it is illegal to dispose of them incorrectly in many states in the U.S. and Europe. Some states in the USA  require that producers offer or fund battery collection events, whether that is the case here in Menorca, I´m not too sure of yet. The best place to take them here is the special recycling place on the outskirts of town.

Rechargeable Battery Recycling

Power tool rechargeable battery recycling has become commonplace in much of the U.S.

DeWalt also accepts rechargeable tool batteries from any manufacturer for recycling at their service locations, free of charge. The company designated October as National Power Tool Battery Recycling Month in 2008. But no matter what month it is, recycling your rechargeable batteries is the right thing to do.

 Looks like DeWalt have got their act together, I am sure others will or are already doing the same.

 The blog song for today is"Iron Man" by Black Sabbath

 

TTFN

UK warned it is unprepared for climate chaos

Here is a very informative report from the BBC covering climate change, it is based on the uk but I think it applies to us here in Spain and Europe too.      

The UK is woefully unprepared to deal with changes occurring to the climate, government advisers say.

A report by the independent Climate Change Committee predicts warming will hit the UK harder than first thought.

It warns of more severe heatwaves, especially in big cities, and more intense rainfall, with an increased flood risk across most of the UK.

It says homes, infrastructure and services must be made resilient to floods, heat and humid nights.

The authors of the report on adaptation, or "climate-proofing", warn that global warming can cause damage running into tens of billions of pounds over short periods - and they say they're frustrated at the lack of government action.

• Climate change 'driving UK's extreme weather'
• Extreme weather causes major global losses in 2020

The committee, also known as the CCC, says the UK is even worse prepared than it was five years ago, at the time of its last report on the risks of climate change.

The CCC is an independent group of experts set up to provide the government with advice on the climate crisis.

The chairwoman of the CCC's sub-committee on adaptation, Baroness Brown, said ministers appeared to be deterred from taking action by the upfront costs of protecting infrastructure. This is because the benefits sometimes are not seen for several years.

"They think they can put adaptation off until tomorrow," she said. "But now's the time for urgent action."

Responding to the report's findings, a government spokesman said many of the issues raised were being addressed in policy.

Here's what the CCC says the government must do to better prepare for the impacts of climate change:

Buildings

There's a need to insulate buildings to save emissions, but overheating has emerged as a deadly risk - especially in flats. The government must force landlords to improve cooling by, say, installing sunshades. Ministers must ensure all new homes are built for a hotter climate.

 

image copyrightKathryn Brown

image captionShutters can help shade the interiors of homes during periods of intense heat

Nature

The state of UK nature has been declining for some time, with habitat loss one of the factors driving the loss of plant and animal species. Climate change will make the situation worse. Beech trees won't be able to tolerate conditions in southern England by 2050.

Three-quarters of upland species are likely to struggle by the end of the century, the report says. Meanwhile, peat bogs currently help reduce the effects of climate change by absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. But if the world continues to warm at the current rate, peatlands could dry out, and begin releasing their stored carbon into the air.

The government must re-wet 100% of upland peat moors urgently, the report says.

 

image copyrightPA Media

image captionClimate change threatens the supply chains for essential medicines

Supply chains

Climate change will place pressure on our increasingly connected world and the effects can take us by surprise. For example, about 10 years ago, flooding in Thailand caused a global shortage of computer hard drives.

Rising temperatures will put supply chains at risk for food, medicines, goods and services. The report says businesses must be told to make information available to the public on threats to their supply chains.

The electrical grid

As the UK makes the transition to a low-carbon economy, we'll need more electricity for heating, lighting, and for our vehicles. So power cuts because of extreme weather will hurt the country more.

In one recent example, a lightning strike caused power cuts across England and stranded people on trains in August 2019.

image copyrightPA Media

image captionA lightning strike in 2019 led to chaos on train networks

The committee says a heating climate will bring some opportunities for the UK - such as the ability to grow different crops, a longer growing season that will benefit farmers and fewer winter deaths from cold - but it says these are massively outweighed by the risks.

The committee's chief executive, Chris Stark, said CCC members were so frustrated with the lack of progress on climate-proofing the UK that they deliberately made this report "spiky".

He said: "It's really troubling how little attention the government has paid to this." He told BBC News: "The extent of planning for many of the risks is really shocking. We are not thinking clearly about what lies ahead."

While the world could warm by an average of 4C by 2100, the report say the UK government's plans are inadequate to cope even with a 2C temperature rise.

Ministers must factor climate change more into policy-making, the committee says.

The report notes that, over the last five years, more than 500,000 homes have been built to inadequate standards. These will now need to be adapted at considerable expense to cope with more severe heatwaves.

The report foresees a potential "cascade" of problems from extreme weather, in which different risks combine.

These might include heatwaves and floods leading to IT failures and problems with sewage, water, power and transport.

Climate-proofing: What you can do

Kathryn Brown, head of adaptation at the CCC, has planted creepers to shade her walls. She recommends that home owners - especially in south-east England - should also fit window shutters to keep the sun off the glass.

 

image copyrightKathryn Brown

image captionThe CCC's Kathryn Brown has planted creepers to shade her walls

She also recommends people plant trees to help shade buildings, and avoid paving over gardens because the slabs can absorb heat.

She insists the government must help ensure that people in flats are protected from heatwaves, by improving ventilation and shading. Developers could improve shading by building in architectural features that shield homes from the sun's rays.

Kathryn Brown says people can do more to prepare for floods by signing up to free flood warnings, and looking at options for flood protection, such as door guards.

The document is based on a huge review of the scientific literature by 450 experts from 130 organisations.

One of the lead authors was Prof Dame Julia Slingo, former chief scientist at the UK Met Office in Exeter. She told BBC News: "Things are worse than we have anticipated."

Downpours that dump 20mm of water in an hour will become twice as frequent as previously projected. Winter extreme rainfall could be up to 40% more intense.

Surface water flooding will become a serious hazard as drains overflow during these rainstorms.

'I can't concentrate in my sweltering flat'

By Chris Wimpress - BBC News

Most nights when I've come home from work this week, the temperature in my flat has been hovering around 30C. I've got ceiling fans in the living room, and in the bedroom I've got a desk fan and a cooling unit. Even so, sleeping at night this week has been difficult and I've been going to work tired and tetchy.

Until a couple of years ago, my flat was mostly in shade owing to a large office block opposite. But that building was demolished and now, on sunny days, my west-facing flat is bathed in sunshine for up to eight hours each day.

Like a lot of people, I have worked from home quite a lot in the past year or so. There have been afternoons when I've sat on video calls dripping with sweat, struggling to concentrate and thinking I really ought to find somewhere else to live. So far, we've had about two weeks of hot weather in London this summer, and it's only the middle of June.

Co-author Prof Richard Betts, head of climate impacts research at the Met Office, told BBC News: "The main thing is that the risks of climate change to the UK are even higher than we appreciated five years ago."

Unless global emissions are drastically cut, he says, the UK could experience temperatures highs of 40C every three-and-a-half years.

A government spokesman said action to adapt to climate change was "integrated" across different government departments.

He added: "The UK was the first major world economy to set a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Our plan to further reduce emissions in 2035 by at least 78% compared to 1990 levels is the highest reduction target by a major economy to date.

"We welcome this report and will consider its recommendations closely as we continue to demonstrate global leadership on climate change ahead of COP26 (the climate summit to be held in Glasgow) in November."

Follow Roger on Twitter.

As you can gather this really does apply to every single country on the planet.  The governments really do need to get their acts together along with the rest of us.

Of course there are people who have their heads stuck in the sand and have the opinion that "I am only one person what difference can I make".  In my humble opinion that is a complete cop out of responsibility.  One person can make a difference, we are all a single person but when you get thousands of "only one person" things can change.

We all need to go more green, as in plants and flowers, veggies and all that! This year we are growing cucumbers for the first time, what a great buzz, they are really cute and grow like crazy. 

To all people like me out there who, on occasions have mini meltdowns about the state of our beautiful home and all who live on it, KEEP UP THE FANTASTIC WORK YOU ARE DOING, IT DOES COUNT"

The blog song for today is: " Sledgehammer" by Peter Gabriel

TTFN

 

Canada officially tosses plastic in the 'toxic' bin

Plastic is now considered toxic under Canada’s primary environmental law — the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) — the Trudeau government announced Wednesday.

The decision, which comes despite months of lobbying by Canada’s $28-billion plastics industry, paves the way for a proposed ban on some single-use items. A series by Canada’s National Observer earlier this year catalogued the sustained push by the plastics and food industries to disassociate plastics from anything to do with the word "toxic."

However, the government held firm, which now clears the way for other measures to reduce plastic waste proposed by the government last fall.

“This is the critical step,” said Ashley Wallis, plastics campaigner for Oceana Canada. “It’s the key that unlocks so many possibilities to help us actually address the plastic pollution crisis.”

About 3.3 million tonnes of plastic is discarded in Canada each year, and less than 10 per cent — about 305,000 tonnes — is recycled. The remainder goes to landfills, incineration, or leaks into rivers, lakes and oceans, according to a 2019 study commissioned by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC).

The industry is also poised to drive continued oil and gas extraction, with some petrochemical companies expecting it to account for up to 90 per cent of their future growth, according to a 2020 report by the Carbon Tracker Initiative.

A 2020 government science assessment found ample evidence that plastic harms the environment, choking seabirds, cetaceans and other wildlife. The findings form the basis of the government’s decision, as substances can be considered toxic under CEPA if they harm the environment and biodiversity, human health, or both.

In October 2020, ECCC released a proposal to deal with the problem. Under the proposed rules, Canada will ban six single-use plastic items, like straws and six-pack rings, create incentives for companies to use recycled plastic, and force plastic producers to pay for recycling.

But none of these measures are possible unless plastic falls under CEPA’s Schedule 1 — the law's list of toxic substances.

“Once something is added to Schedule 1, the government actually has a requirement to act — so something needs to be done to address the issue,” said Wallis. “It is possible they could choose not to regulate and just move forward with voluntary agreements, but I (think) they are planning to move ahead with their proposed ban on single-use plastics.”

So far, the government appears intent on proceeding with its plan.

“Adding plastic manufactured items to Schedule 1 of (CEPA) will help us move forward on our comprehensive plan to keep plastics in the economy and out of the environment,” said Moira Kelly, press secretary to Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson. “It will allow us to implement our proposed ban of certain harmful single-use plastics, make producers responsible for their plastic waste, and introduce recycled content standards.”

The move is opposed by Canada’s plastics industry. In a Wednesday statement, the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada — the country’s largest plastic lobby group — expressed concerns about the government’s approach. The organization has been vocal against listing plastics as toxic: It has spent months lobbying the government to prevent the decision and advocated for an industry-led approach focused on recycling instead.

Plastic recycling was invented by the plastics industry in the 1970s to assuage environmental concerns without substantially reducing plastic consumption, according to Max Liboiron, an expert on plastic waste and a professor at Memorial University.

It has never worked. Despite decades of effort, only about nine per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is currently recycled, according to the 2019 ECCC-commissioned study.

“I think the days of waiting for recycling to work are over,” said Karen Wirsig, program manager for Environmental Defence. The organization has been working closely with several others, including Oceana Canada, to push the government to enact stronger plastics rules. “We need to reduce the amount of plastic that gets put on the market and therefore, into the environment. We need to find alternatives to plastics in many cases.”

A Coke bottle on a beach in Skye, Scotland. Photo by Will Rose / Greenpeace

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That means developing rules that prioritize the reuse of plastic items over recycling them. That’s not yet a major priority in the government’s proposed rules — and should be, Wallis emphasized.

“Recycling is not on its own going to solve this issue. We would like to see additional commitments to (for instance) refillable beverage containers or reusable packaging or … reuse targets,” she said.

“Those kinds of things are really going to enable the kind of circular economy we want to see.”

 Here is an article from a Canadian Newspaper which is very good.

For the first 50 years after plastic was invented, the idea of only using the long-lasting material once was blasphemous, an affront to values of frugality honed over years of war and economic strife.

Then, in the late 1950s, the plastics industry launched a massive marketing campaign — and single-use plastic was born. 

“The happy day has arrived when nobody any longer considers plastic packages too good to throw away,” Lloyd Stouffer said at the 1963 U.S. National Plastic Conference. Stouffer was a U.S. plastics marketing guru and the man who, in 1956, first pitched the idea that a virtually indestructible material — plastic — should be sold as disposable.

Since then, about 8.3 billion tonnes have been produced; most has been thrown out. Landfills are stuffed. Oceans and the animals in them are choked. Plastic particles are even showing up in human placentas, with unknown health impacts.

Plastic is everywhere: Manhattan, the Marianas Trench, even Mars.

Faced with this ecological crisis, dozens of Canadian municipalities and provinces have joined a growing global movement against plastic pollution. They have introduced bans and crafted new waste management legislation to try to control the problem.

Recently, the federal government jumped in, announcing plans for a national waste strategy that would list plastics as toxic under Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and a ban on some single-use plastics. Most importantly, the plan calls for a new “circular economy” that would rely on massively scaling up existing recycling facilities and still-nascent recycling technologies to keep disposable plastic ubiquitous in our daily lives.

But can recycling really save us?

“Any material in the world can be recycled — if you separate it, prepare it and pay enough money to put it through the (recycling) process. The question is, is there a market for it? That’s what drives recycling,” says Samantha MacBride, an expert in solid waste management and a professor of urban environmental studies at the Marxe School of Public Affairs at Baruch College of CUNY in New York City.

“It’s a great industry — it provides jobs, it makes use of what’s around — but it doesn’t have anything directly to do with improving the environment.”

Canadians dispose of about 3.3 million tonnes of plastic each year, according to a 2019 study commissioned by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), almost half of which is packaging. Well over three-quarters currently goes to landfills, a small proportion is incinerated and about one per cent ends up directly in the environment.

Only nine per cent — or 305,000 tonnes — is recycled, the 2019 study found.

Left: A pile of garbage found at Sarstangen on the west coast of Svalbard, Norway. Photo by Christian Åslund / Greenpeace | Right: A northern gannet entangled in a green fishing net in the U.K. waters of the North Sea. Photo by Marten van Dijl / Greenpeace

That’s no surprise. Low oil prices make it difficult for plastic recyclers, who must invest in expensive sorting and processing facilities, to compete against already established petrochemical manufacturers, whose facilities are well integrated with the oil and gas industry. It’s cheaper to make plastic from so-called “virgin oil” and put the waste in landfills than it is to recycle old plastics into new products.

Oil and natural gas producers are betting heavily on continued growth in virgin plastic production, with the industry expected to soon account for between 45 and 95 per cent of global growth in demand for oil and natural gas, according to a September report by the Carbon Tracker Initiative.

How tech barriers stand in the way of recycling

Beyond economics, recycled plastic production is hindered by available technology. Mechanical recycling, a method where plastics are sorted and shredded before being melted down into pellets to make new products, is by far the most common form of recycling in Canada. For the process to be effective, however, the stream of plastics entering the recycling facility needs to be clean and well sorted — a requirement that is difficult to meet.

The variety of plastics on the market adds to the challenge: There are over a dozen types, each with different melting points and manufacturing requirements. Many are also incorporated into different parts of the same consumer product, which makes sorting difficult or impossible.

Dyes and other (sometimes poisonous) additives, like plasticizers and fire retardants, further complicate the process and diminish the recycled product’s final quality. With the exception of easy-to-sort, single-use bottles like those used for water or pop, few mechanically recycled plastics can be reused to hold food, according to a December 2020 report by Greenpeace Canada.

There is some promise in a suite of new recycling technologies, collectively called “advanced" or "chemical" recycling, which break plastics down into their molecular components so they can be remade into like-new products. Proponents are optimistic the new methods will be cleaner and more efficient, but observers have doubts. They also face substantial market challenges in Canada, pushing some to advance business ventures in Europe, where regulations forcing plastic manufacturers to use recycled plastic in their products make investments in the technology financially viable. Similar regulations are included in the federal government's planned plastic regulations, first announced in October.

These technical and market limitations mean Canada’s existing recycling industry focuses almost exclusively on four easy-to-recycle plastics:

• polyethylene terephthalate (PET), common in carpets, cups and water bottles
• high-density polyethylene (HDPE), common in milk jugs, outdoor furniture and pipes
• low-density polyethylene (LDPE), common in bread and trash bags
• polypropylene (PP), common in straws, auto parts and juice bottles

Other plastic products — from Spandex to vinyl siding — are mostly landfilled.

And when it comes to market share, producers of recycled plastics remain small players. Sales of recycled plastics in Canada were worth about $350 million in 2016 — 30 times less than sales of plastic made from virgin oil, the 2019 ECCC study noted.

Shifting responsibility

Regardless, the claim that recycling is the panacea for plastic pollution has been promoted for decades by the plastics industry and its allies, says Max Liboiron, professor of geography at Memorial University and director of the CLEAR laboratory on plastic pollution.

"Recycling was formalized and launched in 1970 on Earth Day … by the Container Corporation of America, which had sponsored a design competition for the now-universal recycling symbol," explains Liboiron. Industry’s hope was that recycling would assuage growing concerns among Americans (and Canadians) about the environmental and aesthetic impact of pollution, including from disposable plastic.

Global plastic production skyrocketed after 1950, increasing more than tenfold to reach about 35 million tonnes by 1970. Very little of it was recycled, and plastic soon infiltrated every facet of society, from grocery stores to hospitals. 

I found this article to be very informative and interesting.

I think that what they are writing about is the same as the rest of us in Europe are writing about too.

The blog song for today is: " My brother Jake " by Free

TTFN

 

 

Good, Better, Best — Reducing Textile Waste

I read this article on one of my favourite websites, earth911.com and found it very interesting.  It has some good ideas and advice for reducing textile waste.  I usually give all my old clothes to a local charitiy shop here in Ciutadella, there are containers all around to place your donated clothes into which is good for me, because if I go into the shop I tend to come out with more clothes! I have had some great bargains from there!

Fabric seems like an oddly specific item to make the list of top waste categories. But textiles are the sixth most common material in the garbage.

Textile waste is a fairly new problem. Historically, fabrics were expensive, labour-intensive materials that would be reused until there was almost nothing left to throw away, and even rags would be recycled into new fabric or paper. Modern textile recycling is much less thorough.

Today, textiles comprise 6.3% of municipal solid waste. We’ve rounded up some good, better, and best options for reducing the textiles your household throws away.

Textile Waste

After paper, food, plastic, yard waste, and metal, textiles make up the largest component of household waste. Most textile waste is discarded clothing. But furniture, carpets, bedding, and even footwear and tires contribute to the total. The EPA estimates that textile waste generation was 16.9 million tons in 2017. Only 2.6 million tons of textiles (about 15%) were recycled that year.

Textile waste has increased 811% since 1960, and this is at least partly the result of the rise of fast fashion. One study found that the number of times a piece of clothing is worn before being discarded has decreased 36% in the past 15 years.

Good

A good time to start cutting down on textile waste is before you shop. Precycle by being more selective with your clothing purchases and only buying what you will actually wear. Buy the best quality you can afford and choose secondhand when possible.

Learn how to care for your clothes and do basic repairs so your clothes last longer. Don’t assume that just because you no longer want an item of clothing no one else will. You may be able to resell expensive and fashionable items, but even older and somewhat worn items can be donated to charity. To paraphrase a cliché, one person’s old trash is another’s vintage treasure. Help others reduce their textile waste by organizing a clothing swap.

Better

Items that are too worn or damaged to donate may still contain enough good fabric to repurpose, and the potential upcycling uses of T-shirts and denim are myriad. However, you may not have a need for (or time to make) recycled products from worn-out pieces of clothing and fabric scraps. If you’re not a crafter, T-shirts (together with old sheets and towels) are good candidates for use as cleaning rags. This will also cut down on paper waste.

Closing the loop with renewed and recycled clothing can be more expensive than mall brands, but are a better choice when you can’t find what you need secondhand.

Best

Once you’ve stopped adding used clothing to the landfill, turn your attention to household furniture, carpets, mattresses, and other less obvious sources of textile waste. As with clothes, consider whether the life of an item can be extended through deep cleaning or reupholstery before getting rid of it. (If you reupholster furniture, be sure to recycle the old fabric.)

When you no longer want usable items, donate them rather than disposing of them. Use the Earth911 database to look for recycling options for unusable items. If disposal is your only option, learn to disassemble items so that you can recycle the components, including upholstery fabric.

Shoes are another challenging product because they contain a combination of textiles, plastic, and leather. Wear your shoes as long as possible, then find out where to recycle tennis shoes. When you buy new shoes, seek out those made with recycled materials.

Often, the easiest way to deal with bulky items like furniture and mattresses is through producer responsibility programs. As with clothing, buy less, buy less often, and when you must buy, get secondhand or recycled products. When purchasing new, look for carpet suppliers and mattress brands that offer take-back programs.

If you are really serious about keeping textiles out of the landfill, it is possible to achieve zero textile waste.

This post was originally published on April 27, 2020.

The blog song for today is: "Save me" by Queen

TTFN

 

The plastic problem in Canada and what they are doing to resolve it. Plastic is Toxic

 

Blue surgical mask were aggressively sold to hospitals in the 1960s to replace reusable cotton masks. The shift to this "total disposable system" was sold as a way to reduce hospital labour and infrastructure costs, despite evidence well-made cotton masks might work better, a 2020 article in The Lancet notes.

Stouffer, the marketing guru, was delighted: “You are filling trash cans, the rubbish dumps, the incinerators with literally billions of plastic bottles, plastic jugs, plastic tubs, skin and blister packs, plastic bags and films and sheet packages — and now, even plastic cans,” he boasted to industry leaders in 1963.

But disposability soon fell under attack. Farmers, environmentalists and others infuriated by roadside litter began to point fingers at the plastic industry. Recycling was the manufacturers’ retort — a front that allowed them to shift responsibility for plastic waste onto consumers instead of cutting back on production and profits, explains Liboiron.

Beach Guardian's cleanup activity in Wadebridge, Cornwall, U.K. Photos by Beach Guardian / Greenpeace

“That’s what American environmentalism out of the 1970s was — the individualization of environmental problems to let industry off the hook,” they say. “Recycling is an industry project. Green consumerism is an industry project. It’s not a coincidence that the inculturation of environmentalism happened that way. It’s very American.”

Canadians quickly followed the trend. That storyline remains evident even now. The majority of plastic waste in Canada comes from businesses, institutions and industry, yet most provincial or regional waste management regimes focus on collecting plastic waste from homes.

And activism against all pollution, including plastic, evolved quite differently in other parts of the world, Liboiron points out. For example, Maori land guardians in New Zealand have linked plastic pollution to land and food sovereignty issues and are working to move people towards relying on local, unpackaged food sources, they say.

Hanging onto the recycling myth

Still, in Ottawa today, the idea that recycling is salvation remains prominent, both in the federal government’s plastics plan and on the lips of industry lobbyists.

“Industry agrees that we have a plastic waste matter that needs to be addressed,” says Elena Mantagaris, vice-president for the plastics division of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada (CIAC), the country’s leading plastics industry lobbying group. “But we believe that it’s not the use of plastics that’s the issue — it’s the end-of-life management.”

The organization has pushed the Trudeau government to refrain from listing plastics as "toxic" under CEPA, a key part of the federal plan to reduce plastic waste announced last October. Instead, the CIAC wants the federal government to co-ordinate a national plastic waste management regime. Other industry groups and companies have also been advocating for a similar approach.

Waste management currently falls under provincial jurisdiction and recycling programs are managed by municipalities, creating a patchwork of rules around what can — and can't — be recycled in the country.

Plastic waste on a street in Vancouver. Photo by Marc Fawcett-Atkinson

That's confusing for Canadians putting their trash in the sorting bin and makes it tricky for industry to develop easy-to-recycle products, including packaging. Some municipal sorting facilities can accept most plastic types; others can't. The lack of a co-ordinated waste stream reduces the amount of well-sorted, high-quality raw plastic available to recycling companies. As a result, lower-quality and badly sorted plastics usually end up in landfills or might be sent overseas via the U.S.

“Instead of having (thousands) of different recycling programs, get one,” says Mantagaris. She points to the concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR) as the solution. EPR programs force plastic producers to fund and operate recycling systems for their products.

Theoretically, transferring fiscal responsibility for recycling to producers incentivizes them to become more efficient, create products that are easier to recycle and invest in innovative recycling technology.

“One system, and industry will pay for it, industry will manage it,” Mantagaris says.

Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick are planning to implement EPR programs. However, environmentalists point out that B.C., which has the country’s most advanced EPR, still has a poor recycling record. In 2019, only about 46 per cent of plastic packaging was recovered, the program’s most recent annual report stated.

The December report by Greenpeace pointed out half of B.C.’s waste ends up in landfills, incinerators or the environment. And researchers at Memorial University found the B.C. program has had almost no impact on the volume of waste found on the province’s shoreline.

For World Cleanup Day, Greenpeace, community allies and volunteers co-ordinate a cleanup activity and plastic polluter brand audit. Photos by Amy Scaife / Greenpeace

That is particularly concerning because ocean plastic pollution is among the factors driving the government's decision to regulate plastic. In 2018, the Trudeau government committed to the international Oceans Plastic Charter, an informal agreement to drastically reduce plastic pollution while increasing the amount of recycled plastic on the market. And while the proposed plan aims to meet these international targets, actually achieving them without cutting back on how much plastic Canadians use will be a struggle, environmentalists say.

To meet the charter’s goals, mechanical recycling facilities, which currently handle about seven per cent of the country’s plastic waste, would need to roughly triple capacity by 2030. Canada’s chemical recycling rate would need to skyrocket from one per cent to 36 per cent. And even then, recycling could only take care of 62 per cent of the country’s plastic waste. The remainder would end up in incinerators, landfills or the environment, the 2019 ECCC-commissioned report projects.

Reduction over recycling

Focusing on building better recycling systems misses the point, says MacBride, the professor at CUNY.

“The direction we should be heading is drastically reducing the amount of plastic coursing through our economies,” she says.

That doesn’t mean getting rid of plastic entirely — it is necessary for some products like medical devices, she says. Rather, MacBride would like to see a systemic change to our throwaway culture.

That's particularly important because ridding the world of the plastic we've already created is almost impossible, Liboiron points out.

"Plastic can’t be contained," they say. “It’s one of the most durable things in the world. It’ll last epochs” — which means reducing how much we produce is key to keeping it out of the environment.

When consulted as an expert during the federal policy’s initial drafting phase, they recommended ending subsidies for the oil and petrochemical industry to slow plastic production. According to the December Greenpeace report, those subsidies have topped $334 million to virgin oil plastic producers alone since 2017. Canada's oil and gas industries, for their part, receive about $4.8 billion annually in public subsidies noted a December 2020 analysis by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Still, cutting back production is only half the solution, they say. Canadian policy-makers need to take a holistic look at how Canadians eat, move and otherwise inhabit the world — then develop locally tailored systems that make it possible to live well without disposable plastic.

"There are people alive (who) have memories of before there was disposable packaging,” they note. “They ate things. They were OK.”

The blog song for today is: " Uncle Sam" by Madness

TTFN

How marine resources play a crucial role in economies.

 Another interesting report from "The Wave"

The future of ocean life in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) Seascape will determine that of myriad communities in Ecuador, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia.

This remarkable area of ocean is crucial to the economy and culture of these four countries. With more than five million people living just a few miles from the shores of the ETP Seascape, essentially every member of these coastal communities is connected to the marine resources on their doorstep. Small-scale and artisanal fishing in the region employs an estimated 1.3 million fishers and fish farmers; many more people work in shipping or the thriving tourism industry. The hum of economic activity touches most of the population in one way or another. Needless to say, this ocean region is a vital source of livelihoods, opportunities, and recreation.

Today, the vibrant marine life of the ETP Seascape is under threat from industrial fishing and gaps in marine protection along important animal migration routes. Symbolic and critical marine species risk becoming extinct, causing coastal communities who rely on the ocean for their income and sustenance to suffer the worst outcomes.

Yet, the ETP Seascape is also an unparalleled opportunity for multinational guardianship of the ocean. If Ecuador, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia can come together to create the world’s first multinational network of marine protected areas in their waters, it will help secure the health of the global ocean, supporting economies and sustainable progress locally and nationally along the way.

In May 2021, the Tide community is partnering with MigraMar to support their round-trip research expedition to the ETP Seascape.

Specifically, the MigraMar team is conducting a multi-stop scientific voyage through the Cocos-Galápagos Swimway—the critical “marine superhighway” that connects the UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Cocos Island and the Galápagos Islands—with the goal of obtaining additional scientific information to inform marine policy proposals for the region. This will, in turn, help establish protections for endangered migratory species like hammerhead sharks, whale sharks, and leatherback sea turtles.

Learn about The Tide’s support for MigraMar’s critical scientific efforts to help protect endangered marine species we all know and love, for people and the planet.

 

May 2021

How The Tide is safeguarding endangered marine species in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape

Randall Arauz, a co-founder of MigraMar, has long been an advocate for his Costa Rican ocean, from protecting endangered sea turtles to regulating the practice of shark finning to phasing out shrimp trawling.

As a scientist, activist, and environmental policy plaintiff, Randall has seen how doing diligent research in the field is a pathway to enacting change in the courtroom. With his attention now focused on the ETP Seascape in its entirety, he’s looking to once again use data-driven science to preserve this jeopardized ecosystem and the small-scale fishers who depend on it.

For thousands of artisanal fishers that live along the coast of Ecuador, heading out to sea before the sun rises is not a choice, it’s a way of life.

For these fishers, the ocean isn’t just a workplace, it’s a source of life, of memories, of culture—an old friend that has always provided without asking for anything in return. But that same friend they’ve depended on for generations is now being attacked on all fronts: by pollution, the climate crisis, and especially excessive and illegal fishing that is altering the ocean beyond their control.

This is why we should all try to buy local produce and avoid the large conglomerates, they are the ones who are destroying everything and we are not helping by buying their products.  We need to hit them where it hurts and the only place (I am afraid to say) is in their wallets.

The blog song for today is: " Yellow Submarine" by the Beatles

TTFN