Bad Advertising: The evidence and the problem from https://www.badverts.org/the-problem Part One -Cars

 

---

Where do we see advertising?

We are so surrounded by advertising that it can become oddly invisible. As a result advertisers shout louder and louder for our attention, using ever more clever techniques and digital media. Advertising is the cultural water in which we swim. It shapes our choices and wants, our priorities and what we consider to be ‘normal’ and part of the good life. More worryingly, research shows that we soak-up the messages and manipulations of marketing whether we are consciously aware of them or not.

Figure 1: Data adapted from Advertising Association, WARC (2018)

This table shows for one country - the United Kingdom - the different types of advertising people encounter. It’s fairly typical for a relatively wealthy nation. Online advertising, including social media platforms like Facebook, has become (measured by spend) the biggest advertising medium. Governments around the world are struggling to keep pace with new technologies. Regulation is running behind how our data is harvested, re-sold and used to target adverts at us. TV advertising continues to be key for big companies with sufficiently large advertising budgets. 

Outdoor advertising such as giant billboards, digital screens, and panels placed at bus stops and other places for public transport, are particularly problematic because unlike other mediums, we have no choice over whether we view them or not. Unlike when you buy a magazine that you choose to read, adverts in the public domain are non-consensual intrusions. As the outdoor advertising industry likes to brag: “Outdoor advertising is a medium which cannot be turned off, closed, missed or minimised.”  Digital advertising screens are also extremely energy intensive, with one large ad screen using the same electricity as 11 average UK households.

 Digital advertising screens are also extremely energy intensive, with one large ad screen using the same electricity as 11 average UK households. 

Throughout this toolkit we will outline policy measures for different levels of government and regulatory bodies to limit our exposure to high carbon adverts.

 

What is ‘high carbon advertising’?

This toolkit focuses on the climate damage done by advertising high carbon goods and activities (such as SUVs and air travel). But the ad industry has a track record of criticism for its negative impacts on health and well being, for portraying people in discriminatory ways, and promoting out-of-date attitudes.  Health campaigners have been fighting for decades to strengthen regulations on tobacco, alcohol, gambling and junk food advertising. Feminist and equality movements critique the role of marketing in idealising certain body shapes or skin tones - and confront the industry’s attacks on self esteem and mental health.  

Similarly, experts on wellbeing argue that the constant pressure to purchase and consume ‘must-have’ brands undermines mental health and promotes attitudes and values that make us feel worse (For more on this see Tim Kasser’s book The High Price of Materialism . Sometimes impacts can be quietly profound. Communities living next to large, new digital screens, for example, say that advertising billboards can create a subtle reduction in our sense of belonging and place, and intensify the commercialisation of our public spaces. It is important to keep these broader concerns in mind when discussing necessary checks and balances on advertising.

This toolkit looks at the ecological and climate impacts of advertising from these high carbon industries:

• petrol and diesel car advertising, particularly for the largest and most polluting cars such as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs)

• airline advertising for flights

• fossil fuel companies (such as Shell and BP) 

While some may claim to be cleaning up their operations and going green, their track records on climate change are those of delay and spreading confusion. Car manufacturers and oil companies lobby to weaken climate action, and airlines are failing to take meaningful action to reduce their overall pollution whilst aggressively pushing to increase the number of  flights.  

From March 2020 onwards, both international air travel and urban transport around the world have been seriously constrained by the coronavirus pandemic and related social distancing measures. Now there is a real danger that, as people are warned to avoid public transport, even more polluting cars will clog up our streets and create soaring levels of lethal air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. When we urgently need cleaner air for our health, and more space on our streets for people, it makes no sense to have multi-million pound ad campaigns encouraging us to buy over-sized new SUVs.

Car advertising

Transport is Europe’s biggest source of carbon emissions, contributing a massive 27% to the EU’s total CO2 emissions in 2018, with cars and vans representing more than two thirds of these. In recent times, the auto industry has been mired in scandals relating to ‘cheat devices’ built into vehicles to get around laws and targets governing fuel efficiency.

Car adverts often display images of exotic, wild or rural locations surrounded by plenty of space. They promise adventure, escape and the open road; but the reality in many world cities is gridlocked traffic jams and soaring, illegal levels of air pollution. The car has become culturally dominant and car advertising has played a key role in positioning car ownership as the ultimate status symbol. Many urban centres are struggling to provide to transit systems based on majority public transport or active travel because cars are culturally locked into both our infrastructure (with space for roads and parking prioritised over cycle lanes and green spaces) and our travel behaviours.

The rise of SUVs

Read the full report

Over the past ten years, car manufacturers have shifted away from selling family cars towards ever bigger, more polluting - but much more profitable - ‘sports utility vehicles’ (SUVs). The industry’s drive to persuade us to buy these larger, dirtier vehicles has been so effective that it now threatens to trash our climate change targets.

Now, with the coronavirus pandemic, we also need as much space on our streets as possible for pedestrians and cyclists to get around and commute to work safely. But as well as being dirtier, oversized SUVs take up far more precious urban space than conventional cars. Why are we allowing marketers to push cars onto our streets that are so big they do not fit in a standard UK parking space?

Recent years have seen vehicle manufacturers move the bulk of their advertising spend to promoting their SUV ranges rather than traditional cars. In 2018, car maker Ford reportedly spent 85% of its advertising budget promoting SUVs and light trucks in the USA. As a result, more and more people are buying SUVs, when we could instead be investing in a cleaner future. If we want to encourage sustainable transport and travel, it’s time to end advertisements promoting big, polluting SUVs.

Key SUV facts

• In 2019, over 150,000 new cars were sold in the UK that are too large to fit in a standard parking space (according to European Environment Agency vehicle sales figures). 

• For every one fully electric vehicle sold in the UK in the last four years, 37 SUVs were sold.

• These unnecessarily large, energy hungry vehicles produce around 25% more CO2 emissions than a medium sized car.

• Globally, rising sales of SUVs are the second biggest cause of increasing CO2 emissions (after power generation, but ahead of aviation and heavy industry)

• Air pollution, largely from motor traffic, kills between 28,000 and 36,000 people a year in the UK.

• The government’s statutory advisors the Committee on Climate Change have recommended a total phase out of sales of new internal combustion engine cars by 2030 to ensure the UK can meet its net zero commitments. Clearly advertising fossil fuelled cars should be phased out in advance of this date.

What are the limits on CO2 emissions from cars in Europe? 

Since 2020, all new cars sold in Europe - including the UK - must not emit more than 95grams of CO2 per km. Carmakers breaching these standards will be required to pay a fine of €95 euros (the equivalent of £83) for every gram over the imposed limit, multiplied by the number of vehicles sold. According to a recent study, the 13 biggest car manufacturers are all set to largely miss the new CO2 emissions targets and will be required to pay billions of euros in compensation.  In the UK alone, average CO2 emissions from cars were 127g/km, 35% above the 95g/km target. This is largely due to an increase in the sales of SUVs and other large vehicles. 

Car manufacturers need to urgently switch away from the production of these vehicles - and stop promoting their dirty vehicles to consumers through multi-billion pound advertising campaigns. In France, the car industry spends €2.5 billion (£2.2 billion) on advertising making it the sector with the second largest ad budget (behind retail). Only 5% of the spending for these media ads was allocated for the promotion of electric vehicles.

Campaigners from Resistance A’Laggression Publicitaire and other networks have proposed in the Climate Citizens Assembly to the French government that curbs on advertising for the most polluting cars must be introduced soon. 

Car advertising - industry pressure waters down European Directives 

Car adverts in the EU are already required to feature the kilograms of CO2 per mile each car emits (under Directive 1999/94/EC, known as "the car labeling Directive").  However, a 2016 review found the directive has so far had limited impact. Motor industry lobbying pushed the information into the small print of adverts, and presents them without context, making it difficult for consumers to know what they mean.

What we’re calling for:

In the UK, we propose that publishing adverts for new cars with emissions exceeding 160g CO2/ per km or with an overall length exceeding 4.8m (that’s longer than your average crocodile) should no longer be permitted in the UK in any form. These thresholds would equate to an advertising ban on the dirtiest third of the UK car market in terms of carbon emissions; and on all cars which are too big to fit in a standard UK parking space. 

The same does apply here on Menorca, there has been a steady rise of people driving around Ciutadella in these great big cars, which take up two spaces or stick out a mile, for what reason I don't know. There's not an awful lot of off-roading to be done here. The roads are quite narrow and mostly one way. We even had a Hummer once, however, there was an incident, in Mahon (a place of many hills) , I think,where the driver parked it up and forgot to put on the handbrake.

We do have problems here with elderly people driving when they really should have stopped years ago. I really don't know how they are still permitted on the road.  The parking is awful, they either drive at breakneck speed or like a snail, either way it is so dangerous. One elderly lady, didn't see the roundabout with the horse on it (by the BP garage) and just drove straight onto it. It even made the daily paper here!

On that note I will leave you with the blog song for today:" pol;;;;;;klo (sorry that was one of the cats walking across the keyboard) "Telephone" by Lady Gaga.

 TTFN

 

 

 

 

Washing up Liquid(dish soap): The Environmental Impact of Washing Dishes - an Earth911.com report

 

The Environmental Impact of Washing Dishes

ByGemma Alexander

Nov 1, 2021 cleaning, Cleaning Products

One of many ironies of modern life is that the products we use to make our homes clean contribute to pollution and environmental destruction. But no matter how negative the environmental impact of dish soap is, you can’t just avoid it the way you can other product categories.

Disposable dishes are no better for the environment than dish soap, and eating off of dirty dishes is a good way to get sick. You probably can’t easily replace plates with banana leaves; so how do you find the least dirty product to keep your dishes clean?

This article contains affiliate links. If you purchase an item through one of these links, we receive a small commission that helps fund our Recycling Directory.

Dishwasher or Hand-Wash Dishes?

It may be counterintuitive, but using a dishwasher is usually more efficient than hand-washing dishes. And picking an efficient washer will have a greater impact over its lifetime than any choice of cleanser. But everyone has some dishes that are not dishwasher safe, and sometimes you want to clean a particularly dirty dish without waiting until the dishwasher is full.

For times when you need to hand-wash dishes, Earth911 has recommended Honest Company Dish Soap in the past. AspenClean makes the only Environmental Working Group (EWG) Verified liquid dish soap, although several brands, including 9 Elements and Attitude earn an A rating.

Climate Change

The University of Colorado performed a life cycle analysis (LCA) that looked at several kinds of cleaner; the top three impacts of dishwashing detergents were all related to climate change. Although a likely culprit, transportation was not the largest contributor to climate impacts, coming in a distant third to product use and formulation.

Product use was the biggest factor, largely because of the electricity used to heat dishwaters. However, the study defines the climate impacts of product formulation less clearly. Labeling laws for cleaning products are  lax, but most dish soaps — for hand-washing and for dishwashers — are detergents rather than true soaps; these products are made from a petroleum base, just like the plastic containers they come in.

True Green Organics claims to make a petroleum-free dish cleaner for the dishwasher and hand-washing dishes. Although it does not appear to have any certifications, the ingredient list is short and simple. There are some USDA-certified organic dish soaps, but they can be hard to find. Look for GreenShield Organic automatic dish detergent or Orgaia Natura dish soap.

Toxicity

EPA’s Safer Choice label certifies that a product only uses ingredients from EPA’s Safer Chemicals List. The Environmental Working Group has a more stringent verification system. The Colorado LCA found that sodium lauryl sulfate had the greatest environmental impact. Note, however, that the study only included greener cleaning brands Method and Ecover, which may be free of many harmful chemicals that are commonly found in other detergents. The study was performed in 2015 before both of those companies were purchased by SC Johnson, which caused Britain’s Ethical Consumer to withdraw their recommendation of the brands.

Antibacterial detergents do not provide any added protection against viruses like COVID. The overuse of antibiotics is likely to contribute to the rise of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. Their use in dishwashing releases antibiotics into the water cycle — wastewater treatment does not completely eliminate antibiotics — and increases the risk of accidental ingestion of antibiotics if dishes are not thoroughly rinsed. The FDA encourages consumers to avoid antibacterial soaps.

Packaging

Packaging type and its resulting waste are easy targets for consumer attention. But they form a relatively small portion of the product’s footprint.

The LCA referenced above focused on green dish soap brands whose product formulas presumably have less impact. Packaging would likely be an even smaller portion of the footprint of a standard dishwashing detergent. However, if you have a choice among nonpetroleum-based detergents, choose minimal and recyclable plastic-free packaging. Although pricey, Blueland’s fragrance-free dishwasher tablets are EWG-verified and come in refillable plastic-free containers. They package refills in compostable paper.

DIY

It is also possible to make your own dishwashing detergent and even to use it in the dishwasher. With a DIY approach, you know exactly what ingredients you are using, so you avoid any unfamiliar chemicals. It might seem like a hassle. But the challenges of tracking down an affordable, nontoxic, petroleum-free dishwashing detergent put the effort in perspective.

But don’t forget that how you wash is more important than what you wash with. Avoid pre-rinsing and deselect the “heated dry” setting to significantly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with dishwashers. Fill the sink to cut emissions by two-thirds instead of running the water while washing dishes by hand. Even if you don’t have the time and money for the lowest impact detergent, you can still cut your dishwashing footprint.

 I am lucky to have found a great health shop here called Camamil-la which I use a lot to buy my washing up liquid from. I just take an empty bottle (glass of course!) along and they refill it for me.  It's a lot cheaper and environmentally friendly too! I don't have a dishwasher, I tried one and frankly was not impressed at all.

The blog song for today is: " This Ole House" by Shakin Stevens

TTFN

New report reveals plastic polluters’ attempt to derail ambitious implementation of EU circular economy targets in Spain

by Estelle Eonnet

March 2, 2021 at 02:22:33 PM

◾ The investigation “More Trash, More Cash: who is really behind the plastic crisis in Spain” exposes the plastics industry’s continuous attempts to undermine progressive legislation to address plastic pollution in Spain.

◾ FMCGs and retailers are endorsing a voluntary initiative proposed by Ecoembes, Reciclos – a distraction tactic aimed at derailing the implementation of a Deposit Return System in Spain and hence undermining the country’s ability to meet EU targets.

◾ The report also calculates the cost of littering: Spanish taxpayers pay up to €744 million per year just to clean litter generated by single-use packaging. A significant part of this – up to 529 million EUR/year – is the cost of cleaning up beverage containers.

Spain is at a key decision moment on how it will address the plastics crisis. This year it is expected that the Waste Law and the Royal Containers Decree will be published through which the Spanish government intends to implement the EU waste legislation. As one of the biggest plastic users, Spain is also the second biggest polluter of the Mediterranean Sea and has failed to meet 2020 EU targets on recycling.

In this context, the investigation ‘More Trash, More Cash: who is really behind the plastic crisis in Spain‘ – published by the Dutch foundation Changing Markets with the support of the Spanish Alianza Residuo Cero and the Break Free From Plastic movement – reveals how the plastic polluters have successfully prevented any attempts to reform the Spanish waste management system for years and are now once again gearing up to derail meaningful implementation of new EU targets, adopted in the Single Use Plastics (SUP) Directive.

The latest attempt to derail real solutions to the plastic crisis is once again spearheaded by the producer responsibility organisation Ecoembes, which unites the biggest consumer goods companies, like Coca-Cola, Unilever, Nestlé, and Danone, and the biggest supermarkets, like Mercadona, Alcampo, Carrefour and Lidl. The industry has rallied behind Reciclos, a voluntary return and reward system that the report defines as a false solution that has already been rejected in other countries. The Changing Markets investigation details significant shortcomings in this industry-supported project: it does not incentivise consumers to return more than 10 used containers a week, it excludes various groups (youth, people who do not own a smartphone, etc.), and it is potentially open to fraud. In addition, it is evident that Ecoembes does not have a plan for a significant roll-out of this system to achieve meaningful volumes of plastic bottles return, which makes it impossible for the industry to meet the separate collection target of 90%, as stipulated by EU SUP. In fact, the Balearic Islands’ and Valencia’s governments have already indicated that real solutions lie elsewhere. 

“Reciclos is the industry’s latest desperate attempt to delay real solutions in Spain such as the introduction of a Deposit Return System and reuse policies,” said Ximena Banegas, Campaigns Adviser from the Changing Markets Foundation. “Without a doubt, Reciclos is one of the worst examples of greenwashing, and the Spanish government must not fall for this trick. By betting on real prevention and reuse policies, the government should focus on real solutions that reduce the cost of plastic pollution, create new jobs and better opportunities for local businesses”.

This research shows that Ecoembes is at the forefront of defending the industry’s interests due to its obsolete business model. Since 90% of its income is generated by licencing Green Dot fees based on the weight of packaging producers put on the market, its business model was dubbed “more trash, more cash”, as the more single-use containers are placed in the market, the higher its income. 

The new report also reveals double standards of large beverage producers (Coca-Cola, Danone, Unilever and Nestlé), who on the one hand claim to support “a well-designed Deposit Return System” through their associations at the European level, but on the other hand, hide behind Ecoembes and its ability to lobby the Spanish government against progressive legislation and to promote false solutions, like Reciclos. The investigation reveals that Coca-Cola, Danone, Unilever, Nestlé, Lidl and Carrefour support the return of cans, bottles and Tetra-Paks to the store in some countries, while not expressing their support for the introduction of DRS in Spain.

“Unfortunately, the hypocrisy of some of the biggest plastic polluters, who use a series of tactics to derail progressive legislation, has no limit,” continued Banegas “While Coca-Cola, Danone, Nestlé and others now claim to be supporting deposit return systems in Europe, they are still allowing Ecoembes to continue with its dirty tricks in Spain. Given that new European targets oblige producers to introduce recycled content, meet separate collection targets and pay the costs of litter clean-ups, this lack of support for good legislation is really a short-sighted strategy that will cost them a lot of money in the long term.”

The report also features calculations from UK consultancy Eunomia Research and Consulting showing the true cost of cleaning packaging litter. Only cleaning-up packaging litter on streets and coastal areas costs Spanish municipalities and therefore taxpayers up to €744 million every year. And a crucial part of these costs, up to €529 million, is associated with beverage packaging, such as bottles, cans and Tetra-Paks, which could be reduced by up to 80% if the drinks were sold with a deposit. 

“DRS is crucial to enable reuse and achieve high performance collection and recycling. It’s already implemented in more than 40 jurisdictions around the world and has recently been announced in many EU countries, including Portugal,” says Delphine Lévi Alvarès, European Coordinator of the Break Free From Plastic movement. “The tide is shifting, and the Spanish government must take swift and ambitious measures to implement Deposit Return Systems and reuse measures to not lag behind.”

As you may have read in one of my earlier blogs about "Reciclos" how it really didn't work and how it was a bit strange that it only recognised brands like coca cola on the large 5ltr bottles of water and not on shops own brand! It looks like it was a big scam by ecoembes to make the spanish government and people think that they were actually doing something about improving the rate of recycling here.

I was a bit surprised to read in the report about Lidl because I was under the impression that they were on the ball with recycling here in Spain, it appears not to be the case.

The best supermarket for the amount of reduction of plastic waste and recycling has been found to be Eroski, we have two here in Ciutadella and they are doing better than the others.  

At the end of the day, it is down to "joe public" to do their bit also, so keep up the good work, buy less plastic and recycle.

The blog song for today is: "Give a little bit" by Supertramp

TTFN

 

Tips for Recycling Computers, Phones and Other E-waste Successfully

 

It happens to all of us, when the computer, smartphone, or another electronic device no longer meets our needs. Making your electronics last as long as possible is the most effective way to lower the carbon footprint of your digital life. If you can’t repair or upgrade it, repurpose it, sell it, trade it in, or even give it away — it’s time to consider your e-waste recycling options.

More than half of the total carbon footprint of your computer is generated when it is manufactured and 72% of a phone’s CO2 bill is due to the refining of raw materials, manufacturing, and shipping. According to the European Environmental Bureau, a smartphone would need to be used for between 25 and 232 years to completely offset its manufacturing carbon footprint. In recent years, consumers have drastically extended the average time between phone upgrades from 2.74 years in 2017 to 3.17 years in 2020. But only 17.4% of 53.6 million tons of old phones, computers, and other electronics are recycled annually.

Electronics makers and hobbyists are also offering new programs that let you repurpose a computer, tablet, iPhone, or Galaxy smartphone to use it for a different function, such as a home camera or alarm clock. But the inevitable day will come when the hardware will no longer support the latest software and no longer meets your needs — or simply no longer works. When that happens, this quick guide provides you options and offers tips to help you responsibly recycle your e-waste. Always be sure to follow these steps to remove your data and prepare your device for recycling.

Except for Monitors, e-Waste Recycling Should Be Free or Earn You Trade-in Credit

As a rule, you shouldn’t have to pay for recycling computers and smartphones, because the gold, silver, palladium, and other metals and components are worth a considerable amount of money — one expert estimates that $12 billion in unrecycled electronics are tossed in landfills annually. With the exception of flatscreen and CRT displays and TVs — which you can expect to pay a modest per-item fee ($10-$30-ish) to recycle because they require special handling — your e-waste recycling should be free.

If you are ready to upgrade, some stores and most manufacturers offer trade-in credit toward a new phone. Charities like Goodwill will also give you charitable donation receipts for your tax returns.

Many vendors will even cover shipping costs in case you can’t find a convenient local drop-off — although you’ll need to provide and do the packaging. For example:

• Dell: Dell’s recycling options include their Mail-back Recycling Program for Dell products.
• HP: HP offers free recycling for all brands of home office equipment through their partnerships with Staples and FedEx in the U.S. You can drop your equipment at a Staples near you or get a FedEx shipping and recycling voucher.
• Samsung: The Korean electronics giant recycles its phones and PCs for free via mail, through a network of partners, or at its Samsung Experience Stores.
• Apple: iPhones, Macs, and Apple TV devices can be recycled in more than 100 countries, including drop-off programs at Apple Stores.
• Microsoft: The maker of Windows will recycle any device it manufactured that is not eligible for upgrade credit. The program is operated by a partner, CExchange, and provides free shipping for a wide range of devices submitted to its trade-in program.
• Google: In addition to providing ubiquitous search services, Google makes dozens of electronics products, from Chromebooks to smart thermostats and smart speakers. The company will provide a free shipping label through its recycling program partner, RLG Americas.

Why Recycle Computers and Smartphones (and Other E-waste) Responsibly

There are many reasons to keep computers and smartphones out of the garbage stream, including:

• They contain toxic metals that harm the environment/ecosystem.
• These toxic metals can be dangerous to people overseas — often children or prisoners — who may be picking through and disassembling these items. Be sure to use a recycling program certified by R2 or e-Stewards standards to prevent your electronics from being dumped in a low-income country.
• In many states and localities, it’s illegal to put consumer electronics in your trash.
• E-waste recycling recovers useful materials and saves energy.

Identifying Responsible E-cyclers for Your Computers and Smartphones

Fortunately, you don’t have to figure out what constitutes responsible e-waste recycling or research whether a given e-waste recycler is meeting those requirements. That’s been done. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes two accredited certification standards regarding responsible electronics recycling:

• The R2 (Responsible Recycling) Recycling Standards
• The e-Stewards Standard for Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Equipment

If an e-waste recycling location displays certification from one of these organizations, that should be enough to satisfy your concerns that your e-waste will be handled correctly. In particular, these programs prohibit the exporting of e-waste to low-income countries, where little or no oversight of recycling, environmental, or worker safety exists.

If the recycler offers another e-cycling certification or no information, look for an R2 or e-Stewards program instead.

Finding a Place That Accepts Your To-Be-Recycled Devices

As a consumer, you aren’t actually bringing your old computers and smartphones to the big room where the recycling happens — you need to deliver your e-waste to a collection point. You can start at the Earth911 Recycling Database.

Which ones are best for you depends on various factors, including:

• Convenience. How far do you have to drive and are they on any of your regular “chore routes”? (See 5 Tips to Make Recycling a Part of Your Daily Routine.)
• How many items you have. Some locations may only accept a limited number of items per visit, perhaps half a dozen, or even just three. Some locations may require you to make a purchase to deposit an item.
• Hours and availability. Recycling centers often have more limited hours than stores. Additionally, your recycling center may be by-appointment-only, either due to COVID restrictions (like my town’s currently is) or other reasons.

Stores and Manufacturers: Drop off, Mail in, or Schedule a Pickup

Many stores — particularly chains that sell consumer electronics like Best Buy and Staples (but not Costco, which discontinued its recycling program) — offer e-cycling for your computers, smartphones, and other e-waste.

Depending on the organization, location, and the device you want to recycle, your options will range from drop-off to mail-in or arrange for pick-up.

Here are a few retail options available in many regions of the U.S.:

• Best Buy: “You can recycle up to three items per household per day (see categories below for state-specific info, and different limitations on TVs, computer monitors and laptops).”
• Goodwill: Through a partnership with Dell ReConnect, Goodwill accepts computers and other electronics for recycling at over 2,000 Goodwill locations across the U.S.
• Staples: Free electronics recycling for many items. (According to the Staples website, as of early May 2021, it temporarily suspended the e-waste recycling program as part of COVID precautions.)

Have a phone to recycle? Wireless carriers, such as AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile, also offer trade-in programs.

Is there still some life left in your laptop or iPad? Check out 5 Ways To Reuse an Old Laptop and 10 Ways To Reuse an Old iPad.

What a great article, easy to follow and very interesting. I should imagine that there are places like the ones in the USA here in Spain and of course in the United Kingdom.  I expect that the scandinavian countries are well ahead of this also.

When I need to dispose of any of the above items and it really is not possible to save them I take them along to our recycling plant on the Industrial estate in Ciutadella who dispose of them properly.

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

TTFN

Understanding Where Garbage Goes - A report from Earth911

Understanding Where Garbage Goes

ByGemma Alexander

Dec 23, 2021 waste-series, where-garbage-goes

Humans create a lot of waste, but when you throw something away, how much do you know about where it goes or how it’s handled? This article is the first in a five-part series that explores what happens to the tons of materials we discard.

We call it many things: garbage, trash, rubbish, waste. The recycling industry calls it “municipal solid waste,” or MSW. All these words mean “things we throw away.”

For a few decades, Americans really could just throw away whatever they didn’t want without ever thinking about it again. But as we are finally learning, there is no such place as “away.” Even the most efficient household still generates some waste, and all that garbage has to go somewhere.

Where does that garbage go?

Multiple Streams

Answering that question is surprisingly tricky, and can involve a combination of scientific studies and compilation of hauler data. The most recent EPA data available is from 2018.

Recycling rates vary widely throughout the country. In the United States, 32.1% of the MSW was recycled (including composting in 2018. The remaining 67.9% was disposed of as garbage.

In the U.S., there are two primary methods of garbage disposal — landfilling and incineration. Each method has a significant long-term impact on the environment.

Landfill Disposal

Landfilling is more common by far, though we don’t have recent data to understand how changes in the recycling industry — such as China’s ban on contaminated recyclables imports — have affected disposal rates or methods. In 2018, 50% of MSW was sent to landfills. Today that number is probably higher, as many communities have reduced or eliminated their recycling programs since China changed its policy at the beginning of 2018.

The total volume of U.S. recycling revenue in the U.S. has declined by as much as $10 billion since the ban went into effect, falling from $117 billion in 2017 to nearly $110 billion in 2019, according to the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries. The decline is due to the falling price of commodities such as glass and plastic.

Although the majority of U.S. cities and towns resort to landfilling, there is a wide range of practices that can fall under the term. Technically, a landfill is not the same thing as a dump. A landfill isolates waste from the environment until it is safe. Landfills must meet the criteria for hydrogeological separation of waste and for the long-term management and restoration of the site. Any waste site that does not meet these criteria is a dump.

Dumps proliferated in the U.S. throughout the mid-20^th century. The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 created a federal office to manage trash, and by the mid-1970s, states had established waste management regulations. Today, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) creates the framework for the proper management of all types of solid waste. Subtitle D of RCRA establishes the stringent design, operation, and closure requirements for modern landfills.

Incineration

Incineration disposes only of 11.8% of the country’s MSW. Like landfilling, the process has changed a lot over time, so that the environmental impacts can vary widely depending on the local system. The earliest incinerators were just large furnaces that reduced the volume of waste before sending ashes and incompletely burned waste to a dump. The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) banned the uncontrolled burning of MSW and placed restrictions on particulate emissions, requiring existing incinerators to install new technology or cease operations.

Today, air quality standards require much cleaner emissions from the combustion of MSW, and heat released from burning is usually used to produce electricity. The waste management industry usually calls incineration “waste-to-energy,” or WTE, to emphasize how much this method of disposal has evolved from 20^th-century practices.

Emerging Technology

In time, numerous promising technologies may replace landfilling and WTE. Among these are waste conversion technologies like pyrolysis, gasification, depolymerization, and anaerobic digestion. However, none of these or other emerging technologies can handle the entire MSW-stream for whole communities — yet.

Do you know where your garbage goes?

What’s Best?

People have very strong feelings about garbage disposal methods, but none of them are without problems. Each landfill takes up a lot of space — up to 1,600 acres — that could be put to better use. Urbanization and unsuitable soil conditions make siting a new landfill impossible in many regions. There is a risk that landfills active today could develop leaks in the future, and thousands of old landfills continue to leach chemicals into nearby soils. Older and even many newer landfills release landfill gas, the third-largest source of human-related methane emissions in the United States.

Despite system improvements, incineration still has drawbacks, too. Not all byproducts of combustion are as beneficial as electricity. From 15% to 25% (by weight) of the MSW burned remains are ash. Bottom ash goes to the landfill. Fly ash can be recycled as an ingredient in concrete but is also a hazardous material that contains heavy metals and other pollutants. WTE facilities also tend to be more expensive to operate than landfills.

Whether landfilling or WTE makes more sense for a community depends on the resources and eco-vulnerabilities of the location. The availability of hydrogeologically suitable space for a landfill is a key factor. Increasingly, communities are finding that they lack the resources to dispose of their own waste and must contract with a remote facility. In those cases, the environmental and cost impacts of transportation complicate disposal decisions.

Where Does Your Garbage Go?

Some local governments collect and dispose garbage themselves. More often, they contract with private companies for all or part of the process. For example, Seattle, Washington, contracts with two private companies to collect MSW from homes. Those companies take waste to city-operated transfer facilities that compact it into shipping containers. The containers go to an intermodal transfer facility operated by a railroad company. There, they load the containers onto trains that deliver the waste to a privately-owned landfill in Oregon.

To trace your own waste, start with your city or county’s website. You might find your local solid waste management plan. This plan should describe in detail the flow of waste from curbside pickup to final disposal. If your local waste utility does not post that information online, you can call the number on your garbage bill. Garbage may be included in the same bill as water and sewer or billed separately. The bill may come from your city or the garbage hauler. Either way, customer service should be able to tell you where your garbage goes after it leaves your house. Garbage never goes away, but you might be surprised to find out how far it travels.

I have looked into this here on Menorca, and it seems that all our rubbish along with recycled stuff goes to the same place near Mahon.  I have done a blog or two on this subject and tried to arrange a visit to the plant, this was before the current situation.

Still, after all the campaigns from various agencies, people still seem reluctant to recycle, or even cut down on their plastic comsumption, it is very annoying.   As I have mentioned before,numerous times, education is the key but trying to change old ways is difficult, especially here on Menorca where a lot of the people here seem to think it is not their job to dispose of their rubbish properly.  I find that attitude absolutely ridiculous but they will not change their minds.

The people with the most time on their hands are the ones who could do more to cut down on waste, but they are also the ones who are stuck in who knows what century and steadfastly refuse to change or take a few extra steps to the recylcing bins.  

The blog song for today is: " Dancing Days" by Led Zeppelin.

TTFN

 

Un mensaje de Greenpeace Espana 2022

Un año en el que hemos visto de cerca la peor cara del cambio climático sin que los gobiernos ni la COP26 hayan dado los pasos suficientes para ponerle freno. 

Hemos recibido un “código rojo para la humanidad” por parte de la comunidad científica, que ha sido de nuevo ignorada a la hora de avanzar en el abandono real de los combustibles fósiles en la cumbre de Glasgow. Hemos visto una Ley nacional de cambio climático demasiado débil y hemos sido testigos de espantosos episodios que agravan la pérdida de biodiversidad. Más de lo mismo, este no es el camino.

2021 no ha sido el mejor año para el planeta. Pero en Greenpeace no hemos bajado los brazos gracias a que contamos contigo. Por eso queremos que veas este vídeo. Tu compromiso lo ha hecho posible >>

En lo positivo, ha aumentado la oposición a la ganadería industrial con las primeras moratorias regionales y denegaciones de permisos para futuras macrogranjas.   Se ha suspendido la ampliación del aeropuerto de Barcelona-El Prat gracias a la presión ecologista y social.   La energía eólica ha superado a la nuclear y lidera la generación de electricidad en España por primera vez desde 2013.   Los litigios climáticos contra los gobiernos toman fuerza en los tribunales de distintos países con sentencias históricas que permiten hacernos soñar que por fin se va a actuar contra el cambio climático.   El Gobierno español va a tener que actuar para evitar la contaminación del agua, después de que la Comisión Europea haya llevado a España ante el Tribunal de Justicia de la UE por incumplimiento de la Directiva de Nitratos.   La Audiencia Nacional ha dictado sentencia a favor de Greenpeace y abierto la puerta para que la planta de celulosa de Ence deje de contaminar la ría de Pontevedra.  Aunque la situación actual de la pandemia no permita ser muy optimista, si hemos sido capaces de todo esto en este difícil 2021, ¡imagina todo lo que podemos hacer juntos en 2022!

Entre nuestras grandes prioridades va a estar trabajar sin descanso para conseguir la firma de un Tratado Global de los Océanos en Naciones Unidas, y que el dinero de los fondos europeos se utilice para una verdadera recuperación justa y verde dejando de lado las falsas soluciones y el greenwashing.   En 2021 hemos celebrado nuestro 50 aniversario. Medio siglo luchando para proteger esa naturaleza de cuya salud depende la nuestra, por encima de los intereses económicos de unos pocos. En general, el año pasado vimos algunos cambios y promesas, esperemos que los países cumplan con su palabra y no intenten usar las áreas grises.  Este año, los franceses han prohibido los envases de plástico en los supermercados de allí, que entrarán en vigor de repente el 1 de enero de este año.  Aquí en España los supermercados tienen hasta 2023 para cambiar el envase.   La canción del blog para hoy es: "En el verano" por Mungo Jerry" TTFN

The deep sea discoveries and sightings of 2021 are amazing What else is out there?

     

A glass octopus spotted by a Schmidt Ocean Institute expedition in 2021. Credit: Schmidt Ocean Institute

The deep sea glows. 

Giant, phantasmagorical creatures dwell in the dark water. 

And when marine researchers lower robots into these depths, they're almost always spotting something rare or previously unknown to science.

"There's so much left to explore and find in the ocean," said George Matsumoto, a deep sea scientist who works as a senior education and research specialist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. "The ocean provides 98 percent of living space on Earth. We don't know what else lives there."

Ocean expeditions in 2021 added to a growing catalog of wild deep sea sightings and newly discovered species. Biologists emphasize humanity must better understand and protect this unique life, particularly as the prospects for mining rare metals in the deeps with tractor-like industrial equipment loom increasingly large.

"What are all the things in the ocean that see us coming and stay away?"

When you see the recent sightings below, it's important to remember that what we glimpse in the deep sea is still inherently limited. With big, bulky exploration machines, scientists often capture footage of creatures that are too slow to get away, are too big to care, or are too small or translucent to spot on camera.

"What are all the things in the ocean that see us coming and stay away?" mused Matsumoto.

While exploring the deep sea in California's Monterey Bay in 2021, marine scientists at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute captured rare footage of a giant phantom jelly (Stygiomedusa gigantea) roaming the deep waters.

Their video, taken by a sturdy deep sea robot, shows the jelly's massive bell and long, drape-like arms undulating in the water. Over thousands of dives, Monterey Bay researchers have only spotted this enigmatic species nine times, though scientists first documented the phantom jelly in 1899.

"Even now, scientists still know very little about this animal," the research institute wrote.

Often living at depths of some 3,300 to 13,100 feet beneath the surface, these creatures likely feast on small fish and plankton.

Ambitious scientists reach one of the deep seas' most inaccessible places

The icebreaker RV Kronprins Haakon traveling through ice cover in the Arctic Ocean. Credit: REV OCEAN

What's more inaccessible than the deep sea? A deep sea blanketed in a thick shell of ice.

Yet during a daunting October 2021 mission called the HACON project, a group of over two dozen scientists and engineers used an underwater robot to successfully explore a cryptic ocean world some 13,000 feet beneath the surface of the ice-covered Arctic Ocean. It was the first time researchers surveyed rare volcanic vents — and the life there — in the remote Arctic.

"It opens a new frontier of exploration in the Arctic," Eva Ramirez-Llodra, a deep sea ecologist for the Norwegian government who co-led the mission, told Mashable in October. "It's a challenge, but it can be done."

You can read more about the expedition here.

Amazed researchers find mammoth tusk 10,000 feet under the sea

Using a deep sea robot, marine scientists spotted an ancient mammoth tusk 10,000 feet beneath the ocean. Credit: Darrin Schultz / MBARI

In July 2021, scientists discovered a three-foot-long tusk from an extinct Columbian mammoth some 10,000 feet beneath the ocean. Researchers collected the specimen off the California coast.

"You start to 'expect the unexpected' when exploring the deep sea, but I’m still stunned that we came upon the ancient tusk of a mammoth," Steven Haddock, a marine scientist at Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, said in a statement.

How did a tusk find its way to the deep sea? It's unknown, and likely will remain unknown. But land-dwelling creatures are sometimes washed out into deeper ocean regions, perhaps during great floods.

Unusual and extremely hot deep sea world discovered

A hydrothermal vent with majestic calcite spires. Credit: Schmidt Ocean Institute

During a fall 2021 deep sea expedition in Mexico's Gulf of California, scientists observed wondrous vents spouting superheated fluid over two miles beneath the ocean surface. The trip, aboard the Schmidt Ocean Institute's research vessel Falkor, used a sturdy underwater robot to find intriguing life and potentially new-to-science creatures dwelling at these dark depths. 

The hot vents in this region, called hydrothermal vents, are especially unique. Deep sea vents, discovered only relatively recently in 1977, often emit dark, chemical-rich fluid into the water. That's why they're called "black smokers." But in this deep Mexican realm, the water is starkly different. It's clear, owing to different minerals and sediments coming from inside Earth. 

As the images in Mashable's story show, sometimes the hot fluid comes out and flows upward like a reverse waterfall, which ultimately builds majestic spires and mounds above the vents.

Unexpected life discovered in a deep, dark Antarctic world

Sponges and other creatures spotted beneath an Antarctic ice shelf. Credit: British Antarctic Survey

Scientists drilled through over half a mile of ancient, coastal Antarctic ice in 2016. They lowered a camera and reached the seafloor, glimpsing a freezing, lightless world, hundreds of miles from any typical sources of food. 

And they found life.

Beneath the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf — part of an enormous ice sheet that floats over the ocean — researchers unexpectedly spotted eerie sponges on stalks and other still unidentified invertebrates clinging to a boulder. Never before had anyone observed such life isolated so far under an ice shelf, a finding the researchers reported in February in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science. 

"The ice makes it like an enormous cave," Huw Griffiths, a marine biogeographer at the British Antarctic Survey and lead author of the research, told Mashable in February. Learn more about the expedition here.

Stunning images of deep-sea life captured by an aquatic robot

A sea snake swimming in the dark depths. Credit: Schmidt Ocean Institute

During an 18-day expedition in the protected Ashmore Reef Marine Park (off of Australia), scientists aboard a Schmidt Ocean Institute exploration vessel dropped an underwater robot into deep, low-light depths. At some 165 to 500 feet down, it observed otherworldly corals, sea snakes, and a diversity of ocean creatures. The Schmidt Ocean Institute, a non-profit ocean research organization, called the trip the "Australian Mesophotic Coral Expedition." (Mesophotic means dark zones with low light.) 

"Having studied corals from the Great Barrier Reef to Antarctica, it is easy to think I have seen it all," the expedition's lead scientist, Karen Miller of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, wrote in a blog post. "But experiences like the Australian Mesophotic Coral Expedition are humbling and make me realize just how much more there is still to learn about our oceans." 

The expedition captured never-before-seen footage of the Ashmore Reef's seabed, and also collected 500 specimens to study, the institute said. 

Here is the website address: https://mashable.com

A rare whalefish sighting

go here: https://youtu.be/6y7-0eG3LyQ 

So yet more surprises from under the sea! We really do live on an exceptional and wonderful planet,it makes me wonder why we don't seem to be taking good care of it.  As we have all seen in the news lately the amount of natural disasters is increasing and surely even the people who said that there is no such thing as climate change can ignore this.

We all must do our part,even if it starts off with a small thing like replacing a product you normally buy in plastic with one in glass.  Don't use the car to go around the corner to the shop, walk or use a bycicle! Try to use less electric in the home, this is even more important now as the prices have rocketed through the roof and if you use at certain times, be prepared for a huge bill.

Here in Spain the pricing bands are as follows:

Monday to Friday

08:00 - 10:00 normal tariff

10:00-14:00 peak (really expensive, ten times the cost of the cheap tariff)

14:00 - 18:00 normal tariff

18:00 - 22:00 peak tariff

22:00 - 24:00 normal tariff

24:00 - 08:00 cheap tariff

Weekends:

From 24:00 on Friday Night until 08:00 on Monday morning, Cheap Tariff.

The worse culprit for electricity consumption is the boiler, I have been experimenting with turning it off at the peak times and putting it back on in between and leaving it on all night.

I hope this helps.

The blog song for today is: "Running up that hill" by Kate Bush

TTFN

 

Happy New Year : Here are the 7 biggest wins for the environment in 2021- an excellent summary from Euronews.com

 

Climate hope: Here are the 7 biggest wins for the environment last year.
Friends of the Earth Netherlands won a landmark victory against Shell earlier this year, forcing it to rein in its carbon emissions.   -  
By Lottie Limb  •  Updated: 17/12/2021
All the environmental victories that occurred in 2021 had one thing in common. They were set in motion years ago and were hauled across the line by people power. They are almost all a win over something too, with humanity pushing back against its own greed.
The environmental losses over the last 12 months have people at their centre too. Whether it’s decisions taken in oil executive boardrooms, or climate breakdown due to public inaction, however they come about, it’s the changes in the natural world that we observe with horror. Europe has 600 million fewer breeding birds than 40 years ago, scientists discovered last month, while one of Antarctica’s most important ice sheets is fracturing.
Chalking up wins and losses simplifies how interconnected our planetary systems are, of course.
    •    'A small step in the fight against fossil fuels': Shell withdraws from Cambo North Sea oilfield
    •    California is banning food from landfills and turning it into energy instead
    •    Germany's new government is pouring 60 billion euros into combatting climate change
Our understanding of the environment’s health is filtered through our imperfect lens. After all, it was only this week that the new hottest record in the Arctic (38C) from summer 2020 was officially recognised.
While some pioneering projects which launched this year - like an initiative to map the world’s underground fugal networks for the first time, and grasp their ecological potential - won’t be fully understood for years to come.
Even so, it’s good to take stock; to take heart from the wins - and note which ones are not quite in the bag yet, but require sustained pressure. Wins and losses might feel simplistic in the scheme of things. But they appeal to a human need to tell ourselves stories. And in December 2021, we need all the positive ones we can get.

7. COP26 agreements: 1.5C was (just about) kept alive

It’s a seriously compromised victory - few would describe the Glasgow Climate Summit as an overall “win” - but progress was made.
A major deal was forged to protect the world’s forests, with more than 100 leaders committing to end deforestation by 2030. The Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forest and Land Use was signed by the majority of countries in the Amazon Rainforest, and has nearly €16.5 billion funding behind it - so the potential is huge. Now it’s up to us to hold leaders accountable, to stop the pledge falling short like the New York Declaration on Forests from seven years ago.
More than 100 countries also announced a new plan to curb methane emissions by 30 per cent. Methane is increasingly recognised as one of the most potent greenhouse gases, so this is another step in the right direction. And some strides were taken in the finance sector too.
“We can say with credibility that we have kept 1.5C within reach but its pulse is weak,” COP26 president Alok Sharma concluded. “It will only survive if we keep our promises, if we translate commitments into rapid action and if we deliver on the expectations set out in this Glasgow Climate Pact to increase ambition to 2030 and beyond.”
At the very least, the UN system lives to fight another day, and the new expectation for countries to improve their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) - their commitments to limit emissions - every year is a significant shift.

6. The Stop Cambo campaign sent Shell packing

Shell pulled out of Cambo this year. News that delighted activists around the world came late on 2 December, after six months of concerted campaigning to stop the development of a new North Sea oilfield.
People had a moral case, and they stated it clearly. "How can the UK host COP26 and claim to be a green leader, while facilitating projects like this?” said Scottish environmental scientist Mara. “We know from the IPCC report that extraction simply has to stop. It's a positive move that Shell has withdrawn though, and shows the power of public pressure and grassroots activism."
The fight over the seafloor near Scotland’s Shetland Islands is not over yet though. Siccar Point, which owns the remaining 70 per cent of the field, has indicated its intent to find a new investor. And, as others have pointed out, the UK government has yet to make a final call.
    •    The UK has 40 new fossil fuel projects in the pipeline, what does this mean for COP26 credibility?

5. Polluters are losing in the courtroom

Speaking of Shell, the multinational oil and gas giant lost a landmark court case back in May. Judges in The Hague ordered the company to cut its carbon emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 in the Netherlands, after finding its policies were too vague.
Milieudefensie voor Veranderaars (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) began assembling the case in 2018, together with other charities and more than 17,000 co-plaintiffs. In an emotional statement read outside the court, lawyer Roger Cox said “people around the world are ready to sue oil companies in their own country, following our example.
“And not only that. Oil companies will become much more reluctant to invest in fossil fuels, polluting fuels. The climate has won today.”
To make it even easier for other activists to succeed, Milieudefensie released a DIY manual entitled “How we defeated Shell” to encourage others to take on some of the biggest companies in the world.

4. Australian courts establish ‘duty of care’ precedent towards young people

Children's Climate Prize
More and more, people are pursuing legal avenues to stop pollution, holding companies and governments accountable. We don’t yet know the final results of some of them, but they have a weight and inspiration well beyond the particulars.
Also in May, 17-year-old Anjali Sharma discovered she had won her case against the Australian government. The coal mine at the centre of the dispute may still be expanded (the outcome of an appeal is due soon) but crucially, the judge ruled that the government has a duty of care to protect young people from climate harm.
In the UK, ‘Paid to Pollute’ campaigners took the UK government to court this month, accusing it of illegally subsidising fossil fuel producers through tax incentives, which undermine its climate goals. The ruling will likely be published early next year.
UK to make electric car chargers compulsory in new buildings from 2022

3. The movement for giving nature legal rights gains momentum

It’s not just in high profile cases that the law is affording the environment greater protection. The movement to grant legal rights to nature - including rivers, lakes and mountains - has also continued apace this year.  
The movement to grant legal rights to nature - including rivers, lakes and mountains - has also continued apace this year.
In February, Quebec’s Magpie River became the first one in Canada to gain legal personhood. The Innu Council of Ekuanitshit, a First Nation band in Canada, and local authorities established nine rights for the river - including the right to flow, the right to be safe from pollution, and the right to sue.
It is hoped that the Muteshekau-shipu - as it is called by the Indigenous Innu community - will be safeguarded for future generations, like the Whanganui River in New Zealand. It comes with an increasing recognition of Indigenous peoples’ land rights and stewardship.
Another important milestone was the first legal definition of ‘ecocide’ - decided by top lawyers in June 2021. Campaigners now want to see this recognised as a crime in international law.

2. The university divestment movement takes some big wins

In September, Harvard University became by far the wealthiest institution to announce its divestment from fossil fuels. It took organisers 10 years to make that happen,” American writer Rebecca Solnit noted.
“For more than nine years you could have looked at the campaign as unsuccessful, even though it was part of a global movement that got trillions of dollars out of fossil-fuel investments, recast the fossil-fuel industry as criminal and raised ethical questions for all investors to consider.”
In November, Lancaster University became the 92nd UK university to remove investments from fossil fuel companies. Students haven’t stopped putting their institutions under the spotlight, however. Last month, Oxford and Cambridge students turned the tables on their colleges, ranking them based on how ambitious their decarbonisation, divestment and other policies are.

1. A ‘mega’ marine protected area was created in the Pacific.

It may have been lost in COP26 coverage, but a mega marine protected area (MPA) was created by Panama, Ecuador, Colombia and Costa Rica in November. The Pacific-facing countries agreed to join their marine reserves to form one huge corridor where sea turtles, whales, sharks and rays can safely migrate.
The Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor (CMAR) covers more than 500,000 sq km, and also involves the extension of existing national MPAs.
“This is the new language of global conservation,” Ecuador’s environment minister, Gustavo Manrique told The Guardian.
“Never have countries with connecting maritime borders joined together to create a public policy.”
I think all in all progress was made last year and we can actually see some actions taking place here on Menorca and Spain.  The plastic reduction movement is gathering pace (at last) and steps are being taken to reduce single use plastics.  We still have a long way to go, but if we can stop buying and using so much plastic we may be able to slow down the addition of more on top of the huge pile we already have.
The blog song for today is: “Don’t look back in anger” by Oasis
TTFN

Shell pulls out of Cambo oilfield project - a report from The Guardian Newspaper

 

Shell pulls out of Cambo oilfield project

Green campaigners welcome oil giant’s decision not to go ahead with controversial project off Shetland

Activists during a demonstration at the Cop26 summit in Glasgow calling for an end to the proposed Cambo oil field. Photograph: Jane Barlow/PA

Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent

Thu 2 Dec 2021 19.49 GMT

First published on Thu 2 Dec 2021 19.36 GMT

Shell has pulled out of a controversial new oilfield off the Shetland Islands, plunging the future of oil exploration in the area into doubt.

Shell, which was planning to exploit the field along with the private equity-backed fossil fuel explorer Siccar Point, cited a weak economic case as its reason for deciding not to go ahead with the project.

“After comprehensive screening of the proposed Cambo development, we have concluded the economic case for investment in this project is not strong enough at this time, as well as having the potential for delays,” Shell said.

Climate campaigners said the move by Shell was a “deathblow” for the controversial project, which was fiercely opposed by activists across the UK.

The UK government was facing a legal challenge from Greenpeace over its decision to allow the new drilling to go ahead. After the Cop26 UN climate summit in Glasgow last month, Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon signalled she did not believe the project should go ahead, and should be subject to a climate assessment.

Green campaigners have argued that the green light for Cambo should not be given, in light of the UK’s legally binding target to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Government approval for exploration at the site, 78 miles (125km) west of the Shetlands, in waters 1,000 metres deep, was first given in 2001.

Ministers had announced in March that they would allow oil drillers to keep exploring the North Sea for new reserves, despite the government’s pledge to reduce UK carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, as long as they passed a “climate compatibility” test in addition to the existing environmental checks.

The International Energy Agency, the global energy watchdog, produced a report in May saying no new oil and gas exploration and development should be conducted after this year, if the world is to stay within 1.5C of global heating, the target the UK made the focus of the Cop26 summit.

The UK government had faced threats of legal action over the Cambo project. Lawyers from ClientEarth, an environmental law charity, wrote to Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, just before the start of last month’s summit in Glasgow to warn against approving projects such as the Cambo oilfield by relying on outdated climate checks.

In the letter dated 29 October, seen by the Guardian, ClientEarth warned the government that any decision on offshore oil and gas developments must consider their full climate impact or its lawyers would be “prepared to challenge” ministers through a judicial review.

Tessa Khan, director of Uplift, which is coordinating the Stop Cambo campaign, said: “The widespread public and political pressure is what’s made Cambo untenable. There is now broad understanding that there can be no new oil and gas projects anywhere if we’re going to maintain a safe climate.”

Philip Evans, oil campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said: “This really should be the deathblow for Cambo. With yet another key player turning its back on the scheme the government is cutting an increasingly lonely figure with their continued support for the oil field.”

He called on the government to act, saying: “It’s time Boris Johnson put this distraction aside and got on with the urgent task of delivering a just transition for offshore workers and their communities to the green industries of the future.”

Connor Schwartz, climate lead at Friends of the Earth, said: “We have to see the end of North Sea projects as well as all new fossil fuel extraction: there is no future in them. Carrying on risks more than just balance sheets, it makes the path to 1.5C even harder.”

Ed Miliband, Labour’s climate and net zero secretary, said: “Shell have woken up to the fact that Cambo is the wrong choice. It’s long past time for the government to do so.”

Siccar Point Energy, Shell’s partner in the Cambo project, vowed to press on and will seek alternative ways to continue exploration at Cambo.

Jonathan Roger, chief executive of Siccar, said: “Whilst we are disappointed at Shell’s change of position, we remain confident about the qualities of a project that will not only create over 1,000 direct jobs as well as thousands more in the supply chain, but also help ease the UK’s transition to a low carbon future through responsibly produced domestic oil instead of becoming even more dependent on imports with a relatively higher carbon intensity.”

A spokesperson for the UK government said: “This is a commercial decision that has been taken independently by Shell.”

A Shell spokesperson said: “Before taking investment decisions on any project we conduct detailed assessments to ensure the best returns for the business and our shareholders. After comprehensive screening of the proposed Cambo development, we have concluded the economic case for investment in this project is not strong enough at this time, as well as having the potential for delays.

“However, continued investment in oil and gas in the UK remains critical to the country’s energy security. As Shell works to help accelerate the transition to low-carbon energy, we remain committed to supplying UK customers with the fuels they still rely on, including oil and gas.

“We believe the North Sea – and Shell in it – have a critical role to play in the UK’s energy mix, supporting the jobs and skills to enable a smooth transition to Britain’s low-carbon future.”

 So great news at the moment, these people seem intent on doing these types of things, what is it that they are doing? it really is beyond me.

Like I keep saying it is all about supply and demand, if we can just reduce the amount of energy we use, turn down the heating one degree, take showers instead of baths, turn off lights when we are not in the room are just a few easy things to do, but we all need to do them. 

Sometimes I really think that we are just hurtling down the road at full speed to disaster, I am one of those people who think that prevention is better than cure.  Stop it now before it reaches crisis.

The blog song for today is: "Born to be wild" by Steppenwolf

TTFN