Here is an interesting article I found, I hope you find it informative too!
Litter is found in all the world's oceans and seas, even in remote
areas far from human contact and obvious sources of the problem. The
continuous growth in the amount of solid waste thrown away, and the very
slow rate of degradation of most items, are together leading to a
gradual increase in marine litter found at sea, on the seafloor and
coastal shores. It is an economic, environmental, human health and
aesthetic problem posing a complex and multi-dimensional challenge.
Marine litter results from human behaviour, whether accidental or
intentional. The greatest sources of it are land-based activities,
including: waste released from dumpsites near the coast or river banks,
the littering of beaches, tourism and recreational use of the coasts,
fishing industry activities and ship-breaking yards. Storm-related
events, like floods, flush the resulting waste out to sea where it sinks
to the bottom or is carried on coastal eddies and ocean currents. The
major sea-based sources include: abandoned, lost or discarded fishing
gear shipping activities and legal and illegal dumping.
All this can cause serious economic losses. Coastal communities are
facing increased expenditure on beach cleaning, public health and waste
disposal. The tourism sector has to deal with loss of income and bad
publicity. The shipping industry is impacted by higher costs associated
with fouled propellers, damaged engines, removing litter and managing
waste in harbours. The fishing industry faces reduced and lost catch,
damaged nets and other fishing gear, fouled propellers and
contamination, which also affects fish farming and coastal aquaculture.
Marine litter can also lead to loss of biodiversity and of ecosystem
functions and services. For instance, discarded, lost, or abandoned
fishing gear are continuing to fish and trap animals, entangling and
potentially killing marine life, smothering habitat and acting as a
hazard to navigation.
Microplastics are also raising concerns. Toxins including DDT, BPA
and pesticides adhere to these tiny particles of plastics that can be
accidently ingested by small aquatic life. Once ingested, the toxins
biomagnify as they move up the food chain, accumulating in birds, sea
life and possibly humans.
Causes of marine litter are both cultural and multi-sectoral,
resulting from poor practices in managing solid wastes, a lack of
infrastructure, insufficient understanding among the public of the
potential consequences of its actions, inadequate legal and enforcement
systems and a shortage of financial resources.
As you have probably read on one of my earlier blog (s) this is a terrible crisis that the planet is facing at this very moment, it does seem that it is out of our control, but it is not! Don´t give up.
The blog song for today is : " Do you remember" by Pulp
We usually think of air pollution as an outdoors issue — something we
should worry about while outside. But that’s a common misconception;
the vast majority of our exposure to the most harmful outdoor air pollutants actually occurs indoors. This has important implications for how we think about — and act on — both indoor and outdoor air pollution.
What is fine particulate matter and how does it affect our health?
Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, is a collection of tiny particles
that are 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter. These particles are so
small that once inhaled, they can penetrate our lungs and even get into
our bloodstream.
Chronic PM2.5 exposure is associated with a number of symptoms and health issues. Short-term effects include irritation of the eyes, nose, throat or lungs; sneezing; coughing; shortness of breath; and worsening of asthma.
Long-term exposure can lead to
stroke; ischemic heart disease; chronic respiratory diseases and
infections; neonatal disorders; vision loss; and tracheal, bronchus and
lung cancer. And unfortunately, even low levels of PM2.5 (at
concentrations below current national standards) have been linked to greater mortality.
Exposure to PM2.5 indoors
Infographic of sources of PM2.5
Outdoor air is not limited to just the outdoors. It gets inside
through windows, doors and HVAC systems, bringing pollutants along with
it. Most of our exposure to ambient (outdoor) PM2.5 actually occurs
indoors — and over two thirds (67%) occur in our homes.
This has devastating health consequences: we now know that indoor exposure to outdoor PM2.5 is responsible for about half of all deaths associated with PM2.5 pollution.
Sources of outdoor PM2.5 include vehicle exhaust, burning of fossil
fuels and firewood and non-human activities such as wildfires and dust
storms. Roadway traffic is a significant source of ambient air
pollution. 15% of schools in the U.S. (6.4 million children) are located less than 250 meters (820 feet) away from a major roadway.
Fortunately, traffic-related air pollutants decrease with increasing
distance to major roadways, with many pollutants indistinguishable from
background levels at a distance of 250 meters or more. However, schools
located closer than that may expose students to higher levels of
traffic-related air pollution, which has been associated with increased asthma diagnosis and decreased working memory scores.
Some particulate matter can also be generated indoors, from smoking,
cooking, cleaning, burning candles and using personal care products.
However, indoor-generated PM2.5 accounts for a smaller proportion of our
overall exposure to PM2.5 (in developed countries).
How can we reduce our exposure to air pollution while indoors?
While the effects of PM2.5 pollution may seem daunting, there are steps that we all can take to breathe cleaner — and easier.
Increase outdoor air ventilation rate. Whether through
mechanical ventilation systems or opening windows when outdoor
conditions are good, ventilation is an effective way to improve indoor
air quality.
Use an air quality monitor to track air pollution levels. Many consumer-grade monitors are available online.
Get an air purifier. Use of portable air purifiers in homes, offices and schools has been found to reduce PM2.5 by up to 92%. During wildfires, the use of air purifiers can help reduce PM2.5 exposure by 55–92%. Delos offers an array of advanced air purification solutions. The Delos Compact,
which uses patented disinfecting filtration system (DFS) technology, is
able to remove 99.99% of particles 0.3 microns in size, which is more
efficient than the HEPA standard testing efficiency requirement.
Stay informed about outdoor levels of air pollution in your area,
or buy your own outdoor air quality monitor. If the outdoor air quality
is poor, keep your windows closed.
Consider
switching to a hybrid or an electric car to help reduce the amount of
particulate matter your vehicle emits into the air.
So as you can imagine, this is a big problem in the cities all over the world. We are fortunate here in Menorca in the fact that it is such a small island and we can walk and use bikes a lot. We are over-run in the summer with hire cars, but the goverment here are taking steps to reduce the amount of hire cars on the island. In 2019 it really was quite ridiculous the amount of cars here. There was nowhere to park for the residents and workers because all of the tourists wanted to park near to where they were staying and there was nowhere left for the people who live and work here.
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 compostingto 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!
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.
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.
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 environmentwhere 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 resultsto 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
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 frompotentially
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
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
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."
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
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
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.
