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

Getting a Greener Clean: Shampoo - an earth911 report

 

Getting a Greener Clean: Shampoo

ByGemma Alexander

Dec 10, 2021 personal care

It’s an unfortunate irony that the things we do to keep ourselves clean can pollute the planet and even harm our own health. It’s also discouraging that something as simple as a shower requires you to research multiple categories of cleaning product from shampoo to body wash. But let’s start at the top; you can adopt a green hair care routine without giving up your hygiene or your health.

No-poo

But you might give up your hair. You could shave your head and simply use regular soap on your scalp. Most of us aren’t ready to make such a bold style statement in service to the environment. But unlike most other hygiene products, simply going without shampoo is an option.

The no-poo (or unpoo) movement encourages people to ditch the shampoo and simply rinse their hair with water. When that’s not enough, no-pooers may use a DIY method involving baking soda and apple cider vinegar. These materials are certainly environmentally friendly and are effective for cleaning. However, depending on your hair type, they may not be very good for your hair. While some people have used this method successfully for years, after a few months, my hair began to resemble the hay under a scarecrow’s hat. It took deep conditioning treatments to avoid the first method suggested – shaving it all off.

Detergent-Free Shampoos

Most shampoos are basically liquid cleansers made from synthetic detergents. Additional chemicals are added for the aesthetics of the product, to create a pleasing color, scent, and texture. Although raw materials only account for about 9% of the product’s environmental footprint, many people avoid synthetic, petroleum-based products on principle.

In particular, many of us want to avoid the detergent SLS (sodium lauryl sulfate or sometimes sodium laureth sulfate) that makes shampoos foamy. Rumors that SLS is a carcinogen seem to be unfounded; however, there may be other health issues. Sulfates like SLS are known skin irritants. They can also remove oils too effectively, leading to dry hair. There are some biodegradable products, like Hairstory New Wash that use essential oils and fatty alcohols instead of detergents.

There is another reason to look for biodegradable shampoo. According to a European life cycle analysis of more than 10,000 personal products (referenced throughout this article), disposal accounts for 20% of the environmental footprint of shampoo. That’s because shampoo is not consumed when you use it; all that product rinses off of your hair and ends up in wastewater. Wastewater treatment uses a lot of energy and chemicals, and does not necessarily remove all of the ingredients in shampoo before the water is released into the environment.

Other Chemical Concerns

Surprisingly, shampoo and other common personal care products are significant sources of volatile organic compounds contributing to air pollution. Many shampoos also contain parabens and phthalates. Because the most problematic ingredients are usually found in the perfumes used to scent shampoo, unscented shampoos like Free & Clear or No Nothing Very Sensitive are less likely to contain many of the most harmful chemicals. You can also find more natural, safer shampoos using the Environmental Working Group Verified list. The list includes inexpensive, familiar brands like Herbal Essences as well as less common options like Korean beauty brand Whamisa.

Packaging

Plastic bottles dominate among shampoo packaging options. Those bottles account for 22% of shampoos’ environmental impact. Depending on where you live, the plastic from shampoo bottles might be recyclable, but in many places it is not. There are some shampoo brands that use recycled plastic – even recycled beach plastic – to manufacture their bottles. The polyethylene pouches used by Hairstory require much less plastic than bottles and are recyclable where facilities exist.

But there are also plastic-free packaging options. Brands like Alpine Provisions and Plaine Products sell shampoo in aluminum bottles. Lush estimates that their solid shampoo bars prevented 100 metric tons of plastic waste in a year. EWG Verified Soap for Goodness Sake makes a combined shampoo and body bar that comes wrapped in FSC paper.

In fact, most solid shampoo bars are advertised for use on both hair and skin. Many environmentalists follow a rule of thumb that using fewer products creates fewer environmental impacts. There is no specific data in this case to support the principle. But if you find a single cleanser that works for both your hair and body, you will have simplified your life a little.

Clean Technique

No matter what you choose to clean your hair (or shaved scalp), keep in mind that use accounts for 28% of shampoos’ environmental impact. Most of that impact comes from the water you use for washing and the energy needed to heat that water. Use a low-flow showerhead and an efficient water heater. You might also use homemade dry shampoo to stretch the time between washes.

 As I have mentioned previously, I became so annoyed and exasperated at trying to buy products that ticked all the boxes that I now make my own.  Here is my web page address:suubio The whole family is benefitting from my switch! Less pollution, less waste, kinder to the environment and our bodies, no plastic,  not tested on animals need I say more.  My soap is only available on Menorca at the moment, carriage costs are a problem and the postal system at the moment is quite poor.

The blog song for today is: "Surrender" by Cheap Trick

TTFN

 

Time for Restaurants to Shift to Sustainable Takeout Packaging - earth911 report

 

Time for Restaurants to Shift to Sustainable Takeout Packaging

ByEarth911

Dec 3, 2021 

by Paul Kradin, Chief Sustainability Officer, JYBE

Customers are complaining loudly that takeout and food delivery packaging is unsustainable. Yet the transition to recyclable and biodegradable takeout packaging is not only imperative, but it’s also easier and more cost-effective than most restaurant companies think.

A large and growing number of diners repeatedly assert they would gladly pay more for meals if they knew it would support more sustainable practices. And yet, restaurants tend to stick to deeply rooted sourcing habits, accepting greenwashing by suppliers, and a pandemic-driven focus on hygienic-seeming plastic. Identifying and alleviating these obstacles has become JYBE’s business model as much as its mission — helping diners, chefs and restaurant owners discover an easier eco-friendly path.

Restaurants’ chronic reach toward plastic had already become a problem prior to COVID-19 and its subsequent impact. Delivery apps like Uber Eats, DoorDash, and others reported quarterly revenue increases of 100% during 2020, and most of those new sales were delivered using a flood of plastic containers. Although grassroots movements encouraged diners to decline cutlery sets, straws, or plastic beverage bottles given that most meals were eaten at home, that was a patchwork approach that didn’t get to the root of the problem — the industry’s overuse of harmful plastic and unsustainable takeout packaging.

It’s time for restaurants to ditch the plastic takeout packaging.

Lack of Information

On the restaurant side, there was no central and credible information source to advise on truly sustainable materials, equivalent to what you find on a consumer products site that provides product environmental impact information, like Patagonia and EWG.org. Chefs and restaurant managers were at the mercy of a misleading marketing bombardment from retailers pushing bioplastics and non-recyclable petroleum products.

Somehow, the internet’s aptitude for eliminating market friction and increasing transparency had evaded the takeout business. By 2020, there was no way for diners to check in advance on restaurants’ takeout food packaging policy. Websites like Yelp — and eventually some of the delivery platforms —added an option to rate “packaging sustainability.” But with no clear definition of what they construed as sustainable, the results were as vague and varied as the users providing the reviews — and barely registered as footnotes to the food reviews.

Photo credit: Andriy Blokhin – stock.adobe.com

The Crisis Is Here, the Answers, Too

Humanity will shortly surpass 400 million tons of plastic manufactured in a year. That’s about 100 pounds of plastic for each of the 8 billion people on Earth. Some will go for durable products like car bumpers or computer screens. But nearly half will be used to make single-use items that will barely be used for 30 minutes — and about 45% of that material goes to food packaging.

The materials in takeout packaging should not be harmful regardless of how they’re discarded. They should be recyclable, biodegradable, or backyard compostable (many compostables require a commercial composter). The materials should have a realistic chance of being properly processed no matter what jurisdiction they end up in.

Image: JYBE

Where a closed-loop reusables system is not possible, the following materials are the best options for restaurant takeout packaging:

• Paper and cardboard: Potentially recyclable in many cases and able to rapidly degrade in nature; little threat to wildlife if improperly discarded. Butcher and deli paper; kraft boxes, straws, cold cups, coffee cups, coffee lids (yep, thank you Naeco!), and paper bags.
• Glass: Infinitely recyclable, offers a redemption value if brought to a collection center in many states, little danger to wildlife if improperly discarded. Beverage bottles and jars.
• Aluminum: Infinitely recyclable with significant energy savings when reprocessed, superior to plastic in temperature retention, little risk to wildlife except in certain marine environments. Beverage cans and bottles, round and rectangular aluminum pans with foil board lids, foil sheets, and foil pouches.
• Birch: One of the fastest-growing and hearty trees — can reach maturity in 20 years in most areas of the country; compostable. Cutlery sets.
• Bamboo: Hearty and fast-growing, bamboo can regenerate several times per year from the same root system. Once its growth cycle starts it can mature in just a few months; compostable. Cutlery sets and napkins.

A Crowdsourced Solution for Transparency

We created the JYBE app to connect diners to restaurants that use Earth-friendly takeout packaging. It relies on its users to photograph and describe the packaging materials they receive in to-go and delivery orders so we can assign a rating of 1 through 4 (4 being best) to highlight the local restaurants with the best practices. Uploading a photo of your order and answering a few verifiable questions through our app allows us to know how much plastic, bioplastic, and Styrofoam were supplied, and if you received non-requested cutlery. On the flip side, we ask our users to check JYBE scores before choosing a restaurant.

JYBE app

Our results to date show clearly that sustainable materials are not more expensive and less performant than unrecyclable or uncompostable alternatives. In repeated cases, we can consistently show restaurants viable alternatives for each product they normally use. There’s one exception — namely, those pesky 1-oz. to 2-oz. ramekins used for sauces and dips.  For everything else, there’s an easy swap to match the dimensions, performance, and price of what they are used to.

A Sustainable Shift for Restaurants

Restaurants need to embrace this cultural shift and work to capitalize on their mastery of more sustainable practices; sustainable packaging is becoming a must-have item for consumers. While changing yet another pillar of their takeout business does not appeal to most chefs and owners, the situation with plastic is undeniably dire.

If I was trying to grow my restaurant’s business, I would be angling for customers in eco-affinity groups who are energetic, social media-savvy, and hungry three times a day. And I’d be showing them how the takeout and delivery packaging my restaurant uses supports the environment.

About the Author

Paul Kradin is co-founder and chief sustainability officer of JYBE, an LA-based startup finding innovative solutions to the restaurant industry’s single-use plastic crisis. He ensures every aspect of the company honors JYBE’s sustainability values and works with partners to educate and help them transition to more Earth-friendly practices. Read more about Kradin at gojybe.com/team.

We all agree that takeways contribute to a lot of rubbish in the streets, cardboard containers are always best but over the years plastic has taken over and we are all paying the price for it. At least there are people out there who are attempting to reduce this amount of waste!  One of the other type of plastic containers are those in the supermarkets for those speciality salads,they say on the container that they are recyclable, maybe they are but are they really necessary? All of those prepared meals are the same, where does it end? In Lidl they have a few prepared meals not in plastic and they are great, but as of yesterday there were only three of them, a vegetable lasagne, normal lasagne and canellonis. Its a start but compared to the others a mere drop in the ocean, but something is better than nothing.

The war against plastic continues, but without everyone doing their part, it will be very slow going and difficult.

The blog song for today is: " Tiger Feet" by MUD

TTFN

From Pollutant to Product: Consumer Goods From Captured Carbon - an earth911 report

 

From Pollutant to Product: Consumer Goods From Captured Carbon

ByGemma Alexander

Nov 29, 2021 carbon capture, CO2

We’ve already poured so much carbon into the atmosphere that now simply cutting emissions isn’t enough to forestall the effects of climate change. Sequestration has to be part of the solution, but we can’t possibly plant enough trees. So some folks are getting creative, using circular design principles to create new products out of our biggest problem waste. Earth911 publisher Mitch Ratcliffe recently spoke with three people whose companies pull carbon out of thin air and turn it from pollutant to product in a panel titled “Mining the Sky: Making Consumer Goods out of Captured Carbon.” Here we take a look at some of the consumer goods that these and other companies are making from captured carbon.

Direct Air Capture

Direct air capture (DAC) uses chemicals to remove carbon dioxide from air, essentially concentrating it. There are two types of DAC system; one uses liquid solvents and the other uses solid sorbents (like a chemical sponge). Once the carbon dioxide is captured from the atmosphere, the solution (or sorbent) is typically heated to release the carbon for use, and the other chemicals for another carbon capture cycle.

The climate change benefit of DAC depends on two factors – the source of the energy used in the carbon capture process, and how well the captured carbon is stored. Using fossil fuel-based power in DAC processes undercuts its effectiveness. The heat used for DAC must come from waste heat, renewable energy, or nuclear energy to significantly reduce atmospheric carbon.

When captured carbon is used to make consumer products, the lifespan of the product will determine how long the carbon stays out of the atmosphere. Single-use products and consumables (like carbonated beverages) will quickly release the carbon back into the atmosphere, while construction materials may store the carbon for decades.

The first large-scale DAC plant is now being developed in the United States, but most of the 19 DAC plants already operating in Europe, the U.S., and Canada are small and sell the captured carbon for use in products and commercial processes. There are more companies collecting carbon from industrial emissions at the source. This is because carbon is much more concentrated in industrial smokestacks than in the atmosphere.

Concrete

One of the earliest and most promising consumer applications of captured carbon is concrete. A long-lasting material used in vast quantities, concrete is also said to be responsible for 4% to 8% of the world’s CO2, half of that from production processes. Using captured carbon in concrete can not only help offset the energy costs of producing concrete by up to 48%, but it can also reduce the energy cost of capturing carbon by skipping the energy-intensive purification step.

Cleaning Products

Cleaning products have nothing like the lifespan of concrete. But, there is a satisfying balance in scrubbing the atmosphere when you clean your house. A new laundry capsule from Unilever uses surfactants made with alcohols derived from captured industrial emissions. Although the new laundry detergent will initially be available only in China, it may eventually become an option for everyone looking for a greener clean in their clothes washer.

Expedition Air started as the consumer product division of a company that makes CO2-enhanced additives for concrete and anti-corrosion coatings. Now they partner with other companies to produce a wide variety of items. Each product incorporates materials made from carbon dioxide emissions and displaces more carbon-intensive materials used in their conventional counterparts. Among them is CleanO2, a line of soaps made with potassium carbonate captured from natural gas heating appliances.

Household Items

Expedition Air’s partners also make a variety of household items, from concrete coasters to crayons. Few of these products are likely to make a significant contribution to carbon sequestration. Instead, they serve as conversation starters. And for that purpose, few things could be more effective than artwork. Air Art is a program in which Expedition Air collaborates with artists through a residency program and other partnerships to showcase carbon capture technology. Ranging from science-themed T-shirts to colorful landscape paintings, each Air Art piece tells an environmental story. They also use materials that incorporate captured carbon.

Luxury Goods

At least one company is turning alcohols made from captured carbon to more luxurious uses than laundry. Air Company’s use of captured industrial carbon to manufacture jet fuel may be ironic. But their products also include pure alcohols that form the base for a gender-neutral perfume, Air Eau de Parfum, with jasmine, fig, and tobacco notes. (Although pure essential oil fragrances exist, nearly all commercial perfumes use an alcohol base. Alcohol is among the least problematic ingredients used in perfume and cologne.) Air Company also makes an 80-proof vodka.

Perhaps the ultimate luxury product, diamonds are pure carbon. And they are usually among the least ethical jewelry options. Even lab-grown diamonds, which have fewer environmental and human impacts than mined diamonds, have a huge carbon footprint because they are made from methane and require tremendous energy to produce. Aether diamonds improve on standard lab-grown diamonds by using DAC carbon as a source material and renewable energy to power their process. Each carat produced removes 20 metric tons (22 U.S. tons) of CO2 from the atmosphere.

AirCarbon

Made in facilities powered by renewable energy, AirCarbon is a plastic substitute. Using air and carbon dissolved in water, this plastic-like material does not require DAC. Instead, the makers of AirCarbon use a biological process. In a large saltwater tank, naturally-occurring microorganisms from the ocean form a polyester material called polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB). They manufacture the resulting plastic-like material into compostable straws and cutlery under the brand name restore. Although single-use products like these have little value for carbon sequestration, their replacement of disposable plastics is still a significant win for the oceans.

The cost of carbon capture will drop as new DAC facilities come online and increase the capacity of the technology. As carbon capture scales up, the number and type of captured-carbon consumer products will change. This product class could shift from conversation-starting novelties to one among many strategies for substantially reducing atmospheric carbon concentrations.

Very interesting! A bit of a complicated process it seems but it is good to see that other options are on offer!

The blog song for today is; " A little bit of soap" by Showaddywaddy

TTFN

 

I will not be a bystander. And neither should you... - Ecohustler.com

Ecohustler

3-4 minutos

---

This afternoon, over a hundred people have sat down on Lambeth Bridge to break the National Highways super injunction in solidarity with the at least 34 people who have broken these injunctions so far, 9 of whom received prison sentences this week on 17th November. The group of over a hundred people from all walks of life marched from outside the Royal Courts of Justice at 12pm arm in arm and in rows, each row holding a sign that read ‘Betrayed by my government’. The group intend to stay in the road until they are arrested.

The strategic road network injunction is one of four temporary injunctions granted to National Highways and Transport for London in the past two months. The scope of the injunctions now covers the M25, all major roads in London, the Port of Dover and the entirety of the strategic road network in England.

Following the sentencing of the Highway 9, there has been widespread anger among much of the general public, at the court’s decision. Coming only days after COP26, and one day after the Police, Crimes and Sentencing Bill was in the House of Lords, where even further draconian elements were added to it, the decision to imprison ordinary people protesting peacefully has created a shockwave across the UK.

Gully Bujack, who attended the action, said: “We are living through scary times. Experts are telling us that COP was a fatal failure and there’s no time to lose. History tells us that civil disobedience is the key to driving urgent social change. And now the full force of the state and the judiciary is being wielded against us, to outlaw peaceful protest.

“We are now banned from protesting in the streets. But these streets are ours, and we must not allow ourselves to be driven from them – not now, when we have everything to lose. All roads are now historic sites of civil resistance. We are in resistance. And we call on everyone to join us.”

The 9 will likely only be the first of many to be imprisoned for breaking the injunction, with another 23 people who could also suffer the same fate. Many now feel committed to taking their place and breaking the injunction themselves in order to defy this ruling, which flies in the face of serious climate action.

Alanna Byrne of Extinction Rebellion, who also took part in the action today, said, “When I saw the Highway 9 give their testimonies in court this week, I knew I had a duty to take a stand today in their place. These people willingly gave up their freedom to push the government to act on the greatest crisis we’ll ever face.

“The failure of COP26 should shock everyone into action. World leaders are protecting the interests of the fossil fuel industry over the general public, they are not coming to save us. All we have left now is to come together on the street and rebel for all we hold dear.

“The government thinks that this injunction will scare people into submission and stop taking action. But the opposite is true. This has only ignited a fire in people that will spread faster than they know. As Emma Smart said in the courtroom on Wednesday, ‘I will not be a bystander.’ And neither should you.”

 I am glad to see that there are people out there who are willing to stand up for what they believe in.

I am at a loss to understand how some people still refuse to see what a big mess this planet is in! Amazing really, they just carry on doing the same things over and over again, always leaving things to others, because they are too busy or it´s not that bad, we always have 77% of the rain in november in 14 days, along with hail and plumeting temperatures,every year.  I don´t think so!!! We had constant rain here in Menorca for nearly all of November this year, that is so not normal. We had hailstones over the weekend with the temperature at minus 5.  

Gradually people are beginning to wake up and the young people have a lot to do with it.  They need to carry on with what they are doing and educate others.

The blog song for today is: "Olivers Army" by Elvis Costello

TTFN

A summary of COP26 by Greenpeace UK

 

If you want to know if something has succeeded, you should start by asking the people with the most to lose. In this case, that’s those who are already being hit hardest by climate change, and they’ve given a clear answer:

What is balanced and pragmatic to other parties will not help the Maldives adapt in time. For us, this is a matter of survival. We recognise the foundations that this outcome provides, but it does not bring hope to our hearts. The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees is a death sentence for us.
Shauna Aminath, minister of environment for The Maldives

The climate emergency has already arrived in our territories. And we are very worried about all these announcements, and deals that are being signed here without considering or respecting the rights and participation of Indigenous Peoples.
Sônia Guajajara, Brazilian Indigenous leader

I’m hugely disappointed and hugely let down by COP. Coming from Chad, millions of my people are suffering but nobody is listening to our cries, our tears. It’s our planet, and it’s time to stop messing about with our future.
Safia Hasan, 15, climate activist from Chad

These groups are suffering the most from climate change, even though they did nearly nothing to cause it. But their reasonable demands for help protecting themselves against climate impacts, and compensation from the damage it’s already done, were downplayed and sidelined in the talks.

And while the COP26 deal doesn’t put the 1.5C goal completely out of reach, the governments and companies that obstruct bold action on climate change are knowingly endangering whole communities and cultures for their own short-term profits or political convenience. History won’t judge them kindly for this.

It’s important to be honest about this situation. But it’s also important to remember how much we still have to fight for. There’s no single moment when it’s ‘too late’ to act on climate change; no cut-off point where we can’t choose a better path.

Every ray of hope and inch of progress at COP26 was won through relentless pressure from activists, campaigners and diplomats, especially those on the front lines of the crisis. It’s always been this way, and always will.

So for all the missed opportunities, it’s still worth asking: did COP26 make things better than they were before? Did it create some good foundations to build on? Or did it create new problems that will need to be untangled later?

What was decided at COP26?

Global climate talks have two main strands. You have the formal (and often technical) UN negotiations, which produce a final ‘decision text’ that every country signs.

Alongside that, you often have what’s essentially a giant trade show, where everyone who’s working on climate change comes to boast about what they’re doing. The UK government’s love of good green PR meant we saw even more of these shiny ‘side deals’ at this COP than normal.

This second strand can feel like a bit of a circus, but positive news here can build goodwill and momentum that feed into the formal negotiations.

Let’s run through the big decisions and announcements, starting with what was in the official agreement:

Climate justice

What happened? Governments wrangled over funding and wider support to help poorer countries protect themselves against climate impacts, and compensate them for loss and damage they suffer as a result of emissions from the rich world.

Verdict: you break it, you pay for it. Climate change is already putting a huge financial burden on poorer countries who did almost nothing to cause this crisis. Over a decade ago, governments promised $100bn a year, but they’re still not paying up in full.

There was a tiny bit of progress here, thanks to activists and delegates from climate-vulnerable countries piling on the pressure. But rich governments still didn’t go nearly far enough. While this huge injustice continues, it’ll be hard to build the trust we need for real progress.

A nail in the coffin for coal

What happened? It only took 26 years, but the world’s governments finally officially acknowledged that tackling climate change means moving away from one of the biggest causes of climate change. The final COP26 agreement explicitly talks about ‘phasing down’ coal-burning.

Verdict: bad for fossil fuels, but not bad enough. A major theme of COP26 was sending a signal to the wider world that fossil fuels are on their way out. Lots of the wrangling over the text was really about how strong that signal should be. And while fossil fuel execs certainly won’t be celebrating, the negotiations fell far short of the decisive ‘time’s up’ message we needed. As Greenpeace’s exec director Jennifer Morgan put it, COP26 was bad for fossil fuels, but not bad enough.

A better timetable for tougher targets

What happened? Countries’ existing climate targets aren’t anywhere near enough to keep temperature rises under 1.5 degrees. So they agreed to return with stronger targets in 2022, rather than leaving the normal five-year gap between new commitments.

Verdict: essential urgency. This tougher deadline will put pressure on countries to bring their targets into line with the 1.5C goal. It’s also more in line with the overall urgency of the climate crisis.

Carbon offsetting

What happened? A new official agreement paved the way for countries to trade emissions cuts, paying others – often in the Global South – to ‘offset’ the climate pollution they generate rather than reducing it directly.

Verdict: a license to pollute? COP26 opened the gates for much more carbon offsetting. This is almost certainly bad news, because carbon offsetting is almost certainly a colossal scam that will delay real action on climate change.

Many of the rules and safeguards that could have made the system even vaguely useful were left out, and the resulting loopholes put Indigenous Peoples at even more risk, as their lands will be in demand for new offsetting schemes.

Greenpeace activists raise a banner reading “NOT FOR SALE” against the iconic giant globe

 at the centre of the COP26 conference hall in Glasgow, as talks enter their final hours. 

© Emily Macinnes / Greenpeace

The side deals

Forests deal

What happened? Over 100 governments signed a voluntary side agreement that promised to end deforestation and protect indigenous rights.

Verdict: blah blah blah. There was no sign of actual policies to actually deliver on these promises, and there are major question marks surrounding the new funding. Greenpeace Brazil’s Carolina Pasquali said: “There’s a very good reason [Brazil’s forest-destroying president] Bolsonaro felt comfortable signing on to this new deal. It allows another decade of forest destruction and isn’t binding.”

And to top it all off, this deal looks suspiciously similar to another agreement from back in 2014, which did literally nothing to slow deforestation. World leaders have a long track record here, and it’s not good.

Fossil fuel funding

What happened? A group of over 20 governments and financial institutions agreed to stop funding new overseas fossil fuel projects with public money by the end of 2022. The group includes some major players in energy financing, including Canada, the US, and the UK. This was possibly the most important side agreement at COP26.

Verdict: beginning of the end. Historically, governments have been keen to invest in building fossil-fueled power plants outside their borders. But despite some technical loopholes, this agreement starts to bring that era to an end.

It’ll become much harder to build new dirty energy infrastructure, as companies will have to rely on private banks or domestic government funding. It’s vital that overseas energy funding is redirected into renewable projects instead, and that this ambition is extended to end all new fossil fuel projects immediately.

India’s net zero target

What happened? India pledged to reach ‘net zero’ emissions by 2070. The pledge was part of a new set of measures including a strengthened renewable energy target.

Verdict: better than expected. These measures move India’s climate policy more in the right direction, but there’s still a long way to go. The average person in India creates much less climate pollution than people in Europe or the US. But the size of its population means India’s government has huge influence over the climate. If they meet this goal, analysts say it’ll reduce global temperature rise by around 0.2C.

But 2070 is nearly half a century away, and the whole world needs to be ‘net zero’ by 2050 if we want to stay under 1.5 degrees. The next 10 years will be a good test of whether the government is taking climate change seriously. Greenpeace India’s Avinash Kumar Chanchal said the government “must start reducing emissions at source, as fast and as much as possible”.

Cutting methane

What happened? Over 100 countries joined a side pledge to slash methane 30% by 2030. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that mostly comes from rubbish dumps, industrial farms and leaky oil and gas wells. The pledge mainly focuses on the oil and gas element.

Verdict: not methane accomplished. There’s some good stuff here, but some big gaps too. The commitment failed to rule out new fossil fuels, and didn’t tackle industrial meat and dairy agriculture. Also, some of the world’s biggest emitters – including China, Russia and India haven’t signed up.

US-China deal

What happened? China and the US agreed to work together on ‘enhancing climate action’ through the 2020s, with collaboration on the technical nuts and bolts of cutting emissions.

Verdict: something to build on. Many feared that the terrible state of the US-China relationship could seriously hurt global carbon cutting efforts. So this step towards cooperation between the world’s two biggest emitters is a good sign. Their joint statement says a lot of the right things, but this won’t be a real breakthrough until they can back it up with some real actions.

Posters featuring portraits of climate impacted people and activists and their messages to world 

leaders to tackle the climate and nature crisis. © Marie Jacquemin / Greenpeace

What does this all mean for global temperature rises?

You might have seen headlines talking about the world being headed for a particular amount of warming following the new pledges at COP26.

CAT global update: Glasgow has a credibility gap between talk and action. If all govts met their 2030 targets, we would have 2.4˚C of warming in 2100. But right now, current policies put us at 2.7˚C.
 

— ClimateActionTracker (@climateactiontr) November 9, 2021

There were a few different projections floating around, but importantly, they all see us going way past the 1.5 degree limit, beyond which some countries and regions will simply disappear from the map.

Where exactly we land mainly comes down to whether countries follow through on all their carbon-cutting commitments.

And that’s a big if. Given their track record on climate, it’s bold to assume countries like Australia and Saudi Arabia will reach net zero by 2050 simply because they’ve said they will – especially when their funding and policies to actually get there are seriously lacking.

It’ll be up to citizens, campaigners and forward-thinking politicians to make sure governments set more ambitious goals and stick to them. But until that happens, we should only trust those projections as much as we trust ultra-polluting governments to stop polluting.

What’s next for climate action globally?

The COP bandwagon rolls on, and the UK’s Alok Sharma is still COP president until next year. It’s up to him and the government to make sure countries build on the more positive things that were agreed in Glasgow, and patch up the holes in the agreement.

Rich countries’ reluctance to pay what they owe poor countries is also causing serious problems, slowing progress and undermining much-needed trust in the negotiations. Sharma needs to make this a priority – including getting the UK to make a more substantial contribution.

COP27 will happen in Egypt in 2022, with the UAE playing host the year after. As home to some of the world’s biggest oil producers and many of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, the Middle East will play a major part in deciding what happens to our climate.

But all the diplomatic wrangling won’t mean much if governments don’t actually stick to their climate commitments, and so far their track record isn’t exactly inspiring.

Delivering the actual emissions cuts to match the targets is a world away from the big-picture grandstanding at COP. It’s the work of imaginative civil servants and brave local councillors; committed businesses and active citizens. Success will be the sum of millions of good choices, supported by good government policies that make those choices possible.

And what’s next for climate action in the UK?

As the global spotlight shifts away from the UK after COP, there’s an immediate risk that the government will quietly green-light a bunch of high-carbon projects, including the Cambo oil field and Cumbria coal mine.

Beyond that, there are still some big gaps in the UK’s climate plans that need fixing. The government still hasn’t come up with enough money or policies needed to get the country’s emissions down in line with its targets. And they’re still not taking seriously the need for a just transition, which means ordinary workers in polluting industries risk losing out as we move to clean technology.

If you take away one thing from the story of COP26, please let it be this: there is power in our collective voice. There is a beacon of hope in the brilliant words and leadership of the four MAPA youth activists that sailed on the Rainbow Warrior to the steps of COP26. There is strength in the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets to protest in the rain. There is a guiding light from Indigenous Peoples, who have reminded us that failure is not an option.

 I have been looking forward to reading the greenpeace report on COP26 and was not disappointed, as usual it is informative and to the point.

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

TTFN

The Problem With That Wood Smoke Smell - a report from earth911.com

 

The Problem With That Wood Smoke Smell

ByGemma Alexander

Nov 23, 2021 campfire, fireplace, wood smoke, wood-smoke-problem

Nearly everyone loves the smell of wood smoke. It evokes carefree summer nights under the stars and cozy winter evenings relaxing in front of the fireplace. But the smoke storms caused by extreme wildfire seasons in recent years have been a stark reminder that there can be too much of a good thing.

In the case of wood smoke, it doesn’t take a wildfire to be unhealthy for people and the environment. Wood smoke might smell better than car exhaust, but it is also an environmental pollutant that contributes to serious health impacts. In fact, an old wood stove can emit as much air pollution as five diesel trucks.

Wood Smoke

Smoke, regardless of what material is burning, contains fine particles, including dust and soot. Called particle pollution or particulate matter, these particles range in size from visible to microscopic. Fine particles that are 2.5 µm (micrometers) in diameter or smaller are not visible like dust or soot, but they can become lodged in the respiratory tract. When you look up your local air quality, this fine particulate matter is usually the primary statistic, reported as “PM2.5.”

Particulate matter can damage the lungs, triggering asthma, heart attacks, stroke, irregular heart rhythms, and even heart failure in people who are already at risk for these conditions. Even people who are not at-risk will experience eye and sinus irritation from particle pollution. When pollution is severe, it can lead to bronchitis and other respiratory ailments.

Image source: EPA.gov

The smoke from burning wood also includes several toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, acrolein, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs are found in soot and tar, and are among the same chemicals that make cigarettes so harmful. Incomplete combustion of wood releases more of these toxic chemicals, as well as carbon monoxide. More than 150 people die annually from carbon monoxide poisoning related to home heating.

Burn Less

In developed countries, the simplest way to avoid pollution from wood smoke is to stop burning wood. But psychological and economic forces make it unlikely that we will abandon burning wood completely. Even so, we can be more judicious about when and how much we burn wood. If you have a fireplace or woodstove at home, avoid using it during seasons when warmer temperatures allow smoke to settle around the house.

Many people have a hard time imagining camping without a campfire. Cooking over an open fire, making s’mores, and sitting around the fire under the stars are all iconic camping experiences. But nowadays many areas institute burn bans throughout much of the year. Complying with burn bans is not optional – campfires have caused more than 11,000 wildfires in the U.S. since 2006.

It might not be as picturesque, but a propane camp stove is much safer than a campfire. And if you want to avoid an open flame altogether, consider a solar oven.

Campfires have caused more than 11,000 wildfires in the U.S. since 2006. Image by skeeze on Pixabay

Burn Cleaner

In parts of the world where people depend on wood fires for cooking, traditional cookstoves are a greater health risk factor than poor water, sanitation, and other environmental hazards. In these places, people need cleaner cookstoves to replace open fires.

Incomplete burning releases more smoke and toxic chemicals. For complete combustion, only use dry, seasoned wood or cleaner-burning manufactured fire logs; learn how to build a fire that catches quickly, and always put out your fire completely. A smoldering fire also releases more smoke and harmful chemicals. And never burn garbage, treated lumber, or plastics.

Standard fireplaces put out 28 times as much particulate matter as a new wood stove, and a pellet stove releases about half of what a new wood stove puts out. Both wood and gas-burning fireplace inserts generate less smoke and provide the same amount of heat with less fuel than an open fireplace. If you have a wood-burning fireplace, have it inspected annually by a chimney sweep certified by the Chimney Safety Institute of America to make sure it’s operating properly.

Wood stoves should also be inspected annually for safety and efficiency. Older woodstoves release 15 to 30 grams of smoke per hour. New, EPA-certified stoves produce 4.5 grams per hour or less. When you’re ready to upgrade your stove, check the current list of EPA-certified wood heaters or consider switching your home to a cleaner heating system. And no matter what heat source you use, make sure you heat your home as efficiently as possible.

This article was originally published on October 12, 2020.

You can tell the difference when a household is burning bad wood, the colour of the smoke is a tell tale sign and the smell is horrendous.  Hopefully someone will read this blog and follow some of the tips mentioned in it.  I pass some houses near where I live and they have a fire burning during the day and through the night, they must burn a tremendous amount of wood!  It is difficult what to do for the best, use electric heaters more or follow the advice above and burn wood, or a little bit of both? I find it best to heat the area we are using at the time, to heat the whole house is impossible and also a waste of energy! Because the electric prices here in Spain have increased so much, and also to try and reduce the amount we use, I don´t put the water heater on in the day and try to use any appliances in the low or cheap time bands.  Unfortunately not everyone is able to do this and they are paying an awful lot for their electricity. 

It is tricky sometimes to do what is right, because of the factors of everyday life and circumstances, but I just focus on what I know that I can do and go for it.  If I try to follow all the recommendations from all the different sources, I will drive myself nuts!

The blog song for today is: "Tangled up in Blue"by Bob Dylan

TTFN

Celebrate Buy Nothing Day To Consume Less All Year! An alternative to Black Friday from the Earth911.com website!

 

Celebrate Buy Nothing Day To Consume Less All Year

ByGemma Alexander Earth911.com

Nov 18, 2021 black friday, buy, buy nothing day, buy-nothing, consumerism

The pandemic makes Black Friday crowds even scarier than usual (not to mention leaving lots of folks flat broke). The good news? More people than ever may be ready to participate in Buy Nothing Day.

Lying somewhere between a protest and an alternative holiday, Buy Nothing Day was invented by Canadian artist Ted Dave as a challenge to find out what it feels like to step completely outside of consumer culture for just one day. If you’re up for the challenge, here are a few socially distant Black Friday alternatives that could even put you on the path to buying less all year long.

This year, Buy Nothing Day is Friday, November 26. (Poster above is from Buy Nothing Day 2019.) Image: adbusters.org

DIY Gifts

Gift-giving can be one of the most meaningful parts of the holiday season. But the average American racks up more than $1,000 of holiday credit card debt each year, and fewer than half of them will pay it off before Easter.

So instead of shopping, why not make gifts for your loved ones? Handmade holiday gifts are more meaningful, and can be more environmentally friendly, too. You can use essential oils, Mason jars, old books, and even your cut-up credit cards to make eco-chic gifts like handmade beauty products. You can use the skills to make thoughtful homemade gifts year-round for birthdays and other special events.

Go Outside

You can get a lot of exercise walking around the mall but carrying all those shopping bags will help your wallet lose as much weight as you do.

Try getting outside instead. Outdoor exercise boosts your mood and immune health as well as your metabolism. Kids benefit as much as – or more than – adults. So take them on a winter nature scavenger hunt. You can even find nature in the city if you know where to look. Follow the Scandinavian’s example and get outside in all kinds of weather.

Once you’ve gotten used to winter biking, hiking, or just playing outside, keeping up the healthy habit in summer will be easy.

Read a Book

Even if you enjoy shopping, odds are that cozying up with a good book is more relaxing. Take advantage of the long weekend to catch up on your TBR list. You could dig into the roots of environmental nonfiction or explore its contemporary branches. Maybe you will change your shopping habits for good after reading books to counter consumerism.

Make reading a family affair this Buy Nothing Day with captivating picture books about recycling, Green Earth Awards-winning children’s books, or books that expertly teach kids about the environment.

Garden

You don’t have to put the garden to bed in the fall.

The long weekend is the perfect time to replant, build a cold frame, go vertical, and mulch to keep your garden going all winter. You can even get the kids involved. But if it’s really too cold for a winter garden outside, consider starting an indoor garden or using your garden leftovers inside. If you do it right, growing your own food is good economics year-round, and a little extra work in the fall will give your garden the best start next spring.

Originally published on November 23, 2020, this article was updated in November 2021.

I love the idea behind this, I have posted before about how black friday turned  into blackmonth, and ti be honest there are not so many good deals about!  It is just another ploy to get us to part with our money for things that we really don´t need!  I can understand if the purchase was on the list, but some of the stuff that ends up being bought on a whim just ends up in a cupboard somewhere!Everything looks great until you stop to think and ask yourself "do I really need another bag/pair of shoes/party dress, etc..?  Normally the answer is no!  I like to buy clothes from our local charity shop, it´s shopping with a clear conscience! but even then I only buy if I need it!  So happy "buy nothing day" we can be really stingy and know that it is for a good cause!

The blog song for today is: "Sweet emotion" by Aerosmith

TTFN

Getting a Greener Clean: soaps - A report from earth911.com

Soap, by definition, is clean. But unfortunately, that doesn’t mean it’s environmentally friendly, or even that it’s free from harmful chemicals. That’s discouraging news about a product that you coat your entire body in daily, like body wash or shower gel. But you can’t just skip the shower if you want to continue living in human society. There are lots of ways to make your hygiene routine more sustainable, and some soap choices are clearly better than others.

Soap vs. Detergent

You might be surprised to find out that most people don’t shower with soap. Body washes, bath gels, and even some bar soaps are technically detergents. The difference is more than just semantics; soaps and detergents are chemically different, and as a result, their environmental impacts are, too.

Every cleanser contains surfactants to dissolve water and wash away dirt and oil. The surfactants in soap come from the reaction between a strong base, such as sodium hydroxide, and a fatty acid or triglycerides from vegetable oils or animal fats. In contrast, shower gels and body washes contain surfactants that are usually derived from petroleum. The most common plant-based surfactants are sodium laureth sulfate or sodium cocoamphoacetate from palm or coconut oil.

Soaps and synthetic detergents are regulated differently. The Consumer Product Safety Commission regulates true soaps. But the U.S. Food & Drug Administration regulates soaps containing moisturizers or perfumes as cosmetics. The FDA also regulates medicated soaps and soaps that are marketed as non-prescription drugs to treat acne or other skin conditions. Unfortunately, none of these sets of regulations is particularly strong. When it comes to cleansers, it’s buyer beware.

 

Choose Soap

Soap is usually better than detergent, which is almost always petroleum-based. There are plant-based detergents. But if you’re shopping for plant-based body washes, beware that unsustainable palm oil is a common ingredient.

Soap is also less likely to contain sodium laureth sulfate, one of the Suzuki Foundation’s Dirty Dozen cosmetic chemicals to avoid. However, many soaps contain animal products such as goat’s milk or even tallow. The Leaping Bunny app identifies companies that do not perform or employ animal testing, and there are numerous vegan certifications. Soaps like Kiss My Face and Hugo Naturals do not contain animal products or byproducts and have not been tested on animals.

Liquid vs. Bar

Liquid cleansers require five times more energy to manufacture and have 10 times the carbon footprint of bar soaps. Liquids are also packaged in plastic that is not always recyclable and contributes to ocean pollution. One life cycle analysis also found that solid soaps contain fewer ingredients harmful to human health and the environment than liquid soaps. The British website Ethical Consumer confirms that bar soaps are less likely to contain petroleum, use less plastic packaging, and have lower emissions from transportation than liquid soap.

Toxicity

Cleansers of all kinds can contain untested chemicals (or worse, known carcinogens and toxins). The Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database provides detailed information about individual products. Verified products are those with the fewest toxicity concerns, like Codex Beauty’s BIA bar and Bravo Sierra.

Antibacterial Soaps

The FDA encourages consumers to avoid antibacterial soaps. Antibacterial soaps do not provide any added protection against viruses like COVID-19, nor is there any evidence that their ingredients are safe and effective. The overuse of antibiotics contributes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

Microbeads

Because water treatment systems cannot effectively filter out microbeads, they end up as microplastic pollution. The Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 prohibits the manufacturing, packaging, and distribution of rinse-off cosmetics containing plastic microbeads. However, many product formulae still contain plastics under the names acrylate copolymer and polypropylene. Or, use regular soap with a renewable loofah sponge (you can even grow your own).

Use

Multiple LCAs note that the way we use soap contributes significantly to its footprint. One found that consumers use more than six times more liquid soap than bar soap per wash. Use this knowledge to either switch from body wash to bar soap or become more mindful of how much liquid soap you squeeze out of the bottle. When you switch to bar soap, try to store it dry so it doesn’t dissolve between uses.

Also, be sure to set your water heater to 120F degrees and use a low-flow showerhead. Be mindful of how much time you spend in the shower. Even an efficient showerhead uses more than a gallon of water per minute. In the end, the water and energy you use washing have a much bigger impact on your personal carbon footprint than your choice of soap.

 

This is the very reason why I decided to make my own soap.  If you are interested visit my website:

www.suubio.org (copy this address or use the link below!)

suubio

The blog song for today is: " Waterfalls" by TLC

TTFN