Search results

Past Presentation | Author and cook David Groß travels through five European countries and cooks exclusively what others throw in the garbage bin. With great thirst for knowledge, he tracks food waste and presents unexpected solutions. In an unusual and humorous self attempt David Groß questions our daily consumer lifestyle.

Now Playing | What if every person could actually make an impact on the world? “Green Waste” takes an in-depth look at the process of recycling and waste management in the community of Flagstaff. From recycling plastic bags, to re-using glass bottles, from recycling hazardous waste to the efforts of local businesses, the film shows how every contribution, no matter how small, can collectively make the difference for a better tomorrow. Filmed and Produced under the Emerging Filmmakers Program for youth filmmakers.

Now Playing | Our garbage accumulates and gives life to a plastic monster. We wish his reign to be short. It is probably time to think over how we produce and consume to pollute less.

Past Presentation | As a state becomes overburdened with landfills, passionate individuals argue for recycling as a better way. This film takes an exclusive look at the recycling industry in Alabama, a state that is home to the worlds largest plastic recycler. Ultimately, the film asks why the state is incentivizing landfills, rather than supporting an industry that is both more environmentally friendly and economically beneficial.

Artificial intelligence is peering into restaurant garbage pails and crunching grocery-store data to try to figure out how to send less uneaten food into dumpsters.

In Libya, a grassroots effort to recycle plastic waste is rejuvenating communities and aiding cancer patients.Radwan Khashim reports for Ensia.In short:Mustafa Balhaj, a retired teacher, initiated recycling projects in Libya to combat plastic pollution and support those in need.These initiatives not only clean the environment but also fund cancer treatment and empower vulnerable populations.The efforts have gained traction, creating jobs and offering new hope in areas affected by war and economic downturn.Key quote:"I felt it was my calling to clean the beaches and the city. I pursued that."— Mustafa Balhaj, retired teacherWhy this matters:In a country fragmented by conflict, these recycling projects are a silver lining, improving health outcomes and community well-being. Beyond environmental impact, they demonstrate how grassroots movements can fill gaps left by governmental instability, offering lessons in resilience and community care.Lost fishing nets, plastic twine, plastic packaging, balloon string, plastic chairs - all this trash is rising in our oceans.

Monteverde ranks among the most popular destinations in the country, attracting over 200,000 tourists annually due to its robust conservation efforts. In response to the large number of people who visit, Monteverde is starting a project aimed at gathering and processing organic waste, particularly leftover food from restaurants, with the aim of utilizing it to […] The post Monteverde Leads the Way in Sustainable Waste Management appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

The average American throws out three times more trash today than in 1960, and what we squander is killing us. But we can choose differently.

Carleigh Bodrug's new cookbook explains just how simple a zero-waste, plant-based diet can actually be

A fibrous adsorbent selectively recovers high-purity gold from waste. Dramatically reduces the cost and time of the recovery process and enables material to be mass-produced...

The mushroom industry explores the potential of spent substrate, a byproduct of mushroom cultivation, for various environmental and agricultural applications.Doug Bierend reports for Civil Eats.In short:Spent substrate, the leftover material from mushroom farming, holds potential for compost, soil decontamination, biofuel, and further mushroom cultivation.Small and large mushroom farms alike face the challenge of managing the increasing amounts of spent substrate, seeking innovative solutions for its disposal and reuse.The Central Texas Mycological Society has created a community network for free spent substrate pickup, supporting local farms and environmental projects.Key quote:"If you're gonna do it, awesome, but account for this waste stream you're producing and how you're gonna get it off of your property."— Amanda Janney, founder of KM MushroomsWhy this matters:Incorporating spent substrate into farming practices supports the principles of circular economy by recycling waste products into valuable resources. This not only reduces waste but also minimizes the environmental impact of farming by decreasing the reliance on synthetic inputs.The way we eat and grow food has to dramatically change if we're going to feed the world's increasing population by 2050 and protect the planet, according to a major report released in 2019 from the EAT-Lancet Commission.

The University of Costa Rica (UCR) designed a system that reuses coffee waste and transforms it into energy. The model seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency. Coffee is one of the most consumed beverages in the world, and Latin America stands out as one of the main producers of this bean. […] The post Costa Rica’s UCR Pioneers Coffee Waste Reuse for Sustainability appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

A group of researchers at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU Singapore), has created a artificial ‘worm gut’ capable of decomposing plastics. This innovation presents a...

Studies find red, blue and green plastic decomposes into microplastic particles faster than plainer coloursRetailers are being urged to stop making everyday products such as drinks bottles, outdoor furniture and toys out of brightly coloured plastic after researchers found it degrades into microplastics faster than plainer colours.Red, blue and green plastic became “very brittle and fragmented”, while black, white and silver samples were “largely unaffected” over a three-year period, according to the findings of the University of Leicester-led project. Continue reading...

In a recent inquiry, concerns were raised about Australia potentially becoming a dumping ground for international nuclear waste due to the Aukus agreement.Tory Shepherd reports for The Guardian.In short:The Aukus deal might enable the US and UK to ship their nuclear waste to Australia, sparking debate over nuclear safety and waste management.Critics argue that the proposed legislation lacks transparency and could compromise Australia's environmental and public health.The defense minister counters fears of international waste dumping, emphasizing Australia's commitment to stringent nuclear safety and waste management standards.Key quote:“Especially when it’s viewed in the context of the contested and still unresolved issue of domestic intermediate-level waste management, the clear failure of our Aukus partners to manage their own naval waste, the potential for this bill to be a poison portal to international waste and the failure of defence to effectively address existing waste streams, most noticeably PFAS.”— Dave Sweeney, Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear free campaignerWhy this matters:While the Aukus pact primarily focuses on providing Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, it inherently involves the use of nuclear technology, raising questions about the management of nuclear materials, including waste. Worldwide, all kinds of waste, such as illegal electronic waste, are being transferred to other regions.

Some environmental campaigners claim that attempts to create a circular economy for plastics are doomed to fail – but the arguments can be disingenuous

A filter made from brewery waste yeast encapsulated in hydrogels can quickly absorb lead from contaminated water. Beer breweries generate and discard thousands of tons...

Jessica Georges loves the beaches of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, where she lives. But a few years ago, she realized even the most pristine parts of town weren’t immune to plastic pollution. “You can’t walk three yards on most beach days and not run into some sort of plastic,” she told EHN. Increasingly bothered by what she saw, she created a low-waste business — Green Road Refill — to sell low-cost and low-waste goods to her community. Now, she and other low-waste businesses are strengthening their efforts to reduce plastic pollution via the National Business Coalition for the Oceans, a nationwide organization of businesses supported by nonprofit Oceana. The coalition focuses on advancing federal, state and local policies to improve ocean health, in part by curbing single-use plastics. Businesses involved in the coalition work for plastics policy change by sending letters, signing petitions, testifying at hearings and educating customers. “We’re really happy to be part of a coalition where others are bringing their perspectives and their solutions, and we can all join forces and create the systems change that’s necessary,” Lauren Sweeney, a coalition member and co-founder of reusable packaging company Deliver Zero, told EHN. Plastic policy progressOceana’s business coalition emerged in 2021, after a partnership between Oceana, government officials and regional businesses helped ban oil and gas drilling along the Atlantic and eastern Gulf coasts. It became clear businesses voicing their concerns had the power to convince lawmakers, said Claudia Davis, the coordinator of the coalition.The coalition provides tools to business owners to help them learn about policy issues related to the oceans and gives them accessible ways to participate in policy efforts. Davis organizes members to sign petitions, author opinion pieces to publish in news outlets, testify at hearings and meet with lawmakers about relevant legislation. Any business interested in ocean health can join. Now, 250 business owners, from diving shops to restaurants to refilleries (shops where customers can refill reusable packaging with home and personal care products), are involved. “We really want to encourage collective action from the business community, because that's what's going to deliver policy victories that make a change for the most people,” Davis told EHN. At the federal level, the coalition is working to pass the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, which would set nationwide plastics reduction targets, ban certain single-use plastic products and create a nationwide beverage container refund program. The coalition is working to expand the number of states and local governments with similar plastic legislation. In 2022, the coalition worked with multiple businesses in New York City to pass the “skip the stuff” law, which prohibits New York City restaurants from providing single-use plastics in takeout orders unless the customer asks. While the law will help reduce plastic pollution, it will also help restaurants save money, Davis said.Sweeney and Larasati Vitoux, another coalition member who runs a New York City refillery called the Maison Jar, testified for the bill at a hearing in front of New York City’s Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection.“I think it really made a difference to have members of the community who were saying “This is important to me not just as an individual, not just because I want to see less trash in my community, but [because] it's gonna save me and all of us money in the long run,”’ Davis said.A business perspectiveLow-waste businesses can provide a crucial perspective to lawmakers concerned about how policy changes will impact the economy. “Other businesses will come forward and say these bills are terrible for business,” Sweeney said. “Actually, you can run a business without polluting the planet and the oceans. The goal of these organizations is to counter the narrative that plastic reduction solutions are inherently anti-business.”Bringing business voices to environmental advocacy work is critical, said Jennifer Congdon, deputy director for Beyond Plastics, an environmental nonprofit not involved in Oceana’s coalition. Policymakers can get a lot of reassurance from hearing that environmental policies pushed by advocates “are going to shift the economy, but they’re not going to harm the economy,” she told EHN. “There’s a path forward for economic growth.” "You can run a business without polluting the planet and the oceans. The goal of these organizations is to counter the narrative that plastic reduction solutions are inherently anti-business.” - Lauren Sweeney, Deliver ZeroAt Green Road Refill, Georges sells more than 40 plant-based products such as dish soaps, shampoos and detergents. Running a refill shop is difficult work with slim margins, said Georges and Katie Rodgers-Hubbard, who runs a similar refillery in Savannah, Georgia, called Lite Foot Company.Bills that restrict single-use plastics give businesses like theirs a leg up by shifting the external costs of plastic like its environmental and public health harms — back to the businesses. “That makes plastic less competitive against other materials and other methods of delivering goods to people,” said Congdon. Preventing plastic pollutionWhile they work toward policy action, the businesses themselves are helping to fight pollution, too. In 2023, Rodgers-Hubbard decided that running a low-waste business and joining other nonprofit efforts wasn’t enough. She started a new, nonprofit branch of her business: Lite Foot Environmental Foundation. The foundation is creating a grade-school curriculum to educate students about plastic pollution and reuse. They also host clothing and book swaps and clothing repair days to encourage the Savannah community to extend the life of belongings. “We’re hoping to push the narrative,” Rodgers-Hubbard said. “Let’s fix things, let’s buy things of quality.” And at Green Road Refill, Georges doesn’t only sell closed-loop products —her suppliers are closed-loop, too. She buys many of her products in 30- to 55-gallon containers from a company called Rustic Strength, which she then sends back to the company once the containers are empty. When considering what to put on her shelves, she prioritizes products with biodegradable and non-toxic ingredients. Georges also focuses on educating customers and gives talks to libraries and elementary schools about plastic pollution. She asks everyone who gets a refill at her shop to contribute to an art installation made of non-recyclable bottle caps—a great way to start conversations about reducing one’s plastic footprint, she said. She passes information and petitions from Oceana on to customers in her monthly newsletters. “When I first started, I had to really do a lot of work explaining what plastic was and why it's important to reduce your own plastic footprint,” she said. But now, the people who visit her shop are more familiar with refilleries and living a low-waste lifestyle. “Businesses that exist almost for the sole purpose of reducing single use plastic are growing,” said Sweeney. “This is an exciting sector and the U.S. could develop more leadership in this sector by actually passing policy more quickly.”

A new machine learning tool developed at U.C. Santa Barbara aims to guide policymakers in reducing plastic waste through a variety of interventions.Lisa Held reports for Civil Eats.In short:Representatives from more than 150 countries are negotiating a treaty to address the plastic crisis, with final details expected later this year.The Global Plastics AI Policy Tool assesses the impact of 11 policy interventions on reducing plastic waste through 2050, predicting significant reductions with measures like minimum recycled content mandates and capping virgin plastic production.Expert Nivedita Biyani emphasizes the need for systemic changes in waste management, comparing current practices to outdated methods from the 1950s.Key quote: "Negotiators need to recognize that plastic pollution is an accelerating global crisis that cannot be solved with fragmented national approaches." — Eirik Lindebjerg, WWF International’s global plastics policy leadWhy this matters: Plastic pollution is a growing global crisis affecting both environmental and human health. Effective policies, informed by AI tools, are important for achieving significant reductions in plastic waste, especially in sectors like food packaging. Read more: Investigation: PFAS on our shelves and in our bodies.

Intent to sue federal regulators charges they have failed to address dangerous levels of PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ known to be in sludgeNew legal action could put an end to the practice of spreading toxic sewage sludge on US cropland as a cheap alternative to fertilizer, and force America to rethink how it disposes of its industrial and human waste.A notice of intent to sue federal regulators charges they have failed to address dangerous levels of PFAS “forever chemicals” known to be in virtually all sludge. Continue reading...

“For us, getting to work with all these communities — it felt like, ‘Oh, this is what we should have been doing all along,'" says one Portland Fruit Tree Project member.

By Leah Douglas(Reuters) - Climate advocacy groups are pressuring world governments gathered at this year’s United Nation’s COP28 climate...

Their enzymes can break down plastic in a matter of hours

Exclusive: Facilities owned by Bingo Industries and Aussie Skips Recycling among more than 20 named in NSW parliament for breaching regulationsRecycling fill sold in Sydney stores tests positive for asbestosGet our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcastSome of the best-known waste companies in New South Wales are among those that broke safety rules that led to potentially contaminated soil fill being supplied to backyard landscapers, schools, childcare centres and parks across the state.As part of an investigation into soil contamination, Guardian Australia can reveal that Bingo Industries, Aussie Skips Recycling, Benedict Recycling and KLF Holdings breached state regulations for testing a type of cheap soil made from recycled construction and demolition waste.Companies found in the 2019 investigation to have asked private laboratories to keep retesting samples when they exceeded contaminant thresholds were: Bingo Industries in Auburn, four Benedict Recycling facilities in Sydney, Breen Resources in Kurnell, South Coast Equipment Recycling at Warrawong, Hi-Quality Waste Management at St Marys and Brandown Pty Ltd at Cecil Park. The 2013 investigation also found two Benedict Recycling facilities were retesting samples.Twenty-one facilities were found in the 2019 investigation not to have been meeting EPA sampling rules such as the frequency with which samples should be collected and tested and what they were tested for: eight sites owned by Bingo Industries, four owned by Benedict Industries and one each by Aussie Skips Recycling, KLF Holdings, Breen Resources, Brandown, Hi-Quality Waste Management, Budget Waste Recycling, Rock & Dirt Recycling, South Coast Equipment Recycling and Builders Recycling Operations. Aussie Skips Recycling and Hi-Quality Waste Management were also among 11 facilities found in 2013 to be breaching testing rules.Following the 2019 investigation, the EPA issued prevention notices to six facilities after it detected asbestos in their recovered fines. In at least two instances the product had already been removed for use in the community.In one case identified in the 2019 EPA investigation, 16 tonnes of asbestos-contaminated soil produced by KLF Holdings was supplied to an apartment complex in Bankstown, and the regulator was forced to order a clean-up. Continue reading...

A new UN report finds that our problematic relationship with electronic trash is worsening, but solvable

A law proposed in New York State seeks to reduce plastic packaging, ban certain plastic chemicals and mandate that producers of packaged consumer goods fund the recycling or disposal of what they sell

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard encourages use of renewable diesel from biomass. But it could encourage deforestation for energy crops such as soybeans and canola.

This story was originally published by Yale e360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Can metals that naturally occur in seawater be mined, and can they be mined sustainably? A company in Oakland, California, says yes. And not only is it extracting magnesium from ocean water—and from waste brine generated by industry—it is doing […]

One ton of plastic waste was recovered from the Virilla River. Since the installation of the floating waste collection fence, another ton of plastic waste has been prevented from reaching the sea. It is estimated that the Virilla River captures up to 80% of the floating waste from the water bodies of the Greater Metropolitan […] The post Costa Rica’s River Fence Prevents Ocean Plastic Pollution appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Plastic is just about everywhere, piling up in streams, landfills and even our bloodstreams and placentas. The United Nations agrees that something must be done, given both the excess of waste and the considerable plant-heating emissions involved in producing it, almost entirely from coal, oil and gas. Yet fossil fuel and chemicals companies see a great future in plastics. Both they and the companies that use these products are reluctant to find alternatives. So, as with greenhouse gas emissions, plastics polluters are now gravitating toward a scheme that would let them have it both ways: let them keep making and selling plastics while claiming to be part of the solution. That idea is plastic offset credits—which, according to supporters, offer the fantastical promise of “plastic neutral” plastic.Plastic offset credits are modeled on carbon offsets: A company that uses or produces plastic can purchase credits that correspond to reductions in plastic waste elsewhere, just as drillers can buy up credits that correspond to patches of forest that will draw enough carbon down from the atmosphere to “offset” the carbon they produce. Purchasing credits is intended to create flexibility for companies that might need extra time to reduce their own emissions, whether to comply with government regulations—like in California’s cap and trade system—or voluntarily, as with airlines that promise carbon neutral flights. Third-parties, often non-profits, approve and monitor credit-generating projects to ensure they correspond to real-world emissions reductions.That’s how it’s supposed to work, anyway. Carbon credit markets, however, now face intense scrutiny for fueling land grabs in the developing world, displacing indigenous communities, and furthering human rights abuses. Among the most damning research on carbon offsets shows that they simply aren’t very good at offsetting carbon, and simply grant polluters a lifeline to continue on with business as usual. An investigation published last fall by The Guardian and the nonprofit watchdog Corporate Accountability found that 78 percent of the top 50 carbon-offset projects are “likely junk.” The third parties that approve credit-generating projects have also had their failures exposed. An extensive exposé by The Guardian, German newspaper Die Zeit, and SourceMaterial, a non-profit newsroom, revealed last year that at least 90 percent of credits generated in rainforests by the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS)—an industry leader, accounting for roughly two-thirds of credits on the voluntary carbon market—were “phantom credits” that didn’t respond to any real reductions in greenhouse gases. The NGO that administers the VCS is called Verra, and has vehemently refuted these and other allegations. Verra—the world’s biggest issuer of carbon credits—is now one of the loudest voices pushing to expand plastic credits as means of dealing with plastic waste. Compared to decades’ old carbon markets, plastics crediting is a new and relatively small space, having only started up in earnest in 2021 via the 3R Initiative to use a “market-based approach that will scale up recovery & recycling activities and increase accountability for plastic waste reduction efforts.”Verra is a “technical founding member,” providing expertise on accounting methodologies, auditing and registry management; “corporate founding members” include Danone and Nestle. Currently, just seven projects have received approval for inclusion in Verra’s registry, which the group’s website says is the result of “a rigorous development and assessment process.” Dozens of others are awaiting approval. Another exchange—the Singapore-based Plastics Credit Exchange—has already sold millions of dollars worth of credits, including (according to PCX’s website) to the Filipino subsidiaries of Nestle, Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Pepsi-Cola. Several smaller companies have popped up, too. Most projects involve funding either waste processing facilities or offering additional funds to waste collection efforts, like beach clean-ups or waste pickers in the informal economy. What this would actually do to reduce plastic waste, given that most plastic isn’t recyclable by any reasonable definition and seems to generate an abundance of worrisome microplastics when it is recycled, is unclear.There are currently no industry standards for what these credit-generating projects should look like or how credits are issued. Evidence so far hasn’t been promising. A waste processing facility that was at one time registered by Verra and backed by Danone has been suspended from selling credits following allegations it’d been built too close to a Balinese community in Indonesia, Greenpeace investigative outlet Unearthed reported late last month. Verra suspended its accreditation of the project last May amid complaints from shareholders and residents, and is currently reviewing the project. It’s also reviewing another facility in Bali that had been registered with the group’s plastics program in December 2022; Danone has ended its support for both plants, but continues to back several processing facilities in Indonesia to further its pledge of recovering more plastic than it uses in the country by 2025. Despite these troubles, the World Bank has granted its blessing to plastics offsetting, including for Verra-registered projects in Indonesia. Earlier this year, the pair announced a $100 million plastic credits bond to fund Verra-accredited plastic collection and recycling projects there and in Ghana. Verra, meanwhile, has been eager to ingratiate itself into ongoing UN negotiations over a legally binding treaty to end plastic waste, the fourth round of which wrapped up last week in Ottawa, Canada. “Investment in plastic waste collection and recycling infrastructure ensures that plastic waste downstream is recovered and recirculated, repurposed, or appropriately managed,” the group writes on its website. “Through the issuance of Plastic Credits to certified plastic waste collection and recycling projects, Verra’s Plastic Program drives finance toward activities that establish and scale this waste management infrastructure.” Neither Verra nor the World Bank responded to a request for comment on this article in time for publication.Details of what a global plastics treaty might look like are still very much up for debate: Will each country have its own pledge to reduce plastic waste along a certain timeline, as in the Paris Agreement? Will the targets themselves be legally binding, or will countries only be mandated to set them? Which countries are going to pay for what? Advocates, though, are worried about the potential role that plastic offset credits might play, and possibility that rich nations will back them as a substitute for financing poorer countries’ efforts to end plastic pollution. Plastic offsets, critics argue, could also serve as an excuse for corporations and governments to continue on with business as usual. “We have 30 years of experience with the carbon market and 30 years of seeing problems there. Verra, the World Bank and others are getting up on stages and saying there are no problems, everything works great and now we’re going to apply that logic to plastic because it’s been proven in so many other places,” says Neil Tangri, Senior Science and Policy Director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). “There’s an absolutely steadfast refusal to learn the lessons of the carbon markets,” now, despite myriad controversies, a well-established part of emissions reductions efforts.The two problems—plastic and greenhouse gas pollution—aren’t unrelated. A study published last month by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories finds that the production of plastics currently accounts for 5.3 percent of total global greenhouse emissions, more than double the emissions created by aviation. It’s also growing rapidly; production could triple by mid-century. If every other sector were to somehow decarbonize this year, plastics production would still push the world beyond the limit outlined in the Paris Agreement, which was to keep warming “well below” 1.5 degrees Celsius. Plastic production would blow through the emissions required to keep that goal in reach—known as a carbon budget—as early as 2060, and by 2083 at the latest. To “keep 1.5 alive,” as U.S. politicians like to say they are doing, primary plastics production would need to decrease by between 12 and 17 percent per year, starting this year, per an analysis of the Lawrence Livermore study by Tangri, who served as an expert reviewer on that report.Not unlike UN climate talks, the UN’s plastics treaty negotiations have attracted a steadily growing crowd of corporate interest with a vested interest in making sure that doesn’t happen. The UN handed out 196 passes to fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists at the Canadian talks last month, up 37 percent from the meeting held in Nairobi last November, according to an analysis by the Center for International and Environmental Law. Industry interests had a larger overall presence in Ottawa than the 180 delegates from countries in the European Union; they outnumbered delegates representing Pacific Small Island Developing States two to one.While the negotiators’ purported goal to “end plastic pollution” might seem to imply some overall reduction in the amount of plastic being produced, plastics producers and the countries in which they reside aren’t keen on that. The United States, joined by Gulf oil producers, Russia and China, have sought to avoid talk of concrete targets for reducing primary polymer production, preferring to focus on waste management. “The United States has systematically tried to derail the process,” says Dharmesh Shah, a senior campaigner at CIEL who attended the talks. “They’re doing things that are extremely problematic on the issue of production and reduction, especially.” Fossil fuel-producing countries’ and corporations’ emphasis on waste management aligns well with the promise of plastics offset programs: essentially, to offer financing to waste management efforts in the Global South. Even rich countries with robust waste management infrastructure, though, have not managed to overcome the fact that very little plastic can actually be recycled. Less than 10 percent of plastic waste has ever been recycled, and so-called “advanced” or chemical recycling have struggled to stay afloat amid massive costs and technical issues. The New York Times reported last month that one such facility in Indiana—which aimed to recycle 100,000 tons of plastic a year by 2021—had only ever recycled 2,000 tons of plastic as of late 2023. Part of what makes plastics recycling so difficult is that the term plastics refers to a wide range of chemical polymers which cannot be processed together; for some of those materials, recycling is virtually impossible. Much of what waste managers in the United States can’t deal with here is shipped abroad, to many of the places where plastic credits are being generated. “The reason that the Global South doesn’t have adequate waste management is because it’s being flooded with plastic. No waste management system in the world does a good job with plastic. We pour billions of dollars into waste management, have door-to-door collection and are still the top source of plastics in the ocean,” Tangri says of the United States. “The notion that you’re ever going to be able to catch up with plastic waste generation that’s growing by 4 percent every year is absurd. Thre’s not enough money in the world to catch up with that.”Among the biggest concerns with plastic offsetting, Tangri adds, is the concept of additionality. Credits, that is, are premised on the idea that their sale is financing projects that wouldn’t happen otherwise. A recent report Tangri co-authored with colleagues in the Break Free From Plastics campaign shows that 83 percent of projects applying for approval by Verra have been in operation for over a year, and will receive retroactive credits for waste collection efforts that are already underway. Forty-two percent of projects in that queue have already been operating for 5 years or more. “If you’re paying people to collect waste that they were already collecting, is there anything that they’re going to start collecting more of that they would otherwise leave behind? It’s very unlikely. If there’s no market for black plastic then they’re not going to pick it up,” says Tangri. “You’re giving a bit of money to someone who otherwise wouldn’t have it, but the problem on the other side is that you’re selling that plastic credit to some company in the Global North which is now claiming plastic neutrality.” Focusing on what happens to plastics after they’re already made, moreover, doesn’t address the fact that roughly 75 percent of the of the greenhouse gas emissions generated by plastics production, researchers at Lawrence Livermore find, are created prior to polymerization, i.e. to actually making finished plastic products. Neither does it deal with the abundance of rare cancers, breathing difficulties and numerous other serious health conditions that people who live fenceline with petrochemical plants have been forced to deal with. “The environmental risks of plastics are manifold and they happen throughout the life cycle,” Shah told me. “This is just an approach that is designed to delay or distract from the real issue which is production and reduction. We cannot solve the plastics crisis without reducing our production of plastics.”

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The more plastic a company makes, the more pollution it creates. That seemingly obvious, yet previously unproven, point, is the main takeaway from a first-of-its-kind study published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances. Researchers from a dozen universities around the world […]

As diplomats search for a way to curb the world’s growing problem of plastic, bottles, buoys, nets and packaging are piling up on what should be one of the most pristine environmentsAs our small fishing boat slows to a halt in a shallow bay south-east of Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz, in the Galápagos Islands, a green turtle surfaces next to us, followed by a second, then a third a few metres away. A spotted eagle ray glides underneath the vessel.The skipper, Don Nelson, steps on to the black volcanic reef, slippery with algae. We follow, past exposed mangrove roots and up on to higher ground. Pelicans swooping into the trees and small birds, perching on branches, ignore our approach. Continue reading...

Here are the world’s top banks financing fossil fuels — is yours on the list? The post Abandoned Wells, Methane-Emission Loopholes and Underground Toxic Waste Dumps All Raise Concerns appeared first on .

Campaigners argue in legal challenge that loophole has allowed poultry farmers to pollute riveroThe Environment Agency and the UK government failed to protect the River Wye from catastrophic decline by allowing pollution from industrial chicken farming to saturate the land and devastate the protected river, a legal challenge is to argue. Continue reading...

Environmental and community groups want the state to turn down Phibro-Tech for a renewed permit for its Santa Fe Springs facility.

The more plastic, the more waste we produce. It sounds simple, but this discovery could help us find ways of ending plastic pollution.

A version of this article originally appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only newsletter. Become a member today and get the next issue directly in your inbox. “I’d be like, ‘Bring your own cup! I see you every day, you get the same drink. I can still do a pretty rosetta or heart on top of […] The post Zero-Waste Grocery Stores in Growth Mode as Consumers Seek to Ditch Plastic appeared first on Civil Eats.

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo came in at the top of a global audit of plastic waste.

A version of this article originally appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only newsletter. Become a member today and get the next issue directly in your inbox. Customers don’t pay extra for the reusable take-out box. They simply need to download an app called Recirclable, and—to avoid paying a $15 fee—return the container within two weeks […] The post Restaurants Create a Mound of Plastic Waste. Some Are Working to Fix That. appeared first on Civil Eats.

The sewage treatment works at Horley seem to be crumbling, much like owner Thames Water itselfCome clean on rescue plans for Thames Water, MP demandsThe brochure boasts of a family-friendly community located in tranquil green space within easy reach of high-speed links to London.However, the residents of a new development of 1,500 homes in Horley, Surrey, have recently set up a WhatsApp group, whose title illustrates a less attractive feature of the community: Stop the Poo. Continue reading...

Past Presentation | Into Eternity follows the digging and pre-implementation of the Onkalo nuclear waste repository in Olkiluoto, Finland. Director Michael Madsen is questioning Onkalo’s intended eternal existence, addressing a remotely future audience. More importantly, this documentary raises the question of the authorities responsibility of ensuring compliance with relatively new safety criteria legislation and the principles at the core of nuclear waste management.

Farmers spread treated human waste on their crops. It's full of forever chemicals.

Past Presentation | Just outside the snowy, crumbling town of Grants, New Mexico, is a 200-acre pile of toxic uranium waste, known as tailings. After 30 years of failed cleanup, the waste has deeply contaminated the air and water near the former uranium capital of the world. While those in town want the prosperity that new uranium mining would bring, the 200 residents who live near the tailings pile have had enough of the uranium legacy. Tailings is a cinematic, Gasland-esque investigation into the little-known conflict that is a grim reminder of the past, and a timely notice for the future of nuclear energy.

Cambridge researchers have developed lightweight, eco-friendly sensors, inspired by spider silk, that seamlessly integrate with biological surfaces for diverse applications in health monitoring and virtual...

This story was originally published in The New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group, and is republished here with permission.Jackie Medcalf was a teenager when she moved with her family to a small farm near the San Jacinto River in Harris County, Texas. It felt like a good life, playing in the river and “eating off the land,” as Medcalf describes it.But the animals quickly grew ill, as did Medcalf, suffering a range of health problems. Her father developed multiple myeloma at the age of 51. Tests of the family’s well water would later reveal contamination with several toxic metals. Testing of the eggs collected from the family’s chickens also found an array of heavy metals. The family was not alone, as others in the area reported similar problems.There was little doubt about the source of the contamination: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the San Jacinto River Waste Pits as a Superfund site due to dumping in the 1960s of waste from a paper mill containing carcinogens and other types of toxins. The site has been on the EPA’s “National Priorities List” for cleanup since 2008. But 14 years later, those efforts have yet to be completed.“For decades my fellow community members have unknowingly recreated around dioxin laden pits,” said Medcalf, now a 37-year-old mother and the founder of a nonprofit that advocates for the cleanup of area contamination. “How many more decades must pass before this disaster is remedied?”The suffering of the Medcalf family is but one story among far too many that are emblematic of the struggles behind America’s Superfund program, which aims to clean up sites around the country contaminated with a range of dangerous industrial toxins.In February, the Biden administration said it was earmarking more than $1 billion to help clean up those long-standing hazardous waste sites that are jeopardizing the health of communities around the country. The money is to go to new and continuing projects, and is part of roughly $3.5 billion allocated in President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for work at Superfund sites.The new funding was applauded by community advocates around the country, but also met with some skepticism by those who have been waiting for relief for years, or in many cases, for decades. There are currently more than 1,300 sites around the US on the EPA’s priority list, designated for cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). But progress has been slow, hindered by a range of bureaucratic hurdles that critics say prioritize politics over public health.The law allows the EPA to make the companies responsible for the contamination do the cleanup work themselves or reimburse the government for the costs of cleaning up the sites. This “polluters pay” model is a core component of CERCLA. But the complex and costly work required for the cleanups often is slowed by conflicts with the companies deemed responsible for paying for and managing the work and the challenges in trying to eradicate enormous amounts of hazardous waste that have become deeply embedded in soils and sediment.The lengthy process involved in planning and implementing cleanups in coordination with the companies responsible for the pollution leaves vulnerable people exposed to known health-damaging toxins for far too long, forcing communities to advocate for faster timetables and more stringent cleanup requirements, critics say.The law gives the EPA latitude to punish companies that don’t comply with EPA orders, including allowances for the recovery of up to three times its costs.“They (the EPA) have the legal authority, they need the political will,” said Stephen Lester, science director at the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ). “They want to be the friend of these companies, not their regulators.”Millions at riskResearchers say that living within 1.8 miles of a Superfund site puts people at risk for life-long, adverse health effects. Roughly 21 million people live even closer – within a mile – of a Superfund site, where toxins such as lead, arsenic, and mercury pollute the water, air and soil.Health risks of close proximity to such hazardous substances include cancers, birth defects, reproductive problems, and genetic mutations, according to the EPA.The San Jacinto River Waste Pits site is a prime example of the difficulties that come with the Superfund cleanup project. In the mid-1960s, the Champion Paper Mill hired McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation to dispose solid and liquid pulp and paper mill wastes contaminated with dioxins and furans into waste pits on the banks of the San Jacinto River. Two contaminated pits sprawl about 15 acres each, spilling dioxins into the river. Dioxins are highly toxic chemical compounds that can cause cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, and interfere with hormones.People living in the area have suffered elevated rates of cancer, including abnormally high incidences of childhood cancers, according to a 2015 assessment by the Texas Department of State Health Services.For several years, the EPA has been trying to coordinate a cleanup strategy with the two companies deemed responsible for the contamination, working to excavate the contaminated soils, cap or otherwise contain the waste pits, and take other mitigation measures. Some work has been done, but the EPA and the companies involved still have not agreed on a final comprehensive action plan. The latest plan proposed by the companies contained a “serious deficiency”, according to the EPA.Last month, the EPA sent a letter to the project coordinator for the cleanup work regarding the lack of progress. The agency has given the companies another 90 days to produce a workable plan.Amid the delays, the community fears contamination continues. A petition to the EPA drawn up by community advocates states that “Time is of the essence.”“We need the EPA to use every authority granted under CERCLA to move this site to remediation,” the petition states. “The health and wellbeing of our community and Galveston Bay hinges on the successful cleanup of this Site…”Under fireThe issues seen in Texas are not unique.The EPA is also under fire for its handling of a Superfund site in Montana where waste from an aluminum company has contaminated groundwater and surface waters with what the EPA calls “contaminants of concern,” including cyanide, fluoride and various metals. The company, Columbia Falls Aluminum Company (CFAC), operated from 1955 and 2009, leaving a legacy of hazardous waste that spreads over more than 900 acres north of the Flathead River.Testing found multiple contaminants in groundwater in the area, including cyanide, fluoride and metals such as aluminum, arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, selenium and vanadium, among others, according to the EPA.The federal government has known for decades that the area was dangerously polluted. In the 1960s, government researchers reported that emissions from the plant were impacting wildlife and in 1988, an EPA-commissioned report confirmed that cyanide, a known serious health risk, and other contaminants were going into the water from the plant. But it was not until 2016 that the site was added to the National Priorities List. It took until 2021for CFAC to finalize a cleanup feasibility study under EPA oversight. The agency then released a proposed cleanup plan in June 2023.Though long-awaited, the plan is not meeting with community approval. A grassroots organization called the Coalition for a Clean CFAC is petitioning the EPA and Montana Department of Environmental Quality over the plans to handle the toxic waste. The group says the EPA is poised to allow most of the contamination to stay in place behind a concrete wall that would be constructed. The group says the plan would “leave the toxic waste-in-place and restrict future economic redevelopment and human use. Forever.”“The community has been calling for a complete cleanup including off-site removal for a long time,” said Peter Metcalf, a spokesman for the Coalition for a Clean CFAC.In California, public health advocates have accused the US Navy and the EPA of failing to deal with the toxic dumping at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Superfund site in a way that protects the public.The shipyard in San Francisco has been on the Superfund list since 1989, contaminated with radioactive waste, pesticides, heavy metals, petroleum fuels, PCBs and other toxins from the naval activities there. While some remediation work has been completed to the EPA’s satisfaction, critics say the work has not eradicated the hazardous waste but has merely capped and covered it up.Last year, the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) complained to the Navy’s Office of Inspector General, alleging the Navy has failed to properly inform the public about the dangers of the contamination at the site.As well, a group called Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice accuses the Navy and the EPA of violating CERCLA and other laws and says the Navy and EPA have failed to take action at the site that “assures protection of human health and the environment.”The group wants the EPA to force the Navy to do a “proper cleanup,” said Bradley Angel, Greenaction executive director.“Success” storiesThe EPA points to several of what it calls “success stories” and says that the Superfund cleanups are working to protect human health and the environment, “while also supporting community revitalization efforts and economic opportunities through redevelopment.”The agency points to a 200-acre former steel company site next to the Delaware River in New Jersey. The industrial work left the soil and water contaminated with heavy metals and buildings on the site were filled with asbestos. The EPA oversaw demolition of 70 buildings and removed underground contamination and dredged both the river and a creek. It counts the site as a success story in part because the site was turned into a light-rail commuter station and parking lot, and a museum was established on the site. The EPA said it also restored the riverfront and opened 34 acres of public greenspace along the river.One of the largest Superfund sites in the country, the Hudson River PCBs Superfund site is also hailed by the agency as a success story. The agency spent many years working on a plan and has removed 2.75 million cubic yards of river mud dredged from the Hudson River that was contaminated with 310,000 pounds of cancer-causing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were banned in 1977. The EPA said marked it the “largest and most technically complex environmental dredging work ever undertaken in the United States.” The agency is now monitoring the area for “natural recovery.”Concerns remain about the work, however. An independent study found that dredging the upper Hudson failed to reduce PCB concentrations to the target range set by the EPA. A group called Friends of a Clean Hudson (FOCH) is calling for a pause in the dredging and an adjustment to future remediation goals.“We’re calling on the agency to step back and see, this is your data, and we feel you’re even more off track than before,” said former EPA Region 2 administrator Peter Lopez, who is now executive director of policy, advocacy and science with a group called Scenic Hudson.A third EPA five-year review on how the river has been recovering will be released soon, according to EPA Public Affairs Specialist Larisa Romanowski.Money woesThe Superfund program has long faced money woes, including funding cutbacks, struggles to pry money from “potentially responsible parties” (PRPs), and a failure to properly manage costs. After the expiration of a special polluters tax on the chemical and petroleum industries in 1995, program funding declined to the point that by 2010 the EPA estimated that cleanup costs were outstripping funding, even as the list of sites being added to the program was increasing.From 1999 to 2020, annual appropriations for Superfund work dropped from $2.3 billion to just under $1.2 billion, resulting in cleanup delays, according to a report by the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and Environment America.During the period from 1999 to 2013, the EPA did not have enough money to pay for about a third of the cleanup work ready to begin, and from 2014 to 2021, the same was true for about one fourth of the projects ready to go, according to the groups.The outlook is much brighter going forward, however, due not only to the new money earmarked by the Biden administration, but also because of the reestablishment of the polluter pays taxes, which should provide a “steady stream of funding” to the program for at least the next several years, according to an updated report from the groups.“Already, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has eliminated the backlog of toxic Superfund sites waiting around for clean-up in communities across the country,” said Lisa Frank, executive director of the Washington legislative office of Environment America. “Going forward, polluters, not taxpayers, will pay to clean up their messes. That’s great news for Americans. But full relief will only come once we stop using toxic substances like PFAS and mercury. Until then, we’ll continue to suffer from contaminated water, dirty air and Superfund sites.”

Now Playing | The other tale of two cities - both plagued by decades of lack of investment and racial discrimination in their wastewater infrastructure and facing further challenges amidst climate change - told by community members, advocates, utility operators, and elected officials. As the nation grapples with how to fund long overdue infrastructure needs, this film brings to light the need for urgency and equity in these decisions.

Past Presentation | We buy it, we bury it, we burn it and then we ignore it. Does anyone think about what happens to all the trash we produce? We keep making things that do not break down. We have all heard these horrifying facts before, but with Jeremy Irons as our guide, we discover what happens to the billion or so tons of waste that goes unaccounted for each year. On a boat in the North Pacific he faces the reality of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and the effect of plastic waste on marine life. We learn that chlorinated dioxins and other man-made Persistent Organic Pollutants are attracted to the plastic fragments. These are eaten by fish, which absorb the toxins. We then eat the fish, accumulating more poisonous chemicals in our already burdened bodies. Meanwhile, global warming, accelerated by these emissions from landfill and incineration, is melting the ice-caps and releasing decades of these old poisons, which had been stored in the ice, back into the sea. And we learn that some of the solutions are as frightening and toxic as the problem itself. Academy Award winning actor Jeremy Irons is no stranger to taking centre stage. But his role as our guide in Trashed highlighting solutions to the pressing environmental problems facing us all, could well be his most important yet. “We’ve made this movie, because there are so many people who feel strongly the urgent need for the problem of ‘waste’ and ‘sustainability’ to be addressed,” Irons says. “There is an equally urgent need for the most imaginative and productive solutions to this troublesome subject to be understood and shared by as many communities as possible throughout the world. This is where movies can play such an important role, educating society, bringing ‘difficult’ subjects to the broadest possible audience."

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — On a bright, cold day in February, Akim Lattermore stood in front of her house gesturing toward the site of a proposed facility that would convert old tires, electronic waste and plastic into fuel.The site, owned by SOBE Thermal Energy Systems, is currently home to crumbling old buildings and a natural-gas-powered steam heat generating unit. It’s less than half a mile from Lattermore’s home, visible from her front yard, which bears a sign with a picture of a black plume of smoke and the message “Stop SOBE. We have enough toxic air pollution.”“I’m a two-time cancer survivor,” Lattermore told Environmental Health News (EHN). “I believe that our environment has a lot to do with it.”Youngstown has a long industrial history and is still home to numerous sources of industrial pollution, including a steel plant and other metal fabricators, a concrete plant and a hazardous waste processing facility. Youngstown’s polluting industries released 80,600 pounds of toxic chemicals into air and water in 2022, including carcinogenic heavy metals like lead, nickel and chromium compounds, and possible carcinogens like ethylbenzene, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Toxics Release Inventory. Residents like Lattermore fear that SOBE’s proposed chemical recycling plant — currently on hold after the city passed a one-year moratorium — will only add to this toxic burden. “I’m a two-time cancer survivor. I believe that our environment has a lot to do with it.” - Akim Lattermore, Youngstown, Ohio, residentThere are proposals in the works for similar chemical recycling plants across the country. According to a 2023 report by the nonprofit organization Beyond Plastics, 11 such facilities had already been constructed in the U.S. as of September 2023, with one closing this year. Proposals for projects similar to SOBE’s throughout the Ohio River Valley have also met with community resistance — but more are likely on the way. “Appalachia is definitely a prime target for chemical recycling,” Jess Conard, Appalachia director of the nonprofit Beyond Plastics, told EHN. “There are often big tax subsidies available for these kinds of industries in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, and it’s part of the culture of this region that people feel like they have to make health sacrifices to put food on the table, as we’ve seen with extractive industries like coal mining and fracking.”At least two other chemical recycling plants in Ohio have received state or local subsidies, according to a 2023 Beyond Plastics’s report. Alterra, located in Akron, Ohio, received a $1.6 million state loan and support from the city of Akron in the form of various discounts, including a $1 per year property lease in return for “a percentage of the project’s future cash flow,” while Purecycle in Ironton, Ohio, received $250 million in revenue bonds from the Southern Ohio Port Authority. Chemical recycling facilities may also receive federal subsidies through numerous programs, including the Department of Energy’s $25 million Strategy for Plastic Innovation, grants and loans from the Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture, and the federal Inflation Reduction Act. While these projects plow ahead promising an answer to the plastics crisis, communities are concerned about the impacts. “Right now there’s no proof that this is safe,” Tom Hetrick, president of Youngstown City Council, which passed the year-long moratorium, told EHN. Chemical recycling controversy Chemical recycling is an umbrella term for processes that use heat, chemicals or both to break down plastic waste into component parts for reuse as plastic feedstocks or as fuel. These processes are different from conventional or mechanical plastic recycling, which breaks down plastic waste physically but not at a molecular level. Only 5 to 6% of plastic waste gets recycled in the U.S., and proponents of chemical recycling say it could help create a truly circular economy. “We’re not going to create circularity for plastics with one single solution,” Chris Layton, director of sustainability for specialty plastics at Eastman Chemical Company, told EHN. “We’re going to have to eliminate some plastics we really don't need, figure out ways to reduce and reuse and maximize what we can do for mechanical and advanced recycling.” However, opponents say chemical recycling facilities worsen climate change and emit toxic chemicals like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins and other persistent pollutants; volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. Lattermore worries about the cumulative effects. “So many other members of my family who have lived in this house have also had cancer. My grandma, my dad, my sister,” Lattermore said. “I have four grandkids, two daughters. How are they going to survive living so close to that type of waste?” The American Chemistry Council is advocating for relaxed environmental regulations for these types of facilities, encouraging states to reclassify them from solid waste facilities to manufacturing facilities, which requires less rigorous permitting applications, reduces regulatory oversight of air emissions and toxic waste and allows them to seek additional taxpayer subsidies. Ohio is one of 24 states that have already done this, along with Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi — a grouping that encompasses most of the Ohio River Valley and much of Appalachia. “We’re not going to create circularity for plastics with one single solution.” Chris Layton, Eastman Chemical CompanyMeanwhile, environmental advocates are fighting to stop these plants from being constructed. “Even if all of the advanced recycling plants in the U.S. were functioning at full capacity with no issues, they would only be managing 1.3% of global plastic waste we currently have,” Conard said. “The plastic industry is pushing this technology as a solution so they can continue manufacturing new plastic.”Environmental justice concerns Lattermore was among a group of local residents who fought to stop SOBE’s plant in Youngstown. They distributed fliers, called policymakers and knocked on doors to gather hundreds of petition signatures. Eventually, they garnered support from Youngstown City Council. “I think one of my primary concerns is the location,” Hetrick said. “It's in a busy neighborhood. There are residential neighbors, two popular bars right there, a restaurant caddy corner, a church on the other side, a five or six story jail a half block in the other direction, and a bunch of Youngstown State University student housing right there.” “It’s also an environmental justice area, and in terms of environmental risks and hazards it just seems like a terrible place to put this kind of operation,” he explained. In September, a representative from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a letter to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency noting that the project “raises potential environmental justice concerns” because Youngstown ranks in the 80th percentile in the state for pollution from include ozone, diesel particulate matter, air toxics cancer risk, traffic proximity, lead paint, Superfund site Proximity, Risk Management Program (RMP) facility proximity, hazardous waste proximity, underground storage tanks and wastewater discharge. “The population living in the area around the facility is significantly comprised of people of color, linguistically isolated households (Spanish language), those with low income, those with less than a high school education and a high unemployment rate,” the letter noted, before advising the Ohio EPA to “conduct a more thorough environmental justice analysis of appropriate scope to inform the permitting decision.” In December, Youngstown City Council unanimously voted to adopt a one-year moratorium on pyrolysis, gasification or combustion of tires, plastics and electronic waste. Council said they intended to spend the year further researching these types of facilities. "In terms of environmental risks and hazards it just seems like a terrible place to put this kind of operation.” - Tom Hetrick, president of Youngstown City CouncilWhen Hetrick researched other facilities, he found stories about dangerous accidents and fires at a chemical recycling plant in Ashley, Indiana, which amplified his concerns. In a statement about the moratorium on its website, SOBE said the company “respects this cautious approach and is committed to working closely with city officials and community members.” SOBE did not respond to a request for an interview. In February, the Ohio EPA issued an air permit for SOBE’s proposed plant, prompting outcry from the community. “I am deeply disappointed in the Ohio EPA and their decision to grant a permit to SOBE,” Hetrick said in a statement after the announcement. “It’s clear to me that the Ohio EPA spent months copying, categorizing and calculating the hundreds of comments from concerned Youngstown residents, but not actually listening to us or responding in any meaningful way.”

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. After the House of Representatives passed legislation that would allow mining companies more legal rights to federal lands by a bipartisan vote of 216-195 earlier this month, a bipartisan group of Senate sponsors are moving it through their chamber. “With […]

A CBS News report uncovers a long-standing campaign by the plastics industry to mislead the public about the effectiveness of plastic recycling.Ben Tracy reports for CBS News.In short:Despite widespread belief in plastic recycling, only 5 to 6% of plastic waste in the U.S. is actually recycled.The plastics industry has been accused of misleading the public about the feasibility of plastic recycling.Documents reveal that industry insiders knew recycling was not a viable solution to plastic waste as early as the 1980s.Key quote: "The plastics industry understands that selling recycling sells plastic, and they'll say pretty much whatever they need to say to continue doing that." — Davis Allen, investigative researcher with the Center for Climate IntegrityWhy this matters: With plastic production set to triple by 2050 and plastic waste accumulating on land and in oceans, understanding the truth about plastic recycling is important for informed decision-making and combating environmental pollution. Negotiations are underway for a global plastics treaty and parties differ on the role of recycling.

Where did the concrete come from? And how does the City of Long Beach plan to dispose of it?

In Cleveland, a novel approach harnesses fungi's power to address pollution and housing crises.Nick Hilden reports for the BBC.In short:Scientists explore fungi to decompose toxic waste from abandoned homes, transforming it into construction materials.The process creates "mycoblocks," a sustainable alternative to traditional building materials, stronger than concrete.This initiative not only tackles waste management but also aims at reducing carbon emissions significantly.Key quote:"I think mycelium will be the unsung hero of climate change."— Joanne Rodriguez, founder and CEO of MycocycleWhy this matters:Scientists and environmentalists are exploring innovative uses of fungi to tackle various waste challenges, from breaking down plastics to transforming agricultural byproducts into valuable commodities.A 2021 study highlighted the relationship between seasonal climate variability and soil microbial communities.

A new PBS documentary called "Poisoned Ground" tells their story. And a local activist shares how the actions of women across the country more than 40 years ago paved the way for her fight to clean up contaminated sites in Greater Houston.

Of the 147 companies with a package recyclability goal, only 15 percent were on track to meet it.

Campaigners say last-minute compromise plays into the hands of petrostates and industry influencesCampaigners are blaming developed countries for capitulating at the last minute to pressure from fossil fuel and industry lobbyists, and slowing progress towards the first global treaty to cut plastic waste.Delegates concluded talks in Ottawa, Canada, late on Monday, with no agreement on a proposal for global reductions in the $712bn (£610bn) plastic production industry by 2040 to address twin issues of plastic waste and huge carbon emissions. Continue reading...

Past Presentation | Plastic is choking our planet, don’t dwell on it, let’s act. Embark on an odyssey as two Aussies and a bunch of eco guardians ride bicycles from Hanoi to Bangkok meeting proactive locals tackling plastic pollution. Our foe is strong, lightweight, greater in numbers and cheap, but we will prevail!

Now Playing | We follow a day in the life of Yosarian Bisbee, aka Yo, as he gathers “junk” from the local dump and unwanted food from the grocery store, all in an effort to minimize waste.

Past Presentation | Filmmakers and food lovers, Jen and Grant, dive into the issue of waste from farms, through retail, all the way to the back of their own fridge. After catching a glimpse of the billions of dollars of good food that is tossed each year in North America, they pledge to quit grocery shopping cold turkey and survive only on foods that would otherwise be thrown away. In a nation where one in 10 people is food insecure, the images they capture of squandered groceries are both shocking and strangely compelling.

A marine scientist discusses the problem of plastic pollution and her hopes for an international treaty to tackle it