Education | Trash Hero World

Global Plastics Treaty Jargon Buster

by Seema on 15/04/2024 No comments

If you care about plastic pollution, the announcement of a Global Plastics Treaty from the UN is big news. It means the problem is now internationally recognised and countries will have to work together to solve it. The final agreement could limit new plastic production, stop toxic chemicals and make sure products are designed for reuse.

But getting there isn’t easy. The negotiations involve almost 200 countries, with a lot of different interests. They need to follow certain rules for discussion and there are thousands of pages of documents produced. If you’re not a lawyer or policy geek, it can be hard to understand what’s going on. So we’ve made a guide that breaks down some of the terms used in the treaty discussion – and why they are important. The more people know about what’s happening and what’s at stake, the better chance we have to get a strong treaty to protect us and the planet.

So educate yourself and others! And follow us on social media @trashheroworld to stay informed about the upcoming rounds of negotiations.

1. The Instrument
Not a guitar or a piano! The Instrument is what the UN calls the Global Plastics Treaty. Its official title is the “international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment”. “Instrument” is just a legal term for any kind of formal document that records rights or duties.

Why not just call it a treaty? Because “treaty” has a specific meaning in international law. And there are other types of international agreements, like conventions, accords, declarations or protocols. As we don’t yet know what form the “instrument” will take, the UN uses this neutral word to cover all possibilities.

Having said that, it is most likely that the future treaty / instrument will be a “convention”. Ideally it should be a specific convention, where the countries’ obligations and commitments are written directly in the text.

The other option is a framework convention, where the text only agrees to do things in principle and leaves the details of how and when to be negotiated later. The framework model was used in the climate change treaty (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC), and countries are still debating actions and targets almost 30 years after it was made. COP29 will be held in Azerbaijan in November 2024 and will likely be more “blah blah blah“.

2. INC – Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee
This is the name for the group of UN member states that are discussing the future plastics treaty. The INC is facilitated by a secretariat of staff from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and it is funded by various member states. There are five meetings or sessions of the INC currently planned, roughly one every six months over two years. If the treaty is not ready after this, the member states will need to decide how to carry on. The schedule is as follows:

Nov 2022: INC-1 @ Punta del Este, Uruguay
May 2023: INC-2 @ Paris, France
Nov 2023: INC-3 @ Nairobi, Kenya
Apr 2024: INC-4 @ Ottawa, Canada
Nov 2024: INC-5 @ Busan, S. Korea

3. COP – Conference of the Parties
COPs are usually linked with the climate change treaty, but it’s a general term for what comes after any UN convention is agreed upon: the countries who signed it (the “Parties”) gather to review how it’s going and whether it needs changes. The COP for the climate convention happens every year. Some other treaties, like the Convention on Biological Diversity, hold a COP every 2 years. For the plastics treaty, it has not yet been decided how often the Parties will meet.

4. Observers and conflict of interest
Since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the UN has recognised the importance of having stakeholders present at any discussions about the future of our planet. They created nine “Major Groups“:

Women
Children and Youth
Indigenous Peoples
Non-Governmental Organisations
Local Authorities
Workers and Trade Unions
Business and Industry
Scientific and Technological Community
Farmers

Accredited representatives of these groups – like Trash Hero World – are called Observers. This doesn’t mean we just sit and watch things happen, though! Observers can join the INC negotiation sessions, make statements and written submissions and also receive information about what is happening in between the negotiations. But we are not able to vote and can only speak if there is time after the member states have finished.

The Observer system is not perfect. Different Observers have different levels of access and participation. Sometimes the logistics of joining all the meetings prevent some groups taking part – not everyone can afford the costs and many struggle to get visas. Observers’ rights to speak or attend meetings can also be refused by the member states – some are more friendly than others to civil society.

The whole system is a bit too friendly to certain powerful stakeholders, like the business and industry representatives, who are often invited to join official government delegations. The INC has not yet addressed the conflict of interest created by allowing the plastics industry to take part in the negotiations.

5. Plenary, contact groups, informals
At the INC meetings, the opening and closing sessions are held in plenary. This means they are open to all participants and live streamed for the public. But the main negotiations happen in Contact Groups.

Contact groups are formal meetings, usually dedicated to a particular topic, but they are not live streamed and are subject to the Chatham House Rule. This rule allows anything said in the meeting to be shared and used later, but only if the speaker is not identified. This in theory allows for a more open discussion.

If you see news reports during the INC meetings that say things like “Certain states tried to stall negotiations”, without specifying which ones, this is the Chatham House Rule in action!

The third type of negotiation is the “informal”. As the name suggests, these meetings are not recorded at all and are used to discuss sensitive issues, often between smaller groups of countries.

6. MEA – multilateral environmental agreement
An agreement between 2 countries or states is called bilateral and between many countries, it is called multilateral. The Global Plastics Treaty will be an MEA. There are already more than 250 MEAs covering everything from tuna fish to the ozone layer. This treaty needs to fit in alongside them and not duplicate or contradict anything they do. There is quite a bit of discussion about how best to do this, especially in relation to the BRS – Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm – conventions that regulate the production, use, trade and disposal of hazardous waste and chemicals, a lot of which is plastic.

7. EPR – Extended Producer Responsibility
This term refers to a wide set of measures that could be included in the treaty to make sure manufacturers of plastics (and the products and packaging made from them) are held responsible for the health and environmental costs of their products across the whole lifecycle.

At the most basic level, EPR means requiring companies to collect and recycle more of their waste. A stronger set of measures would also mandate targets for reduction of single-use plastic, design and infrastructure for reuse, labelling of the ingredients in plastic and fines for harms caused.

8. CBDR – Common but differentiated responsibilities
This is the idea that, while all countries share the responsibility for solving global environmental problems, not all countries are equally to blame. Countries in the Global North have typically done more to harm the climate and the living world and, as a result of that exploitation, now have more money to fix it. CBDR says they have an obligation to help countries in the Global South, who are less responsible. These developing nations need financial support to manage the impacts of plastic pollution and to take the actions that will be recommended by the treaty.

It’s important that the principle of CBDR should only apply to the financing of actions included in the treaty, not to the actions themselves. Some countries are already arguing that their “special national circumstances” excuse them from following any globally agreed standards. Using CBDR in this way will weaken the treaty as it lets individual countries choose whether or not to keep polluting.

9. Rules of Procedure (RoP)
They may sound like boring administrative details, but the draft rules of procedure that determine how the treaty gets decided are one of the hottest topics at the INC meetings. The big debate is whether member states should have the right to vote on decisions if they cannot reach an agreement, as stated in Rules 37 and 38.

Why would countries not want to vote? Some are afraid that, if they were on the losing side, they would be forced into doing things they don’t want to do. They prefer every decision to be made by consensus, which means a unanimous (100%) agreement is needed to pass.

However, this also means if just one country out of the 175 present disagrees with a proposal, nothing can happen until it is modified to a (usually weaker) version that the country will approve. In other words, decisions that are already agreed by a large majority of countries can be hijacked by powerful minorities.

As we head towards INC-4, the RoP are still in a draft version, which is a big risk as we get deeper into the negotiations. Powerful oil-producing countries will push for consensus so that they can veto any attempt in the treaty to limit their activities.

10. (Revised) Zero Draft (RZD)
The zero draft is a suggested text for the treaty prepared by the INC Secretariat after INC-2 in Paris. It contains all the different options for ending plastic pollution across its whole life cycle. At INC-3 in Nairobi, the text was discussed by member states and multiple pages of suggested new wordings were added. This resulted in the RZD, which is almost twice the length of the original.

At INC-4, this new text will be the basis for negotiations. For more about the zero draft and what it covers, see our Instagram post or check out the video to see what we think the treaty should include.

A legal drafting group will be set up at INC-4 to start summarising the text into a more workable version, while the countries try to find common ground on some of the more controversial points, like reducing plastic production.

—

If this guide was helpful and you’d like to know more about any other topics related to the Global Plastics Treaty or plastic pollution in general, drop us a comment below and we’ll see if we can cover it!

5 reasons plastic recycling is broken

by Lydia on 19/03/2024 2 comments

For decades, the iconic recycling arrows on plastic lulled us into a false sense of security. We imagine a closed-loop system – plastic diligently sorted and reborn into new products. However, the reality of plastic recycling is far more complex, and the system itself is inefficient. Let’s find out why.

Most plastic cannot be recycled – the arrows mean nothing.

Pick up any plastic packaging and it likely has some version of the recycling arrows on it. Understandably, most people think this means it can and will be recycled. But this is far from being the case. If there are numbers inside the arrows, it just shows the type of plastic used in the product. There are six main categories:

PET (#1)

HDPE (#2)

PVC (#3)

LDPE (#4)

PP (#5)

PS (#6)

Then there’s the catch-all #7 – “other” – for the thousands of plastic varieties that don’t fit the first six. The truth is only #1 PET and #2 HDPE plastics can be effectively recycled. So, the presence of arrows around the number is often misleading – as confirmed by the US Environment Protection Agency – and has led to a widespread and false belief that all plastics can somehow be recycled.

Plastic can’t be recycled infinitely.

Another truth is that plastic was never designed to be recycled – its properties mean it always degrades after being shredded and melted down. While some materials, like glass and aluminium, can be recycled endlessly, plastic gets weaker each time it is reprocessed. This means most plastic is downcycled or used for a different purpose than the original one it was made for. For example, PET bottles often end up in clothing or carpets. These products cannot be recycled further and so will end up in landfills or incinerated at the end of their life, so they can’t be considered recycling in the traditional sense.

Around 2% of plastic can be recycled effectively, i.e. from a PET bottle to another PET bottle, but this usually requires the injection of some new virgin plastic to make it usable. Even in these cases, only one or a maximum of two extra “loops” can be added before it too becomes unusable and discarded.

It’s difficult and expensive

The sheer variety of plastics now on the market, often with multiple layers of different materials, coatings and dyes, means sorting is a challenging, sometimes impossible task – both for the consumer and at the depot, where they are usually received mixed together. The presence of food and other contaminants adds another layer of difficulty. Many separated batches sent for processing must be thrown away entirely after finding contaminants or the wrong types of plastic mixed in.

The entire operation is so expensive and time-consuming that producing virgin plastic is still cheaper than recycling existing material. This leaves little incentive for companies to use it.

Plastic recycling is not safe.

More than 16,000 chemicals have been identified in plastic. Only 6,000 of these have been evaluated, and 4,000 are considered potentially hazardous. Very little is known about their effects, especially when they get mixed together during recycling, creating new compounds.

Scientists are also concerned about cross-contamination. Dangerous chemicals such as flame retardants, found in e-waste, have been discovered in recycled plastic cooking utensils. These are a direct threat to our health as they come into contact with food but were never approved for this purpose.

The recycling process itself raises health concerns for workers. Grinding, shredding, and heating plastics release these harmful chemicals into the air, exposing workers through inhalation and skin contact. In many countries, there is a lack of regulation to protect these workers or provide proper healthcare to address the potential health impacts.

The process also creates microplastics, further polluting the environment for all, particularly “fenceline communities” residing near the recycling facilities.

There’s too much plastic.

The core issue of plastic pollution remains – we’re producing it at an alarming rate, far exceeding our recycling capacity. This excess creates a new challenge: the global waste trade.

Wealthy nations in the Global North, unwilling to bear the inconvenience and expense of managing their waste, are systematically shipping it to developing countries in the Global South. This waste trade is well-documented and often involves third party importers who promise to recycle it but simply dump or openly burn what is received, often near people’s homes. It can also involve mislabeled containers that say “recyclables” but in fact contain contaminated, hazardous or mixed waste. Receiving countries do not have the capacity to check everything coming in, nor the infrastructure to handle it once it is there.

Should I stop recycling?

It is important to note that we are only talking about recycling plastics here: if it can’t be reused, recycling glass, paper, metal and food (compost) is effective and essential.

And recycling plastic shouldn’t be abandoned entirely. Any #1 and #2 plastics we can’t avoid should still be cleaned and put in the recycling bin.

Here are some steps we can take to tackle plastic pollution effectively:

Reduce: The golden rule of zero waste – create less! Minimise single-use plastics and ensure products are made with minimal, reusable packaging.
Redesign: Manufacturers need to design products with reuse and eventual recyclability in mind. Crucial steps include using standardised, simple plastics with safe and transparent ingredients and packaging that is easy to identify and separate.
Responsibility: Build reduce and redesign into Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies to hold manufacturers accountable for the impacts and external costs of the waste they produce.

To learn more about how to reduce plastic pollution effectively, why not head to our learning archive?

How does plastic pollution affect our human rights?

by Lydia on 28/02/2024 No comments

From the deepest oceans to the highest peaks, plastic has infiltrated every corner of the planet. This isn’t just an environmental issue – it’s a human rights crisis. Let’s explore how and why.

Right to health

Plastic is a product of fossil fuels and chemicals. Toxins are released throughout its entire lifecycle, from the extraction of the raw materials, the microplastics shed during use, to disposal and beyond, through recycling and incineration. Fenceline communities, the populations who live nearby petrochemical and incineration facilities, are particularly affected. An 85-mile strip in Louisiana, USA is known as “cancer alley”, due to the elevated risk of contracting the disease – more than 80 times the national level. Residents are also more likely to develop respiratory problems, skin irritations and headaches. The same picture appears in many other locations in America and the Global South.

Almost every human likely has plastic in their body. We are eating it, and we are breathing it in. It has been found in our lungs, heart and blood. Over 16,000 chemicals have been identified in plastic, which give it qualities such as flexibility, colour, and heat resistance. Of these chemicals, only 6,000 have been evaluated, and over 4,000 of these are potentially hazardous, with links to cancer, congenital disabilities, fertility complications and other serious health issues.

The proliferation of plastic and microplastic directly contravenes our right to the “highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”.

Right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment

The plastic pollution crisis is well documented, along with its impacts on natural ecosystems and biodiversity. Yet the UN General Assembly recently acknowledged the “right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment” as a fundamental human right.

Since 99% of plastic is made from fossil fuels, it also accelerates the climate crisis from production to disposal. The plastics industry is responsible for up to 8% of global emissions, which is higher than the entire aviation industry (responsible for 2.5% of CO2 emissions). As well as contributing to climate change, it blocks natural systems that mitigate it. The high levels of microplastics in the ocean are preventing the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere, reducing the efficacy of the planet’s biggest carbon sink. This is a concern not only for us but for generations to come.

On land, plastic waste clogs drainage systems, exacerbating the risk of flooding – a serious problem in the face of the extreme weather caused by the climate crisis. This is a physical danger that further undermines the right to a safe environment.

Right to a decent standard of living

Everyone has the right to a “standard of living adequate for health and well-being”. This right is notably jeopardised in communities dependent on tourism or fishing. Plastic pollution in the ocean is causing fish stock to dwindle and damaging delicate underwater ecosystems. This impacts people’s ability to earn a living and feed their families. Tourism, another important source of income for many coastal communities, is also in decline as pristine beaches and colourful coral reefs are covered with plastic debris. This drives away potential visitors and puts local economies at risk.

Right to information

The right to “participate in and access information relating to decision-making processing that affects [our] lives and well-being” is also being compromised by the plastics industry.

Manufacturers are currently not obliged to disclose the chemicals – intentionally or non-intentionally added – in their plastic products, which can make up over half of the final material. There is no publicly available database of such chemicals and no easy means for independent scientists to test them. This lack of transparency has implications for human health and also for recycling, which can further mix and concentrate the additives into a “toxic cocktail” in the new products.

A recent report from the Centre for Climate Integrity (CICC) also revealed a history of the plastics industry misleading the public. The report shows that, despite being advised that recycling was not a viable solution from as early as the 1980s, the industry created advertising campaigns that promoted it as the best way to deal with plastic waste. Even now, “solutions” like waste-to-energy and waste-to-fuel continue to be promoted, despite documented evidence of its harmful effects on human health, the climate and the environment.

Whose rights are impacted the most?

Plastic disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable. Frontline communities exposed to the pollution from refineries, petrochemicals plants and waste treatment facilities are often low-income, marginalised populations.

Women are more susceptible to plastic’s health risks due to biology and traditional gender roles. They have a higher risk of exposure to endocrine disruptors in cosmetics, menstrual and cleaning products that threaten their reproductive health. They are also more likely to work in informal sectors such as waste picking, which increases the likelihood of developing breast cancer, among other health issues. Meanwhile their children are at greater risk of developmental issues and compromised lungs from polluted air.

Many of these communities lack a voice in decision-making. Their right to information about plastic’s dangers and involvement in shaping plastic policies has often been denied.

What can we do about it?

Support a strong Global Plastics Treaty
- Advocate for a solid and comprehensive Global Plastics Treaty that addresses the entire lifecycle of plastics and explicitly incorporates human rights principles in its framework.
Stay informed and share your knowledge with others
- Were you aware of the link between plastic pollution and human rights? Whether it was a surprise or not, please share this blog so more people understand the complexity of the issues.

By acknowledging the human rights dimensions of plastic pollution and taking collective action, we can protect our right to a healthy planet for us and for future generations. Remember, it’s not just about saving the environment, it’s about protecting our right to exist and thrive.

What’s the problem with plastic?

by Seema on 02/02/2024 No comments

DOWNLOAD A
PDF VERSION Back to main page

Before you start reading, take a few minutes to think: how would YOU answer this question? Most people have seen news stories about the plastic in our oceans that is harming animals. But are there any other issues? Maybe you see the problem not with plastic itself, but with the fact that people aren’t disposing of it properly or recycling enough.

To help us think it through, let’s look at the material itself.

WHAT EXACTLY IS PLASTIC?

Plastic is a mixture of fossil fuels and chemicals. First, refined crude oil or gas is put under high heat and pressure to “crack” the hydrocarbon molecules into simpler versions called monomers (mono = single). Examples of fossil fuel monomers are styrene or ethylene. These are then fused together to form polymers (poly = many), with names like polystyrene or polyethylene.

These polymers are finally melted together with various chemicals to form plastics. Each plastic product has a special recipe of polymers and chemicals that makes it more or less shiny, transparent, hard, flexible, heat-resistant etc. Plastic can also be mixed with other materials like foil or paper. Scientists have identified more than 16,000 different chemicals in plastics that we use today, and very few are known to be safe for humans. Companies currently don’t need to tell anyone what’s inside the plastic they make.

You can find out more about this process and how plastic was invented in the reading and watch lists below.

WHAT IS PLASTIC USED FOR?

Probably the easier question to answer is what isn’t plastic used for?! In a few decades, it has taken over the world. Aside from obvious uses like soft drinks bottles or straws, plastic can be found in everything from clothes to paint and even in products we use on our face and body. Some plastic things can be used for a long time, like car doors. But most plastic things we use only once, often for just a few seconds, like a coffee stirrer.

WHAT HAPPENS TO PLASTIC AFTER WE’RE FINISHED USING IT?

Because it’s manmade, plastic doesn’t act like other materials when it’s thrown away. The polymers are tightly fused together and mixed in with a lot of different chemicals so it can’t break down naturally. Recycling it is tricky – as we’ll see later on. Burning it releases those chemicals into the atmosphere, along with all the regular greenhouse gases from the fossil fuel it’s made from.

Basically, every piece of plastic ever made still exists on Earth in some form. Your toothbrush will easily outlive your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren 😀

In summary, we might say the problem with plastic is that there is way too much of it being produced.
That’s an issue because of what it’s made from – fossil fuel and toxic chemicals – and how it acts.

Here are the twins with more:

In the video, we hear there are three main impacts of plastic – and all of them affect you in some way.

Plastic destroys ecosystems
Plastic affects your health
Plastic accelerates climate change

We’ll be looking at these in depth in the next parts of the series. Until then, you’ll find a lot of great info in the reading / watch lists below. Take your time and check out whatever appeals to you. You can also apply your new knowledge in an activity, or test it out in the quiz. Don’t forget to let us know your thoughts on this topic below.

😎 MORE ON THIS TOPIC

➤ The Age of Plastic
➤ The Plastic Problem
➤ Everything you need to know about plastic

WATCHLIST

❗ TRY THIS

Look around you, where do you see plastic? It’s not always obvious! But once you start looking, you might start to see it everywhere… You’re probably wearing it, drinking or eating from it, working, playing and even washing with it. Can you reach 100+ things in one day?

What things do you / your family buy in plastic? Or that contain plastic?
How many of those things are single-use?
Start to keep a list if you like. It might come in handy later.

Feel confident with your new knowledge?

TAKE THE QUIZ!

❓ OVER TO YOU

Plastic is everywhere in our lives but it’s causing a lot of problems. What do you think we can do about this?

💡 Think about what plastic is used for. Are all of these things necessary?

Let us know in the comments below!
Note: comments are moderated so they won’t appear right away

What’s the difference between refill and reuse?

by Lydia on 29/01/2024 No comments

We hear the words refill and reuse a lot and often use them interchangeably. But did you know that they are not the same thing? In this blog, we’ll show you what the differences are – and why they are important as we move towards a zero waste world.

Imagine this: you’ve drained the last drop of your washing-up liquid. So you rinse out the bottle, cleaning all the gunk that’s built up around the lid. Later, you pack the bottle in your bag, trek to a refill shop (that’s not near your usual supermarket), fill it up, get it weighed, and take it home.

This system – familiar to thousands of dedicated zero wasters around the world – is a great way to reduce packaging waste, but it puts the responsibility for doing it squarely on our shoulders.

Refill systems are based on the customer providing their own packaging. They are easy to set up and don’t need a lot of investment but they rely on individuals being motivated, organised and often wealthy enough to get their products in this way.

In some contexts, for example in rural villages or in a network of public water fountains, refill works really well. In others, there are significant downsides:

Impracticality: to do a full weekly grocery shop, as is common in the Global North, planning ahead to take your own containers for everything would be challenging. Even on a day-to-day basis, remembering to carry reusable bottles, cups, cutlery and bags takes effort. It’s easy to see that most people with busy lives would not be able to do it.
Legal concerns: issues surrounding hygiene and food safety can make supermarkets, restaurants and other companies wary of “bring your own container” schemes, as they would be liable for any problems with the products purchased, even if not at fault.

So what about reuse?

Picture this: you finish that same washing-up liquid and toss the bottle in a bag of empties. On your next supermarket run, you simply drop them off and buy a new, pre-filled bottle from the shelf!

With a reuse system, the packaging is owned by the producer or a third party who has responsibility for collecting, cleaning and refilling it for the next round. It’s highly scalable and addresses all the issues raised with refill:

It’s easy and convenient: no extra trips, no meticulous weighing, just buy what you want and drop off or hand over the empties later. Companies create the whole infrastructure, making it easier for everyone to participate.
It gives companies control: as the reusable packaging can be produced in specific sizes and cleaned to specific standards, it removes the legal issues that come with refill.
It boosts the economy: collecting, sorting and cleaning reusable containers will create new jobs for people in the waste management sector and ensure a just transition.

So why is this difference between reuse and refill important to keep in mind?

As supermarkets start to take steps to address plastic pollution, they often do pilot schemes to reduce single-use packaging, which are refill-based – as these cost less money to implement. And often, these schemes fail – due to the reasons we explored above (lack of individual motivation, planning fatigue etc.).

These supermarkets then use these failures to say “refill and reuse doesn’t work” and go back to business as usual. They say “customers don’t want it”. And it’s true: when the weight of responsibility lands on people who are already juggling a million things (and probably running on empty coffee cups), it’s no surprise refill systems are not popular.

But to dismiss reuse systems at the same time is at best a failure of imagination – or at worst, cynical greenwashing.

A safe, well-designed reuse system can fit seamlessly into our lives and be implemented on a much larger scale than refill. But it requires investment and infrastructure. Companies should not use the limitations of one system to justify avoiding the transformative potential of the other.

If you are aware of the difference, you can use it to spot these kinds of tactics and also to help people around you to see that zero waste does not need to be hard, if companies are prepared to support our actions.

Share your thoughts! Is this article useful for you? Have you seen any examples of refill or reuse systems in your area? Why do you think they work (or don’t work)?

Plastics treaty must not go the way of the climate convention

by Seema on 29/11/2023 No comments

The third of five rounds of negotiations for the Global Plastics Treaty in Nairobi ended in confusion and uncertainty last week. Trash Hero was there and reports on the key takeaways from the meeting.

K E Y O U T C O M E S
– The draft text of the treaty was made more complicated, not simplified
– No working groups will be set up to look at terms and definitions before the next meeting
– Oil-producing countries again attempted to delay and derail proceedings
– Importantly, they did not succeed in any meaningful way
– Wastepickers and indigenous groups achieved greater recognition for their roles

It was again a huge honour to represent our volunteers from 11 – 19 Nov 2023 at the UNEP headquarters in Nairobi and take my place alongside committed and knowledgeable colleagues in the Break Free From Plastic, GAIA and IPEN networks. (To understand why Trash Hero was there and what the talks were about, see Background, below).

The nine-day proceedings were intense, starting early morning and often finishing late at night. Discussions (in so-called “Contact Groups”) on different parts of the treaty text happened simultaneously in different parts of the building, which made them challenging to follow. At times progress was frustratingly slow and, despite many countries taking strong positions, it was not enough to overcome the blocking tactics of more powerful nations, with vested interests in continued plastic production.

Trash Hero met with many delegates, including those from Switzerland and Thailand, both of whom deserve mention for their strong stances on identifying the toxic chemicals in plastic. A joint proposal to advance work on chemicals and polymers of concern before INC-4 received support from 130 countries present, even though it ultimately failed to pass.

Access remained an issue at the daily Asia-Pacific regional meetings, which barred observers from attending – in contrast with the meetings of other regional groups, which are open to all participants. The Asia-Pacific region stretches from the Gulf States in the west to the Small Island Developing States in the Pacific Ocean and some members do not see the need for transparency and civil society participation.

During breaks in the official meetings, there were many side events, where we heard from experts on topics such as plastic and health and reuse systems, as well as from waste pickers and indigenous leaders, who shared their perspectives on a just transition.

INC-3 MEETING SUMMARY

Prior to the meeting, the INC Secretariat had prepared two documents, intended to form the basis of discussions:

The “Zero Draft” text, based on the outcomes of INC-2. This provided a clear structure for the treaty. Each part proposed a broad yet concise set of options, ranging from strict, globally-enforced rules to voluntary commitments, dependent on each country’s particular circumstances.
A “Synthesis Report“, an additional document containing recommended text for definitions, scope, principles and other items submitted by member states that had not yet been discussed by the INC.

The expectation before INC-3, based on the usual negotiating process for these kinds of agreements, was that member states would do two readings of these documents, discussing and expressing preferences for the different options. The goal was to move forward with a mandate to create a streamlined First Draft, reflecting the common ground and supporting detailed text negotiation at INC-4.

The second expectation was that member states would agree to carry out intersessional work – meetings in between the official rounds of negotiation – to discuss (among others) how they would define specific terms, establish targets, categorise chemicals and propose means of financing that could be used later in the negotiations, without prejudging the final outcome. This work is essential for member states to understand what is meant when the treaty refers, for example, to “chemicals of concern” or “safe, environmentally sound disposal”. It also brings independent science and expertise into the process, which has thus far been lacking.

However instead of a mandate for a first draft and intersessional work, what we actually got in Nairobi was quite different.

Should there be any doubt remaining about the intentions of oil-producing countries after the derailment of INC-2, INC-3 proved that this same minority continue to negotiate in bad faith. Branding themselves as the “like-minded group” of countries, they started by calling into question the “balance” of the Zero Draft and the Synthesis Report, then insisted that the existing text be expanded to take into account all views in the room. This was necessary, they said, in order to establish trust moving forward.

It resulted in chaos. Hundreds of amendments to the text were submitted within a matter of hours. The vast majority of these were designed to weaken the provisions or, in some cases, delete them entirely. The Secretariat scrambled to accommodate all the changes over the remaining days. Precious time was spent simply trying to establish whether the inputs had been recorded correctly.

What we are now left with is a bloated, 100+ page document (compared with the 30 pages of the original Zero Draft), with each of the original clauses expanded to include several, often confusing and contradictory options. This is not allowed to be streamlined or summarised, only edited for typos. It will be published by the Secretariat as a “Revised Zero Draft” by 31 December 2023. The only positive from the expansion is that support for waste pickers is now more clearly recognised and included throughout the text.

Meanwhile, similar stalling tactics meant there will be no intersessional work before INC-4. The topics for discussion and the format could not be agreed. The same minority of countries wanted to leave key issues like polymers, chemicals and EPR (extended producer responsibility) off the table and focus solely on waste management and finance. This will delay progress at INC-4 as no groundwork on terms and definitions will have been done.

The final outcome of the meeting was that a new Chair of the INC Secretariat was elected. Luis Vayas Valdivieso of Ecuador will replace outgoing Chair, Gustavo Meza-Cuadra of Peru, and preside over INC-4, 5 and beyond.

Analysis by CIEL identified at least 143 participants at the talks as members of the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries, outnumbering the representatives of the 70 smallest country delegations. Six member states, including Malaysia, hosted industry lobbyists as part of their official delegations.

Oil producing countries’ delegations in general tended to be far larger than those of the self-styled “downstream” countries, who suffer most from plastic pollution. This gave them an unfair advantage when it came to following the simultaneous discussions, speaking at the various Contact Groups, drafting submissions at speed and accessing technical and tactical assistance.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

On the surface, it may seem like the plastics treaty is going in the same direction as the climate change convention (UNFCCC), which is struggling to make a meaningful impact almost thirty years after its adoption.

We are seeing the same dominance of fossil fuel interests; the failure of the countries responsible for the crisis to take the lead in solving it; and the familiar move towards “pledges” based on “national circumstances” instead of a commitment to the globally binding measures needed to tackle the problem at the source.

But one critical difference with the plastics treaty is that we still have the means and the will to change this pattern. The member states taking part have yet to make any conclusive decisions. Although the outcomes of INC-3 mean the final treaty is likely to be significantly delayed, it is important to remember that as yet no real concessions have been made. The original text of the Zero Draft may be buried under new suggestions, but it is still in play. Countries chose to delay intersessional work, rather than settle for partial or watered down discussions. Many observers see this as a win: no progress is better than a compromise.

And unlike UNFCCC, the INC still has the possibility to make decisions by majority voting, not consensus (unanimous agreement). Consensus decision-making is widely seen as the fatal flaw of UNFCCC, as a single country with vested interests is able to veto any proposal. If the new Chair of the INC is able to take control of the proceedings and implement a strong conflict of interest policy – similar to that which the World Health Organisation used during the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – as well as support smaller countries to take a more active role, there is hope.

Ambition in many corners of the room – from Africa, Latin America, and small island states among others – is still high. If these member states succeed in creating a strong treaty that truly covers the whole life cycle of plastic, it will have huge implications, not only for our health and biodiversity but also for the climate and the UNFCCC. It will prove that caps on fossil fuel production are possible and that Big Oil can be defeated. Perhaps INC-4 in Ottawa will be the turning point that is so badly needed.

BACKGROUND

What is the Global Plastics Treaty?
In February 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly made a historic resolution (UNEA 5/14) to develop “an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment” – the Global Plastics Treaty – and gave member states just five meetings in two short years to agree on the text.

With the scope of the treaty covering the whole life cycle of plastic, there is a lot of ground to cover: the ever-mounting evidence about the toxicity of plastic, from extraction to disposal; its significant role in planetary warming; its destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity; the impossibility of plastic circularity; and the disproportionate impacts of all of these issues on the Global South and vulnerable communities.

Member states must also agree on the implementation of any agreed measures – whether they will be voluntary or binding, how they will achieve compliance and how they will be financed.

Why is Trash Hero involved?
In 2022, Trash Hero World received UNEP accreditation, recognising the work of our volunteers on plastic pollution worldwide, and allowing us to join the talks as civil society observers. This means we can take part in the negotiation process, contributing both formally through written submissions and statements and informally through discussions with official government delegates. Like all observers, who represent UNEP’s “major groups” of stakeholders – farmers, local authorities, women, children and youth, scientists, workers and businesses – we are not able to vote or make any decisions.

What is INC-3?
INC stands for Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, the group of around 175 UN member states who will decide on the form and content of the treaty, facilitated by a Bureau and Secretariat made up of UNEP staff and representatives of member states, who act in a neutral capacity.

The whole process is funded by member states, primarily from the Global North.

INC-3 is the third round of meetings of the INC, and the longest to date. It officially took place from 11 – 19 November 2023 (including two days of preparatory meetings) in the UN compound in Nairobi, Kenya. More than 1900 people were in attendance representing 161 countries and 318 observer organisations. The final two planned meetings of INC take place in Ottawa, Canada in April 2024 and in Seoul, S. Korea, in November 2024.

The burning issue of incineration

by Lydia on 21/09/2023 No comments

Clever marketing promotes incineration as an efficient, green, and even “zero waste” approach to energy and trash. We can make our waste “disappear” and produce energy at the same time – who wouldn’t want that?

So why has the EU banned new incinerators? And why do we believe that it has no place in the world of zero waste?

What exactly is incineration?

The term ‘incineration’ covers processes that burn waste, with or without oxygen, usually to produce electricity, heat or fuel. It includes things like waste-to-energy, chemical recycling, pyrolysis and plastic-to-fuel. Each process treats the trash slightly differently, but their impacts are similar. So, as we dive in and examine three bogus claims made about incineration, we’ll group them all together.

Myth 1: Incineration is an efficient way to deal with waste

Incinerators are sold as big energy generators for cities, but the reality is they are hugely inefficient. Their fuel – municipal waste – is rarely sorted. This means it contains a lot of food, which has a high water content, making it hard to burn. Of the fuel put in, often less than 20% can be recovered as energy. This number would be even lower in the Global South, where municipal waste typically contains higher levels of organics. In comparison, coal power has a 35% efficiency rate and natural gas 42%.

This means a typical incinerator can only cover about 5% of a city’s energy needs. Let’s look at this at a household level. The average family (depending on where you live) produces 2.98 tonnes of waste per year. On average, burning 1 tonne of waste will produce 160 kwH of electricity, which can power a house for ten days. So the trash from one household in a whole year can power their house for less than a month.

In addition, incineration plants are neither cheap to build, nor to run. They require expensive specialised equipment such as pollution control systems, air quality monitoring, wastewater management and waste disposal systems. These add up: incineration costs $190-$1200 per tonne, compared to landfills costing $5-$50 per tonne. The low efficiency of incineration makes it hard to generate revenue from selling energy and balance the high set-up and operational costs. Consequently, seeing any return on investment can take 20 – 30 years.

Myth 2: Incineration is an environmentally friendly, renewable energy source

Incineration produces more greenhouse gas emissions than any other means of energy production. And of all the ways to manage plastic waste, it has the biggest climate impact. Burning one tonne of plastic for energy recovery will result in a net emission of 0.9 tonnes of CO2, even after offsetting the virgin fossil fuel that was saved in the process. This is compared with 60kg of CO2 for landfilling the same amount.

Incinerators are also a major source of fine particulates, heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants. As such, they should be equipped with expensive air pollution control systems, and often are in the Global North. These systems work by reducing the toxins in the exhaust gas and concentrating them into other byproducts like fly ash, slag and wastewater. These residuals are hazardous but are often still used in building materials or disposed of in landfills. Inevitably they will find their way into the environment, eventually entering the food chain. In the Global South, more lenient regulation and lower budgets mean even basic air pollution controls and safe disposal of byproducts are often skipped.

Exposure to dioxins, furans and other toxins leads to serious health issues. Studies in communities living near waste incinerators reveal a significantly increased rate of certain cancers, respiratory and neurological diseases, stomach ailments, fatigue, risk of miscarriages, birth defects and premature births. Disproportionately, it is marginalised communities that are exposed to such pollution. In the US, 8/10 incinerators are close to low-income communities or communities of colour. As the EU has stopped investing in new incineration plants, there has been a push to set up more in the Global South. This means that even more vulnerable communities are being exposed to harmful toxins.

Finally, incineration is often touted as “renewable energy”, as waste is constantly produced. However, the calorific part of waste is largely made up of non-renewable fossil fuel materials, such as plastic, that cannot then be reused. And, when the calorific percentage is low – in cases where there is a lot of organic material mixed in – incineration facilities often end up supplementing with virgin fossil fuels to keep the fire burning. This happens in China, where they depend on coal to keep their incinerators going.

Myth 3: Incineration is “zero waste”

The definition of zero waste centres around the conservation of natural resources, by designing and managing products and processes to systematically avoid and eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste.

Incineration is the opposite of this. By using waste as fuel, resources are destroyed, including materials such as metal or glass, which are reusable, or organic materials that could create compost.

Its high investment cost and the need to keep the fire burning around the clock means it relies on the continuous production of waste, especially fossil fuel-based plastic. The volume of waste produced can actually increase in a situation where an incinerator is present.

For example, Denmark predominantly manages its waste through incineration. They currently produce the highest levels of waste per person per year in the EU: 845kgs! This is far more than the average, which is 505kgs. Once an incinerator is built, it creates a lock-in effect, which means there is no incentive to reduce waste at all.

Incinerating rubbish also removes any incentive to sort and recycle it, because doing so reduces the amount available to burn. In 2019, a policy came into force in Shanghai, China to separate organics and recyclables from municipal waste. This resulted in 54% of waste being diverted from disposal, compared to 21% prior to implementation. The unforeseen consequence was that there was not enough waste for their incinerators to run. In May 2023, there were 88 days of closures across the city’s 12 plants, due to a lack of fuel.

One other positive aspect of zero waste is that it supports employment in the waste management sector – sorting, composting, recycling – as well as additional jobs around reuse, refill and repair. Incineration takes all of these livelihoods away. The jobs it creates are far fewer and carry a higher risk of toxic exposure.

So when you see any industry-sponsored promotion of incineration as “efficient”, “renewable” or “clean and green”, you can now call this out as greenwashing.

Instead of destroying resources, heating the climate and creating unsafe communities, local and national governments must help implement systems supporting zero waste. This will lead to more jobs, less emissions and healthier people! Do you agree? Then, share this blog post with anyone who thinks incineration could benefit their community.

Want to bust more myths? Check out our blog post that exposes the truth about plastic credits.

Exposing the hidden cost of sachets

by Lydia on 15/08/2023 No comments

Lightweight, brandable, airtight, and cheap: sachets embody plastic’s most appealing qualities. As single-serving pouches, they are touted as affordable for low-income households. Yet, the actual cost of sachets extends far beyond their price. Their short-lived life triggers serious environmental, health, and social impacts, particularly in the very communities they claim to assist.

The first record of commercially sold sachets was in the 1980s by Unilever’s India subsidiary, Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL). They targeted lower-income areas with small quantities of shampoo, sold in plastic pouches for just 1 rupee ($0.01). By the turn of the century, 70% of all shampoo in India sold was in sachets and companies such as Nestle SA and The Procter & Gamble Company had also jumped on the bandwagon. A staggering 2 billion sachets containing shampoo, laundry detergent, candy and more are now sold daily. These sales amount to enough sachets per year to blanket the entire Earth’s surface.

So why did we, and 116 other organisations globally, sign a letter asking for them to be phased out?

A means to exploit the poor and undermine local culture

In the Global South, sachets are marketed aggressively at low-income households. At first, they may appear as an economical choice for families with low weekly earnings. A closer examination of the prices per 100g or 100ml (the “unit cost”) reveals that sachet products are frequently pricier than their counterparts in bottles or larger containers. The packaging also encourages the use of more product than may be necessary, resulting in more money lost over time. The price difference becomes worse over time. A 10ml shampoo sachet is used for one wash, while a 200ml bottle enables 20+ washes with less shampoo per wash.

The takeover of sachets has meant traditional refill systems and the use of natural packaging have been forgotten. Before they flooded the market, families would bring their containers to shops, and shopkeepers would measure out portions of items such as sugar or cooking oil catering for all sizes and needs with no environmental impact.

The epitome of throw-away culture, but where is ‘away’?

A typical sachet has an airtight inner plastic layer that protects the product, a foil barrier against moisture and heat, and an outer flexible layer that can be printed on. An adhesive holds it all together.

This small, single-use, yet durable design creates big environmental impacts. Their light weight means they often end up in forests, rivers, and oceans. From here, animals mistake them for food and get sick or even die after consuming them. Discarded sachets also worsen flooding by clogging waterways and drains, leading to more water-borne diseases. For something that is used for seconds, they have a very long-lasting impact!

For recyclers and waste pickers, sachets have no value. The layers of cheap materials and adhesive render them unrecyclable and expensive to manage. So there is little incentive to collect them, as nothing useful can be done with them. . Former CEO of Unilever, Paul Polman, has said: “Packaging this small and with such little value has proved impossible to collect at scale, let alone recycle. We need to get rid of harmful sachets for good”. And he is not the only one who has spoken out. Unilever’s President for Global Food and Refreshments, Hanneke Faber, branded their multilayer design as ‘evil’ due to its non-recyclability.

Producer responsibility: a burning question

Despite this, sachets continue to be sold in areas where waste collection infrastructure is non-existent. If not ending up in nature, the fate of most sachets is either a dumpsite or, more commonly, some form of burning. This is highly toxic, being detrimental to both human health and ecosystems, as well as contributing to the climate crisis.

Various “recycling” schemes promoted by the producers of sachets often turn out to be little more than burning them, often as fuel for barbecue stalls or laundries, where they pollute further.

In 2017, Unilever invested in “revolutionary” chemical recycling plants in Indonesia that claimed to solve the problem of sachets. Just two years later, they quietly shut down the project. This was due to the ‘logistical difficulties of sachet collection and the challenging economics around the end product.’

In 2019, Unilever announced plans to support refill systems. They planned vendor machines in the Philippines to refill containers with shampoo and conditioner. Reuters visited the sites of these refill stations and discovered that Unilever had removed them after just one month.

So, what is the solution?

Products sold in sachets can be sold as part of a refill system, but companies are reluctant to invest in the infrastructure needed. Sachets are cheap to produce and so make more profit. So they continue to focus on ways to better managing waste instead of avoiding it in the first place.

We need companies to stop pushing unproven and harmful processes such as ‘chemical recycling’ as a solution. We need them to stop allowing poor communities, our planet and climate to bear the brunt of sachets devastating costs. We need them to commit to safe and sustainable reuse and refill systems that are accessible to everyone.

If you agree that plastic sachets should be phased out, then share our Instagram post so more people see the true cost of sachets!

Busting the myth: plastic credits and their impact on plastic pollution

by Seema on 04/07/2023 1 comment

“With every product sold, we’ll recover 1kg of ocean-bound plastic. Together, we can stop plastic pollution”

Have you ever seen a claim like this? We have. As a network that organises thousands of cleanups every year, Trash Hero is often approached by companies offering so-called “plastic offsetting”. We are offered cash for trash, in return for joining a “plastic credits” scheme.

The plastic credits industry is experiencing rapid global growth, with plastic producers queuing up to be certified. With a contribution to a middleman – like Verra or Plastic Bank – they can buy themselves “plastic neutrality”, supposedly achieved by balancing a portion of their production with a collection of plastic waste.

Trash Hero has always refused to take part in these schemes. Why? Let’s delve deeper into the concept of plastic credits and the impact they have on plastic waste.

What are plastic credits?

Plastic credits are tradable certificates that represent a specific amount of plastic waste, typically 1 metric tonne per credit. This waste has either been recycled, picked up as litter or prevented from entering the environment. It can be made up of any type of plastic and can be from any location worldwide, but is typically “ocean-bound”, meaning it was collected within 50km of a coastline.

The credits are issued by third party brokers that manage the collection or recycling, authenticate the origin and track sales to avoid fraud. Each broker has its own set of rules, standards and pricing for credits and there is currently no regulation of the market.

The credits confirm the amount of plastic “recovered” in the buyer’s name and entitle them to claim several different things:

Their products, made from the same quantity of plastic, are “plastic neutral”
Their products, if the credits are for recycled material, are made from “recycled plastic” (even if actually made from virgin plastic).
They are helping to solve the plastic pollution problem, despite continuing to produce plastic that is toxic and polluting.

This is problematic in many ways.

Permitting “business as usual”

Plastic offsetting allows companies to say they are doing something about the problem, while continuing to produce plastic. It is easier and cheaper to buy plastic credits than to implement packaging and delivery systems that would reduce their plastic output – widely recognised as the only real means of stopping pollution.

The credits, and the marketing around them, give the false impression that something is being done about the crisis and reduce public pressure to build alternative systems.

Do they really balance?

Different types of plastics possess unique physical and chemical properties that influence their environmental impact. But with plastic credits, there is no principle of “like for like”. Can a tonne of plastic water bottles removed from an urban dumpsite really offset the production of a tonne of low-value plastic sachets that can never be recycled and might end up in the ocean? Or a fast fashion clothing line that releases microplastic fibres into the air and water during use? These decisions are in the hands of the brokers.

What happens to the waste that is collected?

This is another issue that complicates the “offsetting” calculation. “Recovery” of plastic waste has no universal definition, and in practice has been shown to include disposal in open dumpsites and various methods of incineration – all of which have serious, long term impacts on the climate and human health. In our experience, most waste that is collected from nature is mixed, contaminated or degraded and only a small percentage can be recycled – or, more likely, downcycled.

Even in the ideal case, plastic never ‘disappears’ when it is recovered. Clean PET bottles may be recycled once or twice at best, then must be landfilled or incinerated. It is misleading to suggest recovery of any sort can negate the impact of creating new plastic destined to meet a similar end, just a short while later.

*‘In our experience, most waste that is collected from nature is mixed, contaminated or degraded and only a small percentage can be recycled’*

Challenges with additionality

Additionality refers to the concept of demonstrating that the waste collected through plastic credits is in addition to what would have been collected anyway, without the credits being purchased. This is not the case if credits come from trash collected by existing waste pickers, or that is diverted from going to an existing recycling programme. However, this is nearly impossible to check or adjudicate. There is a worrying lack of independent standards, transparency and oversight in the industry.

Perpetuating waste colonialism

Aside from the issues of calculation, plastic credits raise significant social and ethical considerations. The majority of companies participating in these schemes are large corporations located in developed countries, predominantly in the Global North. Whereas most, if not all, of the projects that collect plastic waste are based in less developed countries, primarily in the Global South.

By purchasing these credits, corporations take advantage of cheap labour costs and more lenient environmental and health and safety regulations. This dynamic perpetuates an already unfair situation. Waste workers and waste pickers in less developed countries of the Global South continue to bear the harmful consequences of handling low-value plastic waste that is often exported from developed countries in the first place.

For all of these reasons, Trash Hero will never take part in any plastic offsetting programme.The goal of our cleanups is to engage and educate the community to reduce waste, not to enable plastic producers to greenwash their image and continue creating trash for us to pick up forever.

You can read more about the issues of plastic credits on the Plastic Solutions Review website, GAIA’s Plastic Neutrality briefing or watch the Break Free From Plastic webinar here

Note: all Trash Hero cleanup participants are volunteers and do not receive any form of financial compensation, including expenses, for their work.

What’s the connection between what we throw away and the climate?

by Lydia on 15/05/2023 No comments

We currently produce an enormous quantity of waste, especially plastic. This overproduction, and the resulting mismanagement, directly increase greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change.

A recent Global Alliance Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) report reveals the ‘clearest and most comprehensive evidence yet’ that a zero waste approach would totally transform this situation by reducing emissions and mitigating the effects of extreme weather.

In this blog post, we break down some of their key findings.

Separate food waste to reduce methane emissions

Composting is a game-changer when it comes to reducing methane emissions and is better for the planet than recycling. When organic waste, like food scraps, decomposes in landfills, it produces a high amount of methane, which is released into the atmosphere. But by separating it, we can ensure it is composted to create nutrient-rich soil. According to the GAIA report, composting our organic waste will reduce methane emissions from landfills by a whopping 62%. And when we add mechanical recovery and biological treatment of residuals, we can reduce these methane emissions by an average of 95%!

Reuse and refill to reduce emissions from fossil fuels

Plastic, over 95% of which is derived from fossil fuel, leaves a massive carbon footprint – creating emissions at every stage of its lifecycle. A staggering 44% of plastic is used for packaging or disposable items. By promoting refill and reuse systems and embracing a zero-waste approach, companies and local governments can easily reduce non-essential plastic use.

This will drastically decrease our fossil fuel-related emissions, as well as our dependency on oil and gas.

Stop burning trash to cut greenhouse emissions

Incineration in various guises, such as ‘plastic-to-fuel’, is often promoted as a “solution” for plastic waste. The GAIA report shows that this is a very expensive, energy-intensive and inefficient process. It also creates a ‘lock-in effect’ that guarantees climate emissions for years to come. A study in Seoul, a city that relies significantly on incineration, found that the emissions from incineration were five times higher than from landfills. Although limited studies have been done on the impact of incineration, it is widely accepted that burning plastic has severe climate, environmental, and health impacts.

Ban plastics to build resilience against extreme weather events

Flooding is becoming more frequent due to climate change, and studies have found that mismanaged waste exacerbates the situation. Plastic waste clogs drainage systems, so much so that Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda all banned plastic bags following severe flooding. Discarded waste is a breeding ground for insects known to spread diseases.

In Manila, for example, the dumping of solid waste was identified as a significant factor in the high levels of infections during floods and their aftermath. A zero-waste approach would eliminate this waste, meaning we can mitigate the impact of severe weather events.

Use compost to improve soil health

The final benefit of zero waste that we will discuss here – as there are many more – is how composting can improve soil health. Our planet’s soil, a crucial element of ecosystems, is facing significant impacts from climate change. Soil moisture decreases due to higher air and soil temperatures, leading to aridity and desertification. This, coupled with erosion, could reduce food production by 25% by 2050. Compost provides an easy solution by improving soil organic matter, increasing its capacity for nutrient storage, and improving water absorption, strengthening soil resilience to climate change. Composting also reduces pollution, landfill waste, soil erosion, and surface and groundwater contamination, making it a valuable tool for adapting to climate change.

Do you want to start reducing waste? You can find out more about how to compost at home in our blogpost: The best recycling was invented by Mother Nature or you can read our tips for reducing plastic waste (it might not be the advice you expect!)

Want more information and waste and the climate? Read the executive summary of the ‘Zero waste to zero emissions’ or the full report.