Education | Trash Hero World

What’s the problem with plastic?

by Seema on 02/02/2024 1 comment

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.

The best recycling was invented by Mother Nature

by Lydia on 22/03/2023 No comments

What’s the easiest and most effective recycling in the world? Recycling that you can do yourself at home? The answer may surprise you: organics!

Separating and recycling organics – food and garden waste – is often overlooked when we talk about improving waste management but in truth it is the key to making a circular economy a reality.

Investment in recycling food will have a far bigger, wider and more immediate impact than any equivalent investment in recycling plastic. It needs fewer resources and is much less complicated. To go zero waste, start with food!

So why is recycling food waste, also known as composting, so important?

5 reasons why composting is the foundation of zero waste

It reduces the amount of waste sent to landfills

By weight, food makes up the biggest proportion of our household trash. By separating food and other organic waste and composting it, the amount of waste sent to landfill can be reduced by half or more – up to 70% in some Asian countries. That’s a huge reduction when we consider we are rapidly running out of space to contain our trash – and spending ever more public funds to deal with it.

It prevents greenhouse gas emissions

Food waste piled up in a landfill is starved of oxygen. This leads to anaerobic decomposition – a process that creates methane as a by-product. Methane is a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over its 20 year lifespan, and a major factor in driving climate change. Around 15% of methane produced globally comes directly from food rotting in landfills.

It makes landfills safer

All that methane can build up inside the landfill, and is very flammable. Spontaneous fires are common, especially in poorly managed sites. Burning trash produces dangerous toxins and can spread quickly, contributing to disasters such as the fatal collapse of a landfill in Indonesia in 2005.

Rotting food also releases water that starts to dissolve non-organic waste such as plastic or batteries. The resulting toxic black liquid, known as leachate, can leak into the soil and contaminate water sources. Ammonia and mercury in the leachate are responsible for the “dead zones” in rivers.

It makes other recycling easier

With food and other organics out of the picture, recycling non-organic materials becomes much easier! Dry, non-contaminated glass, metal and plastic can be sorted and recycled more effectively and also fetch a higher price in the market – an important incentive that boosts recycling rates.

It’s infinite and helps nourish the soil

Food waste is infinitely recyclable – something that cannot be said for plastic. Food that is composted can be returned to nourish the soil naturally (avoiding synthetic fertilisers) and grow more food. This cycle can be continued forever with almost no additional resources required. It seems incredibly wasteful – if not a little crazy – to spend money piling food up in a landfill, even without considering the other ill effects of doing this.

So how to start recycling your food waste?

If you live in the countryside, or have access to a garden, it’s easy: compost! We have a simple guide on how to do this on our kids’ website. Almost everything that grows can be composted, which makes food one of the easiest things to recycle – although there may be exceptions depending on the technique you choose.

If you live in a city or have limited outdoor space, it gets more tricky. But it is still doable, without smell or mess! The first option is to look for a community composting service or facility. Many municipalities offer food waste collection, or there are often private enterprises who offer a similar service, such as Urban Compost in Bali.

Other cities have adopted a community garden approach, where organic waste can be dropped off in a nearby green space and the compost bins are managed by a volunteer team. Brussels has a network of hundreds of these collective compost sites. There are also many resources available online if you are motivated to start your own project where you live.

The second option is to manage the waste yourself. This is more challenging, especially in a small apartment, but it is especially worthwhile if you have houseplants or a balcony garden that would benefit from the compost you make. Again, there are many resources online for how to compost in a small space. Two techniques we have used and had success with are bokashi and vermicomposting. Bokashi is the easier and more flexible option, but still needs a patch or container of soil in order to fully break down.

Conclusion

Food recycling – or composting – is the most effective form of recycling we have. Food represents the biggest part of our waste stream and, unlike plastic, it is not complicated to recycle, requires minimal resources and can be done an infinite number of times. It vastly reduces the size of landfills, avoids disastrous greenhouse emissions and environmental pollution, and improves the ability to recycle other materials. Get rotting today!

How to maximise the impact of single-use plastic bans?

by Lydia on 13/02/2023 No comments

Last month England joined the growing list of countries that ban various single-use plastic items. Starting in October 2023, items such as plastic plates, cutlery, takeaway food containers and more will no longer be available in restaurants, retailers or the hospitality industry. The government is hoping it will drastically reduce the amount of single-use plastic used in England.

Single-use plastic bans are becoming increasingly popular as pressure mounts to reduce plastic pollution worldwide – and they are undoubtedly a step in the right direction. However, successful results are not guaranteed.

California’s plastic bag ban in 2014 led to an 85% drop in single-use plastic bag use in stores and a 60% reduction in plastic bags found polluting rivers. On the other hand, when Kenya introduced a similar ban in 2017, a black market for plastic bags developed. The country struggled to prevent these hard-to-recycle bags from plaguing the streets and waterways.

So why does some legislation result in a reduction in plastic pollution and others not? What can be done to ensure that a ban is having the desired effect?

What is being banned?

Many single-use plastic bans target low-hanging fruit such as straws, thin plastic bags or cutlery. In reality, these types of items make up just 2-3% of the single-use plastics produced, so the impact is naturally limited.

In July 2022, India introduced such a ban. It has mainly affected local market stalls and street food sellers. With low profit margins and no resources to switch to alternatives, these members of the community have struggled to adhere to the new regulations. The ban in India has, so far, not produced the desired effect.

Critics have suggested that the ban should instead have targeted the far greater amounts of plastic packaging created by supermarkets and multinational companies, for everyday items such as toiletries and food. This packaging is often multi-layer, making it impossible to recycle, and is often designed with branding and cost-cutting (as opposed to functionality or sustainability) in mind. Big companies also have greater resources to make such a change.

In France, the government did target retailers with a ban on plastic fruit and vegetable packaging in January 2022 and, more recently, banning the use of takeaway containers when eating inside a restaurant. This has proven much more effective, although it has not been easy: some sectors of the fast-food industry have used the energy crisis as an excuse not to invest in the changes needed to meet the new regulations.

What should replace the banned items?

The temptation, following the announcement of a plastic ban, is to immediately search for a paper or “compostable” version of what was previously used. Ideally however, a ban should be part of a long-term transition towards a zero waste economy. It should be seen as an opportunity to target the throwaway culture in general. Rather than replacing plastic with more single-use items, a ban should support reuse systems for producers, retailers and consumers.

By encouraging companies to innovate, such systems can be created, tested and evaluated before the ban is implemented. People and businesses will have time to prepare, ensuring less resistance to the new regulations. These changes can further be supported by providing subsidies for investments in reusables and deposit return schemes.

How is the ban communicated?

Any ban needs to have a clear communication strategy for producers, retailers and consumers. If you don’t know about a ban, or you don’t understand it, how can you follow it? Bans are often portrayed as restrictions on freedom or consumer choice. By helping the public understand the reasons for the ban and framing it as an opportunity, governments can help people feel they are an essential part of a movement towards a better and cleaner world – which they are!

Once a ban has come into force, it is also vital to share its success and show people the positive impact they are having with their actions. A great example of a well-communicated media campaign is in Morocco. The government used artists, celebrities and community cleanups to help introduce its plastic ban in 2016.

Is the ban enforceable?

People and businesses affected by a ban will often try to find exceptions or loopholes that will allow them not to cooperate.

Generally, governments use fines against law-breakers, but these can be costly and very difficult to enforce on a large scale. For example, in New York, USA, a plastics ban was introduced in 2020, but very few of the businesses failing to meet the regulations have suffered any consequences. Therefore, people continue to use the items that have been banned.

The key to consistent enforcement is social pressure. If a ban is generally accepted by the public and the reasons for it understood, any violations will naturally be called out. This reduces the investment needed by governments to monitor and chase up infringements.

This of course goes hand-in-hand with a good communication strategy, as mentioned above.

Single-use plastic bans are essential in reducing plastic pollution worldwide and play a significant role in shifting towards a zero waste society. However they need to be done in the right way. With the correct items included in the ban, support for systemic change, a well-communicated campaign and social enforcement, they can be transformative rather than an expensive waste of time.

Winter is coming, plastic has to go: how the ongoing fuel crisis is linked to the plastics industry

by Lydia on 20/10/2022 No comments

A fascinating new report, ‘Winter is coming’ by Break Free From Plastic and CIEL, explores how the ongoing fuel crisis is linked to the plastics industry.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has affected energy supplies and, consequently, prices worldwide. This is especially true for European countries that rely on Russia for oil and gas – in 2020, Russia supplied 38% of the EU’s gas and 22% of their oil. By August 2022, it became clear to the EU that they were facing a severe energy crisis and limited supplies of oil and gas meant that prices continued to soar. There have been warnings of power cuts lasting up to 3 hours to try and save energy, and millions of people are concerned about how they can afford to stay warm over what could be a freezing winter.

In response to these concerns, the EU set a target for all member countries to reduce their energy consumption by 15% by 31 March 2023. To help achieve this, governments have been advising consumers about how they can reduce their energy use. For example, Germany recommended that its citizens take cold showers and limit the use of their heating. However, industrial use of oil and gas continues unabated, with no government advice or restrictions to date.

So how does this relate to plastic?

Currently, the plastics industry is the largest consumer of oil and gas in the EU, accounting for 8% and 9% of the EU’s final consumption in 2020, respectively ¹ . It overshadows any other industry, including steel, automobile manufacturing, machinery, food, and beverages. Within the plastics industry in the EU, over 40% of end-market plastics produced are instant waste – single-use plastic packaging.

The EU and its member states have been leaders in tackling the plastics crisis. In 2018 the EU released its Plastics Strategy, which aims to ‘transform the way plastic products are designed, produced, used and recycled’ and is described as ‘a key element of Europe’s transition to a circular economy’ ² . In 2019 they announced the Single Use Plastics Directive that set a collection target of 90% for recycling single-use plastic bottles by 2029. ³ This leadership was particularly evident at the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in March 2022, when there was a historic advance in negotiations for a global agreement to tackle plastic pollution.

Despite all that the EU has tried to do to reduce plastic pollution, there has been no mention of placing a cap on the production of unnecessary plastic or restricting the activity of the petrochemical industry. This, despite their significant contribution to climate change and their continuing depletion of precious oil and gas reserves.

The report found that if plastic packaging was reduced by 50% and the target of 90% recycling was achieved, this would lead to a reduction of 6.2 billion cubic metres (bcm) of fossil gas and 8.7 million tonnes of oil at the EU level compared to 2020. These figures are equivalent to the oil and gas consumption of the entire Czech Republic in 2020.⁴

The report concludes that, rather than seeking new trade deals for fossil fuels, this situation presents the EU with a unique opportunity to address the energy, climate and plastic crisis. Immediate and drastic action should be taken to reduce the production of unnecessary and excessive virgin plastic by implementing the Plastics Strategy from 2018 and the Single Use Plastics Directive from 2019. In turn, this would significantly reduce greenhouse emissions, reduce plastic pollution and free up the limited energy supplies. The oil and gas that would have been used to produce plastic could instead supply millions of people with reliable and more affordable energy over the winter.

You can read the Executive Summary of the report or the full report.

Footnotes & further reading: