Did you know, there are 390,900 species of plants known to science, according to a report carried out by the Royal Botanic Gardens.
If you think that sounds like a lot of plants, there are still thousands out there that haven’t been discovered! Right, time for another fun fact, did you know that 7 in 10 millennials call themselves a plant parent, which means they’re responsible for plant babies - also known as houseplants? Of course, it’s a completely different challenge to caring for actual babies - and much less demanding - but these indoor plants offer owners their own sense of purpose and joy.
This brings us to the main purpose of the article, which is to provide 6 suggestions on easy plants to grow and propagate at home with tips on how to get started, including propagating, planting and caring for your houseplants.
There’s no denying the healing powers of nature with evidence to suggest that it’s associated with good health and wellbeing. This includes decreasing stress levels and of course, creating a home filled with houseplants may not be the same as walking through Kew Gardens, but these green beauties can relax your mind at the end of a busy day. This is supported by a study concluding that “interaction with indoor plants may reduce psychological and physiological stress by suppressing autonomic nervous system activity in young adults”. It could be linked to the soothing effect of indoor plants reminding us of the outdoors and nature
The use of plants in modern interior design has become increasingly popular. While large indoor plants can be used to make a statement in the room, small plants boast versatility and low maintenance, making them ideal for any space. Also, plants are pretty, so adding them to your home can improve its aesthetics, while also injecting colour, ambiance, personality and fresh life into what might be otherwise bland spaces.
Herbs, the leaf part of the plant used in cooking, not only add colour and flavour to your meals, but they can also improve your immunity. For example, basil does this by purifying your blood and removing toxins. We have the perfect gift set for those looking to grow their own herbs.
When it comes to making your home smell fresh, fragrant houseplants are a nice alternative to artificial air fresheners and scented candles due to their natural and eco-friendly qualities. For example, Gardenia, the ingredient used in many perfumes, offers a sweet-smelling aroma that can keep your house smelling fresh for months. As well as producing delightful smells, this study states that potted plants could “reduce NO2 by as much as 20 per cent”.
The best things in life are free and this includes growing plants at home…to an extent. You just need some plant cuttings from existing plants, some old glass jars to propagate your plants, and some pots to eventually plant them in. You can also ask a friend to take some cuttings which is another free way to grow from scratch.
If you want to avoid all the old jars dotted around the house for your plant cuttings, you could consider an elegant plant propagator stand, which adds character to any house.
Plant propagation is the process of creating new plants from a single parent plant. There are a range of techniques including division, budding and cutting but the latter is the least risky to the parent plant.
Cutting involves taking cuttings from a plant, putting them into water, waiting for the cutting to grow roots, and then planting them in soil. Our plant propagation gift set will get you started if you’re looking for something to buy that looks nicer than using old glass jars around the house.
The snake plant, also referred to as the Sansevieria trifasciata, is native to Asia and Africa and there are around 70 different species. With evergreen sword–shaped leaves, it's easy on the eye and makes a nice addition to any home.
Credit: cactusway.com, hedgerose.uk and bhg.com
As well as being relatively easy to grow, the snake plant is also an extremely tolerant indoor plant that’s hard to kill, meaning it can survive drought and lack of exposure to light. The straightforward plant care involved makes it ideal for any beginner.
It’s a slow-growing plant so you may need to be patient as it can take between 6 to 8 weeks to see any root growth. When growing the snakeplant cuttings, we recommend avoiding low-light areas which will slow growth. It may then take another 4 to 8 weeks for the plant to grow above the soil line.
A healthy indoor snakeplant can reach up to 8 feet high indoors, while its width can range from 6 inches to 3 feet.
B&Q has a snake plant in a 14cm pot.
The pothos plant, native to southeastern Asia, has heart-shaped green leaves and it's also known as the ‘hanging plant’ with aerial roots that allow it to climb.
Credit: crocus.co.uk, bunches.co.uk and justhouseplants.com
It’s considered to be one of the easiest houseplants to care for as it can grow in a plethora of environments, such as bright, indirect and low light. It is also said to be one of the best indoor plants for removing air toxins, as supported in this study by NASA.
The pothos is popular for being one of the fastest growing indoor plants but it needs the right conditions such as sunlight, water and nutrients to flourish. From a cutting in water, it can take about a month for it to grow inch-long roots. The cuttings will then grow their first leaves in 4 to 5 months, depending on the right level of nutrients.
In wild conditions, a pothos can reach incredible sizes but at home, they’re usually much smaller. Mature leaves can range between 4-8 inches, while the vine is likely to not grow more than a couple dozen feet.
Waitrose has devil's ivy Golden Pothos.
For Game of Thrones fans, the name Dracaena derives from the Greek word “drakaina”, which means female dragon. But in the world of plants, these are slightly different from fire breathing dragons.
Credit: waitrosegarden.com, bloomscape.com and thespruce.com
These popular ornamental houseplants with spear-shaped leaves, known as the Dracaenas, include 120 species within the Draceana genus and have origins in Madagascar and other Indian Ocean Islands. Dracaena houseplants are also drought tolerant, making them easy plants to grow at home.
Of course, it depends on the species and dracaena care but generally speaking, they are slow growing and it can take up to 10 years for them to reach their highest point. For example, Dracaena marginata grow extremely slowly with about 12 inches in three years, according to reports.
Dracaenas can grow as big as 6 feet high indoors.
Gardens4You have a variety of plants on offer, including the Dracaena Marginata.
Jade Plants, a sub-shrub native to southern Africa, can be compared to bonsai trees with their green, fleshy leaves and thick stems. They’re also said to be symbols of good luck.
Credit: gardendesign.com, dengarden.com and gardeningknowhow.com
It’s a succulent houseplant which means it's resilient and easy to grow indoors, making it an ideal plant for beginners. Part of this resilience comes from the fact it is able to store water in its leaves, allowing it to cope with drought.
Jade plants are slow growing and can grow by about 2 inches per year but this can be influenced by many factors. We therefore recommend optimising care conditions to help it grow faster. For example, this plant loves thriving outdoors in full sun.
They can reach between3 and 6 feet tall so you may need to repot depending on the rate of growth.
Waitrose sells high quality Jade Plants , including the Crassula Ovata.
If you’re scared of spiders, please don’t panic…it’s just a plant. The spider plant, also known as “chlorophytum comosum”, comes from the tropical and subtropical regions of Africa, Asia, and Australia. Its name derives from its spiderettes, which resemble spiders on a web when they dangle from the mother plant.
Credit: thespruce.com, Garden Market Place Amazon Store and bloomscape.com
It’s not only one of the most adaptable indoor plants, it’s also incredibly easy to grow in a range of conditions. We recommend well-drained soil and bright, indirect sunlight to allow this plant to flourish.
Spider plants grow quickly and will usually need to be repotted into a bigger pot about once every 2 years.
This plant can grow up to 1 or 2 feet tall.
B&Q is selling affordable spider plants.
Native to tropical America, the Monstera are a species of evergreen tropical vines and shrubs. They’re renowned for their natural leaf-holes which explains their nickname, the “Swiss Cheese Plant”.
Credit: mytastefulspace.com, Polsada Etsy Store and petalrepublic.com
Monsteras prefer warm, humid environments which explains why they make good houseplants. Although they can survive in low light, it’s best to expose them to bright, indirect sunlight which will boost growth.
Healthy plants tend to grow between 1 to 2 feet per year in the right conditions.
In the right conditions, Monstera deliciosa can grow up to 10 to 15 feet tall indoors and stretch 8 feet wide.
Waitrose is selling a medium 40cm Monstera deliciosa swiss cheese plant.
The leaves and roots need sufficient room to grow. While leaves need space to absorb sunlight, the roots need to be able to spread out to absorb water and nutrients. Plants shouldn’t be planted too close together, otherwise they’ll compete for these essential resources.
It’s crucial for plants to have the right temperature at the right times to be able to grow. This is due to photosynthesis, the process where plants convert energy from the Sun into energy they can use, which can only take place optimally at the correct temperature. This process allows the plant to create oxygen and glucose for itself, which are essential building blocks for growth.
Although plants can get light from the Sun to grow, they can also grow in artificial light. The light energy is used to make glucose which acts as their energy source.
Without enough light, the plant will grow extremely slowly but too much light could result in the plant drying out. For example, although the pothos plant can flourish in a range of conditions, it doesn’t enjoy exposure to direct sunlight.
Water is needed for plants to carry out photosynthesis. Once absorbed by the roots, water moves through the stems to the chloroplasts in the leaves. Water also helps move important nutrients from the soil into the plant.
Without water, a plant will droop but too much watering can cause the roots to root. A good example is the spider plant which only needs to be watered about once a week.
Just like humans, plants need oxygen to survive. During the process of photosynthesis, plants absorb CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) from the air and combine it with water from their roots. The energy from sunlight is then used to transform into carbohydrates (sugars) and oxygen.
In addition to CO2 and water, plants need 17 nutrients in their diet for maintaining growth. Carbon, oxygen and hydrogen can be obtained from the air but most of these nutrients must be in the soil. For example, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are nutrients that can be dissolved in water so the plant’s roots absorb them.
You could look into using a fertilizer if your plant is unable to access the nutrients it needs. They’re designed to provide essential nutrients which help plants grow faster.
For those striving to be great plant parents, please read on. The great thing about plants is they communicate with us which makes caring for them not too difficult. But telltale signs that your houseplant is dying include yellowing leaves, browning leaves, a dull looking foliage, roots that stick out and spots on its leaves.
However, don’t lose hope as you could still bring them back to life! For example, leaves that turn yellow indicate an issue with overwater so moving forward, don’t be so generous with the water and cut of the damaged foliage
Most houseplants should be watered every 1 to 3 weeks. We recommend monitoring them and giving them a drink when needed. How often you choose to water them depends on different factors such as the type of plant, size, type of pot etc.
For example, you’re meant to water a pothos plant when the soil dries out but this differs from a spider plant where the advice is to only water when the top 50% of the soil is dry. Just do your research!
Houseplants love getting them rays but most are happy with bright, indirect light. They don’t need to be exposed to direct sunlight at all possible hours of the day as this could damage their leaves and roots. Most plants will therefore be content with a window that’s East, South or West facing.
At some point, you will need to repot your houseplant. Even the snakeplant - which doesn’t mind cosy conditions - has roots that outgrow its pot. The best time to repot your houseplant is during spring and summer when it's in active growth. You want to give the growing roots sufficient time to grow into the new pot.
We hope you have learnt some cool new tips on how to start, or progress on your plant growing journey. Thanks for taking the time to read our article, but feel free to leave your top tips in the comments below!
]]>As technology advances, there are more and more ways to use it to lead a greener, more sustainable life. Whether you’re an individual looking to reduce your carbon footprint or a business owner looking for ways to make your business greener, here are some tips for how to use everyday technology to do just that.
One way to reduce paper waste is by using PDF tools to digitize paper records. This reduces clutter in the office while also making it easier to access and share documents electronically. It also eliminates the need for physical storage which can take up valuable space and resources.
Smart thermostats are energy- and cost-saving devices that can be programmed to adjust the temperature of your home or office according to your lifestyle and preferences. This eliminates the need for manual adjustments each time you enter or leave a room, as the thermostat takes care of it for you. Additionally, smart thermostats can reduce energy consumption significantly, resulting in lower energy bills.
Investing in solar panels is an excellent way to lower energy costs and reduce your carbon footprint. Solar energy is renewable, meaning that you will never run out of clean energy. Additionally, solar panels produce no emissions, making this a great way for businesses to go green and support sustainability.
With streaming services becoming increasingly popular, there’s really no need (or desire) for people to purchase hard copies of movies or TV shows anymore. Not only does this reduce clutter in our homes, but it also saves on resources used during production too. Plus, streaming services are typically cheaper than buying physical copies of entertainment products anyways.
Replacing old appliances with energy-efficient models is a great way to reduce electricity costs and help the environment. These models come with programmable settings that let users control their appliance usage and get reminders when maintenance is needed. It's an easy way to save money while helping the planet at the same time.
Electric cars are quickly becoming a more popular option than ever before. By switching to electric cars, you can significantly reduce your environmental impact and benefit from longer battery life and fewer trips to the gas station. It is an easy change to make that could have great long-term benefits for both you and the environment.
Businesses have a crucial role to play if we are to make meaningful strides in preventing climate change. To achieve success, green businesses should focus on connecting with their audiences via social media influencers, creatively expressing their love of the environment, and offering sustainable products at competitive prices. Finally, they should follow through on their values and uphold the standards they set for themselves.
Going green doesn't have to be hard. By making simple changes like digitizing paper records, investing in solar panels, and making your business more eco-friendly, you can contribute to significant change and make a real difference in our climate. Technology has made it possible for us to take advantage of these opportunities, enabling us to lead greener lives in the future. Small steps taken today can make all the difference in the long run.
Owners of up-and-coming businesses may be well-served to follow sustainable business practices. The planet needs more businesses that are not so harmful to the ecosystem, not to mention governments worldwide are tamping down on non-ecofriendliness. Furthermore, as the Guardian can confirm, sustainable businesses do better financially.
Of course, following sustainable business practices is no walk in the park. It tends to require a significant resource investment and carries a measure of risk. To help you make informed decisions, Purple Turtle Co. explains the how-to’s of sustainable business practices as well as the most important considerations
to make beforehand:
Sustainable business practices allow companies to reduce their negative eco-impact while still turning a profit. All businesses have a certain impact on the people, economy, and environment. Sustainable businesses benefit or have a net neutral impact on the people, economy, and environment. Non-
sustainable businesses have a massive carbon footprint and don’t always follow green initiatives.
According to Harvard Business Review, sustainable business practices are a firm’s most dependable route to financial performance. Aligning your business practices to the planet’s best interest, essentially, helps create a healthier ecosystem, which feeds back into your business.
Your sustainability framework will help determine the ideal way for your business to follow eco-friendly practices. Some examples of common sustainable best practices are emphasizing eco-friendliness in the company culture, making a green office, using green products and services, reducing your carbon footprint, using green energy, and utilizing green technology.
A high-impact way to reduce paper waste is by digitizing your paper records and other documents. This also makes it easy to organize and share your files. When digitizing paper records, instead of using many files, you can use a PDF merging tool to keep all your documents in one file. This would cut the time it’d take to find a document. Once you combine PDF files, you can move PDF pages to get their records in the right order. Be sure to click for more info.
Marketing your sustainable business practices is incredibly important. It will bring you to the attention of stakeholders who care about eco-friendliness, whether that’s customers, investors, or potential employees. It’ll allow you to build up a green image, become a part of a green supply chain, and, eventually, boost revenues. When marketing, be sure to highlight the green benefits of your products or services as well as your business practices. You can utilize a mix of offline and online marketing strategies.
Incorporating sustainability won’t be easy.Many would-be-green companies encounter similar challenges – difficulty creating green processes, failure to locate green partners (like suppliers), failure to find demand for eco-friendly products in the market, and money issues. Sustainability is still a developing concept, meaning you may need to research and build eco-friendly processes from scratch, without expert help. Be prepared to invest time learning about sustainability, auditing your business processes, and rebuilding processes.
Starting a business – especially if you’re going the extra mile and making it eco-friendly – can be tough. The reward – a stable, profitable, and resilient business – will make the effort worth it, though. Don’t let your lack of business experience, if applicable, stop you. People learn best by doing. Remember, the most successful entrepreneurs have been where you are. Just follow in their footsteps and keep at it.
Rome wasn’t built in a day – and neither are sustainable businesses. It will take time to get green processes established. It may be a good idea to start small and slowly, but surely, refine your processes over time. This would limit the risk, make the investment more bearable, and lead to lasting success.
Image via Unsplash
]]>Did you know that New Zealanders alone drink an average of 0.98 kg of tea each per year? It's clear that a warm cup of tea is one of life’s simple pleasures, enjoyed by many. Yet, the average teabag can eventually become detrimental to both the environment and your body. That's because many of them are single-use plastic items, with much higher plastic content than other food and beverages.
According to a study published in the Environmental Science & Technology journal, around 11.6 billion tiny particles, known as microplastics, are released when steeping a regular teabag at high temperatures, as well as 3.1 billion nano-particles. To provide some perspective, table salt is considered a product with high microplastic content, containing roughly 0.005 micrograms of plastic per gram of salt. Meanwhile, a simple cup of tea contains a whopping 16 micrograms per cup.
In addition, these levels of microplastics are much higher than those found in other foods and drinks, such as bottled water, beer, and chicken. This is because these contain accidental contaminants of plastic but, with teabags, we are often just placing plastic directly into our beverage.
You may be wondering “but why do teabags contain plastic?”. Teabags need to be sealed to contain their contents and maintain their shape when submerged in hot water. This is where a plastic polymer called polypropylene comes into play. Polypropylene is also present in the string and tag. This wide use of plastic in conventional teabags calls into question its compostability. While the remaining tea leaves are perfect for compost, the polypropylene that makes up the bag itself will stick around for a very long time.
Not only is the plastic content of teabags bad for the environment but it also doesn't do our bodies any favours either. There are potential health risks due to the fact that polypropylene acts as an endocrine disruptor which can affect our hormonal levels. This in turn can lead to many different chronic health conditions.
But fear not, we needn't give up the warm embrace from our dear cups of tea just yet. In fact, we can even up our tea game. Loose-leaf tea contains whole, unbroken leaves which have the space to absorb water and yield a more aromatic, fresh and vitamin-filled brew. Comparatively, teabags often contain smaller pieces of low-grade tea known as dust or fanning. Loose-leaf tea can be brewed through the use of reusable stainless-steel infusers, cheesecloths or even glass tea kettles with enclosed infusers — there isn't a piece of plastic in sight.
If giving up the convenience of teabags seems like a tough feat, there are alternative tea brands that do not use plastic in their products. Refer to this article by Green Child Magazine, which provides a thorough list of plastic-free tea brands. You can also look into purchasing pyramid teabags that are made from maize starch or dissolvable tea crystals. When it comes to a plastic-free cuppa, the options are endless.
Although avoiding conventional teabags may be a minor convenience, you will gain more peace of mind knowing that your body and the environment is spared harmful, unnecessary plastic contamination. So, take five extra minutes of your day for your brew or take milk, one sugar, and microplastic?
What's your favourite loose tea brand? Or have you found plastic-free teabags in your local shop? Let us know in the comments below!
]]>It’s no secret that the world is facing an onslaught of environmental problems—food waste, biodiversity loss, plastic pollution, global warming from fossil fuels, air pollution, deforestation, and ocean acidification just to name a few. If we want to save the planet, we all need to step up and embrace an eco-friendly lifestyle. Together, we can drive change and protect the place we all call home. Here are some tips from Purple Turtle Co and Lisa Walker to help you live sustainably and make your home more eco-friendly!
Besides supporting the environment, there are many great financial reasons to make your home more sustainable. For example, installing eco-friendly appliances, replacing your windows with energy-efficient models, investing in solar panels, and swapping your water heater for a tankless version can boost your home value. Be sure to keep track of any improvements you make so you can justify a higher appraisal value in the future. Appraisers welcome any information that will help them accurately determine the market value of your property, including receipts for upgrades and before and after photos of your improvements.
Are you looking for a new home? Make it eco-friendly! Buying an eco-friendly home will save you from having to make expensive improvements yourself. At the same time, green homes tend to have lower utility costs and may even get you some tax rebates. If you think you might sell the home in the future, eco-friendly features will help you sell faster and for a higher listing price.
There are a couple of key things to look for when house-hunting for a sustainable living space. For example, Blue & Green Tomorrow suggests asking the seller about the materials used in construction and upgrades. Recycled steel, reclaimed wood, and precast concrete are more sustainable than other building materials. Underfloor heating, dual-pane windows, eco-friendly landscaping, LED lights, and high-quality insulation are all great signs. Bonus points if the home has solar panels!
Reducing the amount of household waste your produce is one of the easiest and most affordable ways to support the environment. Plastic waste, in particular, is something we can all stand to produce less of. Stick to reusable items such as face towels, make-up removal cloths, kitchen rags, cloth shopping bags, reusable water bottles, glass containers, and reusable straws. You could even buy your pantry staples in bulk and bring your own containers to the store!
Reducing your reliance on single-use plastics is the best way to reduce your waste, but recycling is a good backup option. In addition to recycling, consider composting your food scraps. Food waste that sits buried in the landfill produces methane, a harmful greenhouse gas. When food waste is composted in a special facility, it’s decomposed in a way that does not produce methane. Plus, the resulting compost can be used in farming to replenish nutrients in the soil and replace synthetic fertilizers.
What’s better than recycling? Reusing! Buying something second-hand gives it a second life and saves it from the landfill. Not only that but purchasing something used means you won’t have to buy it new, saving the resources involved in the manufacturing process for that product. Thrift stores and online marketplace platforms like eBay and Facebook Marketplace are great for finding gently used furniture, appliances, clothing, toys, pet supplies, tools, tech, and home decor.
While making all of these lifestyle changes is a great way to reduce your footprint, don’t forget who is really to blame. According to CDP, just 100 companies are responsible for over 70% of global carbon emissions! Changing our consumption patterns is the only power we have to encourage big corporations to shift to more sustainable production methods. When you can’t buy something used, shop from brands that support the environment. Just be careful to avoid greenwashing! Always do your own research instead of taking a brand’s claims at face value.
We can all do more to support the environment. Homeowners, in particular, have a lot of control over their carbon footprint and the amount of waste produced. Consider making upgrades to your home to reduce your use of fossil fuels. When possible, reuse items and buy second-hand. And when you can’t, compost and recycle instead of throwing everything in the trash. Make conscious spending decisions and support brands that care about the environment just as much as you do. If we all take steps to live more sustainably, we can make a difference!
]]>Last year, the UK government announced that, due to the pandemic, the UN Climate Change Conference that was scheduled for November 2020 would be delayed by a year. The summit, an opportunity for representatives of every country to meet and discuss climate issues on a global level, has been held every year since 1995, and in 2021 it will finally be Britain's turn to host Cop26 in Glasgow. The whole world will be watching, and the event will be heavily covered by the international political press, so it is very important for our nation to be seen to be doing everything we can to counter the climate crisis.
Boris Johnson will be present, as well as other prominent members of the cabinet, and they will be under a lot of heavy scrutiny. This is perhaps why the Conservative government has recently made such an effort to keep climate action at the centre of the cultural discussion with new measures and pledges. The US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry will attend, as well as President Joe Biden (who is already not the prime minister's biggest fan) in order to celebrate the American return to the Paris Climate Accord. A big effort is required to look good in front of the American administration and to not look like hypocrites on an international scale. The pandemic and subsequent damage to the British economy has put a new focus on the climate by providing the opportunity to “build back better” using a ‘green recovery’ that prioritises investment in renewable energy sources. However, climate activists and journalists are getting the impression that the government's new commitment to the planet might be all style and no substance, when in reality the Conservative obsession with business, fossil fuels and easy money-making opportunities stands strong behind the scenes.
As part of the promise of a green recovery from the pandemic, Boris Johnson in December announced a ten-point plan to create green jobs, as well as a commitment to cutting carbon emissions by 68% over the next decade. Of course, actions speak louder than words. Here are some of his words: “We will host Cop26 in Glasgow in November, and rally as many nations as possible behind the target of net zero by 2050, leading by example since the UK was the first major economy to accept this obligation in law.” Overseas aid will be aligned with the Paris Agreement goals of keeping global heating to 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Protecting biodiversity and the general health of the oceans will also be priorities.
Since then however, the government's actions have told a different story than their carefully structured rhetoric; two different reports have been published which contend the statements made by the Prime Minister. The first, written by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), claims that the government has no actual plan to help them meet climate change targets, and that strategies for reducing emissions are yet to be agreed, let alone implemented. The other, published by the Business Committee, predicts that the Cop26 summit will be a failure and an embarrassment unless the country sets clear goals and works towards them.
The government declares both reports to be inaccurate and unfair, yet when you examine the methods that the government is using to try and cut domestic carbon, they do all appear to be either poorly organised or false promises. Britain looks unlikely to meet its long term carbon goals and, according to the Labour PAC Committee Chairman Meg Hillier, this is worsened by the fact that the “government is not yet ensuring that its activities to reduce emissions in Britain are not simply transferring those emissions overseas - where so many of the carbon-intensive goods bought in Britain's shops are made.” Cutting carbon domestically whilst still relying on unsustainable heavy industry abroad is not good enough, and will not survive scrutiny from the UN in Glasgow. The Johnson government often relies on the hope that the British people will remain oblivious to the fossil fuel lobbying and money grabbing that is always going on behind closed doors, but climate activists recognise the “green recovery” pledge for what it is: a performance.
Even as the UK is supposedly phasing out fossil fuels, which are to be replaced with clean energy sources like solar or wind, the world's banks are still financing the fossil fuel industry. An investigation compiled by six NGOs into the unethical practice of lending money to oil and gas corporations recently revealed that the world’s biggest 60 banks have provided $3.8tn of funding since the Paris accord was signed in 2015. Even though the industry is supposed to be in a managed decline, and despite the reduced demand for energy during the COVID pandemic, the amount of money given by banks to the fossil fuel industry increased in 2020. This fact was described as shocking by the report’s authors and demonstrates how the industry is viewed as an opportunity to make some easy cash, regardless of the fact that it is slowly destroying our planet. 17 out of the 60 banks had previously made a commitment to the goal of net zero by 2050, and the report describes most of these pledges as “dangerously weak, half-baked, or vague.” The worst offenders are JPMorgan Chase, Barclays and BNP Paribas, the latter being a bank that “never loses an opportunity to boast of its clean, green credentials,” while still providing the industry with $41bn over the last 5 years.
Photo by Mufid Majnun on Unsplash
Britain’s wealthy corporations have been shown to be as irresponsible as banks when it comes to climate action. It has been recently established that 31 members of the FTSE 100 (the list of the biggest companies in the UK) are emitting CO2 at a rate consistent with a global temperature increase of over 2.7C, well over the goals set out in the Paris accord which would be necessary for us to reach net zero by 2050. It goes without saying that if global temperatures rise by 2.7 degrees, it will pose a significant threat to wildlife, natural resources and human life. Although it is mostly British, American and European corporations that continue to emit carbon in dangerous quantities due to greedy business practices, it is the people of developing nations that will suffer the most severe consequences of global temperature increases, as their communities and livelihoods will be threatened by extreme weather. Oil companies are some of the largest emitters, BP and Royal Dutch Shell included, as well as the mining sector through businesses such as Fresnillo, Anglo American, Polymental, Antofagasta, Evraz, and BHP.
If the British government is genuinely serious about meeting the goal of net zero by 2050, then it must use the valuable opportunity provided by Cop26 to publicly shame and challenge the behaviours of reckless banks and businesses who continue to abuse the planet's natural resources, while making false commitments to sustainability. If the government does not introduce enforceable decarbonisation targets, as well as punitive measures for corporations that break them, then it will be clear that it will always make allowances for the exploitation of the planet’s natural resources, as well as evading any responsibility when it comes to the consequences.
Aside from the actions of banks and businesses, the government's own actions in the first few months of 2021 have been at odds with its recent rhetoric. The budget published at the start of this year was strangely devoid of the climate pledges it was expected to contain, but did detail new investment in defence spending, as well as several other policies that directly endanger the climate. Doug Parr, Policy Director at Greenpeace UK, reacted to the budget with the remark: “It’s welcome that the government says climate is its ‘number one priority’, but increasing nuclear warheads and upgrading high-speed missiles is a funny way of showing it.”
Another funny way of showing it were the decisions to halve the current air passenger duty of £13 per domestic flight, after the collapse of air travel in 2020, one week after rail fairs in the UK increased by 2.6%, making it, in some cases, cheaper to fly across Britain than take the train. Of course, most people travel by car instead of the train anyway as rail fares are generally increased annually, in contrast to the fuel duty on petrol and diesel which remained frozen this year by the chancellor for the 11th year in a row. This is the opposite of what Rishi Sunak was expected to announce after the government's recent climate pledges, however, the increase was “cancelled” last minute in order to “keep the cost of living low.” It is estimated by Carbon Brief that the freeze in fuel duty alone has increased Britain’s carbon emissions by up to 5% over the past decade. Whatever the government claims to be its number one priority, these policies reveal that in reality, it is and always will be the economy.
This is further reflected in the sweeping cuts recently made to the foreign aid budget, which will this year be reduced from the established figure of 0.7% of national income. The cuts are expected to reduce spending heavily (by 50-60%) in countries like Syria, South-Sudan, Nigeria and Somalia, nations which rely heavily on our financial support for the funding of climate infrastructure. South-Sudan, in particular, is in the midst of drafting plans for mass tree planting and new renewable energy sources which most likely will not be able to go ahead once these cuts are in effect. Environmental groups expressed frustration in an open letter in November, after the plans were leaked several months early, insisting that the cuts to foreign aid will worsen the climate crisis and strongly undermine the message of sincerity we will be attempting to convey by hosting Cop26.
The culpability for global warming lies with industrialised western powers; we have a moral obligation to financially compensate the developing countries we are putting at risk with our reckless consumption, and the government is shunning that moral duty to spend excess cash on nuclear warheads that we will likely never use.
This redirection of funds is absolutely shameless. The domestic schemes the government was planning to engage to help us meet our net zero goals are already collapsing; for example, the £2 billion dollar Green Homes Grant, a flagship scheme that was proposed to decarbonise heating for 600,000 households and create 100,000 green jobs, was dropped in March 2021. The scheme worked by allowing people to apply for vouchers to cover the expense of renovations in order to improve home energy efficiency; nearly 70,000 applications were received, but the government met only 8% of its target distribution and the scheme was axed and replaced by a £320 million funding pot, the remainder of the promised £2 billion dollars being repurposed.
The climate scandal which has really exposed the government's hypocrisy when it comes to protecting the planet surrounds the plans for a new coal mine in Cumbria. The Woodhouse Colliery would employ up to 500 people to produce coal for industrial uses like steel production, in obvious contradiction to the net zero by 2050 pledge, as well as the promise to provide reliable green jobs as mining jobs are generally insecure. Approved by Cumbria County Council in October of last year, and then by Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick in January 2020, it is the first proposed project of this type for 30 years, and was met with outrage from Green groups and activists; even David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg expressed specific criticism of the plan. The project has since been delayed pending a year long inquiry into its viability, so it protects Cop26 from being affected by the issue.
The government’s double standards have not gone unnoticed by rival politicians; the former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron responded by saying “[it] just smacks of utter rank hypocrisy. We will get laughed out of town by other countries if we try and tell them they should be doing more to move away from coal.” A Green Alliance Think Tank report estimates that the mine would create 8.4 million tonnes of excess CO2 yearly, or the equivalent of the output of 1 million homes, and yet there are still Conservative party members defending the mine from “climate alarmists”, claiming it brings an environmental benefit by reducing the need to import coal for steel production. This is a complete contradiction of the written plans for the mine which state that 85% of the coal would be exported for use in Europe, where there is no shortage of coal whatsoever. Once again, it’s a cheap and pollutive money-making opportunity that shuns the opportunity for real investment in the green industrial revolution, losing out on creating up to 9,000 jobs in the same area (much more than the coal mine would provide). The government could still approve the mine, and most likely will do once this year's UN summit is over, to avoid controversy on an international scale.
As if the intention to open a new coal mine wasn’t enough, the government has also announced plans to open more North Sea oil and gas wells, when they should be refusing all new drilling licenses. Once again, the priority is shown to be “safeguarding jobs and the economy,” and ministers claim that a strategy of “checkpoints” will be deployed that limit consumption in accordance with targets to cut the UK’s emissions by up to 60 million tonnes by 2030. This deal includes a £16 billion joint private and government investment over the next 10 years - worth it, according to the government due to its potential provision of up to 40,000 jobs across the energy industry.
The question remains as to why the government doesn’t opt to utilise this massive investment in support of renewable energy and clean jobs, something the prime minister committed to only a few months ago? After years of financing fossil fuel projects overseas, with deals that have only served to harm the planet, the government’s only option for credibility before Cop26 is to repurpose this money for environmental uses. The oil and gas industry is no longer in peak demand, and we have already surpassed the limit of oil and gas consumption possible in compliance with the terms of the Paris climate agreement. There is no reason why the government should not end oil and gas licensing in totality if it's in any way sincere about reducing Britain’s carbon emissions.
Anybody who takes the time to compare the government’s new rhetoric on climate change with the intentions of its actual policy will see that it reeks of a double standard; the government is making a show of committing to climate goals ahead of the Cop26 summit, while making deals that put the planet at risk by protecting the fossil fuel industry. Net zero by 2050 is a great target to work towards, but we cannot allow the government to use it as a smokescreen to get away with evading the real action necessary to protect our planet from ecological collapse. Johnson’s claim that reducing emissions is his number one priority is an absolutely outrageous lie. His political career is propagated on a string of falsehoods that he hardly even bothers to disguise as sincerity; he is currently being investigated for lying to his own MPs, one accusation being that he lied in parliament, claiming that emissions had been cut by 42% in the UK since 2010, when the real figure is 38% since 1990.
Transparency is the key to the managed decline of fossil fuels. Green groups want to know who is financing the oil and gas industry, and which businesses and politicians are taking money from oil companies in exchange for defending their interests. A government that was serious about tackling the climate crisis would also need to address the disparities in consumption between the rich and poor in Britain, by penalising the “polluter-elite” (the super wealthy for whom carbon emissions are rising every year), as well as regulating the farming industry and greedy corporations by using emissions laws and carbon taxes.
The top one percent of the world's population is responsible for half of global emissions; by forcing the super-rich to fly less, eat less meat, and pay levies on second homes and petrol-guzzling SUVs/massive yachts, we could save 15 billion tonnes of carbon before 2060. The current British government will never do this because they rely on the super-rich to fund their party through donations. Climate change will never be Boris Johnson’s number one priority — it is, and always will be, money.
]]>With every passing day comes more news about the devastating effects of plastic use on the environment, and the seemingly indefinite amount of years it will take for the earth to recover from this damage. Many studies have also revealed that plastic is not only a curse to the environment, but humans too.
For example, a 2019 study by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) concluded that the average individual ingests as much as five grams of microplastic every week in the form of food, liquid and even air; this is equivalent to consuming the weight of a credit card. Therefore, several groups and individuals are coming together to protest against plastic use and urging authorities to take action.
On Earth Day 2019, youth activists came together to protest against the Plastic Industry Association in Washington, D.C. Taking part in such movements creates awareness among society and pushes forward the message that this is the right time to take action. As one member of the youth climate strike movement, Fridays for Future, said during the protest outside the Plastic Industry Association, “[w]e’re here today because we believe in the power of society to change”.
And so, amidst all of the news that may drive one crazy, there is still hope. We must acknowledge why and how there is hope, to keep encouraging the fight for change.
Several countries around the world have pledged to protect the environment from the overuse of plastic and, as such, are taking legitimate action to make a positive impact on the globe.
For instance, the UK is a leading country that is actively fighting the war against plastic use. In October 2020, England banned several single-use plastic items, including plastics buds and plastic straws. The Government has also actively participated in initiatives like the ‘Deposit Return Scheme’ (DRS), which seeks to minimise the damage caused by plastic bottles on beaches, and considered the enforcement of a 'Latte Levy', where consumers are charged an extra 25p for their coffee if they opt for a disposable cup.
Other countries are also at the forefront of the battle. For instance, in 2018 Chile banned single-use plastic bags throughout the nation, and allowed smaller businesses until May 2020 to adopt the bill. Of the 3.4 million plastic bags used per year by Chileans, only 10% ended up being recycled. Therefore, this bill is a large step in the right direction in the fight against climate change.
Meanwhile, in 2017, Kenya introduced what is considered one of the strictest bans on plastic bags. Anyone simply carrying a plastic bag could face imprisonment of up to four years alongside heavy penalties. The country has also adopted a number of green initiatives that reuse plastic waste to create fuel and build houses. Moreover, in 2003, Germany developed the deposit return scheme for soft drinks, alcohol and medicine bottles. Since then, almost 99% of bottles are returned for recycling.
These are just a few examples of governments implementing smart initiatives to help protect the planet and its inhabitants, but there are many more as well that contribute to the well-being of our planet.
Thus, it is important to remember that, despite all of the overwhelming news we hear on a regular basis, there is still hope for our environment to heal. Yet, it is also important to remember that this cannot happen unless individuals, like you and me, do our part as global citizens and participate in the many initiatives our governments have in place that prioritise our planet.
Have you heard of any eco good news stories? Or perhaps you've set up your own initiative to help make our world a better place? Let us know in the comments below!
]]>Have you ever been to a rubbish clean-up event? It’s very grounding – pun intended.
But seriously, waste causes endless problems and many waste management systems have simply not been designed to handle the large amounts of waste we produce. Here’s a quick summary of just some of the problems we face and how we can help.
On a clean-up day, like those organised by Thames 21 and the Marine Conservation Society (MCS), you will join a group to collect several tonnes of pure stuff. The MCS has collected 319 tonnes of waste on their beach clean-up events so far, with 11 tonnes collected on just one beach clean-up weekend in November 2019.
However, what’s really interesting is the stuff you find. There will be the expected wet wipes, crisp wrappers, bottles, lolly, and earbud sticks, but you will also get large amounts of cigarette butts and sanitary pads. These items are made of plastic and contain toxic chemicals that are mostly safe for the consumer but wreak havoc on the environment.
Some of this rubbish will be brand new, and others may be several years old because there are many different ways for waste to get into the environment. And most of it doesn't break down. That means that your waste could be in the environment years after you've discarded it. A recent Natural History Museum interview about plastic in the River Thames revealed that, in a recent river rubbish survey, a 30-year-old, practically intact, Hola Hoops packet was found. Who knows how far it had travelled or what damage it had caused along the way?
Most of us don’t intentionally litter. But when it escapes, rubbish quickly becomes embedded into the soil and is easily blown or swept into our waterways and oceans.
Plastic escapes at all stages of its life-cycle and causes harm. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) gets around 5,000 calls per year about wild animals in need of help due to littering. Plus, these calls are mostly about animals in our direct care, including dogs, cows, and horses, which are generally seen by vets. Therefore, the actual number of affected animals is probably much higher.
You may wonder how litter can pose such a threat to wildlife. In most situations, animals mistake pieces of plastic for food, due to the material's smell and colour. Sometimes this consumption is accidental; animals are likely to eat plastic if it's abundant in their environment and near the food they do consume. Rubbish consumption is a common cause of death for birds as pieces of plastic get lodged in their stomachs. Having a belly-full of plastic often leads to death by starvation. In fact, according to the American Fish and Wildlife Service, an estimated 5 tonnes of plastic are fed to Albatross chicks at Midway Atoll Wildlife Refuge (a nesting colony site) alone. Some pieces of plastic are very sharp and cause internal punctures to these chicks’ small bodies, leaving them prey to infections and fatal bleeding.
But it's not just the consumption of plastic that's affecting wildlife, it's dangerous chemicals from our litter too. Trillions of cigarette butts using cellulose acetate filters (which are made from plastic and not biodegradable) are dropped into the environment every year. This is an estimated 18 billion a day. These butts are especially toxic because they leak nicotine, heavy metals and other toxins into the environment, which are particularly problematic for aquatic life and ecosystems.
Most man-made litter is designed to last and can go on causing problems for generations. The most simple direct action you can take is it discard your litter responsibly. When you're out and about, throw rubbish into public bins (as long as they're not overflowing) or please take your rubbish home with you.
Cigarette butts should never be thrown on the floor; when you're out, take a bag or container with you to put them in, ready to dispose of later. Dedicated products are available to prevent smells from leaking and are compact for easy carrying.
In other areas of your life, try to pick items with reusable packaging and avoid prepackaged goods wherever possible. Remember that things like fruit and vegetables already have their own protection: their skin! Going to a littler clean-up is also a great way to help combat killer litter and is actually a lot of fun. It's a good way to exercise and meet new people, whilst doing your bit for the environment. Protective gear will be provided so you don't have to worry about safety when handling other people's rubbish.
Sanitary products and wet wipes are amongst the worst offenders when it comes to environmental damage. And that's often because they're put in the toilet, not the bin. Waste flushed down the toilet should only ever be one of the 3 Ps (pee, poo or paper). In sinks, it should only be wastewater. Food and inorganic bathroom waste should go in the bin. This is because, when products such as wet wipes, cotton pads, sanitary products, or FOGs (fats, oils, and grease) are washed down the drain, they can create fatbergs.
Fatbergs are gross, rock-like masses of waste that form quickly when wet wipe fibres expand out in the water, get caught on rough edges in pipes, and soak up grease from cooking fat and milk discarded down sink drains (oil spillage). They block up pipes and sewage systems, costing local councils millions every year, and often contain biodegradable ingredients that become as hard as concrete and not to mention incredibly foul. In 2019, an enormous fatberg, which was the size of a double-decker bus and weighed 40 tonnes, was removed from a sewer in Greenwich, London with water jets – it took three weeks to remove it. The fatberg was taking up 80% of the pipe’s capacity. Who knows how many nasty things leaked out of it and into the environment before it was removed...
But not all hygiene products end up as fatbergs. If there is a heavy rainstorm, items flushed down the toilet can also be flushed out of drains and overflow pipes, often ending up in low-level places like rivers and estuaries. This can result in structures like the “Hammersmith wet wipe island” or products disappearing out to sea, where they release millions of microplastics, ready for marine life to consume and be harmed by.
There are many eco-friendly hygiene products available. Stick to reusable items such as face towels, make-up removal clothes and fabric sanitary pads. As well as being good for the environment, these products are better for us too.
Fabric sanitary towels or period wear are often more comfortable than the conventional plastic pad, especially when it comes to the summer months. Menstrual cups are a great alternative to plastic tampons too. I highly recommend the Ruby Cup. They are a bit less hard in touch compared to other cups and come in pretty colours. Plus, for every purchase they donate a Ruby Cup to a Kenyan girl in need, thus doubling the impact of your buy.
All in all, we must take responsibility for our waste. The general rule here is to consume less. Even recyclable plastic has its costs and most of it ends up in landfills anyway due to poor waste management practices. Aim to get packaging-free products and, where you can't, opt for reusable or biodegradable packaging.
You could also keep a compost heap or use your council’s compost collection service. If you consume a lot of packaging, check what happens to your waste. In an ideal situation, your waste will be sent to an incinerator where the energy generated will be used for heating. Plastic is an especially good candidate for heating fuel as it melts back down into oil and is easily burned.
A landfill should always be the last resort. They aren't managed forever and will keep costing us long after they're full. In addition, we are running out of space in the UK while countries like Malaysia and Indonesia have all started returning British waste due to health-related problems caused by our waste, which you can learn more about via our article on “The Influence of Corruption on Plastic Pollution”.
It can be tricky to always find sustainable and green options. You can help make them more easily available by asking your MP and local businesses to promote them. Don’t just accept what you get, ask for what you want. Ask for the cleaner, healthier world that we and future generations deserve. ]]>Trump’s presidency was one of the worst things that could have happened to America and the world in terms of the country’s role in addressing climate change. Prioritising economic growth over the environment, Trump relaxed and revoked many regulations that had been put in place by the Obama administration to reform the industries that do the most harm to the planet. The climate issue in America thus reached new heights, and the urgent need for Trump’s departure was very much demonstrated in this previous Purple Turtle article.
Joe Biden’s election represents renewed hope in the crisis. He intends to put right Trump’s wrongs by assembling an expert climate team that aims to reposition America as a global leader and front runner in the fight against global heating. Of course, this is a mission that could never have been accomplished with America absent from the Paris Climate Accord, so it is worth first examining the significance of America’s re-entry into the agreement under Biden.
The Agreement is a commitment of 187 countries to keep rising global temperatures "well below" 2°C above pre-industrial levels. It is the world’s most influential climate change summit and the most significant climate legislative agreement of all time. Trump’s departure from the treaty in 2017 did much to tarnish America’s international reputation. After America’s withdrawal, many countries were forced to resort back to oil and gas to compete with US energy production. In the first days of his presidency, Joe Biden ordered the US to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, a move that renewed respect for the nation, and America’s new-found positivity will be of huge benefit to the rest of the world. The country’s success in leveraging its power on the global stage, however, is dependent on its ability to overturn the situation on the domestic stage. To accomplish this, Biden has outlined an ambitious climate policy.
The main aim of Biden’s climate policy will be to set in place regulations that see America achieve net zero emissions by 2050. By 2035, he hopes all electricity will be powered only by renewable and nuclear energy. He will embark on a ‘Clean Energy Revolution’ in which trillions are invested in clean energy infrastructure, with incentives and subsidies making clean energy the most profitable in the country. A Carbon Tax will be introduced, which will act as a deterrent to the use of fossil fuels. Stricter regulation of methane, a gas which is 50 times more heat trapping than carbon, is also expected after Trump completely halted the Government's monitoring of it. Biden has already issued executive orders to limit methane emissions from new oil and gas projects.
This will all take place alongside a ‘Green Recovery’ from Covid. Biden recognises that any economic recovery from the pandemic will inevitably be thwarted by an eventual economic collapse resulting from climate change. Thus, he intends to create millions of clean energy jobs to combine the effort of restoring the economy with reducing emissions. Linked with clean energy is his ambition to protect federal lands against harmful fracking projects, and to protect the diversity and endangered species within those lands. His goal is to conserve 30% of America's lands and waters by 2030.
The automobile industry is the most harmful industry in America in terms of pollution, contributing a little over a third of US greenhouse gases. Trump predictably rolled back an Obama-administration policy that enforced cars to be manufactured in more efficient ways. Biden will of course revert to Obama’s policies, but make them even stricter, given the worsening environmental situation over Trump’s tenure. He has also set a goal for all new trucks and cars to be electric by 2035, encouraging this through tax breaks and incentives for automakers. The signs are promising, with many automakers already changing their tunes given Biden’s election, and declaring their intention to start going electric.
Lastly, the negative effects of climate change most heavily affect those in poorer, more vulnerable communities, which often includes people of colour. It has in fact been found that people of colour are twice as likely to be exposed to air pollution. Therefore, there will be a strong focus on environmental justice and ensuring vulnerable communities are not disproportionately affected by pollution and climate change. Biden will look to invest more in communities of colour and ensure that solutions to environmental issues are developed through an inclusive, community-driven process.
To enforce the above-mentioned policies, America needs a strong domestic structure. The EPA, which stands for Environmental Protection Agency, is the principal agent in America for environmental protection. It is responsible for researching climate change, and for developing and enforcing regulations to combat it. There is no American agency more fundamental to reducing planet-warming emissions than the EPA. With Congress often deadlocked and partisan on the issue of climate change, enforcing regulations appears to be a task which may fall almost entirely on the EPA.
The agency, predictably, was hugely weakened by Trump, who massively deregulated it and appointed a series of climate sceptics and big business enthusiasts to positions of power within the agency. There is evidence to suggest that the EPA’s policies under Trump’s administration significantly increased greenhouse gas emissions, and could lead to thousands of extra deaths per year from poor air quality. Even in the final days of his presidency, Trump sought to make things difficult for the Biden administration in achieving its goals, by announcing an EPA rule that aimed to restrict the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from all sources other than power plants. Biden immediately issued a memo ordering agencies to ‘halt, or delay, midnight regulations’ that had been made by Trump. This set the tone for the EPA’s quick recovery, as Biden hopes to see its power, integrity, and respect for science restored.
Biden has appointed a host of highly respected climate experts in all of America’s top environmental agencies to deliver his climate policies. It's worth starting with the man he has appointed to lead the EPA.
The job falls upon Michael Regan, and he is the first black man to hold the position. Regan has worked for the EPA before, as an air quality specialist under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, but his most notable achievements have come from leading North Carolina’s Department of Environmental Quality. In this position, his work in accomplishing the largest coal-ash clean-up settlement in the country, and for ordering the chemical company Chemours to clean up toxic waste from the Cape Fear River, is widely praised. He was also instrumental in helping Governor Roy Cooper implement his pledge to achieve carbon neutrality in North Carolina by 2050 amid strong opposition.
However, Mr. Regan has also faced criticism for his time in this role, including from environmental justice groups who have accused him of not standing up enough to fossil fuel interests. In particular, he has been criticised for his approval of granting a water quality certification to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which would have carried natural gas across the Appalachian Trail. Nevertheless, he has received much praise from other environmental groups for giving poor and minority communities a larger voice in the state’s decision-making.
Crucially, Regan is also credited with restoring morale to the department after the previous leader of the department, Donald R. van der Vaart, a Trump ally, had questioned the science behind climate change and had fought Obama-era rules on limiting greenhouse gases from power plants. Many believe Regan’s role under Biden will draw parallels with this - he must lift the morale of an EPA department which has been much deflated by Trump’s administration. He intends to reaffirm the scientific values of the agency and will start by eliminating barriers that the Trump administration erected to make new rules difficult to enact. He will then expand Obama-era efforts to curb greenhouse gases from power plants, automobiles and oil and gas sites.
Biden has appointed Gina McCarthy as the first head of the new White House Office of Climate Policy. McCarthy’s role is similar to one which existed in the Obama administration; ‘Director of Climate Policy’. However, what makes this one a more powerful role than the Obama equivalent is that, for the first time, it is located within the White House itself. This means that climate change will now be an integral part of every major White House decision on national security and foreign policy. McCarthy’s job is to coordinate domestic climate policies across the United States government, thus playing a central role in helping President Biden to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.
Before her role with Biden, McCarthy served as President of the Natural Resources Defence Council. However, she is most renowned for her work under President Obama, where she served as the EPA Administrator. In that role she was the architect of some of the most far-reaching greenhouse gas limiting regulations to date. She also played a key role in the development of the Clean Power Plan (later replaced by Trump’s more relaxed ‘Affordable Clean Energy Rule’). The CPP set the first ever national limit on carbon emissions from power plants, and worked hard to lessen the damaging effects of methane by limiting oil and gas leaks from wells.
Some have criticized McCarthy’s appointment, suggesting her polices against fossil fuel-dependant states are too stringent. During her time in the EPA, lawmakers from some states, especially Wyoming, accused her of stifling America’s economy in her efforts to build a healthy environment. Nonetheless, her forceful stance is respected by Biden, and his appointment of her is seen as a bold statement of intent with regards to his planned use of executive authority to bypass a partisan Congress.
Ali Zaidi will serve as Gina McCarthy’s deputy. Zaidi has an impressive track record. He was Associate Director for Natural Resources, Energy, and Science in the White House Office of Management and Budget under Obama, and contributed significantly to drafting the Obama-Biden administration’s climate change plan. He also played a role in helping to negotiate the Paris Climate Agreement. Before serving under Obama, Zaidi had served as the Deputy Secretary for Energy and Environment in New York State where he was a top energy policy aide for the governor of New York. He certainly has a lot of knowledge to contribute in terms of energy; as an adjunct professor at Stanford, he co-taught MATSCI 301: “Engineering Energy Policy Change”.
Zaidi argues that the economy is inextricably linked to climate change and that the crisis must be halted to avoid enormous expenditure for the tax payer in the future. He has emphasised an urgent need to create jobs that rely on clean energy for communities that have been negatively impacted by fossil fuels, and to rev up clean energy manufacturing and innovation to achieve this. He will therefore play a strong role in Biden’s ‘green recovery’ from the pandemic.
Deb Haaland has been chosen to lead the Department of the Interior. The Department is responsible for the protection of around 500 million acres of land and the natural resources and endangered species residing within it. Importantly, these lands often include oil and gas drilling sites, and Haaland will play an instrumental role in one of Mr. Biden's most controversial proposals: his pledge to ban all new hydraulic fracking on public lands. The former Interior Secretaries under the Trump administration opened up millions of acres of land to oil and gas drilling, as well as weakening protections on endangered species. Haaland was highly critical of Trump’s impact, and has said she will now step in to ensure, like Regan, that science will lead the department’s initiatives. Haaland has not been without criticism. Some groups that oppose action on climate change have called Ms. Haaland a “radical” on energy issues who ignores negative impacts that the pausing of oil and gas drilling could have on communities who may rely on it. This opposition highlights the challenge Haaland will inevitably face as Secretary.
The Department is also responsible for honouring the treaties with the Indigenous people from whom much federal land was once taken. Being of Indigenous origin herself, Haaland’s appointment is fitting, and marks the first time a Native American has led a cabinet level agency. This is seen by many as a ‘watershed moment’, because the Interior Department has for much of the nation’s history played a central role in the dislocation and abuse of Indigenous communities. Haaland will look to repair Indigenous relations that were strained further under Trump.
Haaland’s credible background in politics means she has much to offer the Biden Administration. In 2015, she was head of the New Mexico state Democratic Party and her powerful persona helped to flip the state to Democratic control. In 2018, she became one of two of the first Native American Women elected to Congress as a congressional representative for New Mexico. Two years prior to her selection as Interior Secretary, she served on the House Natural Resources Committee, an organisation which oversees the Interior Department- a case in point that she knows her new position very well.
Former governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm has been selected to be Biden’s Energy Secretary. She will lead the Department of Energy, which oversees the United States nuclear weapons complex, 17 national laboratories and a wide range of energy research and development initiatives. Initiatives include the development of new energy technologies that could prove critical to slashing greenhouse gas emissions, such as advanced wind turbines or methods to capture carbon dioxide from industrial facilities before it reaches the atmosphere.
As governor of Michigan from 2003-2011, Jennifer Granholm is credited with working with the Obama administration to steer her state out of a recession in 2009. This included her overseeing the state’s heavy investment in electrical vehicle technology and worker retraining programmes to rescue an ailing auto industry that had long focused on gasoline-powered vehicles. She has used this accomplishment to allay concerns that a move toward cleaner energy sources would devastate the nation’s economy. After her second term as governor of Michigan ended in 2011, she became an advocate for renewable energy development, including giving a TED Talk on how investing in alternative energy resources can bolster state economies. This is an area Biden has focused on in his Covid economic recovery plan, and Grandholm’s knowledge in this area will be very useful to him. For the past decade she has argued that the Department of Energy should play a major role in spurring regional economic development. She is now at the helm of the department, and therefore has the perfect opportunity to accomplish this.
Brenda Mallory chairs the Council on Environmental Quality which coordinates the federal environmental efforts and works closely with White House offices to develop green initiatives. Mallory is a long-time environmental lawyer who spent more than 15 years at the EPA, and this appointment marks her as the first Black woman to lead the council. The council typically plays more of a behind-the-scenes role in federal environmental policy than major agencies like the Interior or the EPA. However, following Mallory’s appointment, its standing is expected to be elevated by Biden because of her strong knowledge of environmental justice.
As well as her experience at the EPA, under the Obama administration Mallory served as the general counsel for the Council on Environmental Quality. Here she used her legal expertise to support Obama’s mission to protect public lands and lower carbon emissions. During Trump’s tenure, she fought hard to prevent him dismantling national monuments she had created with Obama. She later continued to gather experience in environmental policy, working as the executive director and senior counsel for the Conservation Litigation Project before joining the Southern Environmental Law Center. As well as using her legal expertise to add weight to the fight for environmental justice, Mallory’s tasks under Biden will include using the powers of the executive branch to undo the damage wrought by four years of EPA rollbacks and ending the Trump administration’s sell-off of public lands to the highest corporate bidder. Given her vast legal experience, Biden can be confident of success.
There is little doubt that Biden’s climate policy is well covered in the selections for his team. However, no matter who he has chosen, dissent is inevitable. Various industries will argue his policies will cost jobs, especially in the oil and coal industries, and prohibit economic growth. However, Biden stresses that this will be offset by the creation of employment in industries such as wind and solar manufacturing, and that he intends to fund the retraining of workers in these communities. Importantly, economists back his plan. They estimate that, if the Democrats sweep Congress, Biden’s overall economic plan will create 7.4 million more jobs than Trump’s based on his environmental campaign proposals.
The goal is permanent legislation that will outlast future administrations, whether Democrat or Republican. Passing such laws through Congress may prove difficult, particularly because of the divisive makeup of the Senate, which currently seems reluctant to pass sweeping environmental regulations. Does this mean Biden’s climate vision is impermanent? This depends on the next administration. If it is Republican, there could again be some rollbacks, especially if the next president is Trump again, or anything like him. However, with the steady transition of certain industries such as automobile makers into a greener economy, things are looking promising and rollbacks may not be so easy the next time. Nonetheless, no matter what may happen in the future, good or bad, there is one thing that is for certain. Biden has selected a very capable, experienced, and politically sound team to tackle climate change. America’s battle against global warming is in safe hands for now.
Got any thoughts on Biden’s climate policies? Are other governments around the world also making positive changes? Let us know in the comments below!
]]>Have you ever taken a walk, peacefully immersed in the beauties of nature, when, all of a sudden, a filthy mattress, a couple of stained pillows, and evidently the rest of someone’s disowned bedroom caught your eye in the surrounding countryside? Then you have witnessed fly-tipping. Britons reading this will probably be familiar with the problem because fly-tipping is common in the UK. Unfortunately, with the impact of the coronavirus, there are fears that fly-tipping has increased even further. This article will discuss why fly-tipping is such an issue, and how we can try to prevent it amongst the difficulties of the pandemic.
An increasingly familiar sight in our countryside... Image by Emphyrio from Pixabay
Fly-tipping can be defined as the ‘illegal disposal of household, industrial, commercial or other controlled waste’. Controlled waste refers to waste that is subject to legislative control in its handling or its disposal. The waste is usually discarded on public land, most commonly the highways (43% of incidents) but seeing it on private land is not unusual.
You might ask, ‘what’s the difference between fly-tipping and littering?’. Well, it’s mostly a question of scale. Littering refers to the improper discarding of small items that are most commonly associated with eating, drinking and smoking. Fly-tipping, on the other hand, connotes the disposal of larger quantities of waste. This ranges from a single bin bag of waste to large quantities dumped from trucks. Small van loads and the equivalent of a ‘car boot or less’ are the most common size category. Furthermore, unlike littering, fly-tipping places emphasis on the attempted avoidance of paying disposal costs.
Is putting rubbish in somebody else’s bin illegal or classified as fly-tipping? It could technically be deemed fly-tipping as you are disposing of waste in a place that is not meant for your waste. You may even be trespassing if the bin is on somebody else’s property. Save the hassle, just ask your neighbour if you can use their bin!
So, how much fly-tipping actually happens in the UK? There are around a million incidents of fly-tipping per year in the UK. The latest statistics for England, covering the period of April 2019 to March 2020, show that authorities had to deal with 976,000 fly-tipping incidents, a 2% increase from 2018/19. Altogether, enforcement actions for the period totalled 474,000, with prosecutions doubling since 2016. In total, fines for 2019/20 amounted to £1,170,000, a 7% increase from 2018/2019.
With regard to the fines, how much do people pay? Fly-tipping is punishable by up to £50,000, or 12 months imprisonment if convicted in a Magistrates Court. However, there can be an unlimited fine and up to 5 years if convicted in a Crown Court. Other penalties include fixed penalty notices, which can be between £150 and £400, and having vehicles used for fly-tipping seized. Even householders who pass their waste onto an unlicensed waste company for fly-tipping can be fined up to £400.
This usually depends on where the waste is dumped, and on what scale. If the waste is left on public land, it is usually down to the local authorities or the UK Environment Agency to clear it up. The local authorities are responsible for smaller scale waste, whilst the Environment Agency take care of large-scale waste (more than a lorry load). On private land, the costs actually fall on the landlords to clear up, and this can be enforced by local authorities or the Environment Agency. Overall, fly-tipping costs £86m-£186m a year to investigate and clear up, a cost which mostly falls on us taxpayers!
Some may just be doing it because they know no better and are unaware of the environmental impact or financial implications if caught. Others may be lazy and have a ‘someone else will clear that up’ attitude. It is most likely, however, that they are attracted by the cheaper prices for waste disposal offered by criminal gangs. Complications brought about by the coronavirus have broadened the opportunities and incentives for criminal gangs, as well as individuals, to fly-tip.
As soon as the first nationwide lockdown hit in March 2020, many waste disposal facilities closed their doors, leaving a lot of people with nowhere to dispose of unwanted household items. The UK-wide waste disposal app, ClearWaste, recorded a huge increase in fly-tipping reports in April. Thus, due to pressure from some disgruntled locals, the government began to reconsider, and by June, a lot of the waste facilities were allowed to reopen. Yet, unbelievably, the app registered its biggest increase yet in July; a 74% increase from April.
This shows that, by the time the facilities were allowed to reopen, it was too late; many people had already become accustomed to fly-tipping. The more people saw the waste piling up on the highways, the more they viewed it as acceptable, and the more they added to it. Also accounting for the increase is that, even after many waste facilities had reopened, they did so at a significantly lower capacity, and at times could be booked up way in advance.
All of this fly-tipped waste has detrimental effects on the environment. It is mostly non-biodegradable, and may contain hazardous materials which can be poisonous to animals, plants, and even humans. It can also have long-term negative effects in the soil as toxic chemicals can seep in and end up in the groundwater. Disease is another issue; animals might eat from the waste, or even make their homes from it. This could cause them to become infected, and spread disease to other animals, the water supply, or even the local food that is grown from the soil. All of these instances could lead to humans themselves becoming infected.
There can also be stark financial implications. For one, illegal fly-tipping undermines legitimate waste businesses because of the cheaper prices offered, thus those who go about the process lawfully end up losing out. Furthermore, areas burdened with high rates of fly-tipping may suffer declining property prices as well as suffering business losses as people stay away from the area. As demonstrated in this Purple Turtle article on sustainable cities, economic prosperity is strongly linked with environmental factors, and waste management is certainly one of these factors.
Something must be done. The solutions mostly lie in making changes that make it more difficult for fly-tippers to get away with their crimes. Fortunately, due to the disquiet raised over recent fly-tipping increases, the Environment Agency has been given additional funding and the government has already started to make some changes.
For example, there are provisions in the Environment Bill 2019-20 to enable the electronic tracking of waste. In addition to this, many councils have now installed CCTV at fly-tipping hotspots; increased fly-tip clearance operations; started landscaping to block hotspots; and even started ‘wall of shaming’ fly-tippers on the internet! Sometimes, even licensed waste companies contribute to fly-tipping. The government is thus currently in the process of reforming the licensing system in order to ensure ‘stricter background and competency checks’. However, there are worries that the fines, however hefty they may appear, are not large enough to deter a lot of criminals. The Local Government Association is leading the campaign to increase these fines.
It is not just down to the government. We must do what we can as individuals too. Firstly, we must ensure our waste is going to the right people. If the deal looks too good to be true, it probably is, so exercise caution when you spot waste disposal service advertisements at cheap prices. Also, as per government guidelines, we should keep our unwanted household items with us until our preferred (legal) tips reopen. If we happen to witness others dispose of their waste illegally, we should report it to the police immediately.
Most of the waste that is fly-tipped is household waste, accounting for 65% of it in 2019/2020. Thus, it is clear that more can be done to reach out to ordinary people, to educate them on the harm that fly-tipping does to the environment. A good example was set in Wales, with the ‘Fly-Tipping Action’ national awareness campaign, which has seen a large decrease in fly-tipping since 2012. This is something that we should encourage more of from the government.
More education about the issue, combined with our collective individual efforts to make the right choices with regards to our waste and being sure to report perpetrators, are factors which can go a long way towards eliminating fly-tipping. We must attach more urgency to an issue that has been side-lined amongst the chaos of the pandemic. As restrictions lift, however, our adventures in the great outdoors are set to return. The last thing we want is the sight of illegally disposed waste throwing a dampener on our new-found freedom. We can change things for the better if we unite in the cause!
Any thoughts or ideas about how to prevent fly-tipping? Let us know in the comments below.
]]>From metal straws to grocery tote bags, the average Joe is doing his part in the recycling and re-use effort. (I personally bought every Star Wars themed canvas bag I could at the local supermarket, but that’s my own issue.)
That being said, where are the big investors? Why, in this age of technology, has recycling not become the powerhouse that the 90’s envisioned it would be?
You can probably guess the reason – profit. Mountains of recyclable material often remain in storage until the price rises to a level where the cost of collection, processing and packaging can be seemingly justified, and thus make a good profit. And so, unless consumers purchase recycled products, the market for recycled goods will remain unsuccessful.
“The success of recycling...won’t depend on how much landfill space is saved but on whether or not recycling makes economic sense.” - David Biddle, Harvard Business Review
Even after the material is recycled it must compete with completely raw materials, which is often marketed to consumers as ‘eco-friendly’ and ‘clean’. For example, the High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) industry can earn a relatively good profit of $250 per tone when using recycled materials. Yet, HDPE still chooses raw over recycled materials countless times, despite having developed an overcapacity of virgin resins.
With such competition, the myth that recycled products are of lower quality doesn’t help. Goods made from recycled materials often sit in the ‘uncanny valley’ for some consumers - they are made to look like raw materials, but still just aren’t quite right. Take plastic lumber-- though it is stronger and more durable than wood, companies and consumers are still more likely to turn to its virgin material counterpart. If companies were to market their recycled material as their first choice instead of the alternative, it would be extremely beneficial.
Plastic recycling has been hit especially hard. With record low prices of virgin materials, and the current market conditions caused by our little friend Covid-19, many European plastic recycling plants are closing production.
Many grass-roots social campaigns have focused on reducing plastic-use as a whole, including straws and supermarket packaging. This hopefully hints at a lesser need for the recycling of plastics, if the virgin materials are losing their appeal in the first place. But for now, businesses are finding themselves reliant on the price of oil in their competition against raw materials.
It’s not all bad news though. Many materials are still pretty valuable, such as aluminium cans, steel and cardboard. “We’ve started to get a lot more of this [cardboard packaging] because of all the online shopping”, reported industry veteran Robert Reed in an interview with the Financial Times.
On top of this, about 70% of aluminium cans used globally are already recycled. Companies like Novelis, an aluminium rolled products company, supply recycled aluminium to both the packaging and car industries. Aluminium itself is perfect for recycling, as it can be easily, and sustainably, melted down, utilised, and sold again and again.
But plastic is still the problem child. With China completely reducing the amount of plastic it takes in from G7 countries, the industry has a surplus that it cannot shift, let alone turn into a profit. China went from importing over 60% of the world’s plastic waste in the first half of 2017, to drastic decrease of importing only 10% that same year after the ban was implemented.
For decades, recycling has been promoted as the single thing a household can do to save the planet. But as the industry collapses, we must ask whether it’s better to cut out the proverbial middle man, and reduce, reuse, but not recycle. “Reducing” and “reusing” are both things one can manage and monitor themselves instead of outsourcing to a company whose main interest is to make a profit.
Together, let us not allow the environment to be used as a selling point.
]]>From clothes and kitchens to food and travel, the world has been looking into every aspect of human life to find ways to reduce our impact on the Earth and combat climate change. Now, some people are even looking past life and into death.
Natural burials, otherwise known as green burials, have been growing in popularity in several countries, and offer a sustainable alternative to the traditional memorial service. In fact, over half of Americans are now considering this eco-friendly replacement as they plan for their death.
Green burials aim to minimise the negative environmental effects of funerals by, for example, eliminating the chemical-rich embalming process, and replacing headstones with trees. This type of service is not only more cost-efficient and natural, but it also allows people to maintain their legacy in a unique manner, whilst helping the earth.
A simple way to achieve a green burial is through the redesign of the coffin. A coffin used in a natural burial may instead be constructed out of eco-friendly materials that will biodegrade quickly, without harming the landscape. This includes willow, pine, bamboo, and even banana leaves.
And so, in finding comfort by the thought of their bodies returning to nature, many people have been seeking out spaces of natural beauty for their final resting place, which allows the land they lie on to become protected ground for future generations. Known as conservation burials, conservation principles are employed to support sustainable management principles, whilst protecting the integrity of the land.
It is no wonder then why eco burials have become so popular, and why other eco alternatives for funerals have also increased in use. For example, Eternal Reefs use the cremated remains of a deceased individual as part of an environmentally safe cement mixture that is used to form artificial reef formations. Therefore, through death, individuals can aid the creation of new habitat for marine life to thrive.
Another green burial option is known as the Mushroom Death Suit, where the deceased is dressed in a crocheted pattern suit, made from organic cotton and specially cultivated mushroom material. The suit effectively acts as the roots from which fungi can grow from your body, and the process purifies the body and the soil around it of any toxins. Believe it or not, the suit leaves the earth cleaner than it was found.
Natural burials are a unique alternative to funeral services that offer family members a chance to help the earth, whilst providing them comfort in the knowledge that the deceased will return to nature.
What do you think about eco-friendly burials? Is it something you've ever considered for yourself or your loved ones? Let us know in the comments below!
]]>Even though micromobility is a fairly new social phenomenon, it is seen as a potential sustainable answer to transport and congestion issues in cities. Hailed as an alternative to personal car ownership and use, it has a lot to deliver. Is it the sustainable solution cities have been waiting for?
There is no universally agreed definition of what micromobility is – a clear indication that this rapidly developing industry is still in the early stages. You’ll come across a number of different definitions when you search for ‘micromobility’, and they all vary to some degree.
While recently the term has become almost synonymous with e-scooters, it is actually much broader than that. It can be used in reference to a type of transport device, a mode of transport or service. Sometimes there is also a differentiation between micromobility and e-micromobility.
The Oxford English dictionary defines micromobility as ‘transportation using lightweight vehicles such as bicycles or scooters, especially electronic ones that may be borrowed as part of a self-service scheme in which people hire vehicles for short-term use within a town or city’.
Micromobility vehicles typically operate at speeds below 45km/h (28mph) and weigh no more than 227kg (500lb). They include bicycles, e-bikes, kick-scooters, e-scooters, electric skateboards, electric self-balancing boards and even electric skates. For the most part, the feature of being shared is an important characteristic.
While bike-sharing schemes have been around for almost 50 years, the recent micromobility boom is largely thanks to electrically powered vehicles, particularly e-scooters.
Image by Robert Pastryk from Pixabay
As we see all around us, cities are constantly growing. Urban areas are already home to 55% of the world’s population and this figure is estimated to grow to at least 70% by 2050.
As they grow, cities face increasing issues with congestion, pollution and poor air quality, amongst others. That’s why they must strive to become more sustainable, with transportation and mobility central to sustainable development.
The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 11 on Sustainable Cities and Communities calls for access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all. Accessible transport can enhance economic growth and social equity but it needs to be sustainable to protect the environment.
Currently, transport is the main cause of air pollution in cities. It accounts for 21% of global CO2 emissions with road transport contributing 74.5% of transport emissions. By comparison, aviation contributes around 12%. When you consider these numbers, the need for sustainable transportation systems is clear.
Cities need to look for solutions that have a low impact on the environment and balance the current and future needs of their residents. Walking is obviously the most environmentally-friendly choice but it’s not really an option if it means it will take you 3 hours to get to work. Out of all the motorised modes of transport, it’s generally agreed that, within cities, public transport is the best option overall. However, the ‘first and last-mile’ issue is often a barrier to the use of public transport.
When you read about urban mobility, you’ll often come across the notion of ‘intermodality’ or ‘multi-modality’ as key to sustainable mobility. The idea is to create seamless and efficient transport networks utilising different modes of transport. Micromobility is now considered one of the key components in this mix.
Photo by Scott Evans on Unsplash
Micromobility has seen incredible growth in the last few years (before the pandemic put a stop to it for a time). It has largely come from the popularity of electrically powered vehicles, primarily e-scooters. E-scooters are one of the fastest-growing modes of transport in history; they are now present in 350 cities around the world and, before the pandemic hit, the industry was predicted to be worth at least $300 billion by 2030.
There are some clear advantages of e-scooters as a mode of transport. They are smaller than cars so take up less space when used and parked. They are quiet. Sharing schemes mean they are utilised more every day. Their comparatively low cost means better affordability and mobility. They are more efficient on short journeys and can travel quicker by using cycle lanes too.
However, when it comes to the ecological aspects and sustainability of micromobility, there are many factors to consider. Being electrically powered, they have the potential to help improve air quality in cities and help urban areas achieve their carbon emission targets, particularly if they replace short car journeys. That’s an important ‘if’ though because if e-scooters replace walking, cycling and kick-scooter journeys, rather than cars, more energy is consumed and more emissions are produced.
There are also environmental concerns relating to the lifetime cycle impact of e-scooters on the environment, from production to use and recycling.
Vandalism is another serious issue with vehicles misused, discarded carelessly, destroyed or thrown into canals, often making them a nuisance and a danger to pedestrians, especially those disabled or blind. It also deems them unusable, shortening their lifespan considerably.
Learning from its chaotic beginnings, the micromobility industry, especially the e-scooter space, is changing and adapting quickly.
The operators are becoming more professional and committed to improving the sustainability of their fleets. They are investing in technology to increase the lifespan of their vehicles: first generation e-scooters only lasted a few months and now they are achieving lifespans of 24 months on average. Swappable batteries are a hugely important innovation as they remove the need to transport vehicles for charging, reducing the service’s overall energy consumption. To reduce emissions further, electric fleets are being used for daily operations. Plus, technological solutions are being developed to help improve the waste management of vehicles.
These technological developments and further micromobility innovations can help to reduce the environmental footprint and strengthen the industry’s credentials as an alternative for sustainable urban transport. Cities are also doing their part by setting frameworks with strict requirements for the safety and sustainability of micromobility operations.
Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash
Like many industries, micromobility suffered a steep decline in revenues as a result of COVID-19, but the outlook post-pandemic looks optimistic. In a recent report by McKinsey & Company, the consultancy concluded that the micromobility sector is expected to make a strong recovery. They predict that people will be more willing to use micromobility vehicles more regularly, and for longer trips. Cities are likely to invest more in cycling infrastructure to incentivise higher micromobility use and reduce car journeys.
Cities are starting to work with micromobility operators to create a seamless multi-modal transportation network for their residents. Earlier this year, a new coalition was formed among some of Europe’s biggest operators to promote micromobility across the continent. Bird, Bolt, Dott, FreeNow, Lime, TIER, Voi and Wind came together to form Micro-mobility for Europe (MMfE), to work with European cities to create a coherent policy framework and support the transition to zero-emission urban mobility.
Cities do need micromobility to succeed as an alternative for sustainable urban transport. To make it happen, they need to work with the operators to ensure:
Have micromobility vehicles come to your city? If so, have you tried them yourself? Let us know in the comments below!
]]>
Having recently started a new job, I had an opportunity to make some new work friends. Over lunch, a colleague of mine asked me what I had done over the weekend. I told her how I was a voluntary content writer for Purple Turtle Co, so I had spent time researching and writing an article about the plastic content in tea bags. She was equal parts impressed and intrigued, which opened the floor to further conversation about sustainability.
She informed me of an initiative she participates in, where plastic bread tags are collected and made into seedling trays, which in turn funds wheelchairs for those in need. Later, I came back telling her of the success I had been having with my reusable menstrual cup and she returned this by informing me of local beach clean-ups organised by Fullers in New Zealand. It was like a game of ping pong, sharing knowledge back and forth.
Spreading information via word of mouth has long been recognised as a successful strategy in the business world, with 92% of consumers trusting recommendations from friends and families over all other types of advertising. So, why not apply the same principle to climate change and sustainability? One only needs to consider how quickly things go viral on the internet to conceptualise chains of communication. One person tells another, who tells another two, and so on. Before you know it, your message has reached dozens of people!
Since friends and family are considered credible sources of information, discussions held with your nearest and dearest about sustainability can pave the way for a positive feedback loop. This loop entails discussions that lead to increased awareness of the issues at hand and, in turn, lead to further discussion.
The simple act of talking about the latest eco-friendly product you've tried, or about a piece of environmental news you've heard about, is enough to educate people and prompt them to start their own discussions.
When it comes to protecting the planet, the invasive end of the campaigning spectrum calls for activities such as protesting, or attempting to prove your point to strangers on the street. However, conversations with your inner social circle can be just as, if not more, powerful. You've already established trust with those people, so you're more likely to make an impact.
Plus, talking about environmental issues needn't be daunting. Sustainability can be woven into your everyday conversations without you even realising it, just like it did for me. And while individual efforts to lead sustainable lifestyles are important, the biggest changes happen when we act collectively. So, use your voice to make this necessary collective action happen.
Your voice is stronger than you know.
Do you have discussions about sustainability with your friends and family? Or have you found any products or brands that have got you excited to start a conversation about eco-friendly lifestyle changes? Let the community know in the comments below!
]]>Plastic waste is a menace all over the world, but more so in the developing world. Low GDP, corruption and the inability to set up recycling plants in these countries always hinder waste management. However, small-scale initiatives across Africa are hoping to correct this and provide a solution to the single-use plastic issue in the developing world and beyond. Many entrepreneurs in Africa often act in collaboration with governments, NGOs, manufacturers, and locals to recycle plastic waste and use it to produce other products.
Nelson Boateng, a Ghanian entrepreneur, owns Nelplast, a company that used to manufacture plastic bags. In 2015, Boateng decided to switch to an environmentally friendly mode of income generation because he thought a nationwide plastic ban was inevitable. He started using discarded plastics to make cheap pavement and building blocks for locals to use. His blocks have since been used to pave homes and rebuild roads. Through Nelplast, Boateng employs about 560 individuals directly and indirectly.
Environmental initiatives, such as Nelplast, make a big impact through a small change and are exactly what the world needs if we're to tackle climate change and reduce plastic waste.
Another social enterprise, Ecopost, can be found in Kenya. Ecopost tackles two important issues in Kenya: youth unemployment and waste management. Kenya's capital, Nairobi, is populated by 35% young people, yet this demographic makes up 70% of the city’s unemployment rate. Moreover, Nairobi’s inhabitants produce over 2,000 tonnes of waste every day; however, only half of this waste is collected daily. Fortunately, Ecopost hits two birds with one stone.
This initiative ultimately aims to provide sustainable jobs for marginalized populations, while reducing waste and deforestation at the same time. The jobs provided include aiding the production of plastic poles, which are used for agricultural purposes and construction. Other products made out of recycled materials at Ecopost include benches, flower pots, and raised beds for gardening. Now, thanks to Ecopost, over 2,000 people have a stable livelihood.
In 2017, Africa’s first recycling plant that converts end of life plastic to synthetic fuel oil was created. This was initiated by Alternative Energy Systems Limited (AESL), based in Kiambu, which uses a conversion technology that can convert 12 tonnes of plastic waste into synthetic oil every day. This conversion technology is called pyrolysis and it decomposes materials at extremely high temperatures.
Using pyrolysis, AESL can change almost all types of plastic trash into synthetic fuel oil and carbon black, resulting in 90% of the oil used in industrial boilers and incinerators. And so, while many other waste management systems can only deal with specific grades of plastic for recycling, AESL can recycle it in all its forms. In doing this, they generate positive social change by increasing employment opportunities, reducing plastic pollution and producing sustainable alternatives to fuel.
Other initiatives in Africa include recycling plastic to make bags for shopping and going to school. One grocery retail outlet store in South Africa, Pick n Pay, uses recycled plastic bottles to make cheap shopping bags. As a result, in 2018, South Africa recycled 15% more PET than Europe.
Meanwhile, Rethaka, a social enterprise, is busy repurposing plastic bags by turning them into sturdy school bags for students in the North-West region of South Africa. These bags have solar panels built into them that trap solar energy from the day to provide light for study at dusk. With the possession of these bags, families save money that would otherwise go into purchasing candles.
The implementation of these simple yet effective initiatives has reduced the use of plastic bags significantly, saved families money and helped to make the planet healthier too.
These projects face one common challenge though: scaling up. More funding from business giants, NGOs and the developed world is necessary to continue the good work of eco pioneers across Africa, help change the world and give the less fortunate a glimmer of hope.
Do you know of any green initiatives that have helped to transform communities and reduce waste? Let us know in the comments below!
]]>For many of us, deodorant is an item we use every day as part of our daily hygiene practices. It is simple and effective at keeping sweat and odour at bay and makes us smell great too! But, did you know that your innocent roll-on or favourite antiperspirant spray is not only harmful to the environment but could even be dangerous for your health?
You may not realise but there are several chemicals found in most commercial deodorants and antiperspirants that can be harmful to our skin and our long-term health. So, which one is the worst?
First of all, we should point out that there is a difference between “deodorant” and “antiperspirant”. Deodorant is used to prevent odour, whilst antiperspirant combats sweat.
Research suggests that the toxic chemicals contained in these products can enter our bloodstream and have an adverse effect on the endocrine hormone system. The most dangerous ingredients found in antiperspirants are aluminium chlorohydrate and aluminium zirconium.
Aluminium works by dissolving into the skin tissue of our underarms, clogging the pores to prevent sweating. However, sweating is a natural and essential function for the body; it regulates our temperature and cools us down when we need it.
Underarm tissue is extremely sensitive for women (and men too) because it contains hormone receptors that produce estrogen. Applying deodorant to this area is a cause for concern after studies suggest there is a correlation between the use of aluminium-based deodorants and breast cancer. When aluminium comes into contact with breast tissue it interferes with estrogen hormone receptors, causing estrogen levels to rise. This can lead to the formation of dangerous cancer cells in the lymph nodes.
A medical study showed that women with breast cancer had high concentration levels of aluminium salt traces in their underarm skin tissue, and reported having frequently used antiperspirants since a young age. Women who used antiperspirants far less had lower levels of aluminium in their breast tissue and had never developed breast cancer.
Parabens are another harmful component found in deodorants and antiperspirants that have been linked to breast cancer. Parabens act as a form of preservative to stop natural bacteria from setting in. Whilst this is great for your product’s shelf life, it’s not so great for you. Parabens are harmful to the endocrine system because they emulate estrogen. Similar to aluminium, when parabens mix with estrogen receptors they interfere with the natural production of this hormone. Some people have even reported having an adverse allergic reaction to this preservative. Parabens can also be found in many shop-bought cosmetics, including shampoo and toothpaste but, fortunately, there are eco-friendly alternatives available that do not contain such ingredients.
A study by research oncologists at the University of Reading revealed that more than 70% of women with breast cancer had high paraben levels in their bodies. The study showed that parabens become strengthened when mixed with tissue containing estrogen and have been linked to other health issues, such as infertility and abnormal fetal development. This is because parabens can disrupt the normal function of hormone systems, which has a detrimental effect on the male and female reproductive systems.
Other health-related studies have since revealed how people with high levels of aluminium in their bodies are more likely to develop a memory-deteriorating condition, such as Alzheimer’s disease or dementia. However, at present there is no conclusive evidence to substantiate this link, with some researchers suggesting aluminium could have entered the body through other sources: it can be found in water, certain foods, cooking utensils like pots and pans, as well as deodorants and antiperspirants.
We’ve discussed how deodorants and antiperspirants can be bad for our health, but why are these products detrimental to the environment?
Aerosol deodorants, in particular, contain petrochemicals such as propellants that release toxic carbon emissions into the atmosphere. One of the most harmful compounds found in these spray cans is chlorofluorocarbon, which remains one of the biggest threats to the ozone layer as it contributes to the production of smog.
Fossil fuels, including petroleum and biofuels, are also released from aerosols and are non-renewable, which again is not only damaging to the environment but can be extremely harmful (and sometimes deadly) if it’s inhaled by humans, especially in small enclosed spaces.
And that’s without factoring in the environmental impacts of shipping these items, which travel thousands of miles on cargo ships, lorries or air transport, releasing harmful emissions in the process.
In addition to this, aluminium is one of the main water pollutants that has been found washed up in rivers and streams that can have a devastating effect on ecosystems. It’s a highly toxic agent that can cause harm to freshwater aquatic organisms and even cause breathing difficulties for some species of fish, especially when these toxins come into contact with a fish’s gills. Often, this can be fatal.
Triclosan is another environmentally dangerous antibacterial chemical found in deodorants, used to prevent sweat bacteria odour. When we wash this chemical off in the bath or shower, it goes straight into the water system, contaminating natural organisms such as algae, a vital food source for marine life. When algae that’s been exposed to sunlight mixes with triclosan, it becomes toxic and poses a threat for fish and land animals.
Another downside to commercial deodorants is the amount of non-degradable packaging used to encase them, such as plastic or tin, which takes hundreds of years to break down. The deodorant industry currently produces over £15 million-worth of plastic consumer waste each year and 40% of discarded plastic waste ends up in a landfill. If cosmetics brands don’t act now, it is estimated there will be 12 billion tonnes of plastic waste in landfills by 2050.
However, some cosmetics brands, such as Dove, have made a commitment to reduce their consumption of plastic waste by 2025. To achieve this goal, many brands are trialling eco-friendly practices, championing the use of refillable deodorant bottles and opting for recyclable product packaging.
Another factor to take into consideration is that, even today, many major cosmetics brands in some parts of the world still carry out unethical cosmetics testing on animals. Although animal testing was banned by the EU in 2013, the ban hasn’t been implemented in countries such as China and some states in the US. For years, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have been campaigning against unethical testing of cosmetics on animals and have teamed up with a number of cosmetics brands to produce The Best Cruelty-Free Deodorants.
Due to the lack of conclusive evidence linking the harmful ingredients used in deodorants and antiperspirants to poor health and environmental deterioration, there still isn’t enough proof to persuade the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prohibit the production of these products. However, Switzerland has acknowledged the dangers of aluminium salts after a study showed it triggered the development of tumours. As a result, Switzerland looks set to become the first country to impose a ban on the use of antiperspirants.
The European Union (EU) has a duty of care to ensure the safety of consumers but takes a “precautionary” approach towards the regulation of chemical ingredients used in cosmetics. Currently, over 1,200 ingredients have been banned from use in cosmetics in the EU and there are several hundred that are restricted. A review was due to be carried out in 2015 regarding the harmful effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) currently permitted for use in cosmetics but, following delays, this review has still not yet occurred.
Fortunately, there are ways we can take matters into our own hands to avoid these negative environmental impacts and prevent adverse effects on our health.
There are many eco-friendly natural deodorants available that are not just good for your skin but for the environment too. They are made from 100% pure ingredients that won’t contaminate our water systems or release harmful gas emissions into the air that contribute to climate change. Plus, they are packaged using recyclable materials.
The challenge is to shift people’s awareness towards greener, sustainable products and plastic-free living, which has less of a detrimental effect on the environment. However, the use of eco-friendly products is growing in popularity as more and more people are taking an interest in how we can protect the environment by shopping for products with recyclable symbols marked on the packaging.
Here is a guide to the best ethical consumer cosmetics brands to look out for on your next shopping trip. Natural deodorants with recyclable packaging seem the logical choice to purchase.
If you are considering switching from using an aluminium antiperspirant to a natural deodorant, with so many options available on the market, how do you decide which one will be the best for you?
Natural antibacterial deodorants are often considered to be the most effective at offering long-lasting protection against sweating, as well as combating odour-causing bacteria. Salt of the Earth has produced a wide range of deodorants made specifically for men and women. There is also a whole range of natural deodorants for kids aged 6+ available that are gentle on the skin and smell great too!
Witch Hazel is another safe deodorant alternative that doesn’t contain aluminium and other harmful chemicals. Its natural antibacterial properties are extremely effective in removing excess oil and gently tightening the pores in the underarm to prevent sweat and odour.
Neal’s Yard Remedies have also produced a natural deodorant for women that comes in a spray that is 100% natural and aluminium-free. The spray is made from soothing Aloe Vera and calming Lavender, which is an alternative preservative to using parabens. What’s more, the iconic blue glass spray bottle can be reused and recycled.
Dirty Hippie has also designed a range of sustainable, environmentally-friendly products including a natural spray-on deodorant, using bicarbonate soda to soak up excess moisture, making it one of the best natural deodorants for men.
Photo by Crystalline Salts on Flickr
Just because a product claims to be made from natural properties, it doesn’t necessarily mean that those ingredients can’t cause skin irritations to those with sensitive skin. Some people could find themselves having an allergic reaction to some of the ingredients or fragrant botanical oil used in natural deodorants, causing swelling, itching and a sore rash.
Over the last few years, there has been a growing trend for DIY deodorants that provide an alternative for sensitive skin types that actually work. They don’t guarantee to stop you from sweating but they do prevent odour. Not only are they better for your skin but they save you money too since they can be made using items found at home in your kitchen cupboards. You can tailor your product to meet your skincare needs and they smell incredible.
Homemade deodorants are often made from alcohol-based ingredients that work by neutralising sweat, rather than preventing it. Some of the best DIY deodorants use baking soda and natural mineral salts since they prevent odour-causing bacteria from developing on the body.
Another benefit to using homemade deodorants over aluminium-based ones is that it won’t leave horrible stains on your clothes, since it is aluminium mixed with sweat that causes staining. Therefore, you won’t need to replace your clothes as often, limiting your consumer waste.
Why not give DIY deodorants a try and make your own? To get you started here is a simple homemade recipe that uses natural coconut oil.
Opting for an aluminium-free antiperspirant and natural deodorant is undoubtedly the best option. Although another natural alternative could be to change your personal hygiene routine. For example, how about practising deodorant-free days, giving your skin a chance to breathe naturally. Or, if you must use deodorant, why not limit application use to just once a day, rather than applying multiple times throughout the day.
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article and that it’s given you a better insight into the dangers of artificial deodorants and antiperspirants, as well as an awareness of their damaging impacts on the human body and the environment.
Will you make the switch to using natural deodorants?
If you have discovered a natural deodorant that smells good but doesn’t harm the environment, please tell the Purple Turtle Community about it in the comments section below.
]]>There is no denying that most of us love fashion for the way it can instantly boost our confidence and make us feel good. After all, what’s the harm in treating yourself every now and then to a new item of clothing to brighten up your outfits?
With the fashion industry constantly producing new trends each season, keeping up with the latest fashions can at times be a challenge. However, have you ever stopped to consider the real cost of your shopping habits, not only to your bank account, but also the detrimental effect it could be having on the environment?
According to the latest Family Spending report from the Office of National Statistics, the average person in the UK spends at least £526.50 per year on buying brand new clothes. It doesn’t take much to imagine the sheer magnitude of just how many items of clothing we accumulate each year to our ever-growing wardrobes and the question is, do we really need so much?
So, how can we enjoy fashion and yet be responsible at the same time? Thankfully, there is a more sustainable way we could be shopping for our clothes and it comes by applying the principles of “slow fashion.”
Photo by S O C I A L . C U T on Unsplash
Slow fashion is the practice of buying fewer items of clothing that are made from quality natural fabrics, made to last longer. These garments are often produced in smaller batches and feature a collection of classic, timeless styles that won’t go out of fashion so soon.
The materials used in slow fashion to produce environmentally friendly clothing often include natural organic fibres, sourced from plants and trees. These items are then recycled, repurposed or upcycled and contain natural dyes and less harmful chemicals.
Organic cotton is one of the most natural fabrics because it comes from a plant and is a popular choice due to its longevity and durable nature since it is strong and easy to wash. It is also much better for the environment, since it doesn’t require the need for chemicals to break down into cellulose before being turned into fibre.
Viscose on the other hand is another natural material that comes from beech trees and bamboo plants. The leaves are then mixed with sodium hydroxide and carbon disulfide needed to turn wood and grass chips to fabric. These chemicals can become toxic and possibly harmful since they can be absorbed by your skin, especially if the material is of a low quality. In addition, millions of trees are lost each year to make viscose, resulting in deforestation and damage to many natural habitats for wildlife.
The most popular materials used for fast fashion clothing is polyester, often cheaply made to a low quality. Polyester is not only an uncomfortable fabric to wear since it doesn’t allow our skin to breathe as easily and naturally as cotton, it also takes much longer to decompose compared to natural fibre and is one of the main causes of microplastic particles found washed up in the ecosystem.
Natural fabrics on the other hand are renewable and easier to dispose of, resulting in less damage to the environment. However, the process of making clothing from natural fibre is often a long, labour-intensive procedure, sometimes requiring clothes to be made from hand. According to Libel and Roy, by replacing mass production of cheap clothing for handmade textile craft, this would cultivate a more sustainable approach to fashion. It would also provide employment and a livelihood to a large number of people living in deprived countries and help alleviate poverty.
We all like to have choices, especially when it comes to what we wear, but an evolving wardrobe doesn’t necessarily mean having to continuously keep buying new clothes. The real trick to practising slow fashion comes down to consumer buying behaviour and honestly asking yourself: do you really need to purchase that item?
Research from Barnardo's reported that one in three women feel their clothes are outdated after less than three wears and, more alarmingly, an estimated £30 billion worth of clothes purchased have never even been worn, according to Wrap clothing.
One of the best ways to practice slow fashion is to avoid impulsive purchases of the latest trends and to instead opt for quality pieces that you can wear time and time again.
Another practice is to choose colours you know will suit and complement your shape. Purchasing durable fabrics will also mean you will save money in the long-term since you won’t need to replace your clothes as often.
Upcycling is another way you can give your old garments a new lease of life and to create your own unique style with a few simple textile alterations and repairs.
Donating your unwanted items to a charity store also means not only would you be supporting a worthy cause, but you’ll also be preventing more clothes from ending up in a landfill. Maybe each time you buy a new item, make a habit to substitute something from your wardrobe.
Another way you can reduce your consumer spending and avoid buying items that will only sit in the wardrobe after an event is to rent clothing, especially if it's for a one-off occasion where you need formal attire, for say a prom dress for example. Each of these practices can help us to shop with a clear conscience.
One good thing to come out of the global pandemic, from an environmental perspective, is that many retailers reported a 25% fall in clothes sales in 2020. According to The Office For National Statistics, this was the biggest drop in 23 years since records began. This was likely due to the closure of high street stores and people being told to stay at home. In addition, with all entertainment and leisure venues also closed, this presented fewer opportunities for people to socialise and the need for purchasing new clothes became less important.
The pandemic also created significant economic concerns, forcing many businesses to reduce their workforce and decrease staff wages, and has shifted people's priorities when it comes to their consumer spending. This period has also presented us with an opportunity to slow down and rethink our lifestyles. Many people found solace in nature and developed a deeper appreciation for the wider environment we live in.
Luxiders Magazine said there has been a major shift towards simplicity and minimalism as a lifestyle and a fall in a materialistic mindset. Furthermore, a research survey by McKinsey & Company revealed “57% of shoppers agreed that they had made significant changes to their lifestyles to lessen their environmental impact.” The study also found that 64% of shoppers decreased their spending on clothing and footwear during the pandemic. Will conscientious shoppers keep pushing brands to produce more eco-friendly and responsible clothing in 2021?
Perhaps the saying is true that less is more and this definitely applies to fashion.
Fast fashion is the practice of producing and selling cheap clothing made from low quality materials to meet the ever-changing demands of the latest seasonal fashion trends.
Fibre2Fashion discusses the difference between slow fashion vs fast fashion. Fast fashion are low-quality machine-made garments that have been mass-produced, sold at a low price and very quickly often end up in landfills to slowly degrade and release greenhouse gases. Slow fashion, on the other hand, are garments that have been made by hand, requiring more time to produce. They are made to a higher quality, using sustainable fabrics that can be re-washed over several years, and are sold at a higher price. The selection is made by opting for materials with less chemicals, dyes, energy, less resources, less waste and minimal impact.
Libby Peake of the Green Alliance says the UK is one of the worst culprits when it comes to fast fashion and adds that UK consumers buy twice the amount of clothes compared to other European countries. It isn’t just the impact on the environment to consider when it comes to fast fashion but also the ethics behind the people who are actually making your clothes. Have you ever stopped to wonder why some items of clothing are sold more cheaply at some stores than others?
One of the main reasons for this is because some stores are still outsourcing to a low paid labour force in developing countries where regulations around pollution are often less strict in the countries of manufacture, says Dr Patsy Perry, a co-author of the research from Manchester University. Workers are paid as little as £3 an hour, in terrible conditions to produce items of clothing but fashion brands will add a high mark-up price. According to a report conducted by Oxfam, the organisation estimates that just 4% of the price of a piece of clothing makes it back to the pockets of workers. Therefore, when we pay £10 for a t-shirt, the worker receives just 40 pence in return.
Photo by Daniel von Appen on Unsplash
Fast fashion items often undergo a long and intense chemical process with around 8,000 different synthetic chemicals used to dye and bleach garments, all of which is extremely harmful to our skin and overall health.
Dr Perry further adds, “The waste water is going out into freshwater streams and polluting the rivers that people are fishing from [and] living from” within these deprived communities.
Brands that follow sustainable practices adhere to ethical and humane working conditions, fairer pay and often include certification labels on garments such as Fair Wear Foundation, Fair Trade Certified, Ethical Trading Initiative or Certified B Corporation.
“Slow fashion is the only sustainable future for the industry and the planet,” says Libby Peake of the Green Alliance.
During the Second World War, with resources in short supply and money scarce, many people adhered to the mantra of “Make-do-and-mend”, with many weekly magazines supplying guides on how to sew, make garments, or upcycle using limited textile materials found in the home. Thankfully, this trend is beginning to resurface following an upsurge for sustainable fashion.
People want to enjoy fashion but without feeling bad about the negative consequences surrounding how the items were produced. Therefore, there has been a shift towards the “slow fashion movement” and shopping for ethical clothing and sustainable fashion.
Photo by Alyssa Strohmann on Unsplash
For example, Livia Firth, founder of Eco Age, started a campaign called #30Wears to encourage people to only buy items they know they will wear at least 30 times. Eco Age reported an increasing demand for second-hand fashion with charity retail sales soaring an average of 4.4% year on year. And fashion apps like Depop and Vinted have also given a boost to buying and selling second-hand clothing.
Trends for vintage clothing has increased popularity for thrift stores, meaning you still get to wear the brands you love but without the hefty price tag and it comes with the knowledge you are making a considered choice towards sustainable fashion.
Among other sustainable trends, Piñatex is an alternative to using leather by using the leaves from pineapples. The long fibres from the pineapple leaves are extracted, then processed to form a non-woven mesh that ultimately forms the basis of the final textile and no harm comes to any animals.
To find out more about the “Slow Movement” lifestyle”, visit Slow fashion 101.
Photo by Shanna Camilleri on Unsplash
When it comes to pollution, the fast fashion industry is one of the largest contributors in the world, encouraging over-consumption and generating excessive waste.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has calculated the fashion industry produces 10% of global carbon dioxide emissions every year. There’s also the packaging involved which is not often recyclable, the distribution from the warehouse, the delivery and postage of the item and the fossil fuels involved to transport the items for store or home delivery, all of which comes at a price and at great expense to the environment.
According to Fox Collective, it is estimated that EU consumers dump 5.8m tons of textiles into landfill each year. The Pretty Planteer adds that the average consumer throws away 70 pounds (31.75 kilograms) of clothing per year. Globally we produce 13 million tons of textile waste each year, 95% of which could be reused or recycled.
A report by Global Fashion Agenda & Boston Consulting Group, Pulse of the Fashion Industry, estimates that if we don’t adopt sustainable practices, by 2030 global apparel consumption is projected to rise by 63%, from 62 million tons today to 102 million tons.
It is time we recognised the impact our buying behaviours are having on the planet and make a personal decision as to whether we want to be the cause or the solution the world needs as we move towards a more sustainable lifestyle.
Photo by Francois Le Nguyen on Unsplash
Creating a sustainable wardrobe is much simpler than you may think but it starts with knowing where to shop. If you are interested in making the shift towards slow fashion, there are plenty of sustainable clothing brands and slow fashion stores available.
People Tree brand is a Fair Trade pioneer producing sustainable women’s fashion that is both stylish and affordable, whilst at the same time protecting the planet. Thought Clothing is another example of an affordable slow fashion brand, creating contemporary sustainable fashion from a range of fabrics like bamboo, hemp and organic cotton.
Even high street stores such as H&M’s Conscious range have taken a step towards offering sustainable fashion.
Photo by Hannah Morgan on Unsplash
Here is a list of 35 Ethical & Sustainable clothing brands that oppose fast fashion practices.
With more brands offering stylish sustainable clothing, you no longer have to compromise your fashion but can still look good whilst protecting the planet at the same time.
To find out more on how to live a more sustainable lifestyle, read our article on a Beginner's Guide to Plastic-Free Living.
Do you know of any other sustainable fashion brands you could recommend to the Purple Turtle Community? Or perhaps you are interested in starting your own eco-friendly fashion business. If so, tell us about it in the comments section below.
]]>Environmental racism is an international social and climate issue that affects millions of people across the world, and yet it is not necessarily something that everybody understands, and many people still consider it to be a myth. The official definition of environmental injustice (or environmental racism), describes it as a “form of systemic racism, whereby communities of colour are disproportionately burdened with health hazards through policies and practices that force them to live in proximity to sources of toxic waste such as sewage works, mines, landfills, power stations, major roads and emitters of airborne particulate matter.”
Other typical features of environmental racism include unsafe workplaces, or poor housing/school conditions that expose inhabitants to hazardous pollution, or other conditions which have negative health consequences. Sometimes, victims of ER do not know they are being exposed to dangerous chemicals, so do not notice the physical symptoms until irreversible damage has been done to the body, like developing cancer. Environmental racism is a health issue that results in unnecessary sickness and death every year, most often in children, and it can be categorised as a form of racism as it demonstrates a significantly lower regard for the health of racial minorities than for white people.
Environmental racism (ER) is most commonly found in communities where there is a large minority population of people that are mainly poor, and the reason that this phenomenon is so common in America is because of the large wealth gap between white people and ethnic minorities. The cultural hangover of segregation has allowed inner city areas to remain poor and black, and the suburbs to remain mostly white, financially stable, and cleaner and safer. Wealth disparity in the United States is staggering - in 2018 millionaires made up 3% of the population, and yet the majority of federal officials were already millionaires when they entered office. The working class do not make the laws in America, and governing and official bodies are mostly white.
Significantly, it is primarily race that affects the placement of hazardous waste and other dangerous industrial facilities: Dr Robert Bullard’s landmark 2007 study found that not only were African American children five times more likely to develop health problems because of proximity to waste, but even middle class black Americans (making $50-60,000 a year) were more likely to live in polluted areas than poor whites (making under $10,000 a year). This is not an exclusively American problem either – black British children are also exposed to 30% more air pollution than white children, and the developing world suffers tragically from many serious environmental repercussions as a result of reckless consumerism in the west.
The environmental justice movement has a long and interesting history. It began in America with the United Farm Workers strike in the 1960s when the mostly Hispanic employees protested against worker illnesses that were caused by exposure to pesticides. The movement gained its name in 1982, after mass protests in Warren County, North Carolina, a predominantly black area in which the local government had forced a landfill site full of dangerous waste against the wishes of the local population. The injustice in Warren county brought the issue to the attention of the national press and even the president, and yet there has never been any substantial or effective legislation passed to ease the effects of environmental injustice.
The former President Donald Trump’s administration shrank the powers and funding of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), making government intervention in cases of ER even more unlikely. The EPA has an Office of Civil Rights which exists to investigate accusations of discrimination, and protect these vulnerable communities - they have received endless complaints over the last 22 years, but have never made a single conviction of environmental racism. For most environmentalists, this is rightly considered a disgrace, and for victims of ER it means justice remains unlikely.
A NAACP report in 2012 examined the location of the 378 coal fired power stations in the US - the 12 most problematic plants have two million Americans living within a three mile radius. These residents are 76% African American and have an average yearly income of $14,000 dollars. These individuals are ultimately far more likely to get sick and die as a result of living close to one of those power stations. This is grossly unfair, and combined with the disproportionate rates of death from COVID-19 and police brutality for black and brown people in America, this adds up to a system of oppression that cannot be ignored any longer by the mainstream climate movement. Nor should it be ignored by the federal government. In June of last year, the speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi referenced the environmental justice movement, and it was integrated into the campaign policies of the new president Joe Biden. This suggests that the subject will be on the political agenda for the new administration, meaning we are likely to hear a lot about environmental justice in 2021.
First, I want to give some examples of environmental racism on an international scale, as the dangers of climate change make the serious repercussions of unsustainable capitalism more visible across the world. Globalisation, which developed after the industrialisation of western society, has made it possible for huge amounts of dangerous waste to be taken from Europe and America, and dumped onto the developing world, where there is less regulation to prevent the dangerous side effects of chemical exposure.
In 2014, 44 million tonnes of electronic waste was produced internationally, and 80% of this waste is exported to Asia every year. What is left is shipped to Africa, India and Mexico. This can have dangerous health consequences. The town of Guiyu in China receives large quantities of electronic waste from the west: old computers, car batteries, refrigerators and televisions. Most of the people working in the e-waste industry here are extremely poor migrants from other parts of China, and mostly uneducated as to the dangers they are being exposed to by the decaying gadgets. The heaps of discarded material release heavy metals like lead into the water supply which causes the most serious consequence of environmental racism across the world: lead poisoning.
Lead poisoning is fatal in high doses, but even in small quantities it can cause irreversible physical and mental symptoms, especially in children. This can include brain damage, ADHD and a damaged IQ, as well as genetic defects like anencephaly, where babies are born with large parts of their brain missing. Circuit boards and copper wires are burned, or washed with acid, releasing toxic ashes into the water and soil, which in turn poisons the region’s agriculture, including the rice. The fumes can cause skin and eye diseases, as well as numerous cancers. Children living in Guiyu were found to have dangerously high levels of lead in their blood, which was shown to be causing stunted brain and nervous system development. Most of these children will be affected for life, and many will work in the e-waste sector long-term as safer jobs remain unavailable to them.
Old car batteries are exported in huge quantities to Africa, Vietnam and Mexico, which causes similar health repercussions. Approximately 500,000 used electronic devices are shipped to Nigeria every month by western businesses, often falsely and illegally marked as salvageable to trick the recipients into accepting the parts. Up to 100,000 people work in this sector in Nigeria alone, and by allowing this to happen, the companies responsible are placing a directly lower value on the health of these people than their own, by shipping the batteries abroad whilst knowing that they are most likely poisoning the individuals who are handling them.
In Senegal, the dirt is laced heavily with lead that has oozed out of used car batteries - in the early 2000s, the price of lead rose to such an extent that residents began to dig up the soil to resell the buried metal. It took 18 children to die before the authorities investigated and discovered that the cause was lead poisoning. Last year, 500 people in southern India were made unwell by potential heavy metal poisoning after the water supply was contaminated by open drains and landfill sites.
The shipping of mislabelled e-waste is illegal, and yet it happens constantly without making international headlines. In the UK these materials can safely be recycled, and still corporations are dumping it on developing countries to try and save a bit of cash. This system is integral to the continuation of western capitalism - if we cannot see the unsightly results of industry because it's shipped off to countries that ‘are already dirty,’ we can continue to enjoy our reckless consumerism guilt-free. Out of sight, out of mind. Can there be any clearer demonstration of environmental racism?
The unsafe exportation of waste is not the only form ER takes internationally - the structures associated with polluting industry (power stations for example) are typically built close to low-income or racial minority communities. This phenomenon can be found in every country on the planet. In 1981, the blood of the children from the town of Torreon in Northern Mexico was tested for heavy metals because of anxiety over their proximity to the Met-Mex Penoles lead smelter, the largest smelter in Latin America and the fourth largest in the world.
The dust from the factory (which contained lead arsenic and cadmium) was blowing into the homes of families downwind of the plant for decades; they were entitled to no legal protection and the results of years of exposure were devastating for the community. In this case, decades later when the children of the town were retested and the levels were worse, protest brought national attention to the cause and some attempts were made to provide justice through community investment and compensation. Steps were taken to ensure that this wouldn't happen again in Mexico but for many other victims of ER justice remains unlikely.
In 2008, a manganese factory in China poisoned 1,300 children - the plant was within 500m of two schools and a nursery, in which 60-70% of the students had dangerous levels of lead in their bloodstream. A similar event occurred in Nigeria in 2010 as poisoning from gold extraction killed 111 children. Lead smelting in Dong Mai, Vietnam caused 500 people to exhibit chronic symptoms, including 25 children experiencing brain damage - in 2015 the World Health Organisation estimated around 950 people had been inhaling particles of lead dust in the villages surrounding the plant.
Just one year ago, an LG polymers factory in Southern India experienced a chemical leak that killed 11 people, hospitalising hundreds at the hands of irresponsible industry. In 2010, the people of Mexico became the victims of environmental racism after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which also had a devastating effect on the natural environment. British Petroleum paid huge sums of compensation in an attempt to undo the damage they caused to American fishing businesses and to the ocean. But they also falsely claimed that the oil had never reached Mexico, and have never given any money in compensation for the contamination of their waters and the loss of fish stocks, which huge numbers of Mexican’s rely on for their livelihood.
The United States has a long history of exploiting its own people through environmental racism, which can be partially attributed to its demographically segregated geography. Poorer, inner city communities tend to be crowded, polluted, and mainly black and Hispanic, while suburban areas accessible to only those with higher incomes, remain mostly white. Corporations, local governments, and industry have less regard for the health of poor black citizens than they do for suburban whites, who are more likely to have the wealth and political influence to fight back against environmental hazards and protect their community from exploitation.
The primary effect of this injustice is the prevalence of lead poisoning in black communities, especially in children. It is unlikely that children in white communities could be poisoned with no legal repercussions from the authorities in 21st century America. This is especially true given that lead is a neurotoxin that can be linked to reduced IQ, ADHD, autism, academic failure and criminality - features that racist attitudes already associate with ethnic minorities and low-income communities.
Documented examples of environmental injustice are extensive, but perhaps the most famous case study is Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley,” which follows 85 miles of the Mississippi river between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Home to 150 petrochemical companies and 17 oil refineries, it is the most polluted area of the US and populated by mostly black people, the descendants of the free slaves that settled here after the American civil war.
The extensive pollution of the air, water and soil has all but decimated the surrounding cities and led to widespread cancer outbreaks and death: in Mossville, 91% of residents experienced health problems related to the surrounding industry. The famous and controversial Denka Performance Elastomer plant on the banks of the river has caused the locals’ chances of contracting cancer to increase 800 times; the area is more or less unlivable, but many residents cannot afford to relocate or do not want to abandon their cultural home.
Baton Rouge’s black neighbourhood is exposed to the City’s North Wastewater treatment plant, and in 2009 the residents were made sick by the plague of flies that descended on them, infected by the raw sewage at the plant. In the heat, the smell filled the city, and the residents turned to the EPA for help but were consistently ignored when they described the conditions they were being subjected to.
In 2015, Flint Michigan made international headlines when it transpired that the city was poisoning its own people through the contaminated water supply for over a year. During the process of changing suppliers, the city collected water from Flint river, which was polluted heavily by industry and agriculture (residents of Flint have been taught not to eat fish from the river because of the dirty water). The water had not been treated adequately and looked brown or orange, with particles floating in it. The city's 100,000 mainly black residents were losing hair and gaining rashes from showering in the water, and it had a bad smell and taste because it contained corroded iron, as well as dangerous E-coli and Legionella bacteria. It took the city officials 18 months to accept that anything was wrong with the water supply, which they insisted was safe to drink.
In this time, between 6 and 12,000 children were exposed to lead poisoning, and eventually 12 citizens were killed by legionnaires' disease from ingesting the bacteria. State health authorities launched a cover up operation which attempted to obstruct the official investigation into the legionella outbreak, including stopping scientists from looking into the undiagnosed deaths that could also have been a result of the water switch.
The investigation concluded that the death toll from the poisoning was most likely significantly higher than 12, and manslaughter charges were brought against the officials who withheld information from the public. Many more became unwell and the poisoning led to fertility problems in women and a 58% increase in foetal deaths. The Michigan Civil Rights commission concluded that the poisoning and slow response from authorities showed a clear disregard for black lives which stemmed from systematic racism - affirming that this would never have happened in a mostly white community.
Communities of colour are more likely to live close to power stations, oil refineries, lead smelters, landfill sites, sewage works, steel mills, incinerators and gas wells, all of which are sources of dangerous chemical waste. This is because industrial businesses, city authorities and oil companies actively choose to place these facilities near areas that are mostly low-income, black and Hispanic, because they believe these communities have less chance of successfully demanding compensation when health complications occur.
Corporations take advantage of the fact that less people listen when black people complain. These health problems are extensive and include fertility issues and increased risk of low birthweight in childbirth, as well as increased risk of lung problems, heart disease and strokes. This was established in Richmond California as the residents living for decades in the toxic emissions of the Standard Oil Chevron refinery encountered serious health repercussions, especially the African American community.
Industrial agriculture is one of the biggest sources of pollution in the US. The spraying of pesticides releases hydrogen sulphide and has been linked to respiratory disease. In North Carolina, the pig farming industry (which is located near mostly poor and black communities) has caused a buildup of the manure from around two million animals. This soaks into the soil, creating groundwater nitrates which cause genetic heart defects in babies. The farmers spray the manure onto the crops as fertiliser, filling the air and water with small fecal particles, and poisoning the Duplin County residents who are more likely to die of kidney or respiratory disease as a result. They have been petitioning the EPA for decades to no avail. In Florida thick levels of black soot cover the homes of the mostly black Glades residents of Pahokee, from sugar field burning as part of the sugar agriculture industry. They refer to it as the “black snow” that falls every October.
The proximity of industry is also an ER problem in Detroit, where the most polluted region is 71% black, and the local Marathon tank farm/oil refinery repeatedly breaks state emissions guidelines so that you can often see the colour of the sky change. In the Manchester and Harrisburg areas of Houston, which are 98% Hispanic, a local school was forced to close because of the dangerous levels of lead in the students’ blood. Every year the surrounding oil refineries and chemical/sewage plants release up to 484,000 pounds of toxic waste, leading the residents to question why all of Houston’s polluting industry had been built directly in their backyard. In Chicago just last year, the city’s car and metal shredding business (owned by General Iron) was moved from the white Lincoln Park area to the already polluted, mostly black East Side, which sparked an inquiry and unsuccessful legal challenges.
In every city in the US, from South Philadelphia where black people make up 60% of the population and 125 people die unnecessarily because of air pollution each year, to LA, black people breathe dirtier air than their white neighbours because someone chose for them to do so. It was the choice of somebody to place the Dakota Access Pipeline (a 1,200 mile long crude oil pipe) across the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, risking contamination of the tribe's water supply (Lake Oahe) and endangering their cultural heritage.
The pipeline is a controversial topic worldwide and a poster picture for the environmental justice movement; it was given the go ahead by Trump in 2016 but at the beginning of this year the new president signed an executive order to halt construction. Even though the project has been dogged by legal challenges, it is clear to protestors that the oil industry sees the cultural home of the Sioux tribe as theirs for the taking, and the people who live there expendable.
The industrialisation of the developed world presented us with new problems, like what to do with the hazardous waste that is produced by factories, oil refineries and power stations; and in the 20th century governments have had to decide the best way to dispose of nuclear waste. The motive has always been to do this quietly and inexpensively, and the cheapest way has proved to be to dump it on the vulnerable and voiceless because they are the least likely to make a fuss.
In Warren County, North Carolina, the home of the environmental justice movement, the local authorities built a landfill site near the poorest and most ethnically diverse town in the state. The landfill was designed for the dumping of a chemical called polychlorinated biphenyl (PCP), and more than 6,000 truckloads of it was deposited there despite mass protests. The chemical is so dangerous the production of it was banned by the federal government a year later - but only after the damage had already been done to the health of the residents and the soil was left permanently saturated with PCP.
These events inspired a 1987 report, written by the United Church of Christ and their Commission for Racial Justice, named “Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States”. This report concluded that race was the number one factor in the placement of a hazardous waste facility; race was a bigger factor even than income and the geography of an area.
Living close to a landfill that contains toxic chemicals has unsurprisingly been linked to a plethora of health issues, including fertility and pregnancy issues, genetic defects in babies and infant mortality. That was decades ago, and yet in the 21st century, the same cultural conditions allowed for the residents of Tallassee, Alabama to be shunned by the EPA for 14 years when they made complaints of environmental racism.
The Stone’s throw landfill, a dumping ground for sewage, asbestos and other chemical waste, has been making the mostly black locals sick for years, as trucks full of hazardous waste drive through their town every morning to access the site. The EPA ignored the extensive legal complaints they received, and the landfill is still in operation today and it brings a lot of money to its shareholders. Of course, none of this wealth is seen by the residents of Tallassee. All of Alabama’s landfills are located near low-income black and brown communities.
After a spill of over 1 billion tonnes of coal ash into the Emory river in Kingston Tennessee in 2008 (the workers who were left to clean the mess developed various forms of cancer), the Tennessee valley authority shipped the ash to Uniontown Alabama, a low-income black community. The EPA declared the ash to be non-hazardous and the community was left to suffer, completely unprotected by the EPA’s ineffective ER laws.
In 2016, a two year legal battle began over plans to construct a Class 1 hazardous waste site approximately 20 miles east of the town of Laredo, Texas. The project belongs to the descendant of a well-established family of Laredo, Carlos “C.Y.” Benavides III, the owner of the Yugo Ranch, which was handed down to him by his grandfather. He aims to transform this ranch into the Pescadito Environmental Resource Center (PERC), a “Megadump” which will receive waste from across Texas, Mexico, Arizona and other states, including industrial, municipal and fracking waste, as well as coal ash which contains heavy metals.
The ranch is close to a creek which leads to the Rio Grande, risking the contamination of Loredo’s water supply, as well as air pollution and fires. Laredo is accessible from the Kansas City railway and now the trainline will bring toxic chemicals to the poor, mainly Hispanic communities living here, who already lack access to appropriate medical care and health insurance. The increased danger of respiratory illness has led to accusations of environmental racism against Benavides, but the extent of his wealth and influence over the region has made it impossible for him to be successfully challenged in court.
Native American communities continue to be exposed unfairly to large quantities of nuclear and other hazardous waste; in Navajo New Mexico, years of uranium mining has led to increased likelihood of lung cancer and other complications as a result of radon inhalation. Energy company Holtec International has now proposed building a high-level radioactive waste facility in southern New Mexico, irrespective of the wishes of the local Hispanic population, and has failed to provide any information about the project in Spanish.
The application has been rushed through by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the COVID-19 pandemic, and there are fears that once Holtec is granted its license New Mexico will become the designated dumping ground for all of America’s nuclear waste, placing the landscape, environment and wildlife at risk for potentially thousands of years as the waste breaks down.
Racial minority communities in the United States are plagued by the effects of decades of racist housing policies, and the circumstances are worsening as a result of climate change and global heating. Severe storms, which are likely to become more frequent every year that the planet gets warmer, disproportionately impact black and brown people - Hurricane Katrina being the template which demonstrates how the vulnerable can be left completely unprotected by the authorities when faced by ecological disaster.
The quality of housing and public services in minority communities is notoriously poor, the streets are dirtier and the residents have less access to parks and green spaces. There are reports of mostly black schools in Detroit being so heavily infested with cockroaches, rats and mould that teachers went on strike in 2016 to protest the conditions, claiming that schools in white areas would never remain open if they were this decrepit and dirty.
The prevalence of lead poisoning in low-income black and brown children can be linked to living in poorly maintained and cheap, unsafe housing with remnants of lead paint; in Baltimore for example, there are three times the national average cases (around 65,000 children over 20 years) of lead poisoning because of the quality of buildings in poor areas like Sandtown-Winchester. Half a million children are poisoned every year in America, by a substance that has been linked to ADHD and other cognitive issues like aggression and reduced impulse control, which are not always connected by doctors to lead poisoning.
As well as lead poisoning, black and brown children are significantly more likely to contract asthma because they are exposed to 38% more nitrogen dioxide than white children as they are more likely to live near busy roads. Between 2001 and 2009 there was a 50% increase in cases of asthma in black children, leaving the prevalence of the condition 47% higher than in white children.
The South Bronx, which is one of the most ethnically diverse parts of New York City has recently been nicknamed “asthma alley” because in some neighbourhoods 20% of children have asthma; in New York's wealthy white communities the air is considerably cleaner. This is a physical disadvantage that can affect a child's entire life, entirely because of which Zip code they were born in. The concentration of low-income black communities into cheap, inner city housing has always allowed environmental injustice to prevail against the most vulnerable in society.
Scientists have recently established that extreme heat is one of the most seriously dangerous side effects of global warming, and it is also a big part of America’s systemic environmental racism. Extreme heat is said to kill hundreds in the US every year, and every year heatwaves are more common and severe along with other extreme weather events. In Los Angeles, “deadly urban heat waves” are more common in African American neighbourhoods, where households are less likely to be able to afford air conditioning and have less access to public services.
More concrete and less green spaces in these communities, which are often more crowded, trap the heat in the same way they trap pollution, creating urban “heat islands,” which can be up to 5.5 degrees Celsius warmer than white areas. Interestingly, urban heat islands have been linked to increased crime rates and police brutality, a further demonstration of how all of the manifestations of racism work together in an institutionalised way. To fight environmental racism, you have to attack the structure of systemic racism as a whole.
One way that racial justice campaigners plan to address economic inequality is through the process of reparations - black people in America would simply get a handout of money in recognition of the hardships and injustices they have suffered since slavery, in an effort to level up the United States. It is unlikely that reparations will be passed through American Congress any time soon, so how else can the problems of environmental racism be addressed?
In a previous Purple Turtle article, we analysed the devastating environmental policies of former President Trump, including his reformation of the EPA, and the rollback of over 100 new laws designed to protect the Earth from climate change. With the election of President Joseph R. Biden Jr, we foresaw progress for the US because he made clear in his campaign that he planned to reverse Trump’s policies, and reinstate America as a leader on the world stage in the fight against global warming. This includes making a commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and a slow shift to renewable energy sources which will reduce the pollution associated with fossil fuels. So far he has reversed many of Trump’s executive orders but is yet to attempt to pass actual legislation which will be more complex as he will need his opponents in Congress to support him.
In order to combat environmental racism, Biden has nominated Michael Regan (a black man) to run the EPA, in recognition of the fact that representation in politics is crucial to fighting injustice. He plans to fill the agency with people who will work to rebuild trust with vulnerable communities, who believe the government to be indifferent to their suffering. The new Vice-president Kamala Harris previously sponsored legislation that would create a legal definition to identify the low-income black communities that are the targets of environmental racism, allowing them to sue the government if they are exposed to too much pollution, finally creating a solid legal precedent for this kind of case. This means the victims of environmental racism will be able to demand compensation and get justice when their health is put at risk.
Biden also needs to concentrate on forming government policy to attack systemic racism in every form, with social and economic reorientation. From 2021, 40% of federal climate investments will go towards reducing pollution in low-income communities, and the new White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council will keep environmental justice at the forefront of government policy, as well as giving victims of racism a voice in the government's decisions.
Another good policy idea would involve an extra taxation on companies that create a lot of pollution, the proceeds from which can be targeted directly towards low-income communities. The money could be used to improve air quality, building safety standards, provide urban green spaces, solar panels, and better public services like zero-emissions transport to reduce the number of cars on the road. America can recover from its current recession by investing in green energy, providing high paying jobs, and enforcing race quotas.
Outside of America, what can we do on an international scale? Across the world humans are dealing with more hurricanes, record rainfall and the most aggressive wildfires in memory. The wealthiest 10% of humans are responsible for more than half of carbon dioxide emissions, while the poorest half of the planet create only 10% of global warming. Yet the poorest half are those who are consistently suffering, and who will contribute to the mass climate migration which will occur as a result of rising sea levels.
The UN estimates that there will be 250 million climate refugees by 2050 as sea water damages the soil and crops, causing deprivation and food shortages which will force people to flee to overpopulated inland cities. Green organisations need to work together across borders, and with groups like the UN and the EU, to prevent wealthy countries taking advantage of the developing world by moving production overseas and polluting the natural landscape, forcing the local people to work for unacceptable wages. As industry and international corporations are one of the driving forces of climate change, there needs to be reform and more representation in higher paid roles to give black and brown people more control and influence.
Green organisations can lobby for the introduction of sustainable practices such as Community benefit agreements, which protect residents that live near to industry and prevent instances of environmental racism before they occur. Companies can educate their employees on how the problem of racism intersects with pollution and climate change, as well as lobbying politicians to support climate policy rather than oppose it.
Environmental racism has caused an enormity of suffering across our planet, and it is not something that can be addressed quickly or easily. However, once we address the problem by supporting the victims of pollution and global warming and holding the perpetrators accountable, we can start to bring justice to those who deserve it.
If any readers have suggestions as to how we can fight the global problem of environmental racism, please feel free to comment below and share your ideas.
]]>“STOP Plastic Pollution Quick. Don’t Make the Ocean Sick.” ~ Hitesh M.
Sadly, 13 million metric tons of plastic are thrown into our oceans every year. It starts with people tossing small plastics into the waterways. This litter eventually reaches the shorelines and is carried out into the ocean by currents and waves.
There are five gyres in the ocean, one in the Indian Ocean, two in the Atlantic and two in the Pacific, that create vortex-like accumulations of waste. A gyre is a system of circulating ocean currents, caused by the Coriolis Effect.
Currents and waves move plastic debris towards these systems, where they're gradually swept up into the centre of each gyre. Over time, these create pockets of waste in certain parts of the ocean. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a product of the North Pacific Gyre.
Unbelievably, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is 1.6 million square kilometres in size, which means it's three times the size of France. Yes, that’s really how big the Great Pacific garbage patch is!
Photo from Parsons
Imagine a landfill site but in the sea. Unfortunately, all kinds of plastic debris, including microplastics, can be found in the ocean. There are plastic bags, shoes, caps and bottles, most of which do not biodegrade.
Plastic pollution has a direct and deadly impact on all wildlife and ecosystems, both on and off the land. Animals, birds and fish mistake pieces of plastic for food, which often leads to starvation, and many get easily tangled in our plastic waste. In fact, plastic waste kills up to 1 million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals each year, and the sad fact is that that number is expected to rise every single year. So, what can we do to stop this devastation?
It's pretty simple: we need to all come together and start living a more sustainable lifestyle. We also need to get rid of the throw-away mentality so many of us seem to have. Relying on recycling and waste management systems to deal with your plastic waste is simply not enough. We must vote with our dollars and only buy products that are as close to zero-waste as possible. And, where you have no option to buy sustainable products, make sure to dispose of your waste responsibly.
]]>Believe it or not, but there is one ecosystem that could save the world from the impending, global, and disastrous effects of climate change. But that ecosystem, seagrass, is in grave danger. In this article discover the importance of seagrass, its significant threats, and how YOU can help save this essential habitat.
Did you know that seagrass, not to be confused with seaweed or beachgrass, is one of the most essential ecosystems in the world? Yet, despite its importance, seagrass receives extremely little attention from mainstream media.
Seagrass is a deceptive term: the species looks like grass, with long green swaying leaves that form underwater meadows along temperate and tropical coastlines, but is actually more closely related to orchids and lilies. The 72 species of seagrass make up the only underwater flowering plants that are pollinated while submerged in saltwater. Seagrasses are mostly pollinated by the ocean currents, although tiny crustaceans have now been found to act a lot like bees ferrying pollen between flowers.
First off, seagrass protects coastlines from erosion and storms by slowing the speed of water with its leaves. Seagrass more specifically prevents erosions and storms by encouraging sedimentation or the depositing of silt, sand, and other materials that are suspended in the water. By sifting these out of the water and using their rhizomatous roots to stabilize the seabed, seagrass builds up the layers of sediment on the ocean floor thus making it more shallow. This disrupts the underwater momentum, ultimately mitigating the destructive force with which the ocean could havoc our shorelines.
Moreover, this effect filters out many pollutants and excess nutrients that humans have added to waterways, and ‘cleans’ the water before it pollutes other environments and stores them in the sediment. This nutrient cycling is estimated to have a worldwide value of $1.9 trillion per year.
The pollution that seagrass filters out includes carbon dioxide. Seagrass is actually capable of permanently storing 35x more carbon in the sediment than our rainforests, and is currently responsible for stowing 18% of carbon in the ocean despite only covering 0.1% of the ocean floor. This is important because carbon in the ocean causes ocean acidification, which puts plankton, corals and any other species with calciferous exoskeletons at risk. As the ocean becomes more acidic, their shells become thinner and more brittle thus reducing their survival rate. As many of these species form the basis of many ecosystems, seagrass is ultimately protecting all of these other habitats as well.
Photo by The Tampa Bay Estuary Program on Unsplash
Seagrass also provides food and shelter to many species (including top predators like cod, plaice and pollock) that rely on a complicated food chain that starts and ends with the seagrass itself. The protection afforded by seagrass supports more than just fish and bottom dwellers like crustaceans and neighbouring reefs. These habitats are also occupied by some of our most beloved marine creatures including sea turtles, seahorses, and dugongs. Seagrass also protects the seafloor and provides a safe space for smaller, more delicate species from being washed away, such as fry (young fish).
Seahorses actually hold onto the seagrass with their curly tails to resist the ocean currents!
Furthermore, at the end of the life cycle for everything, the seagrass catches leftover debris like a sieve, filtering it down to the roots, and uses these roots to grow again. Of course, any non-biodegradable materials like plastic and chemical pollutants can disturb this balance. Or, even worse, animals can mistake it for food thus clogging up and damaging their insides.
Last, but definitely not least, seagrass provides essential income to people through the fisheries. Food production, tourism, and other industries like boat building add up to €112 million in the Mediterranean economy alone. Seagrass meadows actually form the basis of the world’s primary fishing grounds, supplying 50% of the world’s fisheries. Plus, 32% of commercial fish species utilise seagrass during at least one part of their lifecycle. Tourist experiences and souvenirs such as woven seagrass mats and art are also important for helping everyone understand its meaning in culture, and not simply extraction. After all, we value and protect much better if we appreciate aspects beyond humanity in multifaceted ways.
In conclusion, seagrasses are important because it improves water quality, cycle nutrients, and can sequester carbon 35 times faster than tropical rainforests in perpetuity. This thus pseudo-seaweed slows down ocean acidification and climate change while also providing us with half of our seafood and other special benefits like turtles and seahorses. In fact, seagrass is so valuable that Project Seagrass estimates that 1 hectare of seagrass is worth $40,00/year.
Sadly, seagrass meadows are declining at similar rates to coral reefs and rainforests. This reduction has increased from 1% per year in 1940 to 7% per year in 1990, which is equivalent to losing a football field size worth of seagrass every 30 minutes. In the UK, 92% of seagrass ecosystems have been lost over the last century.
There is quite a long list of threats to seagrass species. In fact, it sometimes feels like we have gone to war with our main food providers: the soil and the sea, but there is a way out of this. However, first let’s go into more detail about the main threats to seagrass: industrial and agricultural runoff, coastal infrastructure development and dredging, trawling, aquaculture development, boat damage and climate change.
Pollution and agricultural runoff causes all sorts of problems for different ecosystems. By filtering it out and storing it in sediment, seagrass can mitigate algal blooms caused by an excess of nutrients from topsoil and agricultural runoff.
Coastal infrastructure development causes changes in the flow of water and sediment. For example, rivers flow faster and cut channels into the seabed, and tidal flows are also altered.
Building in coastal areas changes the habitat dramatically, from a coastal transition zone (which would be very species-rich because of the mixture between salt and freshwater habitats) to one with human pollution and hard surfaces. For humans building in coastal areas is risky — it is more expensive to maintain especially with sea levels rising and more extreme storms. However, a seagrass (or mangrove) and wetland estuary habitat would protect us for free and provide more food and water purification services.
Dredging is a process where the seafloor is scooped or vacuumed up with large metal frames and then deposited somewhere else. It is a way of making enough space for big ships to get into places that they otherwise wouldn’t, extending land in valuable places like shipping ports, and also mitigating coastal erosion by replacing lost sediment with dredged sediment.
Dredging is also used as a lazy and expensive way of harvesting things like scallops, which destroys the fishing ground for everyone. The process unearths pesticides, nutrients, and other things that were stable so they become resuspended in the water, allowing them to enter the food system again.
Now, loose material remains prone to being resuspended repeatedly for months due to storms and boats. The turbid water can move to neighbouring ecosystems, covering them and harming them in addition to the area that has intentionally been damaged. It can take tens to thousands of years for different ecosystems to recover completely, if that’s even possible, as some species are hundreds of years old and very rare.
Trawling is similar to dredging in that species are picked up indiscriminately from anywhere in the water column. The most destructive type is bottom trawling where nets operate from the bottom of the sea. Bottom trawling adds weights and hooks on the bottom of the nets that rip and smash up ecosystems, which can take 30+ years to grow back. The most harmful form of trawling collects small shrimp from the seafloor, as the holes in the nets don’t allow larger bycatch to escape. The ratio of dead and dying animals that are thrown back into the sea compared to what is actually kept and sold can be as much as 10:1.
Trawler nets operating higher up in the water column don’t destroy habitats, but they do end up with bycatch including turtles, cetaceans (dolphins and whales), sharks and many fish that are thrown away. In order to minimise damage to fish stocks, holes in fishing nets have to be big enough to let juvenile fish through, however, this doesn’t take into account that more mature fish produce many healthier eggs and fish stocks have plummeted over the last 100 years. The size of individual fish caught over the last 100 years has also decreased dramatically.
Aquaculture development usually involves large tanks or nets with a high concentration of animals that attracts large numbers of parasites. The easiest way to control these is to use pesticides and antibiotics. The fish are often fed using pellets made from a mixture of wild-harvested ingredients, waste from the land animal industry such as offal of less valuable cuts of meat, and some form of carbohydrate. There is a lot of animal waste that pollutes the water alongside the rest of this cocktail, and as aquaculture for many species is near where the wild fish pass, many young fish can get badly infected and weakened simply from passing by. Then they have to manage with whatever food stocks are left.
Boat damage includes propeller damage and anchors ripping up roots and sediment, sometimes over quite a distance.
The more fragmented and damaged our ocean floors become, the more difficult it gets for species to recover, and the more likely it is that species go extinct sometime before we even realise they exist. Ocean habitats have been the sources of new antibiotics and other medications. In fact, 60% of cancer medications come from living things and antibiotics are becoming scarce. As was mentioned in David Attenborough's recent documentary, Extinction: The Facts, the more these habitats are damaged the more likely it is that we will be negatively affected by new diseases, as species in them become more susceptible to infection thus allowing illness to spread.
As seagrass stabilizes the seafloor and filters the water, a lot of our pollution ends up being sequestered in the sediment under the grasses. Excess nutrients are especially damaging as they encourage algal growth which can outcompete the seagrass and reduce the available light.
Sea level rise can mean that less light reaches the seagrass over time, and also that larger bodies of water hold more power of destruction in storms, which can severely damage the plants, potentially burying them under loose sediment.
To combat this damage, Sky Ocean Rescue, WWF and Swansea University have started a project to re-establish a 20,000m2 seagrass meadow in Pembrokeshire to help save local species and fight the climate crisis. Over time this single project could support 160,000 fish and 200 million invertebrates.
Photo by John Mark Arnold on Unsplash
Algal blooms are a useful part of nature when they are in balance; algae are eaten by many animals at the top of the food chain. However, when there are too many algae they sink to the ocean floor at the end of their lives and decompose there. This process uses up oxygen in the water, creating what is known as “hypoxia” or “dead zones”. These areas have a reduced amount of oxygen dissolved in the water, thus causing the death of any other species that require more oxygen than is present.
All species are different but larger species tend to require more oxygen than smaller species to survive. The worst dead zones have contributed to the long-term collapse of ecosystems around the world and take up about 10% of the sea. As with everything, there must be a balance.
This kind of pollution and algal growth can also destroy seagrass meadows if there is too much of it. Plus, any ecosystem that collapses of course then diminishes the number of things that we can extract from the sea. This also affects nomadic species such as whales, turtles, tuna and many other fish that traverse the oceans relying on many different ecosystems en route. Everything is interconnected.
Though it can feel like we have gone to war with our main food providers: the soil and the sea, there are ways to help save seagrass (and the rest of the environment along with it). Here are some tips:
Seagrass provides a chance to save the world from the impending catastrophes of climate change, though climate change might act faster and wipe out the ecosystem altogether. We must act NOW to protect this species so that seagrasses, in turn, may protect us.
]]>Living in London, the Women of the World UK festival has become a staple in my yearly calendar for marking International Women’s Day (IWD). While it might look a bit different in 2021, there’s an exciting line-up of speakers, stories and voices standing up for women’s equality and female empowerment for this year’s festival. WOW UK is of course one of many festivals and activities taking place around the world to celebrate IWD.
The International Women’s Day 2021 theme is #ChoosetoChallenge. This urges us all to think about action we can take to accelerate progress on gender equality, recognise the need to speak up and call out gender bias, and celebrate women’s achievements. As women around the world are facing the social, economic and political consequences from COVID-19, there’s never been a more critical time to do so. When it comes to celebrating IWD, what better way than looking at women’s role in environmental sustainability and honouring some of the most influential female environmentalists?
But let us first recap the goals and history behind IWD, when it was established, and why we celebrate it on this specific day.
IWD is celebrated in many countries around the world and across society, and is dedicated to celebrating the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women. It provides a powerful platform globally to drive action to accelerate women’s equality and call out gender inequality and bias.
Despite the pandemic, there are still plenty of ways to get involved with IWD activities this year. If you’re a fan of social media, you can choose to strike the Choose to Challenge pose – with your hands held high – and post it to encourage others to commit to helping forge an inclusive world. Or it might also be a great opportunity to focus your efforts on fundraising for a female-focused charity. Whatever you’re thinking, there’s lots of inspiration and great resources available on the IWD website to help you host your own events within your local community, networks, organisations, and group.
IWD has been observed for more than a century, with its origins dating back to the early 1900s. It began with a protest in 1908 by 15,000 women against long work hours, low pay and lack of voting rights in New York City. In honour of those strikes, a year later the Socialist Party of America declared the first National Woman's Day on February 28.
Inspired by events in the US, the concept also caught on in Europe. In 1910, during an International Conference of Working Women in Copenhagen chaired by German campaigner and socialist leader Clara Zetkin, the proposal was put forward and unanimously agreed by delegates from 17 countries to establish a Women's Day, which would be international in character. First celebrations took place on March 19, 1911, involving over a million people in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland.
The 8 March aka International Women's Day. Photo by Pixabay from Pexels
While IWD originated from action taken by the women’s labour movement in the US, the day subsequently also became linked with the peace movement demanding the end of World War I (WWI) and also with revolutionary action in Russia. 15 April, 1915 saw a further large demonstration held in the Hague in the Netherlands involving over 1,300 women from over 12 countries. Having been established in Russia in 1913, the nation’s 1917 IWD demonstration on 8 March (23 February in the old Russian calendar) was also the first day of the Russian Revolution. Facing significant food shortages with famine looming, and against a backdrop of popular unrest, female textile workers took to the streets of St Petersburg – then called Petrograd - marking a key beginning in the chain of events that led to the overthrow of the tsar.
Fast forward to 1975 when the United Nations (UN) first began celebrating 8 March as IWD and two years later in 1977, when the General Assembly adopted a resolution recognising this. The first theme adopted by the UN for IWD in 1996 was “Celebrating the past, Planning for the Future".
The short answer is a resounding yes! The continued underrepresentation of women in decision-making on environmental sustainability and climate change – whichever level we’re looking at and despite some of the great examples included below – is proof why there can’t be any room for complacency. We’re still some way off from achieving the original aim of IWD to drive full gender equality for women around the world.
For example, a 2019 report on the gender composition of the bodies established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) showed that efforts to achieve gender balance are still insufficient. Not only does the global architecture for climate change action lack adequate gender representation, but we also often miss other important links, such as for example between climate justice and racial justice. When more women are involved in decision-making and when we take a more inclusive approach to climate policy making, the environment wins too.
Photo by Matthew TenBruggencate on Unsplash
Climate change is a women’s issue. While progress on representation is certainly still needed, it does seem particularly fitting to celebrate IWD through the achievements of women policy-makers leading the charge to implement solutions against the climate change threats facing our planet.
With women actively involved across so many domains, you might say that’s an obvious choice for a policy nerd like myself – and it certainly made writing this article a real treat! But arguably there isn’t anywhere where “climate action by, and for women” holds more true than at the frontline of climate change policy. Along with a brief snapshot of some of their achievements, below are also some of their powerful words I’m sure we can all draw huge inspiration from.
“I believe in human ingenuity – that when we decide on a task to be done, no matter how daunting it may seem at the beginning, we are able to unleash human ingenuity and human innovative capacity that was unknown, and takes us to a solution.” – CHRISTIANA FIGUERES
Christiana Figueres, a Costa Rican diplomat, has an impressive history of involvement in climate change negotiations going back to 1995. She also founded and led the Centre for Sustainable Development of the Americas (CSDA), a climate change policy think tank until 2003. She was subsequently appointed the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010. Having taken office following the failed COP15 climate change conference in Copenhagen, the crowning achievement of her six-year tenure at the UNFCCC was undoubtedly successfully spearheading the 2015 Paris Agreement – now regarded as the ‘most ambitious global resolution against climate change in human history’.
The recipient of many awards and recognition from governments, civil society and media alike, Figueres was ranked among the Top 100 Time magazine Influential Leaders of the World in 2016 which described her as “a fierce and gentle fighter who tells it like it is but never wavers in her unrelenting optimism” and “gets results”. Her optimism was much in need to help to rebuild the momentum of the talks – or rather to remove them from “the political trash can” as she aptly puts it. Ultimately, it is Figueres’ belief in humanity’s collective capacity for innovation that makes ‘the case for stubborn optimism on climate’.
"We will only make progress if we act in concert with one another, not just competition." – GRO HARLEM BRUNDTLAND
Gro Harlem Brundtland hardly needs an introduction but perhaps the best way to sum up her achievements is that she’s considered the “mother of sustainable development”. With a career that spans serving as Norway’s Minister of the Environment, then three times elected as the Prime Minister of Norway and being appointed as the Director-General of the World Health Organization from 1998 to 2003, she also served as UN Special Envoy on Climate Change from 2007 to 2010.
Most notably, a high point of her career has been chairing the World Commission on Environment and Development, which helped establish the concept of sustainable development as it is generally understood today as part of its landmark report, “Our Common Future”. Crucially, the report sought to link environment and development, describing sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
In the decades since, Brundtland has remained one of the most vocal advocates on development and the environment, but also a strong supporter of international cooperation. In her 2018 Barbara Ward Lecture at the International Institute for Environment and Development, she made a powerful case for cooperation when it comes to developing new methods of environmentally-sustainable economic growth and tackling the other big global challenges. Her awards are also numerous, but perhaps her greatest accolade is her unofficial title in her native Norway where is she affectionately known as “Landsmoderen,” or “mother of the nation”.
“Transforming our societies and our economies is an agenda that requires the participation of all. Including and empowering women and girls to develop and implement climate solutions is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to do.” – PATRICIA ESPINOSA
Patricia Espinosa, a Mexican diplomat, succeeded Christiana Figueres as the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, taking office in 2016. She emerged as a leader in the global challenge to address climate change and its consequences by heading the UN climate change talks COP16 in Cancun back in 2010. Given our narrowing window for decisive action, as we look ahead to COP26 this year, Espinosa has set out four key elements that will ensure a successful outcome from the Glasgow summit. As she continues to serve as the UN’s top climate change official, she has spoken out on behalf of those whose voices are not being heard.
In considering future climate solutions, female empowerment is critical but is often overlooked, even as we have a woman at the top of UNFCCC for the second time in a row. For example, a 2017 paper from the UNFCCC revealed that only one out of three delegates at the last two climate conferences were women. Speaking during a Dinner for Women Leading on Climate Change at a COP23 side panel, she argued “when it comes to climate change, we need women at the negotiating tables, in boardrooms and as the heads of businesses, in the streets and in the fields”, reiterating her support for the Gender Action Plan that the conference adopted.
Young female climate activist during a climate protest. Photo by Markus Spiske from Pexels
“If we took away barriers to women's leadership, we would solve the climate change problem a lot faster” – MARY ROBINSON
Former president of Ireland and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson has also twice served as a UN climate envoy. In a similar fashion to Espinosa, Robinson has relentlessly promoted gender equality and given a platform to those whose lives are most likely to be affected by climate change. She speaks powerfully of the need for better inclusion by reflecting on her own experience of attending her first climate conference: “There was nothing about human rights. Nothing about gender. Nothing about what I understood to be the problem. ... [But] once women ministers got involved and said they wanted to have grassroots women, indigenous women, young women in their delegations, that made a lot of difference. I saw it happening when you had indigenous women speak truth to the male delegates about the reality of being on the front lines of climate change. They didn't live in a world that was being changed dramatically for the worse - indigenous women live that reality.”
Moreover, Robinson is a strong advocate that climate change should be viewed as “climate justice”. Her call to make the issue of climate change personal is intended to spur us all on to do what we can: “When you go out the door, make up your mind to do something you weren’t doing this morning,” whether recycling, or switching off lights, or using less water, or getting rid of waste, or using public transport. “Do something that is your ownership of the climate issue.”
"We have 10 years to act on the climate emergency. To act, not sit around for 10 years thinking and discussing how to act” – ANNE HIDALGO
And finally, while some of the examples above may seem UN-centric, a more local example would be that of Anne Hidalgo who has served as mayor of Paris since 2014. A major part of her program and time in office has been dedicated to the environment and her call for urgent action is one that should be heeded! She introduced the “Paris Breathes” initiative back in 2016, which included a ban on motor vehicles from entering certain parts of the city on the first Sunday of each month. She joined President Macron in calling for the adoption of a Global Pact for the Environment in 2017. And she championed the idea of Paris becoming a 15-minute city (Ville Du Quart D’Heure) at the start of 2020. Key to this idea is making sure residents can reach necessary amenities (such as schools, offices, shops, parks, health centres) on their doorstep – shifting dependency away from cars in order to cut air pollution levels.
Inevitably, the list above is quite a subjective, personal thing, and there’s an abundance of inspiration to be found in the stories of many women across the world who are using their voices – from boardrooms to local communities, from science to activism – to show leadership and call for action on climate change. Which women fighting climate change have inspired YOU the most? Tell me more in the comments section below!
Happy International Women’s Day!
]]>Cities are home to a growing majority of the world's population. According to the World Cities Report 2020 by UN-Habitat, 55% of people live in urban areas, and this figure is estimated to grow to at least 70% by 2050. This rising urbanisation is a complex challenge but also a great opportunity for cities to continue advancing sustainable development.
At its core, a sustainable city is one that meets the needs of the present and offers a good quality of life to current citizens, without compromising the opportunities of future generations.
When I first became interested in this topic, I assumed that sustainability in cities referred purely to an ecological focus. But sustainability goes beyond environmental targets. It has four different dimensions, the so-called pillars of sustainability: environment, society, culture and economy. The four are closely intertwined and need to be carefully balanced to achieve the goals of the present and the future. So, what would a sustainable city look like in reality? And what is needed for a truly sustainable city to thrive?
Environmentally, sustainable cities have a strong understanding of the urgency of the global climate crisis and invest in a clear environmental strategy.
From a society point of view, they make positive changes to improve areas such as health, education, income inequality, work-life balance, crime and the cost of living.
Culturally, sustainable cities aim to be inclusive to all people and give everyone equal opportunities.
Finally, well-planned and managed cities work to improve the health of the local business environment and provide economic opportunities for all.
Sustainable cities are all about balance.
Bosco Verticale in Milan, Italy. Photo by Zac Wolff on Unsplash
Rising urbanisation means the sustainability of cities is of the highest importance. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), “depending on how we develop and manage cities and their infrastructure in the coming decades, cities could become either a source of inclusive sustainable development or a force for environmental destruction”.
With their growing populations, cities are centres of consumption, resource use and waste. Consequently, they are responsible for over 70% of global CO2 emissions. Poverty and inequality are also growing issues in many.
Therefore, cities must aim to be more sustainable and reduce their ecological footprint. By making smart choices for housing, transport, energy, green space, water and waste, cities can reconcile economic growth and the environment. Well-designed and managed cities can create better living conditions for their citizens. They are also better prepared to respond with agility to major environmental, social and economic challenges.
Here are a few cities that are leading the way in clean energy, sustainable development and climate solutions.
Copenhagen is widely recognised as a leader in sustainability and green economy. It aims to be the world's first capital to be carbon neutral by 2025. It prioritises green ways to get around the city: solar-powered boats, electric buses, pedestrian-friendly streets, and, of course, the cycle superhighways. Thanks to the 375km of bike lanes, 45% of Copenhagen's residents commute by bike every day. What's more, the city has an energy-efficient district heating and cooling system that connects to nearly every household.
Singapore's Sustainable Development Blueprint (Green Plan) outlines the city’s sustainability goals leading up to 2030. The targets include improving energy efficiency by 35%, ensuring 80% of its buildings are certified green and that 80% of households are within a 10-minute walk to a train station. The city has made drastic changes in transportation by building effective public transport systems and limiting car ownership amongst its residents. To raise residents' quality of life by enhancing greenery in the city, Gardens by the Bay, an urban nature park spanning 240 acres, was also created.
Gardens by the Bay in Singapore. Photo by Sergio Sala on Unsplash
Stockholm has a long history of ambitious climate plans. Thanks to the city's successful environmental efforts, it was selected as the first European Green Capital in 2010. It aims to be fossil fuel-free by 2040. 99% of Stockholm's solid waste is recycled. Biofuel, generated from sewage, is available at petrol stations around the city. And 96% of hotels in Stockholm have environmental certification.
Vancouver's goal is to become the greenest city in the world. And it's making great headways to achieve this. The city's emissions are one of the lowest in North America and it's committed to transitioning to 100% renewable energy. Urban planning is very high on the agenda with the city aiming for all buildings in the city to be carbon neutral by 2030. It also aims to go zero-waste by 2040. Pedestrians and cyclists are a priority in Vancouver and the goal is for 90% of its residents to live within an easy walk of their daily needs by 2030.
Lisbon was awarded the EU Commission’s Green Capital for 2020 and celebrated by planting around 20,000 trees. The city is committed to protecting and enhancing its natural areas, while also providing quality outdoor recreational space for its citizens – 85% of Lisbon’s residents live within 300m of a green space. The use of electric vehicles in the city is accelerating with plenty of car charging points, electric bikes sharing schemes and electric buses. Even tourist tuk-tuks in the city have been electric since 2017.
The achievements of the top sustainable cities show that progress is possible. While no two cities are the same, there are lessons and best practices that can be drawn, shared and adapted to help build more sustainable cities for the future:
Stanley Park in Vancouver, Canada. Photo by Mike Benna on Unsplash
The future of people and the planet will largely be determined by how day-to-day urban life evolves. Although we may not be able to sway bigger developments in our cities, we can all contribute to building more sustainable cities and communities.
The Global Goals (Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs) website gives a few ideas on how we can get involved:
Do you live in one of the world's sustainable cities? Or are you an urban dweller who's helped your area become better for both its residents and the planet? Let us know in the comments below!
]]>We consume a lot. This is no secret. In all our forms of consumption, however, plastic bags are probably what we use the most to carry what we buy. They are cheap and easy for companies to produce or purchase; hence many hand them out to their customers, causing a minimal dent in their profits. This convenience, however, comes at a price; plastic bags are terrible for the environment! Therefore, we should not let these companies put profits over the planet. This means we should not be buying their plastic bags as often, or even using them at all. This article will discuss why plastic bags are so dangerous, and what we can do to limit their use.
First of all, when talking about plastic bags, we are not only talking about the standard medium-sized bag you stuff your groceries in. They embody a variety of forms, from the big black bin liners we send to landfill to the tiny sandwich bags you dispose of at lunchtime. They’re everywhere! Some of the facts are startling. Worldwide, 5 trillion single-use plastic bags are used each year. To put this into context, that’s 83 plastic bags per person per year, for every single person on Earth. Shocking, right?
Plastic bags harm the environment upon being produced, as well as when they are disposed of. With regards to production, they contribute to global warming by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is because they are made using plastic, which requires enormous amounts of energy from fossil fuels to be manufactured. In fact, 6% of all the world’s oil resources are used to make plastic, and 40% of that 6% is used to make plastic bags. That’s a hell of a lot of oil for just carrying home our shopping!
After use, where do plastic bags end up? Globally, only 1% of plastic bags are recycled. The rest are left to wreak havoc on the environment. It is estimated that 80 million plastic bags litter the environment every year. Each of these can take 1,000 years to break down. As they do, methane is released into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming much like in the production process. Toxic chemicals also leak into the soil, leaving it less fertile. But plastic bags aren’t just an issue on land: they may end up contaminating the waterways and oceans, which is a perilous proposition for wildlife.
Photo by Leonid Danilov from Pexels
The light physical nature of plastic bags means they can pose fatal risks to animals, especially marine life. They are easily caught by the wind and thus drift into the natural world and pollute our oceans. Even if they are discarded far from the coast, they can be washed away during rainfall into the drains and enter the waterways. This leads them to the sea. The bags are then ingested by the sea creatures who mistake them for food. Once ingested, the creatures often choke on the plastic or pick up internal infections, eventually starving to death as a result. Once the animal carcass has rotted away, the plastic bag escapes from its corpse and the process can be repeated with another animal.
Sea turtles often fall victim to plastic bag pollution; they ingest the bags upon mistaking them for jellyfish, often causing them to die. Whales and various other sea creatures can meet a similar fate. It is estimated that approximately 100,000 marine mammals a year die from ingesting plastic bags alone.
If animals are not consuming plastic bags in their entirety, they are probably still ingesting some of them. When exposed to the elements, plastic bags do not biodegrade completely, but instead photodegrade, meaning they become microplastics that absorb toxins and continue to pollute the environment. It is well known that fish eat thousands of tons of plastic every year, often in the form of microplastics. Therefore, the toxic plastic is transferred up the food chain, finding its way to our dinner plates. Exactly how much of this plastic are we consuming? Frighteningly, it has been confirmed that humans could be consuming between 39,000 and 52,000 plastic particles every year. This poses a still unknown risk to human health.
Photo by Naja Bertolt Jensen on Unsplash
The perils of plastic bag pollution for the air, soil, and ocean are clear. We must do what we can to minimise the amount of plastic bags that we use. Here are a few things we must put into practice.
It is difficult to recycle plastic, so very few plastic bags are actually recycled. However, some types of plastic bags are recyclable, so we must recycle them when we can. For example, if they are made from LDPE or HDPE, they can be recycled the standard way in a normal recycling bin. To check whether a type of plastic is recyclable, you can usually find out by checking what is written on the packaging, or by checking with your local authority.
Your plastic bag is not recyclable? Make sure you make the most of it before it becomes the environment’s problem! Use it until it can be used no more. Got bored of using the bag for your groceries? Get creative with it! You can use them to cover your plants in the winter to protect them from frost. Scrunch them up and use them as padding for packages you send through the post. Use them to line your cat’s litter tray or even your bird’s cage. Get creative with it!
Luckily, initiatives are being developed to counteract the problems posed by plastic bags via the use of completely eco-friendly alternatives. Take, for instance, Lucy Hughes’s ingenious invention: biodegradable bags made out of fish waste. These can be put in the compost bin after use and are, of course, fully sustainable. However, they are primarily used as a replacement for plastic sandwich bags. Nevertheless, there are hopes that they will soon widen their scope to include bakery bags and small carrier bags. It is only a matter of time.
While we wait, however, we need something to carry our shopping home with. What can it be if it isn’t plastic? What about paper? After plastic, paper is perhaps the most common material that is used for carrier bags. How do paper bags compare to plastic bags in terms of the environment? Surprisingly, the process of manufacturing paper bags takes more energy, and releases more toxic chemicals, than the production of plastic bags. However, paper, unlike plastic, biodegrades a lot quicker, is a lot more recyclable, and is not as harmful to marine life. A study has revealed that it takes 3 uses of a paper bag to make it more environmentally friendly than its plastic counterpart. That is if it makes it to 3 uses (paper is weaker than plastic, after all)! Nevertheless, as long as the paper bags are treated well and not replaced as frequently as plastic bags, they are the preferable option.
There are a range of reusable alternatives that are more sustainable than plastic, but also sturdier than paper. These include bags made of nylon, mesh, canvas, denim, jute, and cotton. These can often be very trendy, and Purple Turtle’s very own Luxury Corduroy Shopping Bag is a prime example of how fashionable saving the planet can be. Bags such as this are often made from renewable resources and are much more biodegradable. They are also heavier than plastic, so are less likely to get tangled up with the turtles if your bag did somehow find its way into the ocean!
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez on Unsplash
We must, however, reuse alternatives made from the above materials just as much as we might reuse plastic bags. Their durability and sturdiness often mean that they can take quite a bit of energy to produce. Therefore, to make them the true, eco-friendly plastic bag alternatives they deserve to be, ensure they are your eternal shopping companions.
To avoid the plastic bag fiasco altogether, we should be looking to ban them altogether. You may already be aware that steps are being taken by some governments to reduce the use of plastic bags. 69 countries of the world have passed a full or partial ban on their usage. The continent of Africa is leading the way in exemplary fashion, standing as the continent in which most countries have banned the production of plastic bags, with 25 countries in total. 32 countries have opted to charge a fee (or levy a tax) for their use. However, the levy is often an insignificant amount and does not deter people from simply binning their plastic bag or forgetting to bring it out shopping with them. If they cannot ban the bags completely and instead opt for a levy, we should encourage governments to raise the price of plastic bags. This would encourage more frequent reuse.
The trillions of plastic bags that we use, and the damage that each of these potentially has on the environment, is something we must all seek to avoid. If you have a plastic bag that isn’t recyclable, focus on reusing it as much as possible, and don’t forget to take it to the supermarket with you! If it is recyclable, still reuse it as much as possible before it is recycled (the next owner might not be so eco-conscious!) If you have a (more preferable) sustainable alternative, you are definitely taking steps in the right direction, but it’ll all be for nothing if you also forget to reuse those as well. In short: reuse the life out of every bag you have!
Got any creative reuse strategies? Any heroic sustainable bag tales to tell? Feel free to comment your thoughts below!
In 1946, Earl Silas Tupper came up with a brilliant idea. He invented plastic containers with airtight seals – known as “Tupperware” – to make food last longer and retain its taste. Any type of food could be placed in Tupperware and stored, but it was especially popular in the 1950s for storing bread, pastry and cake. Tupperware came as a God-send to families who were struggling financially in a post-war period; food was expensive, and many families could not afford refrigerators to maximise the shelf-life of their food.
Tupper’s inspiration for his idea came from the inverted rim on a can of paint. At first, sales were dismal, as the public did not understand how the product worked. Consequently, Tupper employed the brilliant saleswomen, Brownie Wise, to run “Tupperware” in-house marketing parties to show American women how Tupperware worked. Brown was extremely successful, and Tupperware sales boomed. Tupperware has now been going strong for over sixty years and continues to be the go-to container for food storage. Tupper’s invention was so successful that, nowadays, any type of plastic container is often referred to as “Tupperware”! In 2020, Tupperware sales boomed despite the Covid-19 pandemic, as more people were staying at home to eat, rather than dining out. There is no denying the benefits of Tupperware, but is plastic really the best material to store food in?
Plastic Tupperware is lightweight, strong and less likely to break. Because of this, it is very popular in the homes of those with young families. Food can be stored safely, and it is less likely to be wasted as a result. In a world where approximately 1.3 billion tons of food is wasted each year, this goes a long way.
Ultimately, yes. Despite the benefits of plastic Tupperware, plastic is a problematic material, with plastic pollution being one of the main threats to our planet’s future. That’s because it is not biodegradable, meaning that it does not rot. It can take hundreds of years to break down and leak nasty chemicals into the environment whilst it is sat in a landfill; plastic has been found to seep into the soil and infect our water supply and food chain as a result. The world is currently producing more plastic than is sustainable; we create 400 million tonnes of plastic a year and a shocking 40% of that plastic is used only one time before it is thrown away, a situation that has given rise to the term 'single-use plastic'.
The original Tupperware company is aware of the negative effects plastic can have on the environment. Despite being a producer of plastic Tupperware, they are trying to make their brand as sustainable as possible. For example, all of their products are designed to last a lifetime. But, they can also be recycled easily should you need to replace them, and many of their products have recycling codes printed on them to help recycling centres sort them.
The original Tupperware brand also ensures that the plastic used in their products is BPA free. BPA (Bisphenol A) is an industrial chemical that is used to harden plastics. Although invaluable to the plastics industry, BPA is banned in several countries because research has shown that the chemical can seep into food or liquids that are stored in plastic containers, with disastrous consequences. It is believed that BPA can affect brain development, children's behaviour, and decrease fertility. Research also suggests that there is a link between BPA and cancer. Whilst it's great that the Tupperware brand is BPA-free, many other plastic Tupperware manufacturers haven’t followed suit, which means that your plastic salad box is not only bad for the environment but potentially damaging to your health too.
With so much controversy around plastic, it’s no wonder that people have been looking for sustainable Tupperware alternatives. Glass is one such option, which we will investigate below.
Although glass Tupperware is heavier and easier to break, overall it is the better choice. By using glass Tupperware, you can be certain that your food will not be contaminated by harmful chemicals. Glass is natural, sustainable, and recyclable. It is also more sanitary as it can withstand heat easier than plastic, meaning that it is easier to clean. Another recent innovation in the world of food storage includes beeswax wraps. These serve as an alternative to plastic cling film and can keep food fresh for days, making it the ideal thing to wrap your glass Tupperware in if you lose the lid!
Glass is a non-porous material, which means that nothing, including bacteria, can get through it. This helps to keep food fresher for longer and, as food particles will not get trapped within the material, your food will taste better! It will not taste like plastic, or worse, taste like the food that was stored in the container previously! You won't get that horrible staining that occurs after one use with plastic containers either.
Photo by Ella Olsson on Unsplash
It is very difficult to say what the safest food storage container is. Yet, in terms of environmental and health factors, it is safe to say that the best storage container will be a glass one! Well-known brands Pyrex and Glasslock are amongst the many brands that offer quality glass Tupperware products, but you can store food in an air-tight glass jar (as seen above) for a quick and cheap way to store, and transport, your lunch!
So, the next time that you're out and about shopping for Tupperware, think glass! Have you found a glass Tupperware brand that you particularly like, or found an even better, eco-friendly way to store your veggies? Let us know in the comments below!
]]>It’s no secret that humans are responsible for the extreme effects of climate change that we see today. Around all of us, tragedies are unfolding on a global scale. Our pursuits have decimated countless species and ecosystems, and all the while we extract finite resources at an insatiable rate.
This process has aptly been named the “Anthropocene Extinction” – because we are the ones who caused it (and continue to cause it). As a consequence of our actions, life on Earth is disappearing at a thousand times its usual rate. But this is exactly the reason why we have the ability to reverse the damage. And if not reverse it, then at least repair it.
There are many ongoing projects using this as their motivation. From reforestation to renewable energy, conservation initiatives continue to expand and diversify. With this in mind, if our attempts at helping the Earth outnumber the processes that damage it, surely we may hope for ecological and environmental restoration.
When looking toward a sustainable future, one which prioritizes harmony between humans and the Earth, rewilding stands out as a promising path to get there. Rewilding is one of the lesser-known practices among restoration efforts, but it is a promising area that embodies the balance our world needs. Read on to learn more about this process and what it means for the planet in the future.
The meaning of rewilding can be confusing at first, so we’ll try to break it down. The True Nature Foundation defines rewilding as a “strategy aimed at restoring natural processes and wilderness areas,” one which has the “significant potential to increase biodiversity, create self-sustainable environments and mitigate climate change.”
The important parts of this definition are: 1) the restoration of nature’s ecosystems and biodiversity to original or pre-human patterns, and 2) the self-sustainable and unregulated quality of the whole process.
Essentially then, rewilding is a vital activity nestled between the realms of environmental conservation and ecological restoration. It is an effort to remake habitats and the species that live in them to be as though humans had never interfered at all. This often occurs by erasing humans’ presence or by reintroducing species in a certain area, and sometimes even a combination of both. An example of this on a small scale would be the destruction of dams in rivers to allow beaver populations to resume living without man-made obstructions – an alternative approach would be to bring in beavers to an area where they once were, but are since extinct.
However, rewilding does come with some specific components that make it such a unique approach to conservation. One of these is the importance placed on reintroducing trophic hierarchies in regional habitats (trophic levels refer to the predator/prey dynamic of the food chain in nature, where large carnivores eat smaller carnivores, which eat smaller herbivores and so on).
Emerging studies show that these long-established interactions between species in the wild are actually integral to the health of an ecosystem as a whole. In particular, keystone species such as large carnivores are especially important to restoring the functions of a depleted ecosystem. Keystone species typically have major impacts on their ecosystem and help regulate the processes within it. An example of such a species is the wolf, which maintains a healthy habitat through the predation of smaller animals, thereby allowing diverse forms of life to thrive. With this concept as a foundation, most rewilding projects can be classified as trophic rewilding and follow the principles of the trophic hierarchy.
Trophic Cascade by Ccarroll17 via Wikimedia Commons
Another crucial aspect of rewilding is the 3 Cs: the preservation of Cores, Corridors, and Carnivores. These refer to the creation of, and reliance on, core habitats for critical species, corridors that connect the cores to allow for wildlife migrations, and again a focus on large carnivores as keystone species.
The 3 Cs are a fundamental concern for most rewilding projects because they aid in strengthening wilderness areas that have been damaged by human interference. They remain consistent with longstanding patterns in nature and provide a large-scale and self-functioning system, following the frameworks of environmental protection and ecological restoration.
Although the majority of rewilding efforts are categorized as trophic rewilding, there are further distinctions that signify important subcategories. These are Passive, Pleistocene, and Translocation rewilding.
Passive Rewilding is a fairly straightforward branch of ecology, with a focus on completely removing any human presence from an ecosystem. Rather than attempting to manipulate the area to resemble a previous state, passive rewilding lets nature take over and establish itself in an environment. Control and influence over the land is redistributed and given back to the Earth by humans.
Pleistocene Rewilding is a rewilding strategy that travels back in time. The Pleistocene Era, commonly known as the Ice Age, was over 12,000 years ago. An extinction event at the end of the era (likely caused by natural climate change and human overhunting) resulted in many species dying out, especially megafauna; megafauna refers to larger animal species that typically have a great influence in their ecosystem, and can be found on every continent.
Proponents of this type of rewilding focus on reintroducing megafauna species or descendants of those species that existed in an ecosystem thousands of years ago, rather than species that have been there more recently. They believe that the rapid extinction left many ecosystems vulnerable and that bringing historic species may resolve this. As a result, the outcomes and results of Pleistocene rewilding are less predictable.
Translocation Rewilding relies on introducing current and more modern species to ecosystems, unlike Pleistocene rewilding. Supporters of translocation prefer to bring in species that disappeared recently rather than long-lost ancestor species. Under translocation, there are two further divisions: reintroductions and reinforcements.
There are a myriad of benefits that occur from rewilding projects. These include increasing biodiversity in ecosystems, mitigating the effects and causes of climate change, and creating more sustainable wilderness areas.
Rewilding can improve biodiversity through many processes. As discussed earlier with the wolf example, reintroducing apex predators to a depleted ecosystem allows life forms to thrive overall. Looking at wolves specifically, their elevated numbers through rewilding meant that more large herbivores, like deer, were hunted. With less deer, grasses and plants are able to grow more, leading to healthier populations that feed on plants. Though deer numbers went down in total, the diversity and density of species in the area increased.
Likewise, large carnivores that were historically dominant in an area can help reduce invasive species numbers in vulnerable ecosystems. Oftentimes, invasive species are able to take hold because another local species has gone extinct or been weakened. They fill the gap left by another predator or successful species. So, when past species are reintroduced, they may reduce the invasive species’ numbers through hunting or resource competition.
Rewilding can also have an effect on global warming and climate change. It is already understood that healthy biodiversity is a sign of a healthy ecosystem, but key species can actually combat and reverse some of the consequences of climate change. In the Arctic, for example, major herbivores like reindeer and caribou maintain the cold temperatures of the northern reaches. As global temperatures increase and Arctic ice melts, sun-loving plants spread – but these are a favorite snack of the herbivores, which keep them at bay by feeding on them.
This also helps keep woodlands back which is essential for the functioning of the ecosystem, because the ice helps reflect sunlight back into the atmosphere and keeps the temperatures low (called the Albedo effect). On the other hand, more light and energy would be trapped and propel the warming effect if plant coverage expanded.
Therefore, rewilding has many positive effects on the environment and the general health of the planet. It assists biodiversity and reduces the consequences of climate change, which in turn is a benefit for us. With stronger wilderness areas, we will be able to experience more vibrant and balanced places in nature. Knowing the past, we will be able to avoid previous mistakes and learn to let go of the need to control “the wild.” Most importantly, rewilding raises self-sustaining ecosystems which we may be able to enjoy without the fear of them disappearing in the future.
This is relevant to the popular phrase “rewilding yourself,” which is all about restoring the natural functions of human life and getting rid of artificial ones. With species rewilding, wilderness areas will bloom, but we can also rewild ourselves to make our lives align more with natural cycles. These processes involve resetting our internal and external functions to follow nature’s intended path. Common examples are following the sleeping and waking patterns based on the sun (called the Circadian rhythm) and spending more time being active. Though these are harder to accomplish in our ever-modernizing society, these actions are shown to improve general mood and health.
One of the most famous rewilding examples comes from Isabella Tree’s book – Wilding: The Return of Nature to a British Farm. Tree details one of the earliest rewilding projects in England, where she and her husband decided to convert their large estate of about 3,500 acres into a rewilding zone. In a blend of passive and Pleistocene rewilding, the British couple turned their agriculture farm into a paradise for wildlife. Not only did commonly-seen plants that had recently decreased in numbers return, but also rarer plant species. And endangered animals found the farm a safe-haven as well, with bats, falcons, nightingales, and turtle doves all making striking appearances. By starting with the introduction of influential megafauna, Tree was able to use rewilding to promote a lively ecosystem.
The front cover of Isabella Tree's book 'Wilding', published by Pan Macmillan, 2018.
Aside from rewilding in Britain and in the UK, there are many promising projects going on in Europe. One of these is happening in the Danube Delta in Ukraine, Moldova, and Romania. As “Europe’s largest wetland area,” the Danube Delta is a critical ecosystem for environmentalists. With the delta, ecologists have attempted to renew the old network of natural landmarks, such as rivers and lakes, to help the populations of native species. They have also reintroduced important species to make the area profitable for both the ecology and economy. Feel free to explore Rewilding Europe to learn more about their ongoing projects.
As of yet, there have not been enough studies or trials to see the long-term effects of rewilding. Much of what has been done has been positive, so there is a great deal of hope given to rewilding initiatives. However, because it is a relatively new and less-tested approach, critics are wary of its unintended consequences. With Pleistocene rewilding, where descendants of historical species are newly-introduced, there is a possibility that something could go wrong. Either they will dominate and subdue other populations, become an invasive species, or have no effect at all and die out. Yet, there is also the chance that it could work out, and the ecosystem could prosper as a result. Until there are more tests and experiments, it will be impossible to definitively say if rewilding is an entirely good thing.
A significant result of Covid-19 is the return of wild animals to urban areas. A New York Times article’s headline proclaims "Animals Are Rewilding Our Cities" and describes how across the world, wildlife is being spotted in places where they have rarely been seen. Another article from The Guardian is titled "Nature is Taking Back Venice". From dolphins swimming in clear Venitian canals to deer roaming the streets of Japan, it is clear that Covid-19 is not all bad.
In fact, the pandemic has been nicknamed the "anthro-pause" because human activities have slowed down. And as a result, our pollutive tendencies have also decreased. The lack of humans in the wilderness has permitted passive rewilding to progress and, in cities, it has unintentionally created urban green spaces where local flora and fauna have returned.
Rewilding during the pandemic is also relevant to the important concept of urban green spaces. The World Health Organization defines these as necessary aspects of “green infrastructure,” which is the term for innovations that mix nature with urban landscapes to create mutually beneficial solutions for the problems of rapid urbanization. Green spaces are oftentimes zones in which organic material is more abundant than non-organic. An example could be a park in a city, like Central Park in New York City.
The pandemic has allowed these areas to flourish, as once human-occupied spaces have been relinquished to wildlife.
With the sightings of deer and dolphins in cities during the pandemic, it becomes easier to see that we occupy land that at one point was the home for millions of species. We have built and transformed once green and wild landscapes into tame ones. Seeing the results of Covid-19 on local populations, it becomes imperative that we incorporate green spaces into our cities.
Though the verdict on rewilding is still unclear, the current projects have revealed hopeful results. We should aim to incorporate rewilding more into ecological restoration and environmental conservation, and also focus on seeing more green spaces near us and in urban areas. These concepts are intertwined, and for the health of our own species and others, we must help renew the Earth’s health and vitality. ]]>As Purple Turtle is powered by our community, my role in the organisation is solely to facilitate projects, ensure our core values are maintained in everything we do, and to lead the direction of the organisation. All the amazing work we do, including content creation, product design and research, all comes from the hard work and dedication of our community.
Knowledge is key. Without education, it is near impossible to change behaviours. So education through content creation is our most powerful tool in creating real change in society. Our content is currently all delivered digitally through our social media channels and website, as with the current global pandemic, people rely so heavily on getting their news and information from digital platforms.
Once we start to get back to some normality, the aim is to start investing more of our time and resources into events and local community projects, providing people with the tools to set up and run projects in their local communities. [These will include] things such as educational talks, local beach clean up events and working with local authorities to launch new projects.
Attracting other organisations to work with us is also a big part of our future plans, as without collaboration with businesses, we won’t be able to work together on the same path to solutions. Ultimately though, our goal is to help open people’s eyes to the issues, and provide them with easy to implement lifestyle changes. If we can even just reach one new person a day and influence a positive change in their day to day lives, that would be a job well done for our team.
I think as a team we are all very impressed with what Precious Plastic are doing. They very much fall into the ‘Provide the Tools’ part of our strategy. They are giving people the platform and tools to create sustainable businesses and reduce plastic waste through product manufacturing. If we could maybe partner with them in some way in the future that would be awesome. If you haven't checked them out already, please do so.
There are so many things I could list, but the list would go on forever. The key is to find small changes over time that you can implement into your daily lives. Trying to change a million things at once can be quite overwhelming. The easiest way to start is to critically question everything you buy and throw away on a daily basis. Ask yourself, is there a more sustainable option? Do I really need this? Could I repurpose this?
The other thing you can do which will have a real impact is simply just having a conversation about sustainability and living a sustainable lifestyle with friends and family. The more conversations and interactions we have with people, the more chance we have of people taking something from the conversation and making a change in their day to day life.
This is a classic example of game theory. All people need to do is be responsible for their own actions. Don’t think about what other people are doing because there will always be people out there who make bad decisions in life. If we focus on what we are doing as an individual, and help spread positive information where we can, that will be a huge impact.
Taking a forceful approach to someone who is behaving unsustainably never gets perceived well and does not work in my opinion. For example, if you see someone throwing litter on the floor, instead of shouting at them or giving them a dirty look, try simply picking it up in clear view of them, say nothing, and make them realise by themselves that they are in the wrong. Social conformity works best when individuals come to the conclusion by themselves; being told what to do tends to have less impact.
I think our biggest achievement is the amazing team we have managed to build. We have some really inspiring people in our community including content writers, product designers, mechanical engineers, researchers and general support experts. Without the community contributing to our platform we wouldn’t be where we are, or where we are heading.
Sunscreen is an everyday essential in all our bathroom cupboards. Whenever you hit the beach, or actually follow the advice of health experts by wearing SPF when you head outside, sunscreen is the first thing on your checklist. But, did you know that your sunscreen poses a threat to the environment? In fact, according to International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) scientists, pollution, caused by personal care products such as sunscreen, is amongst the main contributing factors to ocean acidity and marine ecosystem destruction worldwide. Who knew that having a fun day at the beach could have such disastrous consequences for the environment...
Many of the ingredients in sunscreen pose an environmental hazard, such as parabens and preservatives, but it’s the harmful chemicals in sunscreen that can wreak havoc on delicate underwater ecosystems. These include homosalate, octocrylene, avobenzone and octisalate; however, the most polluting and toxic chemicals to marine life are oxybenzone and octinoxate. That’s because these chemicals contain nanoparticles — tiny particles that, when they enter the ocean, are ingested and absorbed by a whole host of sea life.
These chemicals pose such a risk to marine environments that, in 2018, Hawaii passed a bill to ban the sale of sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate. Countries such as Palau and the Caribbean islands of Aruba and Bonaire have also imposed nationwide bans on products containing such chemicals. But, why exactly are these sunscreen chemicals so bad?
The sunscreen we use rarely stays on our skin. When you lather yourself in sunscreen and take a dip in the sea, you’re inadvertently causing swimmer pollution through sunscreen wash-off. If you prefer to sunbathe, sunscreen can still cause a big problem — especially if you use an aerosol sunscreen — as it coats sand particles, which then wash into the ocean as the tide comes in. And the bad news doesn’t end there: sunscreen can find its way into oceans via sewage systems and waterways. This means that when you hop in the shower at the end of a long day after getting your daily dose of vitamin D on the mainland, you’re more than likely contributing to marine sunscreen pollution.
As a result, 14,000 tons of sunscreen enters the oceans every year, containing chemicals that pollute water. And this pollution affects marine life in several ways. Sunscreen pollution has been found to decrease fertility and increase the prevalence of disease in fish, which is detrimental to the population of already-dwindling species, impair photosynthesis in green algae, and damage the immune and reproductive systems of sea urchins. Sunscreen pollution can also alter the neurological behaviour of marine life, which threatens the survival of endangered species, such as the sea turtle.
Sadly, yes. Coral reefs are extremely sensitive, which means that any changes in their surroundings, such as chemical concentration fluctuations caused by sunscreen pollution, can be fatal. A study has found that a concentration as small as 62 parts per trillion — equivalent to a single drop of water in 6.5 Olympic-sized swimming pools — of oxybenzone is enough to cause an existential threat to corals. But, what does this damage actually look like?
One of the main effects on coral reefs, caused by harmful chemicals in sunscreen, is bleaching. Bleaching is the process by which corals lose their vibrant colour, a product of microscopic algae called zooxanthellae. When met with a chemical that throws the reef’s balance out of whack, coral becomes stressed and expels the algae from its system. Zooxanthellae is crucial to the coral’s survival, meaning that a bleached coral is a sign of an unhealthy, dying coral reef system.
Image courtesy of NOAA: National Ocean Service via Wikimedia Commons
Sunscreen chemicals have also been found to permanently damage coral DNA, and hinder the growth and development of juvenile coral. This leaves a struggling and reduced coral population, unable to reproduce and replace bleached corals with healthy, new ones. It’s no wonder then that, although corals have existed for over 400 million years, due to human activity, over 50% of the world's reefs have been destroyed in the last 30 years.
This has disastrous consequences not only for coral reef systems but for entire marine ecosystems. Coral reefs support life for 25% of known marine species, including seahorses, turtles and fish, such as the commercially-important lobster and snapper. However, reef systems are found in just 1% of oceans. Therefore, the health of coral reefs is not only paramount to marine ecosystems but the food security of over one billion people worldwide.
If we carry on the way we are, by contributing to the pollution and warming of our oceans, scientists estimate that we will lose up to 90% of our coral reefs in the next 20 years. This is something that we cannot allow to happen.
So, what are the solutions to the problem and what can we do? Thankfully, you don’t need to sacrifice your skin for the sake of the planet. You can keep your skin healthy and happy with environmentally-friendly sunscreen. Eco-conscious sun-lovers rejoice!
Although not as prevalent as other eco-friendly essentials, such as plastic-free toothbrushes, there are a few ways to spot sunscreen that’s good for you and the planet. Look out for sunscreens that are mineral-only rather than chemical-based. These tend to be easy to spot as non-nano titanium dioxide or zinc oxide will be listed as their main active ingredient, in place of oxybenzone. These don’t contain any pesky chemical nanoparticles, which means that they can’t be absorbed by the ocean’s reefs and marine life. Cream sunscreen formulas are also preferable to aerosols, as there is less opportunity for the product to contaminate the landscape.
You can check if a sunscreen is environmentally-friendly via Haereticus Environmental Laboratory’s website or by looking out for products that are Protect Land + Sea Certified. A ‘Marine Safe’ icon (or equivalent sign of certification in the country of manufacture) on sunscreen packaging also assures you that you’re buying coral reef-safe sunscreen.
Some well-known brands offering coral reef-safe sunscreen include Badger, NIVEA and Alba Botanica. You can discover more eco-friendly sunscreen brands with this guide from Ban Toxic Sunscreen here. As well as being good for marine life, many mineral sunscreens are animal-friendly too (not tested on animals, are vegan, etc.) — it’s a win-win for the environment!
Buy reef-safe sunscreen to help prevent coral bleaching. Image by Vardhan Patankar via Wikipedia Commons
Just like with chemical-based sunscreens, not every sunscreen offers the best protection for your skin. That’s why, when choosing a coral reef-safe sunscreen, there are a few things to keep in mind to ensure that it’s also a safe sunscreen. First, check for a high sun protection factor (SPF). The higher the SPF, the more protection you have against harmful ultraviolet radiation. Look out for the phrase ‘broad spectrum’ on the packaging too. This means that your sunscreen blocks out both UVA and UVB rays, which can cause skin cancer, and offers a high level of protection. It’s also good to look for water-resistant sunscreens, as these can be more efficient at protecting your skin from sun overexposure when you’re enjoying a dip in the ocean.
When trying any new healthcare product, make sure you do your research. Some companies claim to produce ‘marine-safe’ or ‘reef-safe’ products, however, as the use of such terms isn’t regulated, these claims may be false. Make sure that you buy from reputable brands, check that they’re certified and that any claims they make can be backed up with research or scientific evidence — for your sake, and the coral reefs’.
Also, remember that sunscreen shouldn’t be your only defence against the sun. Keep to the shade when the sun’s at its hottest and cover up as much as possible to prevent your skin from sizzling in the heat. And, don’t forget to apply your eco-friendly sunscreen regularly!
Photo by Rachel Claire from Pexels
Have you found a sunscreen that’s environmentally-friendly that you love? Let the Purple Turtle community know in the comments below so that we can all start enjoying the sunshine, without destroying our oceans.
]]>Greenwashing (also called “green sheen”) occurs when a company or an organisation deliberately and deceitfully sets out to mislead customers into thinking that their brand is environmentally-friendly. Greenwashing is a marketing spin whereby companies lie about the “green” impact that their product is having on the environment to maximise profitability. Some companies even take this a step further and “greenscam”; they give their products (and even sometimes their brands) environmentally-friendly sounding names to gain the support of the public.
Nowadays, it’s certain that you will come across buzzwords such as “sustainable”, “eco-friendly” or “green” when out doing your weekly shop. Many companies will strive to show you how environmentally-friendly they are by using these buzzwords to market their products. They will additionally go to great lengths to produce advertisements and campaigns which intend to resonate with eco-conscious buyers. Although some are genuine, the sad truth is that many companies are willingly spending more money on convincing you that they’re green than actually being green.
The incentive to why a company would greenwash or greenscam is clear: among millennials, approximately 73% would choose to spend more on a product if it had been made sustainably. Despite seeming a relatively contemporary issue, greenwashing is by no means a new practice. The term was coined in 1986 by the American environmentalist Jay Westervelt when he noticed signs in a hotel asking guests to reuse their towels in order to “save the environment”.
Upon further investigation, Westervelt saw that the hotel was not actually taking any action to be sustainable. Thus, he concluded that the hotel’s real intention was to save money by cutting water costs. The hotel tried to disguise this by encouraging guests to partake in eco-friendly behaviour when they had no interest in saving the environment whatsoever. Even today, many hostels and hotels around the world are using the same technique. The use of greenwashing has increased over the last decade thanks to rising consumer demand for environmentally-friendly goods and services.
In early 2020, the airline Ryanair was accused of greenwashing because they used data from 2011 in an advert to claim that they were “Europe’s lowest emission airline”. The UK Advertising Standards Agency (ASA), which regulates adverts across the media, deemed the advert to be misleading, and Ryanair was ordered to stop using the advert.
But greenwashing doesn’t just happen in the airline industry. Greenwashing frequently occurs in the food industry too. For example, despite using recyclable packaging, banning plastic cutlery and switching plastic straws for paper ones, McDonald's is a huge enabler of factory farming, which pollutes the environment from methane emissions. Although small changes do make a big difference, McDonald’s still has a long way to go before it can claim to be a sustainable company.
Another well-documented example of greenwashing took place at the UN Climate Conference in 2009. Several well-known brands took advantage of this event to present themselves in an environmentally conscious manner. For example, BMW sent hydrogen-powered cars to the conference. Yet, after the conference, the deployment of these cars was stopped. The cars were just for show.
In 2015, the German car manufacturer Volkswagen fitted their cars with software deliberately designed to give false readings in emission tests. They then ran an advert campaign stating that their cars were clean and low in air pollution. The scandal was uncovered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and dubbed the “diesel dupe” by the media. Although Volkswagen negated responsibility, the CEO resigned five days after the scandal was made public. Over 11 million cars fitted with the software were sold worldwide. It is sickening to imagine how many good-willed customers made their choice based on Volkswagen’s lies.
BMW did not learn from this lesson. In 2017, BMW had a Facebook advert for its i3 electric car banned. BMW claimed that the car would produce “zero emissions” and that customers would be “giv[ing] back” to the environment by purchasing the car. The advert was deemed to be legally misleading and BMW was forced to redo the advert.
Photo by Ashkan Forouzani on Unsplash
No, not at all. Greenwashing is highly unethical. When greenwashing is successful, environmentally-conscious customers ironically end up harming the environment due to their financial support of an unsustainable organisation. Customers are downright lied to and taken advantage of.
Greenwashing is a social problem. As well as taking advantage of consumers, it can also prevent well-meaning and honest companies from genuinely promoting their sustainable practices through fear of being accused of greenwashing. Furthermore, greenwashing can generate confusion and scepticism towards products that promote green credentials, including those which really are environmentally-friendly. Greenwashing can lead to many customers losing trust in genuine companies, while other consumers end up being discouraged and stop making an effort to go green altogether.
As we have seen, just because a product has been labelled as “green”, it doesn’t mean that it actually is. Fortunately, there are many ways to find out whether a company is greenwashing. First, you can always do some of your own online research. For example, check out Ecolabel Index, a website which tracks almost 500 ecolabels across 200 countries. If a company is listed on this website, you can be sure that the company is genuine.
You can also search on a company’s website for tell-tale signs of greenwashing. When researching brands online, look out for over the top environmental graphics and scientific jargon. These are real giveaways. Additionally, look out for numbers, not words! We now know that words can be misleading. Take the time to research data, such as the percentage of products made with sustainable materials, or what quantifiable goals the organisation has made public.
Also, find out about the company’s goals and values. If they aren’t clear, or very little information is given, then it is likely that the company is greenwashing. A company should be fully transparent in its marketing and impact on sustainability — if it’s not, it’s time to shop elsewhere!
]]>At its core, passive design reduces a building’s energy demand. It is a chief component of sustainable design, and, as its popularity increases, an important tool in the battle against climate change as a whole.
Passive design reduces energy consumption by using layout, fabric, and form to harness (or temper) external environmental conditions for the purpose of controlling internal conditions. A passive design strategy can therefore offset the need for mechanical cooling, heating and ventilation, and reduce lighting demand.
In a standard house, 40% of the energy used is for heating and cooling - varying drastically depending on the environment. In a passive house, this figure can be cut to almost zero.
Passive design is most effective when integrated into the original plan and - in the context of a passive house - understood and properly utilised by those who live there. It is therefore paramount that ordinary people, not just architects, take an active role in sustainable architecture. We are, after all, collectively responsible for the future of our planet.
Passive design principles are rooted in a commitment to the external, local environment as a source of interior temperature comfort, health, and reduced energy consumption.
Passive design may be incorporated into the overall structure of a sustainable building. This is achieved through different techniques that utilise free, renewable energy sources (e.g. sun, wind).
Passive design considers the location, site orientation, ventilation, and layout of a building, whilst introducing insulation, thermal mass (the ability of a building to store heat and reduce temperature fluctuations), shading, and glazing (if necessary).
All these elements must be considered holistically. Large windows, for example, let in a good amount of light but simultaneously cause a space to heat up much quicker (or lose heat quicker, depending on the climate).
Shutters, for example, could be left open to allow the morning sun to enter the building and closed to avoid overheating as it warms up throughout the day. Or Cross Ventilation, enabled by a room with openings (doors or windows) on two different sides, can allow a continuous air flow.
Diagram by Pascal Billery-Schneider via Wikimedia Commons
Perhaps the most important component of a passive design strategy, solar passive design refers to the heating and cooling of a building using the sun’s energy.
There are five key elements of solar passive design:
Photo by Myles Jeffries on Flickr
Active energy is the process of transforming energy, through electric receivers, into mechanical systems such as boilers, chillers, and electrical lighting - it can be powered by either a renewable or non-renewable source. In relation to solar energy, passive design will aim to optimise the use of heat or light directly from the sun using passive design materials, placement, and design. In contrast, active design will immediately convert this energy, through photovoltaic solar panels, into the aforementioned systems.
Passive design techniques aim to reduce a building’s energy demand.
Passive house design helps to store and conserve energy within the internal environment. In fact, the passive house standard requires a leakage test - avoiding energy loss, mould, and moisture build-up.
Windows, for example, can be responsible for the loss of up to 40% of a home’s heating energy, and 87% of heating gain. Passive design would aim to improve a window’s thermal performance - i.e. double (or even triple) glazing with specialist coatings - and consequently reduce energy consumption, costs, and any potential greenhouse gas emissions from radiators or air conditioners.
Passive solar design is especially important to any eco-friendly house. BRANZ, an organisation that conducts independent research on building processes in New Zealand, discovered that a house which has incorporated passive solar design requires three times less energy to maintain a suitable indoor environment than one which hasn’t. Inexplicably, the houses BRANZ compared were all similarly priced, suggesting financial sense needn’t come at the expense of eco-consciousness.
The immediate goal of passive sustainable design is to help create a sustainable home - or indeed a larger sustainable building - that maintains an optimum indoor climate all year round. A building with no cold drafts, a constant temperature in every room, and above all, a structure that facilitates lower carbon emissions and energy conservation.
Though a passive design strategy should, at the outset, be considered in a building’s overall design, it is never too late to introduce passive design principles into any home, regardless of existing characteristics. Better insulation, creative planting methods, deciduous trees, sensitive room layout, or even just a new set of blinds, could all go some way to reducing energy consumption in the average household.
But passive design cannot bear the burden of all our basic, modern living requirements. On a rudimentary level, we still need active energy for hot water, lighting, and cooking. The hope is that, at the very least, our active energy input should come from a sustainable source.
In isolation from other sustainable house features, the ultimate goal of passive design is to eliminate all active energy demand on the heating and cooling of a space.
For sustainable architecture as a whole, the ultimate goal would be to achieve an autonomous house. A house that could remain entirely self-sufficient and sustainable. It would maximise the efficacy of all passive elements whilst relying on its own renewable energy generators for active energy. In its fullest and most extreme form, the autonomous house would remain entirely off-grid, even pumping potable water from a private well.
]]>A plastic resin code, or ‘Resin Identification Code’, shows the consumer which type of plastic resin was used to make the chosen product, whether that be a plastic bottle, container or jug. The resin is usually defined between 1-7, and the relevant number will appear in the centre of the arrows on the label that is placed on the product.
Within the UK, #1 and #2 can usually be recycled. However, resin code #3 is not typically collected from households and is in decline. With the introduction of the plastic bag tax, resin code #4 now means that plastic bags can be given back to supermarkets for reuse. Finally, resin code #5 and #6 are usually now recycled whereas resin #7 is usually not.