Author Archives: David Evans

“Our government has a duty to set, and enforce, ground rules that protect public health and safety. We are the referees, we are here to prevent big corporations and the powerful industries from harming our communities or running over the rights of citizens. When it comes to fracking, Pennsylvania failed.”

Gov.-elect Josh Shapiro made that statement in 2020 as attorney general in response to the findings of the 43rd statewide grand jury commissioned by his office. The two-year investigation exposed systemic failures by state agencies to protect Pennsylvanians living in close proximity to fracking operations and an absence of effective regulation and oversight of the industry.

Now, Shapiro prepares to take office as governor in the wake of one of the largest methane leaks in U.S. history in Cambria County, as Shell’s cracker plant begins producing plastics from fracked ethane and while residents in rural Greene County are still without safe drinking water after a ‘frack-out’ impacted the local aquifer. 

On the campaign trail, Shapiro pledged support for a set of more stringent regulations recommended by the grand jury for Pennsylvania’s hydraulic fracturing industry. And in one of his closing acts as attorney general, he announced a plea agreement with the fracking corporation Coterra, addressing fracking’s impact on the water in the Susquehanna County town of Dimock.

The midterm election pitted the Democrat Shapiro against Doug Mastriano, a Republican state senator who pushed for deregulation of the state fossil fuel industry and called for more lands to be opened for fracking and drilling.

With the election in the past, it remains to be seen how Shapiro will govern, what obstacles he will face and to what extent his vision for natural gas regulation will be seriously pursued or successfully implemented.

A record to run on

As the commonwealth’s chief prosecutor, Shapiro took actions that he said would hold fracking companies accountable.

The world now has eight billion people, according to the United Nations. The milestone, reached late this year, comes at a time when climate change is increasingly disrupting life on Earth as we know it. Wildfires and droughts continue to rage in the American West. Floods are destroying towns. Heatwaves are making summers deadly. And the greenhouse gas emissions that worsen these disasters are increasing. Hope, however, is not lost for all eight billion of us.Scientists are creating new ways for us to coexist with nature, from hacking the genome of plants to creating marine reserves that protect people and the planet. Politically, the environment also won some major victories this year. Here are six environmental wins from 2022. 1. Global climate deal addresses a longtime injusticeSome of the countries most affected by climate change have done the least to cause it. That’s why world leaders at a global climate conference—COP27—this past November agreed to a financing system that would help developing nations access financial assistance to adapt to and recover from climate change. The deal is being hailed as historic recognition of a growing global climate injustice. Countries seeking restitution have seen their claims bolstered by what’s called “attribution science”—the science of linking individual storms, heatwaves, and other weather disasters to global climatic changes. For example, when Pakistan was hit by deadly, catastrophic floods this summer, research showed the floods were worsened by climate change. Even though Pakistan contributed less than one percent of the world’s carbon emissions that propelled the disaster, the country was on the hook for billions in damages.2. Protecting nature has surprising benefits for us  Marine protected areas are stretches of ocean that limit human activity to protect animal and plant species. Scientists say these reserves are important for limiting the rapid rate of extinction happening as a result of climate change and human activities like drilling, mining, and shipping.The world’s largest marine reserve, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in Hawai’i, has shown it not only protects marine life in the park’s boundaries, but also helps the marine life living outside its borders flourish. And, as an added bonus, it helps us, too.A study on the reserve published this October found that boats fishing for lucrative tuna species outside of the park’s boundaries have been catching more tuna since the park was created. Scientists think these catch rates are a result of the “spillover effect” of marine reserves—meaning when fish populations in the park flourish, they “spill over” into nearby areas. Evidence that protected areas like these can benefit both people and nature shows that more sustainable ways of doing business are possible. 3. U.S. makes historic investment in fighting climate change In the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was a political win for the planet. Signed into law in August, the IRA invested $369 billion in clean energy projects and incentives for energy-efficient technology such as electric vehicles. “This is the most consequential piece of U.S. legislation for the climate ever,” Richard Newell, chief executive of Resources for the Future, a nonprofit energy research organization, told National Geographic writer Craig Welch at the time.Scientific analysis of the bill showed it could help the U.S. more quickly transition to renewable energy. By the end of the decade, 81 percent of the country’s energy could come from sources such as wind and solar power. The bill also quietly introduced the nation’s first-ever fee on a greenhouse gas—methane, a more potent source of planet-warming pollution than carbon dioxide. 4. Hacking into the technological power of plants As humans pump more carbon dioxide pollution into the atmosphere, plants—from prairie grasses to rainforest trees—play an essential role in removing that carbon from the air and storing it underground. Using CRISPR gene editing technology, scientists are embarking on an $11 million research project to try to hack photosynthesis to suck carbon out of the air more efficiently. A man works to grow baby leafy greens on a reusable substrate made from recycled plastic bottles. Vertical farms like these are an innovative way food producers are experimenting with growing more fresh food for a growing population. Photograph by Luca Locatelli, Nat Geo Image CollectionPlease be respectful of copyright. Unauthorized use is prohibited.In addition to carbon storage, scientists are also changing how plants are grown for food. Living on an increasingly populous planet means we’ll need new ways to feed more people nutritious food grown on even less space. To do so, scientists are making strides in food innovation that rival science fiction. Research published in June showed it was possible to grow some edible plants—including algae, edible yeast, and mushrooms—without photosynthesis. This promising first step to growing food in the dark could be useful for astronauts traveling through space or as an insight into how to make crops grow more efficiently on Earth. Scientists are also constructing experimental greenhouses at the bottom of the sea to conserve water and energy. Photographer Luca Locatelli’s recently published photographs show an underwater farm in Italy. 5. Cracking down on plastic  Plastic is everywhere—in our water, air, and even our blood. That’s why governments, internationally and at the local level, are trying to curb the amount of plastic flowing into the environment. In March, 175 United Nations delegates agreed to negotiate a global treaty by 2024 that would curb the flow of plastics. The treaty would legally require countries to clean up their plastic pollution, a framework that is stricter than the voluntary emissions reductions countries make under the Paris Climate Agreement. And in June, California passed a game-changing plastics law that aims to reduce the amount of plastic in single-use products by a quarter over the next 10 years. Restricting production, instead of improving recyclability, is a significant shift in how governments tackle plastic pollution.6. Finding ways to protect—and restore—nature In the tropical coral reefs of Hawai’i, nature is finding a way to adapt to climate change. Two commonly found species of coral may be able to successfully live in warmer ocean temperatures, according to research published in March. This adaptation offers some hope that reefs, which experience massive die-offs during heatwaves, may survive rising temperatures.  Meanwhile, humans are giving nature a large helping hand through the rewilding movement. Rewilding is loosely defined as the process of bringing back lost plant and animal species. Scotland, which is committed to becoming the world’s first “rewilded nation,” is bringing back to life forests that have been lost for centuries. In California and Louisiana, nature is being allowed to correct its own course. A federal energy agency recently approved a plan to demolish four dams along California’s lower Klamath River to restore critical salmon habitats. Along the Gulf Coast, Louisiana took a major step toward its plan to alter the flow of the Mississippi River delta and divert river sediment downstream—a last-ditch effort to restore the state’s disappearing shoreline.On our radar for 2023—new regulations for drinking water.The Environmental Protection Agency has until the end of the year to propose a new drinking water rule to address chemicals called PFAS. Short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS is technically a class of chemicals that includes as many as 9,000 different iterations of the substance. They are in everyday household items: raincoats, carpet, curtains, non-stick pans. But studies show most of us have it in our blood, too—and we’re only just starting to learn about the long-term health consequences. The EPA rule would regulate two types of PFAS called PFOS and PFOA.A drinking water standard would be a major step toward regulating PFAS in our tap water and an environmental win for next year.

This week in Uruguay, scientists, environmentalists, and government representatives—and, of course, lobbyists—are gathering to begin negotiations on a United Nations treaty on plastics. It’s only the start of talks, so we don’t know how they will shape up, but some of the bargaining chips on the table include production limits and phasing out particularly troublesome chemical components. A draft resolution released in March set the tone, acknowledging that “high and rapidly increasing levels of plastic pollution represent a serious environmental problem at a global scale, negatively impacting the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainable development.” Which is a bureaucratic way of saying that plastic pollution—both macroplastics like bags and bottles, and microplastics like fibers from synthetic clothing—is a planetary catastrophe of the highest order, and one that’s getting exponentially worse. Humanity is now churning out a trillion pounds of plastic a year, and that’ll double by 2045. Only 9 percent of all the plastic ever produced has been recycled—and currently the United States is recycling just 5 percent of its plastic waste. The rest of it is either chucked into landfills or burned, or escapes into the environment. Wealthy nations also have a nasty habit of exporting their plastic waste to economically developing nations, where the stuff is often burned in open pits, poisoning surrounding communities. Plastics are also a major contributor of carbon emissions—they’re made of fossil fuels, after all.Environmentalists and scientists who study pollution agree that the way to fix the plastic problem isn’t with more recycling, or with giant tubes that collect trash floating in the ocean, but by massively cutting its production. But while we don’t know what will eventually make it into the treaty—negotiations are expected to extend into 2024—don’t expect it to end the manufacturing of plastic the way a peace treaty would end a war. Instead, it could nudge humanity toward treating its debilitating addiction to polymers, by for instance targeting single-use plastics. “We’re not going to have a world without plastic—that’s not in the very foreseeable future,” says Deonie Allen, a plastics scientist at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. “However, the way we currently use it, that is a choice we can make today.” Think of the unmitigated flow of plastic into the environment as a stream. If you want to treat the problem downstream, you remove the waste that’s already in the environment, the way a beach cleanup does. Farther upstream—literally so—you might deploy river barges to intercept plastic before it reaches the ocean. But the farthest upstream you can go is just not producing the plastic in the first place. That’s why the treaty needs to include a limit on plastics production, an international team of scientists argued in the journal Science after the draft resolution was published. “What we’re really going to be pushing for is for mandatory and obligatory caps on production,” says Jane Patton, campaign manager of plastics and petrochemicals at the Center for International Environmental Law, who’s attending the talks. “We’re going to be pushing for changes in the way the plastics are produced, to eliminate toxic chemicals from the production and the supply chain.”The draft resolution does indeed call for addressing the “full lifecycle” of plastic, meaning from production to disposal. But time will tell how successful negotiators will actually be in getting agreement on a cap. Ideally they’d agree to an internationally binding limit, but it’s also possible that individual countries will end up making their own commitments. 

Globally, waste pickers are responsible for collecting and recovering – from homes, businesses and landfills – up to 60% of all plastics which are then recycled. These workers do more than any other people to prevent plastic contaminating the environment, yet their work is rarely valued and they struggle to earn a decent living.

Despite recycling the waste of others, waste pickers often lack waste collection services themselves. They suffer the consequences of pollution more than most by inhaling fumes from burning plastic and breathing air and drinking water that is heavily contaminated with microplastics. Waste pickers are also vulnerable to abuse and exploitation as a result of being women, immigrants, indigenous or belonging to ethnic minorities and oppressed castes.

Punta del Este, an affluent resort town in Uruguay, is hosting the first intergovernmental negotiations to create a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution on land and sea. Punta normally hosts high-end tourists from Argentina and Brazil. Now, it is welcoming more than 1,000 delegates and observers from 160 nations and a range of environmental campaign groups, plastic industry representatives and waste pickers.

Waste pickers are known in Uruguay as clasificadores and can be found working in Punta’s nearest municipal landfill, a 20 minute-drive from the convention centre where the negotiations will take place. There, and in Uruguay’s capital of Montevideo, clasificadores have long carried out the lion’s share of plastics recycling. They scour landfills and bins and organise collections from homes and businesses before sorting recyclable from non-recyclable waste.

Clasificadores risk their lives doing this. In August 2022, a waste picker was found dead at Punta’s landfill – crushed by a reversing dump truck. While such deaths are thankfully rare, accidents, chronic illnesses and low life expectancy are common among waste pickers. Nevertheless, a new book by one of the authors, Patrick O’Hare, Rubbish Belongs to the Poor, shows how recyclable waste also offers a readily accessible source of income and provides a refuge for the poor and marginalised.

Historic recognition

Waste pickers are increasingly included in municipal waste management plans and services in various countries. Beyond collecting and sorting waste, waste pickers have also taken roles teaching people how to recycle waste properly. Multinational companies which generate a lot of plastic packaging, including Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Unilever and Nestlé, recently signed up to an initiative which would commit them to improving the rights of people in the informal waste sector who recover plastic to make recycled packaging with. It’s hoped this process might eventually lead to manufacturers buying recycled material directly from waste pickers, fairer prices and improved health and safety standards.

Plastic packaging is a major contributor to environmental litter.
Nokuro/Shutterstock

Now, waste pickers are also partners in devising the global treaty to curb plastic pollution. A ten-strong delegation from the International Alliance of Waste pickers (IAW) is attending the negotiations in Uruguay to influence the treaty as it takes shape. The IAW demands to be represented in all future treaty discussions – and, for this reason, has called for ring-fenced UN funding for six waste pickers from different regions to attend subsequent meetings.

Efforts to clean up pollution will fail if new plastics continue to be produced at an increasing rate as forecasts suggest is likely. The treaty is expected to introduce new rules forcing plastic manufacturers to change the design of their products and restricting their production of non-recyclable plastic. It will also seek to increase recycling rates, since only around 9% of the plastic that has ever been produced has been recycled. The IAW are keen to ensure that waste pickers benefit from these changes.

Plastics are more likely to find their way into and pollute the environment if there is no market for recycling them. Unrecyclable or difficult to recycle materials, which are likely to face production limits in the treaty (such as expanded polystyrene and sachets), offer little value to waste pickers. Where plastic bans and caps would affect livelihoods, the IAW has called for waste pickers to be given opportunities to transition into other forms of work.

At the negotiations for a global plastics treaty, waste pickers are asking to be involved in how plastic waste and recycling policies are designed and implemented within countries and internationally. It may be too late for reforms to benefit the Uruguayan clasificador who died in August. Yet if negotiations in Punta del Este end with overdue recognition of the role of waste pickers in tackling plastic pollution, this will be a small step towards honouring his memory.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 10,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Ross Kemp enjoying a pint in a ‘self-destructing’ cup that leaves behind no microplastics or toxins (Picture: Lyfecycle)Ross Kemp has voiced his disgust at plastic pollution as he recalls seeing the impact first-hand while filming for a new documentary.
The former Emmerdale star has become renowned for his documentaries since leaving the soap, with Ross Kemp on Gangs winning a Bafta for best factual series.
Kemp has also faced the Taliban, Somali pirates and been in actual war zones for his Extreme World series.
However he recently came across something which disgusted him to the core while filming a new documentary much closer to home.
The star is working on the second season of Shipwreck Treasure Hunter, which sees him dive deep off the coast in search of items of significance.
When recently diving in the UK, Kemp saw animals covered in plastic due to the ‘atrocious’ pollution in our seas.
‘The amount of plastic pollution in our oceans is absolutely atrocious,’ he tells Metro.co.uk.

Ross Kemp has decried the ‘atrocious’ plastic pollution in our seas as he recalls seeing the effects first-hand (Picture: AETN)

The former Emmerdale star was diving off the coast for the new series of Shipwreck Treasure Hunter (Picture: AETN)‘You might see it washed up on the beach but that is a fraction of what is in our oceans. Only recently, diving off Lundy, I saw a seal with plastic wrapped around one of its fins.
Elsewhere in the UK, ‘I saw a cormorant moving past me when I was 25 metres deep, and it had plastic around its neck. The amount of times I’ve been out on small boats and we’ve had to stop because there’s plastic around the propellor.’
The actor and environmental activist has teamed up with company Lyfecycle, which has developed a biodegradable or ‘self-destructing’ plastic.

Kemp recalls seeing a seal and bird with plastic around their fin and neck while taking part in the show (Picture: AETN)Together, they are calling for sport stadiums around the world to bring in the biodegradable plastic cups, which have already been in use at Twickenham for some time.
He was at the stadium over the weekend ahead of England’s match against South Africa where he showcased a ‘self-destructing’ cup which biodegrades within two years, leaving no microplastics or toxins behind.
He said: ‘If you can come up with a plastic that biodegrades…you are lifting a heavy heavy weight off the planet.
‘A weight that I’m sadly responsible for and generations before me have been responsible for.

Kemp is calling for sport stadiums around the world to bring in the use of biodegradable plastic cups to help protect the planet (Picture: Backgrid)‘I was born in the 60s, and in the 70s everything was made of plastic. And now as I travel the world making documentaries, everywhere I go I see plastic.
‘In Libya, where the sands blow by the side of the road you see sand, plastic, sand, plastic. Eight years of sand under layers of plastic.
‘My generation are more guilty probably than any other generation before us. Particularly in the last 60 or 70 years, in human beings’ ability to pollute the world, we’ve done an outstanding job.’
Mainstream use of Lyfecycle’s technology, which can be used in everything from plastic bottles to baby wipes and face masks, could be ‘globe-changing,’ he said.

The documentary-maker says the new technology could be ‘globe-changing’ (Picture: AETN)‘If people start adopting this in venues around the world using the Lyfecycle cup and the technology it brings, it will change plastics forever.’
As well as seeing the damage of plastic pollution first-hand, Kemp says he got involved in the campaign as it’s making a difference without ‘ramming it down people’s throats.’
‘It’s having a positive effect on the environment without being lecture-y, without those issues… it’s an excellent way of doing something about it, being part of something, without necessarily having to get a big flag out to do so.’
More: Trending

The products work by being ‘self-destructing’ or biodegradable, with Kemp explaining: ‘If this cup doesn’t end up in a recycling bin and it ends up somewhere on street, in a field, in the ocean, over two years it will degrade itself.
‘There’s so much plastic out there. If the technology exists to make it self-destruct and no longer harm this planet then we should embrace it.’
Liepa Olsauskaite, Lyfecycle spokesperson, said: ‘Plastic pollution is still out of control, and change is not happening fast enough – which is where Lyfecycle’s self-destructing technology and visionary partners like Twickenham come in.
‘We are delighted that rugby fans at Twickenham have engaged so strongly with this campaign. We have to act now: if we continue down our current path, 450 million further tonnes of plastic will reach the oceans by 2040.’
Got a story?
If you’ve got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the Metro.co.uk entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@metro.co.uk, calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we’d love to hear from you.

MORE : Ross Kemp would ‘never say never’ to returning to EastEnders: ‘It’s either that or pantomime forever’

MORE : Ross Kemp recalls terrifying moment he was almost ‘dragged away fighting currents’ while filming new documentary

Eating roasts wrapped in plastic leads to even more microplastics in the food, scientists have warned. (Getty Images)Eating a Sunday roast can result in swallowing 230,000 particles of microplastics, a study has warned.Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic less than 5mm in size, which scientists believe can harm wildlife – and may pose health risks to humans.Researchers said that eating a Sunday roast every day is the equivalent to eating two plastic bags every year.The study, conducted by University of Portsmouth scientists in partnership with Good Morning Britain, found that a chicken roast dinner made with plastic packaging contained seven times more microplastics than it would without.The research suggests that plastic packaging is a major route for microplastics to get into human bodies.Read more: A 1988 warning about climate change was mostly rightDr Fay Couceiro, reader in environmental pollution at the University of Portsmouth, said: “From the results it would appear that the majority of microplastics in our food come from the plastic packaging it is wrapped in. However, there are other ways that plastic can enter the food chain.”It could be getting into the vegetables through the soil or into our meat through grazing. Air has lots of microplastics in it too, so they could be falling on top of the food and finally it could be from the cooking utensils used when preparing a meal.”Usually food samples are analysed for microplastics in their raw state under laboratory conditions. This allows us to understand how much plastic is inside a particular type of food.”This study differs because we chose to look at what was actually on your plate after the food had been cooked.”Instead of a sterile laboratory, the food was cooked in a normal kitchen, so it is likely the microplastics will come from a combination of the food, the packaging, cooking utensils and the air.”Read more: Melting snow in Himalayas drives growth of green sea slime visible from spaceAlberto Costa MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on microplastics, said: “Plastic can enter our bodies through the air we breathe and through our food as highlighted in this investigation.Story continues”We don’t yet know the effect this has on our health, but I would very much welcome more research and investigation into this so we can understand if there are any impacts.”Earlier this year, a study suggested that tiny particles of microplastic are already polluting every lake and river in Britain, posing as-yet-unknown risks to wildlife.Even remote bodies of water such as Loch Lomond are polluted with plastic particles.Researchers from Bangor University and Friends of the Earth collected water samples from rivers, reservoirs and lochs in England, Scotland and Wales.Every sample contained plastic, with the River Tame in Greater Manchester having more than 1,000 particles per litre, and Loch Lomond having 2.4 particles per litre.Ullswater in the Lake District had 29.5 shards of microplastic per litre.Watch: Study suggests whales ingest 10 million pieces of plastic per day

Many American households are beginning to prepare for one of the biggest holidays of the year: Christmas. And for those who celebrate, that often means figuring out what to do about a tree — the time-honored centerpiece of the season’s festivities.What type of tree or, in some cases, trees you choose largely comes down to personal preference. For many people, a real tree represents tradition — a chance to re-create memories of finding “The One” and hauling it home from the forest or a neighborhood tree lot — with a fresh scent that helps create a holiday atmosphere. On the other hand, artificial trees offer convenience, since they can be reused year after year and typically come with built-in lights or decorations.But with more consumers becoming increasingly concerned about their purchases’ environmental impact, you might be wondering which type of Christmas tree is more planet-friendly. Here’s what you need to know when it comes to whether real or artificial trees are better for the environment.The argument for real treesWhile you might worry that chopping down tens of millions of trees each year amounts to an environmental nightmare, a real Christmas tree can be more sustainable than an artificial one, says Bill Ulfelder, executive director of the Nature Conservancy in New York.“There should be no remorse, no guilt, like, ‘Oh my goodness, it’s a cut tree.’ It’s absolutely the contrary,” says Ulfelder, who has a master’s degree in forestry. “Trees are a renewable resource. When they’re being cut, they’re being harvested in ways that they’re being replanted, so it’s a great renewable resource that provides lots of environmental, conservation and nature benefits.”For one, living trees absorb carbon dioxide — a main contributor to global warming — from the air and release oxygen. It can take at least seven years to grow a Christmas tree to its typical height of between six and seven feet, according to the National Christmas Tree Association (NCTA), a trade group that in part represents growers and sellers of real trees. While estimates can vary significantly, one study suggests that growing Christmas trees may sequester nearly a ton of carbon dioxide per acre, according to the Sightline Institute. What happens to that carbon depends on how these trees are treated once they’re cut and discarded.As many as one in six U.S. tree species is threatened with extinctionAs these trees grow, not only do they provide clean air, but they can also serve as wildlife habitats, help improve water quality and slow erosion, and preserve green spaces. Christmas trees are often grown on hillsides that wouldn’t be suitable for farming other types of crops and for every tree harvested, one to three seedlings are planted the following spring, according to NCTA.What’s more, real trees can be repurposed in ways that continue to benefit the environment even after they’re no longer living. Cities such as New York and D.C. have municipal programs that collect dead Christmas trees and turn them into mulch. The trees can also be used to prevent dune erosion or sunken in ponds and lakes to create natural habitats for freshwater wildlife, Ulfelder says.“There’s life for [real] Christmas trees after Christmas,” he says.Gene editing could revive a nearly lost tree. Not everyone is on board.But Ulfelder and other experts recognize that there is an environmental cost to farming and distributing real trees. Growing trees requires water and, in many cases, fertilizers and pesticides. On top of that, harvesting trees and shipping them from farms to stores or lots can produce emissions.Still, real trees may be the preferred choice over artificial ones when it comes to overall sustainability, which also takes into account economic and social impacts, says Bert Cregg, a professor of horticulture and forestry at Michigan State University. “That’s where I think the real trees are head and shoulders above” artificial trees, Cregg says.There are nearly 15,000 Christmas tree farms in the United States, the vast majority of which are family-owned operations, and the industry provides full or part-time employment to more than 100,000 people, according to NCTA.“Like any other agriculture, are you going to support local farmers or are you going to support a large manufacturer someplace else?” Cregg says.Sign up for the latest news about climate change, energy and the environment, delivered every ThursdayGoing artificialMost of the artificial trees sold in the U.S. are manufactured in China, according to NCTA, citing data from the U.S. Department of Commerce. The trees are typically loaded onto fossil-fuel-burning ocean freighters bound for the U.S., where they are distributed to retailers nationwide. But experts say the emissions associated with transporting artificial trees are less significant than what is produced when making them.Artificial trees are often made of plastic, a petroleum-based material, and steel. Many trees use polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, which has been linked to health and environmental risks. Trees can also be made of polyethylene, another type of plastic, says Mac Harman, founder and CEO of Balsam Hill, a leading retailer of artificial Christmas trees and holiday decor in the United States.Although not much about artificial trees initially sounds Earth-friendly, in certain cases they can be the more environmentally conscious choice, according to the American Christmas Tree Association (ACTA), a nonprofit industry group that represents artificial tree manufacturers.One 2018 study analyzed real and artificial Christmas trees across different environmental metrics, including global warming potential, primary energy demand and water usage, among others, and found that artificial trees may have less environmental impact if they are reused for at least five years compared to buying a new real tree each year.“The impact of both types of trees varies based on how far consumers travel to get their tree, how they dispose of their tree (for live trees, landfill, incinerate, or compost), and how long consumers use their trees,” according to a summary of the study from ACTA, which released the assessment conducted by WAP Sustainability Consulting.But another in-depth study released in 2009 concluded that artificial trees would only become better than natural ones if they were used for 20 years.According to Harman, a Nielsen survey paid for by ACTA found that nearly 50 percent of artificial tree owners reported planning to use their trees for 10 or more seasons.He adds that artificial trees also are often given away or donated, which can extend their life span. The downside, though, is that once these trees are no longer of use to anyone “they do end up mostly in landfills at this point,” he says.More plastic eventually winding up in landfills should worry consumers, Ulfelder says.“If you keep artificial trees truly long enough, the carbon footprint may be smaller, but then you’ve still got plastic and then there’s plastic going into the landfill,” he says. “So that’s just one way of looking at the comparison, and I think we just need to look at the whole of the nature benefits of the natural trees.”What you should doIf you’re interested in a real tree, Ulfelder recommends trying to buy local whenever possible. Driving a long distance in a gas-guzzling car to get to a farm or seller can be a significant source of emissions. Buying your tree from a farm or lot in your area can also help support the local economy. The top Christmas tree producing states include Oregon, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Washington, according to NCTA.Looking for an organically grown Christmas tree is an additional step you can take to help the environment, Ulfelder says.The U.S. Forest Service also sells permits to people who want to go out into the wild and cut down their own tree. “For every tree that is found, cut and carried home as a holiday fixture, you’re also contributing to the overall forest health,” according to a government website selling the permits.Buying a living tree, or one that can be replanted outdoors, is another option. “The big trick is getting the tree to live afterward,” Cregg says.If you have a living tree, it’s critical not to keep it inside your home for too long, especially if you’re in northern parts of the country, or it may begin to lose its ability to withstand cold temperatures, he says. He suggests leaving the tree up for two weeks at most before moving it to an unheated garage or patio until springtime. “Then, you can plant it just like your normal spring planting routine.”It’s also important to take care of real trees, Cregg says. The trees need a lot of water and he recommends checking your tree stand daily to make sure your tree isn’t drying out.And how you dispose of your real tree matters. “If people put the tree in a bonfire, all that carbon is back in the atmosphere,” Cregg says.If you’re planning to mulch your tree, make sure to remove any decorations, Ulfelder says. Leftover ornaments, lights or pieces of tinsel can create a headache for mulchers.For those who prefer artificial trees, try to keep them in use and out of landfills for as long as possible.And although real and artificial trees can have varying impacts, experts say it’s important to consider this holiday decision in the context of other personal choices that can contribute to climate change.“At the end of the day, assuming that an artificial tree is used for at least five years, neither tree has a significant impact on the environment when compared to other activities of daily living like driving a car,” Harman says.

Reusable nappies and zero-plastic baby food: is sustainable parenting doable?I am preparing to embark on a challenge to parent more sustainably, and, as I stand in my kitchen to get a feel for where I might be able to make some changes, I can’t help but feel I’ve bitten off more than I can chew. Plastic baby bottles are lined up like skittles in my cupboards; drawers are a technicolour spectacle of lurid plastic baby food pouches and individually wrapped biscuits. Tupperware and zip-lock plastic bags threaten to consume me, and there are plastic bowls, weaning pots, and baby spoons everywhere.
“Is having a baby in 2021 pure environmental vandalism?” reads one headline I come across in my research. Looking at my kitchen, I can see why.
Since my daughter was born almost two years ago, I have sleep-walked into making what I can only describe as baffling consumer choices that stamp on any eco credentials I previously claimed. Between the sleep deprivation and the onslaught of new experiences and mixed emotions, I have accumulated so much stuff – and much of it made from single-use or non-recyclable materials. Apparently I’m not alone. Sustainability “goes out the window” after having a baby, according to a One Poll survey commissioned by Baby Dove, and more than a quarter of new parents said it was “impossible” to be more eco-friendly with a newborn.
As an experiment, I want to see if I can make some greener swaps in a bid to understand what the barriers are to parenting more sustainably, and what else the industry needs to do to clean up its act. I found there were plenty of areas where I could make small changes, from shopping more sustainably to choosing different products. But I was also struck by how limited I was as a consumer to make any meaningful impact, and how unscientific many of the claims around “sustainable” or “biodegradable” products are.
Jen Gale, author of The Sustainable(ish) Guide to Green Parenting, elaborates on this when I ask her why it is so hard for new parents to make green choices. “Parents are marketed at quite hard by those brands with the most money, which might not necessarily be the most ethical and sustainable companies,” she says. I think back to the antenatal pack I was handed by a midwife at my 20-week appointment, full of big brand products in plastic packaging. Then there is the lack of time, energy and headspace to research greener alternatives, she says. “Shopping sustainably might not be at the forefront of your mind – especially when you’re just trying to get through the day, you grab whatever you can and whatever is the most convenient.”New parents often don’t have the time or energy to research greener alternatives (Credit: Tim Clayton / Getty Images)Increasingly, global consciousness is turning to the problem of plastic pollution, with the annual flow of plastic into the ocean alone estimated to nearly triple by 2040 to 29 million tonnes per year. But despite widespread initiatives to curb the use of plastic straws, single use plastic bags, and plastic bottles, unsustainable materials and methods seem to be ubiquitous in the products we buy for our children – from bottles, which shed millions of particles of microplastics, to disposable wipes and nappies that never biodegrade. 
The toy industry is the most plastic intensive industry in the world, according to the United Nations Environment Programme – with millions sent to landfill each year having barely been used. Even formula use has an enormous environmental impact, which is rarely examined. Most formulas are made from powdered cows’ milk, needing an astonishing 4,700 litres (1034 gallons) of water to produce just 1kg (35oz) of powder. In fact, 1kg of infant formula releases between 11 and 14 kg (388 and 494oz) of greenhouse gases by the time it is fed to babies and young children.
As part of my desire to clean up some of my parenting choices, I want to look at my baby’s nappy consumption. We throw away about three billion nappies each year in the UK, representing an estimated 2% to 3% of all household waste – one of the biggest contributors to plastic waste globally. Globally, more than 300,000 nappies are disposed of every minute. In the US, the scale of the problem is magnified, and the industry that feeds it is valued at $71bn (£61bn). Most nappies are made from two non-biodegradable materials – a polyethylene waterproof back layer and a polypropylene inner layer – meaning that when they ultimately end up in landfill, they will likely remain there for 500 years or more.
Reusable nappies are often touted as the sustainable fix – so I ask a friend who has used washable nappies for her children if she can lend me some to try. I’m slightly dreading starting the experiment – I have visions of nappies hanging to dry from every high surface in our small flat. I’m bracing myself for the upfront financial shock – a starter bundle can cost upwards of £100 ($115) or more, which can make the idea of using reusables daunting, or entirely inaccessible for some people. I’m also wondering how much my energy bill will rise this winter if I’m increasing my use of both the washing machine and its dryer setting. But I’m hopeful that this might be easier than I’m imagining, and could become a permanent green swap that will help me lower my carbon footprint.
“There are lots of ways of lowering the cost of making greener choices,” says Gale, though the options can vary hugely depending on where you live. Various social media sites and second-hand marketplaces offer second-hand reusable nappies, and in the UK, so-called nappy libraries let parents borrow nappies and try different brands. I take a bundle from my friend, and buy a pack of biodegradable bamboo nappy liners for £2.50 ($2.87). I also buy a dry pail – essentially a plastic bucket with a tight lid to store the soiled nappies before washing – for £15 ($17.19).
You might also like:

Living without plastic in Japan
The most sustainable way to eat fish
What if we had limitless green energy?

I’m glad I go down the second-hand route, because not only is it more sustainable but it’s also more affordable. And I’m grateful for this cost saving when my careful plan falters at the first hurdle. My daughter seems to hate the feel of the reusable nappies on her skin, which can feel wetter than the moisture-wicking disposable alternatives she is used to. They are also much bulkier than single-use nappies, and the extra material causes her clothes to pull in the crotch, giving her a cowboy kid gait. At this stage of toddlerhood, getting her to switch from the disposable nappies she has been wearing since birth, to an altogether bulkier, and wetter feeling fabric is possibly too big an ask, and I can’t help but feel we have missed the boat.
But what does the science say – would it have been a greener choice? One Environment Agency study in 2008 found that reusable nappies can have a 40% lower global warming impact than disposable nappies. But crucially, the positive impact of switching to reusable nappies depends on how eco-conscious the consumer is. Many people looking to reduce their environmental impact wash at low temperatures, but reusable nappies must be washed at 60C (140F) in order to kill bacteria, and machines should not be overfilled, according to the Nappy Alliance, a coalition of reusable nappy providers. A study by the Life Cycle Initiative, a project launched in partnership with the UN Environment Programme, found that washing reusables over 60C (140F), using a tumble dryer, or partially filling the machine can actually negate their positive environmental impact entirely, and could make it preferable to use single-use nappies from a climate change stand point.
The study highlights the importance of looking at the entire life cycle of any product in order to weigh up how eco-friendly it is. “The highest impacts of reusable nappies occur not in manufacturing but in the use phase, while for single-use nappies, the design of the nappy (the weight and its materials) along with its management at end-of-life are the important life cycle stages,” write authors Philippa Notten, Alexandra Gower and Yvonne Lewis.From bottles, which shed millions of microplastics, to disposable wipes and nappies, unsustainable materials are ubiquitous in the products we buy for our children (Credit: Alamy)So what about biodegradable options? A stroll around my local Boots points to a small but growing raft of eco nappy brands made from recycled materials and sustainably-grown renewables, such as bamboo and organic cotton. Could buying disposable nappies made from more eco-conscious materials be a simple way for parents to make a difference?
Charlotte Lloyd, an environmental biogeochemist from the University of Bristol, is sceptical. When it comes to reducing your individual environmental impact, these nappies “are completely ineffective”, says Lloyd. None of the eco nappies on the market are currently 100% biodegradable (nor do they claim to be). Even those with high percentages of biodegradable materials need the right conditions for the materials to biodegrade, often involving industrial hot composting facilities that are nowhere near widespread enough to be a mass market solution. The vast majority of “eco” nappies end up in landfill, just like regular nappies. Landfill conditions are specifically designed to prevent decomposition due to the harmful gases and liquids that can leach out into the earth during the biodegradation process.
“I applaud the companies for making them, they are trying to make a better product,” says Lloyd. “But the rest of the system needs to catch up.” Despite focusing much of her research interests on the impact of plastic degradation on the environment, Lloyd has used disposable nappies with her two children. “I’m slightly ashamed of it but I just couldn’t deal with the washing, using reusables, and I’m sure that’s the same for a whole raft of parents and that’s why they go to the biodegradable alternatives, which are more expensive, and no more beneficial.”SUSTAINABILITY ON A SHOESTRINGWe currently live in an unsustainable world. While the biggest gains in the fight to curb climate change will come from the decisions made by governments and industries, we can all play our part. In Sustainability on a Shoestring, BBC Future explores how each of us can contribute as individuals to reducing carbon emissions by living more sustainably, without breaking the bank.So what needs to be done? There is currently only one nappy recycling company in operation in the UK: Nappicycle, based in Wales. The company runs a recycling facility which specifically treats nappy and absorbent hygiene products and aims to recover 100% of the cellulose and plastics to be used elsewhere.
This year, the company was involved in laying the “first nappy road” – a trial in which a stretch of the road between Aberystwyth and Cardigan in Ceredigion has been replaced with asphalt reinforced with recycled nappy fibres.
It’s clear that more initiatives like Nappicycle are paramount to tackling the UK’s nappy waste problem. In order to reduce the environmental impact of nappies in the UK, we need to urgently improve our existing waste management systems, says Lloyd. “You’re never going to get a situation where everyone is going to wash nappies – it’s never going to happen.”I want to see where else I can make greener choices for my daughter. Back in my kitchen, I have a stock of plastic packets of rice, pouches of porridge and toddler snacks, which I would like to try and swap for greener alternatives. In the UK, the baby food sector is booming, growing by 30% between 2009 and 2014 – when it was estimated as an £181m ($207m) industry per annum. China is currently the biggest market for baby food as of 2019, with India coming in second place, and the United States ranked in sixth place. And it’s not hard to understand why the industry has such global popularity.
The industry responds to a desperate need for convenience for time-poor, working parents. But despite the sector’s growing popularity, little is known about the sustainability of the industry. In the lentil and vegetable bake I dig out for dinner, for example, organic broccoli, parsnip and green lentils are listed as the main ingredients. In the UK, the organic label means at least 95% of the product’s agricultural ingredients are organic, and have strict regulations about the use of pesticides. But apart from that, I know nothing about the environmental impact of these prepared foods – from where they were grown, to how they were cooked (Read more: Why some climate claims are unprovable).Washing reusable nappies at 60C and putting them in the tumble dryer can negate their positive environmental impact (Credit: Ulf Swane / Getty Images)So far, my attention has been focused on the proliferation of plastic packaging involved in the baby food industry. But Ximina Schmidt, a life cycle sustainability expert at Brunel University in London, with a special interest in sustainable food systems, urges me to consider “all the different contributing elements” involved in making a food product in a bid to reduce my environmental impact. Baby food meals with more meat and cream have a higher environmental impact regardless of packaging, according to one study, which Schmidt co-authored. From the farming processes, ingredients and packaging materials, to the energy needed to manufacture that food and cook it, the more stages of the production process we are able to avoid, the “greener” a product will be, Schmidt says.
With Schmidt’s advice in mind, I decide to try baking some biscuits for my daughter at home, rather than buying them from the supermarket. I choose a simple recipe calling for apples, flour and butter, which I substitute with vegan butter. The ingredients cost me roughly £3 ($3.44). I am planning on baking 24 biscuits, and buying a similar quantity would have set me back £4.50 ($5.16). So far, the cost seems to be favourable (if I don’t count my labour). But we’re not out of the woods yet. Schmidt tells me to be mindful of the cooking method – am I going to put the oven on for a single tray of biscuits? If so, my energy expenditure would almost certainly negate any positive impact of baking the biscuits myself, both environmentally and financially.
According to the Energy Saving Trust, to heat small amounts of food, the humble microwave is the most energy efficient option. But to offset my use of the more expensive oven, I make sure to bake my biscuits while the dinner is also cooking, and they come out looking edible, with no objections from my daughter. The next hurdle is storing them. How can I prolong their shelf life to avoid waste? I store 12 in an airtight tupperware, and put 12 in the freezer, wrapped in foil – the freezer’s own environmental impact somewhat offset by it already being in use for other food.How can you be a more sustainable parent?
Buy second-hand toys, clothes and books
Buy local and cook at home
Wash at 30C (except nappies and soiled clothes)
Give unused toys a new lease of life – donate to a baby bank 
Swap beef and dairy for sustainable proteins, such as lentils
Sign up to Whirli, a toy swap subscription
Overall, this seems like an easy swap, although requires some advance planning which could be difficult for time poor working parents. But is this a greener solution?
There are definite positives for transparency – I have a better understanding of the product life cycle of these biscuits than bought ones. But factoring in my energy consumption, it is hard to say definitively whether baking them at home is significantly greener. Part of the barrier to reaching a conclusion is the lack of visibility afforded to the average consumer. There is very little information available about factory cooking methods or product sourcing, so it is almost impossible to analyse a product’s carbon footprint with the information provided on the packet.
It’s also important to highlight how gendered the responsibility for making greener choices at home can be. Most women perform far more cognitive and emotional labour than men. As a time poor, working mother, the mental labour required to rethink tried and tested products in favour of greener alternatives is not insignificant, and should be factored into the barriers facing parents wanting to parent more sustainably.
So what have I learned from my experiment? In a fog of sleep deprivation and learning how to operate as a family of three, it has been frighteningly easy to get into bad habits as a new parent. The main takeaway from both of my swaps is the need to evaluate my consumer choices through a life cycle lens, rather than simply eschewing certain materials. For me, the experiment has encouraged me to revisit the basics – the adage “reduce, reuse, recycle” should remain the mantra to live by.
Gale reassures me that green living need not be complicated: one of the most sustainable things parents can do is buy second-hand. “There’s a pressure as a new parent to buy all these wonderful, shiny new things – and especially with your first you want that,” she says. “You want everything to be pristine and new because they’re so precious and vulnerable.” Ultimately, I’m reminded that this is my daughter’s world, and the choices I make on her behalf will impact her future in a much more significant way than they do mine.
—
Join one million Future fans by liking us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter or Instagram.
If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter, called “The Essential List” – a handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Worklife, Travel and Reel delivered to your inbox every Friday.

An emaciated sperm whale that washed up in Canada had 330 pounds of fishing gear in its stomach when it died, scientists have found.The sperm whale was alive when it washed ashore on Cape Breton Island on November 9. Teams from the Marine Animal Response Society (MARS), the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative-Atlantic Veterinary College and the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources and Renewables arrived on the scene to find the whale extremely underweight. It died during the night, MARS said in a statement posted to Facebook.A necropsy of the animal has now found that there were 330 pounds of fishing gear in its stomach, which led to it slowly starving to death.Sperm whales can be found worldwide. They are a vulnerable species and face a number of threats, including fishing gear entanglement or injury and noise pollution.
A picture shows the sperm whale that washed ashore in Canada with fishing gear in its stomach.
Marine Animal Response Society
Marine mammals strand ashore for a number of reasons. More often than not they are found severely unwell or injured, meaning they do not have the strength to swim away from the shore.Tonya Wimmer, Executive Director of MARS told Newsweek: “Ingestion of debris in the oceans—including fishing gear and plastics—is a serious issue for marine life around the world. The deaths of sperm whales and many other species have been investigated and attributed to ingestion of debris. In the Canadian Maritime Provinces, we have previously had animals with plastics and other debris found in their stomach, but never anything to this degree before.”Sperm whales usually weigh around 90,000 pounds but is not clear how much the sperm whale in Canada weighed when it washed up. The species’ stomach is about 4 feet long and 3 foot wide.Teams do not yet know whether the fishing gear came from Canada or another country. It is also not clear where or when the gear was ingested.
“Fishing gear is known to be a threat to many species, both from ingestion and also when the animal is entangled in gear externally. For some critically endangered [species], entanglements in fishing gear pose a serious issue for their recovery. That said, entanglement in fishing gear is not the only threat to species in the oceans, Wimmer said.These include ingestion of marine debris, strikes by vessels, pollution and the impact from noise in the oceans.Nonetheless, fishing gear poses a huge threat to marine species, whether it be from ingestion or injury. It can sometimes entangle around whales bodies, meaning they are unable to eat or swim effectively. An estimated 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises die every year globally after being injured by fishing gear, a 2021 study the University of St Andrews, Fife reported.
A picture shows fishing gear debris found in the stomach of a sperm whale that beached on Cape Breton Island in Canada.
Marine Animal Response Society
A critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale named Snow Cone became well-known after being entangled in huge amounts of fishing line. Scientists last spotted her in September and determined her death was all but certain.”There are two key things which can be done. [We can] clean up the debris that is currently in our environment, both in the ocean and on land,” Wimmer said. “There are many ‘ghost gear’ and shoreline clean up programs around the world which have been aiming to tackle this issue because it is a major conservation concern for marine life, as well as humans given we eat animals in the ocean.””Going forward, [we can] ensure debris does not end up in the oceans. This involves the overall reduction in use of plastics…proper disposal and recycling of any materials being used, including fishing gear, and the collection of lost gear when fishers note it has been lost at sea,” she said. “And these measures are things that everyone should be doing, including those who don’t live near the coasts as debris in the oceans can get there in many ways via air and water.”MARS recently worked to remove several great white sharks that were found washed up off the coast of Nova Scotia. While strandings for marine mammals are common, it is rare for sharks.