Category Archives: Land

Plastic pollution plays a significant role in global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.As India’s petrochemical industry expands, experts question how the 2070 net zero target would be met with industrial targets headed in a different direction.India continues to invest in recycling technologies, for lack of alternatives but stronger solutions are needed to achieve the net zero target. Several reports and assessments in the recent past have tracked the sharp growth of plastic pollution and canvassed for the need to tackle plastic pollution at a global level. There is also an increasing number of reports that indicate linkages between plastic pollution and climate change. In the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released a global assessment of the marine plastic crisis, titled From Pollution to Solution. An update to a 2016 report on Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics, this assessment hopes to raise awareness of the magnitude and severity of marine litter, especially plastics and microplastics. This evidence-based report is aimed at identifying gaps in knowledge, promoting effective solutions and global interventions for marine pollution, and safeguarding ecological and human health.
In October 2021, two publications by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provided updated information and recommendations on addressing plastic pollution. Other global organisations also took a firm stance on plastic pollution. The Common Seas’ evaluation tool for national governments, Plastic Drawdown, focuses on a country’s available resources to assess effective mitigation strategies. The Zero Waste framework for reducing plastic waste targets legal and financial solutions in European cities to reduce greenhouse emissions. Youth ambassadors from the Plastic Pollution Coalition also petitioned the leaders at COP26 to act on the issue of plastic pollution and the climate crisis. So have The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Break Free From Plastics (BFFP), Beyond Plastics and Recycling Association.
To understand why many organisations tried to raise the issue of plastic pollution at a climate conference, we must understand the impacts of plastic on oceans, ecosystems, and human health. The most critical yet lesser-known fact about plastic pollution is that it plays a significant role in global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
Demonstrations outside the COP26 venue. Photo by Priyanka Shankar/Mongabay.
In 2019, a report titled Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet examined the lifecycle of plastics and identified major sources of greenhouse gas emissions,  unaccounted sources of emissions, and uncertainties that lead to an underestimation of plastic’s climate impacts. In October 2021, Beyond Plastics released another report built on previous findings, titled The New Coal: Plastics & Climate Change, to assess the devastating impact of plastics on climate, much of it happening with little public scrutiny and lesser government and industrial accountability. While both reports focus on the plastic industry in the United States – the worst global plastic polluter, the findings will hold true for other nations with expanding petrochemical industries.
Plastic is manufactured from naphtha, a crude oil-based substance, and ethane, liquid natural gas, with the addition of other chemicals, most of which are fossil fuel-based. Hence, plastic manufacturing is a significant source of greenhouse emissions. A recent study identified over 8,000 chemical additives used for plastic processing, some of which are a thousand times more potent as greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. Products like single-use packaging, plastic resins, foamed plastic insulation, bottles and containers, among many others, add to global greenhouse emissions. Most plastic cannot be recycled, only downgraded, and is often incinerated, or used as fuel in waste-to-energy plants, sometimes known as chemical recycling. While plastics are worth three to four times as much for fuel than as scrap, these recycling processes release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect.
India’s plastic cycle
India is among the many countries scaling up its petrochemical industries. With an investment of $100 billion to boost domestic production by 2030, the next decade will catalyse India’s crude oil demand and accelerate petrochemical production. Industrial practices like decarbonisation, and plastic-based fuels touted to be sustainable, are less optimal and cost-effective than claimed, with the result contributing to more emissions and a larger carbon footprint.
On the recycling front, India generates 9.46 megatons of plastic waste each year, of which 40% is not collected and is either burnt, lost, or dumped into landfills or waterways. Of the total plastics produced, half are used in packaging, most of which are single-use in nature. Despite the existence of 5,000 registered recycling units, plastic recycling is largely informal. A complicated aggregator system segregates, recycles, and makes some profit off the plastic economy.
Waste-to-energy plants and refuse-derived fuels are examples of suboptimal processes with high emissions. Despite many setbacks, from shutdowns due to poor waste-to-energy efficiency, fines for flouting environmental safety norms, and high operational costs, India continues to invest in these recycling technologies, for lack of alternatives.
“While these are scientifically proven methods to dispose or process waste, more mechanisms are needed to address the challenges of efficiency and cost,” says Kaushik Chandrasekhar, a solid waste management expert at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). Incineration and recycling-as-fuel can only be a part of the solution if they add to India’s greenhouse emissions. To meet India’s net-zero targets by 2070, it needs stronger solutions.
India’s net-zero aim for 2070
In November 2021, India’s ambitious net-zero target for carbon emissions were celebrated by many, as the country committed to becoming carbon-neutral by not adding any greenhouse emissions to the atmosphere by 2070.
As the world’s fourth-biggest carbon emitter, these targets marked India’s cognizance of the issue of climate change, and its commitment to address it. But with the country’s industrial practices headed in a different direction, can it realistically achieve net-zero in the next 50 years?
As per the CEEW estimates, if India is to achieve net-zero carbon goals in the next 50 years, our solar-based electricity generation capacity must increase to 1689 GW by 2050 and to 5,630 GW by 2070. Photo by Sarangib/Pixabay.
A recent analysis by the Council for Energy, Environment and Water Research (CEEW), a think tank in New Delhi, estimated a cost of over $10 trillion (Rs. 700 lakh crore), for the upgraded infrastructure of renewable energy sources for electricity, transport, building, and industry sectors to meet the net-zero targets. “If we are to account for the petrochemical industry emissions in future scenarios, data on energy use for plastic production, both as fuel and as feedstock – the raw material used but not burned during an industrial process – is essential,” surmised Vaibhav Chaturvedi, co-author of the CEEW report. “However, it is in the petrochemical sector’s commercial interests to introduce circular economies that allow plastics to remain in the industrial ecosystem, rather than find non-plastic-based alternatives,” he added.
The report is a grim reminder that recycling plastics as an industrial fuel is not a viable long-term solution to pollution. As India’s petrochemical industries expand, could infrastructure interventions that consider the plastic lifecycle help turn the tide on climate change?
Circular economy approach for the lifecycle of plastics
In April 2021, TERI’s roadmap proposed a circular plastic value chain to address the problem of both plastic pollution and greenhouse emissions. The roadmap aims to dissociate plastic production from virgin fossil fuels and incentivise the reduce-reuse-recycle principles to address the issue of waste.
Bio-based plastics, manufactured partially or wholly from biomass, and oxo-biodegradable plastics that degrade under favourable conditions offer more viable, less GHG-emitting alternatives to fossil-fuel plastics. Yet neither are completely biodegradable, and industries need to look for other packaging solutions.
In September 2021, the India Plastics Pact (IPP) was signed under a collaboration between the World Wildlife Fund, the Confederation of Indian Industries, with support from UK Research and Innovation. The IPP, the first of its kind in Asia, aims at a circular economy for plastics with innovative ways to eliminate, reuse, or recycle the plastic packaging across the plastics value chain, and forge collaborations between businesses and NGOs to collectively achieve long-term targets. International brands like Amazon, Coca-Cola, and Indian companies like Hindustan Unilever, ITC Limited, Tata Consumer Products Limited, and three of Godrej’s trademarks, have signed the pact.
Corruption is a big challenge in the recycling sector. “When government land is allocated for public recycling infrastructures, such as a landfill, a waste-to-energy plant, or a biogas plant, the informal sector is largely ignored. Yet they are the largest investors in the recycling business. Instead of spending on public infrastructure, the government could strengthen the informal sector, allow them to expand in scale, capacity, and technology, so that they have a vested interest not just in making a profit but in addressing the issue of pollution,” advises Bharati Chaturvedi of Chintan, an environmental research and action group in Delhi.
Both TERI and Chintan, along with other grassroots organisations like the Integrated Mountain Initiative and Development Alternatives, are partners of the Japan-funded UNEP project, CounterMEASURE. The project is committed to identifying sources and pathways of plastic pollution in river systems in Asia, with a focus on the Mekong (China) and Ganges (India) rivers – among the top contributors of marine pollution. Their policy-driven approach hopes to tackle plastic at different stages of its lifecycle and ensure that rivers transport lesser plastic into the marine ecosystem.
Finally, to deal with discarded plastics in the ecosystem, restoring coastal blue carbon habitats such as mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrass meadows becomes important. These habitats trap and bury plastics, preventing them from entering marine ecosystems, with the added advantage of sequestering more carbon than terrestrial forests. Financing integrated solutions to address two of the most critical global problems of this century, namely plastic pollution and climate change, would help us achieve net-zero goals, while protecting communities and habitats.

Read more: The cost of plastic waste

Banner image: The roof of an informal recycling unit in Dharavi slum. As per some estimates, 60% of Mumbai’s plastic is recycled in Dharavi without which the city would be choking in waste. Photo by Cory Doctorow/ Flickr.

Lisa Chen founded Let’s Talk Butts to provide social justice while cleaning up cigarette butt litter. She is also a dive master involved in marine conservation and research, environmental education, habitat protection and waste reduction and is the founder and CEO of Marine Way, an app-based solution for ghost fishing gear. Chen is a master’s of marine management candidate at Dalhousie University. This piece is part of a series of profiles highlighting young people across the country who are addressing the climate crisis. These extraordinary humans give me hope. I write these stories to pay it forward.Tell us about Let’s Talk Butts. Get top stories in your inbox.Our award-winning journalists bring you the news that impacts you, Canada, and the world. Don’t miss out.We want to eliminate cigarette butt litter through cleanups, outreach, litter mapping, creating butt collection cans and educating the public. I have worked on this in many Canadian communities, in Vietnam, the Philippines, and the United States. How did you get the idea? I wanted to use my biology degree to fight climate change but had trouble finding a relevant job. One day a friend and I quit our jobs and booked a one-way ticket to Singapore to travel. On a small Malaysian island, I wandered off the usual tourist track and found myself on a beach surrounded by plastic bottles, bags and cigarette butts. As is common in tourist destinations in the Global South, wealthy tourists never saw this beach as they were isolated on their own. Naively, I wondered why local people didn’t clean it up. Curious, I walked into the backstreets of the town. It was piled in litter. I understood then how utterly unfair it would be to expect impoverished local people to solve this problem on their own. They lack the education to understand the toxicity of the plastics, clean disposal options and have no access to decision-makers who could change things. I had a revelation: we cannot solve the climate crisis unless we also address global inequality. What people are reading I came back to Canada and joined the Canadian Wildlife Federation-sponsored Canadian Conservation Corps where I conceived the Let’s Talk about Butts campaign. The Chantiers jeunesse social entrepreneurship and Ocean Wise Ocean Bridge programs gave me additional training and funding, which supported the successful launch.Lisa Chen removing trash while on a dive in Vietnam. Photo courtesy of Lisa ChenWhy did you focus on butts? Meet Lisa Chen, who wanted to use her biology degree to fight climate change but had trouble finding a relevant job. #Oceans #Litter #YoungClimateLeaders Approximately 4.95 trillion cigarette butts are littered annually, more than any other item. A deadly combination of microplastics and toxins, one butt can contaminate up to 500 litres of water with toxins that remain active for 10 years. In a litre of water, one butt will kill marine life and fish. Discarded on land, they contaminate soil and groundwater and eventually the food chain. But they are also made of recyclable cellulose acetate and can be made into plastic pallets and lumber products. Let’s Talk Butts helps communities map out cigarette butt hot spots, make safe, readily available collection containers and ensure they get recycled. Ninety-five trillion butts are littered annually around the world.What else happens besides a cleanup?Each campaign provides education about the toxins, their impacts and the benefits of recycling. But I have learned this is not enough to bring change. People need to understand the potential economic risks of not doing anything and the upsides of acting. They have to learn how to approach decision-makers to develop local collection points and recycling capacity. A side benefit is that once people know they can have agency and access, they are empowered to ask for more justice about other things too. In one Vietnamese community, plastics filled their lakes and rivers. After we made information available on postcards in their language about the health hazards and what to do about it, people enthusiastically joined in the cleanup. Now the community has seen its economy benefit from tourism and has been empowered to demand centralized waste management. Lisa Chen doing a microplastics survey with the Ucluelet Aquarium on Vancouver Island. Photo courtesy of Lisa ChenTell us about your thesis.My research focused on strategies for developing, evaluating and improving ocean literacy. I have learned we will not win the race against climate change unless we fund more than just science education. We also have to fund economic development and empower people to be confident about reaching decision-makers. How did you come to care about the environment?I was raised in a conservative Chinese Canadian family. I am sure my parents hoped I would be an accountant or other professional. But I have always been drawn to the ocean and feel most at home outside. Studying sciences was acceptable, but I had a narrow view of how to apply that understanding until I learned about the dangers of biodiversity loss, climate change and plastic pollution to the oceans. I am happy to be working on this now from a variety of perspectives, understanding that solving these challenges requires decision-making and science to be woven together. Lisa Chen on a research dive in Thailand. Photo courtesy of Lisa ChenDo you have any advice for other young people?Step outside your comfort zone. That is where the greatest learning happens and where you will be most likely able to apply what you know in other disciplines, which is what the world needs.What would you like to say to older readers?It is never too late to take action. Use your money and power to influence decision-makers to work with scientists and vice versa. If you have young people in your life, inspire them to take action by doing it yourself.

Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

Researchers have, for the first time, simulated both micro- and macroplastics accumulation in Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). They found that the majority of Mediterranean countries included in the study had at least one MPA where more than half of macroplastics originated elsewhere. The study, published in Frontiers in Marine Science, highlights the need for international collaboration on plastic pollution management in marine protected areas.

Reprinted from GreenBuzz, a free weekly newsletter. Subscribe here.Remember plastic pollution?
It wasn’t long ago that the world seemed wrapped up in plastic: outrage over plastic drinking straws and bags, mostly, but also the entire plastics and packaging industries. We fretted over the fate of various critters, notably a hapless sea turtle whose viral video led many to treat plastic straws with roughly the same disdain as nuclear waste. Consumer brands scrambled to commit to ending plastic waste sometime in the future, in many cases by making their packaging recyclable or compostable, never mind the wholly inadequate global infrastructure available to actually recycle or compost the stuff. The whole thing inevitably spawned a culture war that led some American politicians to ban plastic straw bans as an expression of “freedom.”
It was a war on plastic that, it seemed at the time, might actually curb plastic’s environmental excesses.
That was so 2018.
Today, the skirmishes have largely faded from public attention. The plastics problem hasn’t gone away, of course — quite the opposite. Sanitation and public health concerns have given single-use plastics new life and put the wraps on some jurisdictional bans on disposable plastic packaging. Global sales of plastics continue to climb, a growing profit center for beleaguered oil and gas companies, which are seeing demand for their principal fuels plateau in an era of a fossil-fuel phaseout.
But that reprieve of public attention may be short-lived: The climate crisis represents a new front on the war on plastics. It may lack the viral video and social media cachet of straw bans and nasal-impacted reptiles (and let’s briefly be thankful for that) but it is arguably a more powerful leverage point among advocates and activists.
And most companies — from polymer producers to consumer brands to retailers — are ill-prepared for what’s likely to come.

The climate crisis represents a new front on the war on plastics.

Consider a report issued last fall by a group called Beyond Plastics, warning that “The U.S. plastics industry’s contribution to climate change is on track to exceed that of coal-fired power in this country by 2030.” It cites the dozens of plants that have recently opened, are under construction or are in the permitting process. “If they become fully operational, these new plastics plants could release an additional 55 million tons of greenhouse gases — the equivalent of another 27 average-sized coal plants.”
And then it landed this zinger: “Plastics are the new coal.”
Other groups have been ramping up their efforts to link plastics and climate. Back in 2019, for example, the Center for International Environmental Law, the Environmental Integrity Project, the FracTracker Alliance and others pointed out that “The plastic and petrochemical industries’ plans to expand plastic production threaten to exacerbate plastic’s climate impacts and could make limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius impossible.”
Up in smoke
Carbon emissions can be found throughout the plastics lifecycle, starting with fracking, which yields the natural gas that is the basis for most plastics, and from “cracking,” which turns that gas into ethylene, a key precursor to many plastics. There are emissions from transporting and converting plastics into countless goods and materials. There are yet more emissions at the back end, too, including a range of carbon-intensive waste-management processes such as incineration and so-called chemical or “advanced” recycling, which can turn waste plastics into feedstocks to make more plastics.
It doesn’t stop there. Plastic marine waste emits methane when it is exposed to sunlight. Microplastics can undermine oceans’ resilience to climate change, including by disturbing the carbon stored in marine and coastal ecosystems.
And let’s not even get started on emissions from open burning, a common method of plastics disposal in the developing world, which sends all of those embedded petrochemicals up in smoke.
True, plastic has climate advantages, from lightweighting goods, which reduces their transportation emissions, to protecting foods from spoilage. And those may counterbalance some of the above problems.
Still, environmental advocacy groups are likely to stoke the plastics-climate linkage, two issues that to date have largely been seen as separate. And as the linkages are more widely understood, pressure could be directed toward the same brands that, less than three years ago, committed to ending plastic waste but not the use of plastic itself.
What’s not clear is whether plastics and climate activists will find common cause. It’s hardly a slam-dunk. Activist groups are notoriously myopic, steering clear of adjacent issues as if they were fully disconnected. To take a system’s view of plastics and climate would mean flexing some muscles that long ago atrophied within that community.
Even academics are culpable: “Now is not the time to be distracted by the convenient truth of plastic pollution, as the relatively minor threats this poses are eclipsed by the global systemic threats of climate change,” wrote two British professors in the journal Marine Policy back in 2019. They worry that corporations and governments may use the plastics issue to distract from the climate one. Perhaps, but there’s a vast anti-plastics ecosystem to watchdog that.

Activist groups are notoriously myopic, steering clear of adjacent issues as if they were fully disconnected.

Policymakers also seem to be missing the big picture. The world “plastic” doesn’t appear in the text of either the 2015 Paris Agreement or the more recent Glasgow Climate Pact. United Nations-sponsored talks next month in Nairobi to draft a global plastics treaty appear to avoid bringing climate change into the picture.
Can the myriad of groups focused on plastic waste, toxicity, marine pollution, climate change, public health, water pollution, environmental justice, beach cleanups and other issues come together? It won’t be easy.
It also may not be necessary. Given the growing focus on net-zero commitments and Scope 3 supply-chain accountability, and the rising concern by investors over risks associated with climate change, waste disposal, toxicity and other ESG issues, all of this could turn in a heartbeat. Companies may find themselves taking stock of — and being held responsible for — the upstream and downstream climate impacts of the materials they source. That, in turn, could engender legislation, litigation, consumer boycotts and more.
And brands, once again, will be taking the heat.
I invite you to follow me on Twitter, subscribe to my Monday morning newsletter, GreenBuzz, from which this was reprinted, and listen to GreenBiz 350, my weekly podcast, co-hosted with Heather Clancy.

Canada’s new environment and climate change minister has some first-hand experience when it comes to living in a resource town that goes through boom and bust cycles.

Steven Guilbeault, 51, hails from La Tuque, a small town of 11,000 people in north-central Quebec, about 290 kilometres northeast of Montreal.

As a young boy, he climbed a tree to stop loggers from cutting it down — perhaps foreshadowing a 2001 stunt, scaling the CN Tower to draw attention to the pressing issue of climate change.

In his new role, Guilbeault will have his work cut out for him. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has assigned the minister 40 distinct tasks in a mandate letter that is perhaps the longest one sent to any minister in the federal cabinet. It all means that Guilbeault will need to work with other federal cabinet ministers and stakeholders to assist energy workers in transitioning away from fossil fuel jobs.

He tells The Narwhal that it’s a mission that hits home.

“I come from a small pulp and paper town, mono-industrial town near Lac Saint-Jean which has gone through a series of shock waves because of what has happened in the forestry industry,” says Guilbeault, who took over the federal portfolio in October. 

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism

Guilbeault studied industrial relations, computer sciences and then political science at the Université de Montréal in the early ‘90s. While there, climate activism started to shape Guilbeault’s career and, in 1993, he and several colleagues established Action for Solidarity, Equity, Environment and Development — the forebearer to Équiterre, Quebec’s leading environmental organization. He later acted as Greenpeace Canada’s director and campaign manager for 10 years, which spurred him to the highest point of the Toronto skyline. 

Though we both now live in Guilbeault’s Montreal riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie, I speak to the minister over Zoom as the latest wave of COVID-19 is sweeping across Quebec. Guilbeault’s embattled bicycle hangs on the wall behind him. 

Last November, when the minister appeared on a hybrid session of parliament with this same background, Conservative MP Ed Fast accused him of making a political statement. After I comment on the fact that he hasn’t changed his decor, Guilbeault quickly points out that his — year-round — chosen mode of transportation never made waves during his two years as heritage minister. 

But today, Guilbeault is the driver of the Trudeau government’s climate plan, putting some leaders, oil and gas companies and their allies on edge. Meanwhile, some of his former allies say he betrayed the environmental movement by joining the governing Liberal party in 2019 after it orchestrated the takeover of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline and expansion project.

“Sometimes you decide to work with people with whom you don’t necessarily agree on everything, but if you find common ground, and if you think that by working together you can move the dial along, then you do it.”

I spoke with the minister about a looming ban on plastics, slashing pollution from industry, being labelled a climate alarmist for recognizing what’s now common sense, and how the word “compromise” became a go-to word in his vocabulary. 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

You once stood side-by-side with CEOs of oil companies on a stage as Rachel Notley unveiled her government’s climate change plan for Alberta. How has that experience prepared you for your current role as environment minister and what do you hope to accomplish with the oil and gas industry?

It wasn’t the first time I worked with industry, it wasn’t the first time I worked with oil companies, it certainly wasn’t the first time I worked with provincial or other levels of government. But I think it certainly shows that I can work with people who have views that are not my own. Certainly it shows that I’ve worked with the Alberta government before and that I’m perfectly happy and capable of doing it again. And in terms of how I intend to work with oil companies, I mean I intend to work with these companies or the sector as I will with any other sector. 

Steven Guibeault, MP for Montreal’s Laurier-Sainte-Marie riding, was named Canada’s environment minister in October, after two years as heritage minister. Photo: Selena Phillips-Boyle / The Narwhal

We have to decarbonize our society and that includes transportation, and we’ve made a number of commitments on that, some previous to the last election campaign but certainly since then as well. We want to decarbonize the steel sector, the cement sector, the auto sector, the aluminium sector and the oil and gas sector. So I will be working with them as I would be working with others. 

It is true that oil and gas and transportation are our two biggest challenges in Canada, which is why when you look at our approach, you’re seeing more measures towards these sectors than towards others. Not because others aren’t important, we’re doing stuff in the building sector, we’re doing stuff on landfill, but both these sectors are 50 per cent of our emissions so they should receive a large portion of our attention. And for those who said that the cap was unfairly targeting the oil and gas sector, I’d said look at transportation, we are putting a cap on the transportation sector as well because at least for light duty vehicles, new sales will have to be zero emissions, 100 per cent by 2035, so in essence we’re also putting a cap on that sector as well. 

In your recent ministerial mandate letters, there are several ministers who have been tasked with setting up a Just Transition Fund for workers in oil-producing provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. What is your message to workers whose jobs might not exist, two, five or 10 years from now and do you think your government is working fast enough to help them? 

Our society has gone through a number of technological transformations since the industrial revolution. It’s not the first, unlikely to be the last one. And I mean ultimately just transition is about how do we adapt our workforce to changing technological conditions in the workplace. We could not be talking about climate change and still be having conversations about the need to make sure that people are properly trained, people are properly ready for the jobs that will be in vogue in five years, in 10 years, in 15 years. 

The difference this time is that I think in many cases before we didn’t really see [technological changes] coming or we didn’t want to see them coming, this time we do. We know it’s happening, it’s happening around the world, it’s certainly happening in Canada and, in answer to your question, are we doing enough? I’d say not yet. I’d say we need to do more and the fact that you’re seeing this in many ministers’ mandate letters is a clear sign that this is a priority for our government. 

Speaking of the mandate letters, you might have the longest of all the ministers in cabinet.

I’ve heard, I haven’t compared them, but yeah. 

Something like three dozen items. Have you given yourself any personal deadlines or goals of how to achieve everything on your list?

Well, I mean some deadlines are self-imposed. We have a commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. So in some cases they’re very clear. In others they’re not necessarily as clear, but on a number of either legislative or regulatory measures we want to implement, we have said we want to do this in the very near future. As a minority government, it would be optimistic to think that we have more than two years. We might, but at this point I’m not assuming that this is the case, so I have to do everything that I can to ensure that we deploy as many of the measures that we’ve announced. Certainly on climate, but on plastics, we want to see movement very soon on that, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, I have announced we’ll be tabling the bill, a similar version to the one that was tabled by minister Wilkinson, that will happen early in the New Year when the House resumes. 

A long-time environmental activist, Guibeault says the current concerns around climate change were labelled alarmist 30 years ago. Photo: Selena Phillips-Boyle / The Narwhal

Are you able to speak more about the movement on plastics that we’re going to be seeing more of soon?

Well, we had committed to present regulations by the end of 2021. [Editor’s note: the regulations were published on December 25, with public comment open until March 5.] The initial rounds of consultation we did while elaborating the regulations, we received something like 24,000 submissions, which is probably one of the highest number we’ve ever received on anything at Environment Canada. And the overwhelming majority of these comments were in favour of governments doing more to combat plastic pollution. So we will be moving ahead with banning a certain number of single-use plastic items. 

And, rightly so, people are focusing on that, but I think there is also a broader conversation that needs to happen in this country about how we recycle. We’re at roughly nine per cent of plastics being recycled, how do we get to 90 per cent by the end of the decade?

And that work has started, last week at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, plastic pollution was on the agenda; How do we better co-ordinate between the federal government, provinces and municipalities to ensure that we have higher levels of recycling to ensure that the plastics that we’re using in this country are not only recyclable but also recycled all across the country, which is not the case right now. So banning certain substances is super important, but we also need to do better on the recycling side. 

This past year, as we all know, B.C. has experienced some of its worst wildfires quickly followed by record disastrous torrential rain, landslides, flooding. Do you have climate adaptation plans for these kinds of issues and similar ones to come elsewhere?

Yes. Well, you know, there are those instances in life where you don’t want to be right and many of us 30 years ago were talking about climate change and talking about upcoming climate impacts and people were saying you’re out to lunch, you’re an alarmist creating problems that are not there. And 30 years ago, scientists with the information that was available, thought that the type of things we’re seeing today would happen in 2050 or something like that, but it’s happening now, unfortunately. 

Fortunately, our government has invested around $4 billion over the last few years in various climate adaptation and resilience programs. That money has started to be deployed. We’ve started investing in nature-based solutions to adapt to climate change. Just west of Montreal the big park we’re doing with the City of Montreal, this park was done interestingly enough using infrastructure dollars. Traditionally in Canada, infrastructure dollars were for concrete and pavement and now we’re using this to build parks that will help us alleviate spring floods. And we’ve done a series of these projects and we will be doing more and more of those. 

More broadly, at the beginning of [2021], we started consultations on a national adaptation strategy. There are five working tables that are composed mainly, at this point, of experts in the field. And the federal government is present at these tables, but we’re not chairing them, it is chaired by experts. We’re looking at different elements of the adaptation, of a national adaptation strategy, infrastructure, human health, resiliency. These consultations are coming to an end soon and then we will start working with provinces, territories and municipalities, Indigenous Peoples too. And it’s deliberately not called a federal adaptation strategy, it’s a national adaptation strategy and we want to have something agreed upon with provinces and other stakeholders, territories by the end of 2022 so that it can guide our work in the coming years. 

The prime minister gave you until March to come up with a plan to meet Canada’s 2030 climate change goals. By the time people read this article, that will be less than three months away. What do you think the hardest part of meeting this goal will be?

I think the work we’re doing right now is some of the hardest work we’ll have to do. … We’ve been able to remove what would otherwise have been 30 million tonnes [of emissions projected for 2030], which is almost equivalent to half of what Quebec emits every year. So our plan is starting to work, but we need to do more and we need to do it faster, clearly. That’s certainly a message we heard during the last election campaign. 

I could talk to you about X measure or that sector, but ultimately, take Clean Fuel Standards for example. We’ve been having public consultations on this for five years. One of the things I told stakeholders when I was in Toronto recently and then in Calgary, one of the things I told the department as well is we don’t have that luxury anymore. We don’t have five years to consult every time we want to introduce a new measure. I told you earlier that my timeline is two years, so in the next two years, more stringent methane regulations, zero emission vehicle standards, net-zero grid by 2035, cap on oil and gas, and obviously phasing out fossil fuels, all of these things must be in place in the coming 18 months. I mean, maybe 2024, but that’s the type of timeframe we have to work with. And it’s going to be tough because, on the one hand, some people are going to criticize us for not giving them enough time to be consulted, but the state of climate change is such that we need to learn to do things faster and that’s certainly true of us as a government, but it’s going to be true of many stakeholders. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been criticized for not committing to ending fossil fuel use. His government did commit to ending fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. Photo: Adam Scotti / Prime Minister’s Office

I mean, who knows what’s going to happen by 2100. I think we’ve made a commitment to being carbon-neutral, like most of our trading partners and the vast majority of emitters, by 2050. Some like India have said 2070. Ultimately, what is important is what does the atmosphere see? And if the atmosphere sees less emissions, then we’re succeeding, which is why we’re putting a cap on pollution. 

So your tight timeframe ironically reflects…

Yes, time is not my friend. 

You’ve now been on the job as the environment minister for over a month now. In some of your recent comments to journalists you have stressed that you are still an activist, but that you’re taking on a role as a minister for all Canadians. What kind of compromises have you had to make so far, and how do you justify accepting a job that requires you to make compromises on the positions you took publicly in the past?

Even before coming into politics, I would often compromise. I mean, when you’re with a group of people at Équiterre or Greenpeace, did I get 100 per cent of what I wanted 100 per cent of the time? Of course not. People have different views in terms of how to do things, tactics, strategies, so you compromise. I think the key thing is never to compromise on your values and on what you believe in. As a father of four, I can tell you I never get 100 per cent of what I want and if that’s true in my family, I cannot understand how it could not be true in a country of 38 million people. 

Just a few months into his term, Guilbeault says he’s no stranger to compromising and hearing out opposing viewpoints to find a common ground. Photo: Selena Phillips-Boyle / The Narwhal

So I mean compromises are a part of what it means to live in a society, but you can’t compromise on your values. You can find accommodation on the implementation of things. 

Earlier when we started talking you referenced when I was on stage with premier Notley and the contentious issue for many of us environmentalists who decided to be on stage was the cap on oil and gas. If you recall, the cap was set at a higher level than the level of emissions in those days in Alberta. Some environmentalists really criticized me and others who were on stage saying that the cap was too high and of course I would have preferred a cap that was lower. On the other hand, industry would have preferred a cap that was higher than what they got, but overall I felt that everything that premier Notley was proposing at the time, a price on pollution, phasing out coal, more renewables, more efficiency, the cap, I thought that a higher cap than what I would have wanted was better than no cap at all and the sky being the limit. I’m willing to make those types of compromises. But never about what I believe in. 

Oil Change International released a report last October saying that Canadian fossil fuel producers receive more public funding and renewable energy funding than any other G20 country. And now you’re meant to phase out fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. The governments in Canada have been promising to phase out these types of subsidies ever since former prime minister Stephen Harper signed on to a G20 commitment in 2009. So what makes this time different? 

As you know, the timeline that G20 countries set for themselves to phase out these subsidies is 2025. So when people say you haven’t met that promise, it’s true, but we’re not in 2025 and we’ve decided to do it two years earlier. What’s different? Umm. Well it’s in my mandate letter and the mandate letter of the finance minister. It’s an instruction that the prime minister gave to us, it’s a campaign promise. So not delivering is simply not an option. 

And since we’re talking about Stephen Harper, in 2015 he made a commitment at the G7 to end the use of fossil fuels by 2100. How come Harper was able to make a promise to end fossil fuel use, and Justin Trudeau is avoiding doing that?

As you know, natural resource extraction or usage is largely a provincial jurisdiction. But the Supreme Court in the carbon pricing case clearly stated that when it comes to pollution, and climate change pollution, the federal government has a role to play. It’s not a magic wand that we can wave any way we want. We have to use this power with clairvoyance, but that’s why we’re going after pollution. And then, we’ll see what happens to production. 

Rightly so, when we talk about climate change in Canada, we do talk about oil and gas production, because we’re a large producer, but we also have to look at what we’re doing on the demand side for these products. We’re investing record levels in transit, never in the history of this country have more public transit projects been in the works. Three hundred projects under construction now, about 1,000 in preparation, what we’re doing on electrification, what we’re doing on emissions for light duty vehicles, these measures will have significant impacts on the demand, and the net zero grid by 2035, these will have significant impact on fossil fuel demand in Canada. 

And of course, some would say well, Canadian companies can just export their oil to other countries who aren’t doing those things. Theoretically they could, but the reality is that what we’re doing here in Canada, we’re seeing similar things happening in the U.S. and in Europe and clearly some countries are ahead of us [on electric vehicles], like Norway, but one out of two electric vehicles that are sold in the world is sold in China right now. So my question to these people is who, where will the demand be if all the major economies of the world are reducing their demand for fossil fuels? I think, we, companies and provinces that are highly dependent on these resources need to start thinking and looking at what the world will look like in 10, 15, 20 years from now. To think that the past will guarantee what will happen in the future is not necessarily the most responsible thing for these people to be doing. 

Over the past 20 years, you went to many UN climate summits and often criticized the Canadian government for not doing its fair share on the international stage. What do you think activist Steven Guilbeault in 1997 would have told Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault at the 2021 summit in Glasgow?  

I mean in those days we had no pricing, we had no investment in transit, very little investment to speak of in clean tech, no regulation, certainly no legislation to phase out coal use in Canada by 2030, no regulation on methane, we weren’t doing anything on EVs. If you look at my track record, I’ve never shied away from saying congratulations to a government or a company that I felt deserved it. But, I would also say you’ve got to do better and you’ve got to do it faster. 

Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault speaks at the Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance roundtable at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland. Photo: Karwai Tang / UK Government / Flickr

How will the Canada Water Agency and updated Canada Water Act address Indigenous Peoples’ access to clean water, which is something that came up a lot recently in elections?

Well, I mean, I can only answer this at 20,000 feet because we only started working on this, but clearly ensuring that everyone in Canada has access to safe, drinkable, fresh water is a priority. As you know, we’ve managed to lift a little over two thirds of the boil water advisories that were in place when we came into power in 2015, and we’re working to eliminate the others in the coming years. So how exactly will the water agency deal with that is a good question, one that I can’t really answer right now, but certainly Indigenous Peoples will be consulted on the elaboration and the mandate of this agency. 

[Editor’s note: Before his 2015 election, Trudeau promised to end all boil water advisories in Indigenous communities by March 2021.]

There are other former environmental activists that have taken on ministerial roles in government, if we think of Peter Garrett in Australia and Nicolas Hulot in France. When Hulot resigned, I’m sure you know, he said he could no longer keep lying and that he hoped the government would learn something from his resignation. Are there lessons that you take from these people who’ve followed similar paths?

As a Francophone, you can bet that I’ve been asked about Nicolas Hulot about 100 times and I know him. When I was at Équiterre, Équiterre worked with Fondation Nicolas Hulot pour la Nature, certainly at the time I think he was nominated ambassador for the French government in the lead up to Paris in 2015. 

I can’t speak on behalf of Nicolas and I don’t know what were the dynamics within the French government when he was there. He said he felt alone, I certainly don’t feel alone. I mean you now have the natural resource minister, who was environment minister, who was before that minister for fisheries and oceans. You have the minister for fisheries and oceans who used to be the B.C. environment minister and someone who did tree-planting as a living, like as a business, before coming into politics. You look at the mandate letter of pretty much all of my colleagues at the cabinet table and everyone has the responsibility to work on climate change and that was the case in 2019 as well. 

When you look at the 2020 Climate Change plan, the enhanced climate change plan, when you look at the number of ministries and ministers that were involved in this plan, they obviously had environment, natural resources, transportation, finance, economic development, I’m forgetting some I’m sure, international trade, it has become a whole of government approach. Again, I don’t know how things were for Nicolas with the Macron government, but what I can tell you is that I have a lot of allies and I have a lot of support around the cabinet table when I’m trying to move forward legislation or regulation, and that makes a whole difference.

Banner:
Environment Minister Steven Guibeault views the next two years as his window to reshape Canada’s climate change policy.
Photo: Selena Phillips-Boyle / The Narwhal

New titleAnd since you’re here, we have a favour to ask. Our independent, ad-free journalism is made possible because the people who value our work also support it (did we mention our stories are free for all to read, not just those who can afford to pay?).As a non-profit, reader-funded news organization, our goal isn’t to sell advertising or to please corporate bigwigs — it’s to bring evidence-based news and analysis to the surface for all Canadians. And at a time when most news organizations have been laying off reporters, we’ve hired five journalists over the past year.Not only are we filling a void in environment coverage, but we’re also telling stories differently — by centring Indigenous voices, by building community and by doing it all as a people-powered, non-profit outlet supported by more than 4,200 members. The truth is we wouldn’t be here without you. Every single one of you who reads and shares our articles is a crucial part of building a new model for Canadian journalism that puts people before profit.We know that these days the world’s problems can feel a *touch* overwhelming. It’s easy to feel like what we do doesn’t make any difference, but becoming a member of The Narwhal is one small way you truly can make a difference.If you believe news organizations should report to their readers, not advertisers or shareholders, please become a monthly member of The Narwhal today for any amount you can afford.

Milind Tambe and Shriram Kondhawekar are cycling along the Indian coastline covering a distance of about 6,179 kilometres to highlight the ill-effects of single-use plastic

At a time when Indian coasts are battling a tidal wave of plastic pollution, two cyclists from Maharashtra are on a mission to highlight the ill-effects of single-use plastic and its impact on marine life. Naval veteran Milind Tambe, 56, and 49-year old Shriram Kondhawekar are cycling along the Indian coastline covering a distance of about 6,179 kilometres as part of their Indian Coastal Cycling Expedition. The Pedalbums, as they call themselves, started the first leg of their journey from Mumbai last February. The journey had to be halted in Goa due to the second wave of the pandemic. Milind and Shriram resumed their expedition from Goa on November 14 with an aim to complete the remaining three legs of the journey cycling through Kanyakumari, Visakhapatnam, Kolkata and Gujarat before culminating their expedition in Mumbai.“While travelling through the beaches, we came face-to-face with the extent of plastic pollution plaguing our coastline. The beaches are mostly polluted with single-use plastic. Pollution was worse on beaches around urban and semi urban areas, while rural coasts had negligible amounts of single-use plastic,” says Milind during an interaction in Visakhapatnam earlier this week. “We are carrying the little plastic generated along our tour till we find a designated recycling facility. Even today my bag contains used biscuit wrappers and the like, which I will carry with me till I can dispose it off responsibly,” says Milind. “We are against irresponsible disposal of single-use plastic. There are ways to upcycle and that is what we tell whomever we interact with,” adds Shriram.The cyclists’ expedition has been formally recognised by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports under the Fit India Movement.The duo is cycling with Fuji Touring and Marin Four Corners bikes. “These cycles are made for cycle touring and are capable of carrying heavy loads of the touring setup. Also the frame geometry makes it easy to attach panniers and frame bags on the cycle,” explains Milind.Fitness routine Milind says they are following a high protein and carbohydrate diet during the expedition. The duo’s fitness preparation was taken care of by Fittr, their fitness sponsor. “They analysed our body structure and dietary habits and gave us six months of strength training and endurance building exercises. They also made customized diet plans. This has helped us a lot in this expedition,” says Milind.The cyclists were on the road for 50 days before coming to Visakhapatnam. “We found many good souls along the way. People were very generous and more than willing to help us, be it with finding accommodation, or directions or just general advice,” says Shriram. There were instances where the cyclists had food at small wayside hotels. “The owners, after chatting with us and knowing the objective of our tour, refused to accept money,” recalls Milind.The cyclists have been meeting several cycling groups, who hosted them for dinners and showed them around.Talking about the toughest parts of the expedition, Milind says: “The southern coast from Kanyakumari was one of the most challenging. It is not because of the terrain, but the humid climate that was extremely energy sapping. Being physically fit and mentally strong are of equal importance during long-distance cycling. Determination is all that matters,” he says. As far as the gear is concerned, Milind says having a cycle which you can take apart and reassemble is a vital skill. “Cycles need to be suited for the terrain that you would intend to traverse. We have adopted a minimalist approach in our luggage and carry very little in terms of clothes and other accessories,” he adds.What has been the biggest takeaway from the expedition? “That we have to be adaptive to change, and that we can live with very little. One doesn’t need much to live,” says Milind.

Ocean plastic pollution in North Jakarta, Indonesia. Credit: Yunaidi Joepoet / Getty.

A new, filter-free method of separating microplastics from seawater has been developed in Indonesia.

Researchers in Indonesia have developed an innovative way to remove microplastics from water without the need for expensive filters.

It works, says Dhany Arifianto, an engineer at the Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember in Surabaya, Indonesia, by passing contaminated water through a pipe, while underwater speakers make the pipe vibrate like the sound board of a guitar.

We think of sound in terms of what we can hear. But to an engineer, it’s merely a series of pressure waves.

Normally, we think of sound in terms of what we hear. But to an engineer, it’s merely a series of pressure waves. When contaminated water passes through the pipe, the water, being liquid, simply transmits the tone. But microplastic particles, being solid, feel the pressure differently, and are driven away from it, Arifianto says.

Surround them by the same tone coming from all sides, and the only place for them to go is the centre of the pipe. When the water emerges from the pipe, this concentrated stream of plastic can then be diverted, while the rest of the water, now cleansed, flows on. “That’s basically the principle of our research,” Arifianto says, “the force created by sound.”

It’s an important development, because microplastics are a growing threat, both to humans and the environment.

Microplastics are tiny fragments of plastic, produced as larger pieces degrade. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration classifies them as anything smaller than five millimetres in length. “That’s about half the size of a fingernail clipping,” says Charles Moore, founder of Algalita Marine Research and Education, a nonprofit group in Long Beach, California, that is deeply concerned about ocean plastics.

Microplastics are a growing threat, both to humans and the environment.

Moore is a racing-boat captain who first discovered the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a massive concentration of plastic detritus trapped by currents, when he was sailing from Hawaii to California after a race and found himself surrounded by a sea of plastic trash.

But the big chunks of plastic Moore stumbled across aren’t the only ones polluting the seas. In the ocean, big pieces of plastic break down into smaller ones, which then break down into microplastics, and from there into even smaller bits. “Microplastics don’t stay micro,” Moore says. “They get nano.”

This map shows the location of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Credit: NOAA.

When that happens, he says, they can lodge in tissues of animals that ingest them (including people). “They don’t just pass through, they get absorbed,” he says. “They pass the blood-brain barrier; they lodge in the placenta. They get into brains and change behavior, because the brain is an electrical organ, and plastics are insulators.”

For example, he says, fish exposed to microplastics don’t go as far or spend as much time looking for food as they normally would.

They also contain xenoestrogens: chemicals that behave like artificial oestrogens. One of these is bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical that is on the State of California’s official list of developmental and reproductive toxicants, based on a review of more than 300 scientific studies of its effect on the female reproductive system.

BPA can also have effects on males – enough that a recent review article in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology provocatively labeled it an “emerging threat to male fertility.”

Get an update of science stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Moore adds that it also has behavioral effects, causing male rats to hang out closer to the nest than normal, though it’s not clear if that’s because it is feminising them or simply making them anxious – a factor revealed in other studies.

“They get into brains and change behaviour, because the brain is an electrical organ, and plastics are insulators.”Charles Moore

Arifianto’s sound-based cleanup system is still in its infancy, but in lab tests that were scheduled to be presented at the December 2021 meeting of the American Acoustical Society, in Seattle, Washington, his team was able to filter out nylon fragments to an efficiency of up to 99%, and other microplastics to an efficiency of up to 95%. Although, he told Cosmos after he was stranded in Indonesia by US COVID protocols, those results are for fresh water, which is easier to work with than seawater. For seawater, he says, his team has to date only achieved 58% efficiency.

Fifty-eight percent may not sound like a lot – and it wouldn’t be if the goal was to purify drinking water. But Arifianto’s target is more ambitious. He wants to help clean up the ocean, starting in the waters offshore from Indonesia. For that, even 50% efficiency would be an enormous benefit.

To do this, he envisions an array of sonic scrubbers deployed across the narrow straits between his country’s main islands, through which currents circulating between the Pacific and Indian oceans offer perfect locations in which to intercept a lot of microplastics, especially those originating from Indonesia.

It sounds crazy, but the straits aren’t all that wide (the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra, for example, is only 24 kilometres across at its narrowest point). And plastics float, meaning that the vast majority of them will be in the top five metres of the water column. To collect them, Arifianto envisions an array of sonic pipes stretching across the straits (except for the shipping channels), moored to the bottom so they stay in place and powered by solar cells, wave energy, or perhaps even the temperature gradient from the top to the bottom of their cables. “There is research [on that] in Japan,” he says of the third option.

Arifianto’s target is more ambitious. He wants to help clean up the ocean.

The big problem (other than cost), is likely to be noise pollution. “We are generating audible sound,” he says, “so marine life is going to be affected.”

How badly, he doesn’t know, but the sonic level used in his lab experiments is around 50–60 decibels, which is somewhere between the level of a quiet conversation at home and the buzz of conversation in a busy office. Either way, he says, it’s enough to be “quite audible” and “noticeable at quite a distance”. Figuring out how to deal with that will be a priority in future research.

Moore is skeptical of the idea of trying to clean up the ocean. “It’s just not possible,” he says.

What’s ultimately needed, he believes, is to rethink our use of plastics and become “plastic smart”. Or, as his organisation’s website puts it in a banner headline: “First, we change our relationship with plastic. Then, we change the world.”

Algalita members protesting against ocean plastic pollution. Credit: Algalita.

Arifianto wouldn’t disagree. “I hope I can spread the message that first, we have to stop dumping plastic on the water, whether it’s fresh water or seawater,” he says. “Because it’s going to come back to us in a very harmful way.”

But that doesn’t mean cleanup is useless. “Our work is inspired by the Clean Ocean Project, which put a net in the Pacific to catch ocean garbage.” That was a great idea, he says, but nets can only catch big chunks of plastic. “[So, we thought] how about microplastics?”

Ultimately, Arifianto says, microplastic pollution is a global problem, requiring international efforts. “I hope [our work] is going to reach more people to be aware of the problem and hopefully participate in this global action to clean up.”

Each week, Ghana receives 15 million items of used clothing sent from the West. But 40% of the products get discarded due to poor quality. They end up at landfills and in bodies of water, polluting entire ecosystems.
The Kantamanto market in Ghana’s capital Accra is West Africa’s hub for used clothing from the West. Here, traders hastily sort through piles of clothes daily in order to grab the best bargain. But often, there are more rags than riches. “We didn’t get any good clothing at all,” a trader told DW after one of these hasty routines. Recently, the deliveriesfrom the West have increasingly been focused on so-called fast fashion items. These clothes usually wear out after only a few weeks. To some traders, it is actually an imposition to sift through the,. “The goods that are coming now are really affecting our business,” another trader said, stressing that such cheap items cannot be resold in the local market. Scavenging for quality clothes donated from the West is part of the local economy in Accra Environmental catastrophe in the making While most of these secondhand clothes are typically donated with good intentions from industrialized countries, many have now become an environmental hazard in Ghana and beyond. The OR Foundation, and NGO from the United States, has estimated that about 15 million individual items of used clothing now arrive in Ghana weekly, while 40% end up discarded due to poor quality. With no use for them, the discarded clothing items first end up at landfills and then travel further into the ocean.  Environmental activists say this is a major catastrophe in the making; groups like the Ghana Water and Sanitation Journalists Network (GWJN), are trying to raise awareness about this underreported issue. “Because it is secondhand clothing, some of them wear out very quickly, and then they get thrown all over the place. You get to (the) refuse dump, and you find a lot of them dumped over there,” Justice Adoboe, the national coordinator of the organization, told DW. “You go even near water bodies, you realize that as rainfalls and erosion happen, (they carry) a lot of these second hand clothing wastes towards our water bodies,” Adoboe added, highlighting that because some of the items include toxic dyes, “those who drink from these bodies (of water) downstream might not be drinking just water but chemicals.” Furthermore, the discarded clothing items that are flushed into the sea later get washed back up on the country’s beaches. For UN Goodwill Ambassador Roberta Annan, this is a disaster in the making for marine life: “You can’t take it out. You have to dig. It’s buried. It’s stuck. Some of these clothes are polyester and, I would say, synthetic fabrics that also go into the waterway and choke the fish and marine life in there,” Annan told DW, as she tried to pull some of the clothing out at beach in Accra. Nearly half of all used clothes are thrown away – but the other half provide a lifeline to many Ghanians Finding alterative uses for waste clothing Meanwhile. some fashion designers are looking into finding alternative solutions to this growing problem. Elisha Ofori Bamfo focuses on upcycling discarded secondhand clothes. But even he is not happy with the quality of some of the clothes he found in recent times. Bamfo told DW that it is even difficult to upcycle and recycle some of the second hand clothes that are imported into the country these days: “Sometimes when you go to the market, there are some clothes that can’t be upcycled or can’t be sold,” Bamfo said, adding that local authorities have to take the lead and ensure that only quality secondhand clothing items are imported. Other African nations have indeed taken a more proactive and bold approach – especially on part of authorities and regulations – when it comes to the waste created by secondhand clothing, issuing bans.Rwanda, for example, has banned secondhand clothes imports in 2018 in order to boost its own textile industry. And other nations have followed suit. To ban or not to ban When the coronavirus pandemic emerged in 2020, Kenya also banned the importation of secondhand clothing to prevent the potential spread of the virus. That ban has, however, since been lifted because of its economic impact on people’s livelihoods. Bamfo agrees that in Ghana, an absolute ban on these products would likely also impose extra economic hardship on many people dependant on them: “Thousands of people depend on second hand clothing to survive to feed their families,” he said. Adoboe meanwhile believes that Ghana might indeed benefit from a total ban, but says that there is no political will to see such an initiative through. He believe that until political leaders start to take the impact of these used clothing on the environment seriously, Ghana will continue to remain helpless in this battle against pollution. Roberta Annan, however, is resolute in wanting a quick solution to protect not just the environment but the local fashion industry as well: “The fashion industry actually loses $500 billion a year due to fashion waste.” Annan said. Ghana’s government has remained silent so far on the issue, and there is no sign that it might take any action to deal with the endemic of secondhand clothes and the impact they have on the local textile industry as well as environment. Whenever authorities might want to decide to join the fight against this growing issue, it might perhaps be to late.

Written by Jacqui Palumbo, CNNAfter you finish your fries, eat the ketchup packet. When you add your pasta to boiling water, toss the bag into the pot, too.If these instructions sound confusing to you, it’s only because you haven’t yet heard of Notpla, a London-based startup company that is designing a seaweed-based replacement for single-use plastic packaging. Founded in 2014, the company closed a £10 million ($13.5 million) Series A financing round last month, led by the VC firm Horizons Ventures, to scale and further develop its product line.Notpla’s products are meant to be composted or dissolved after use — though some are edible, too. Current offerings include sachets for condiments, water and even alcohol; a film wrap for products in your pantry or bathroom, like coffee or toilet paper; and takeaway boxes that replace plastic-based coating with seaweed lining to make them fully biodegradable.The Ooho can replace condiment packets and other single-serve liquids, while the seaweed-lined takeaway boxes are fully biodegradable.

Can new year’s resolutions to go vegan and fly less help stop climate change — or are individual lifestyle changes a distraction from real solutions?
Turn off lights. Eat less meat. Walk to work. Fly less. Buy less. Recycle. These are some of the solutions popularized over the last decade in an effort to cut people’s carbon footprints. If those in rich countries were to change their lifestyles, the thinking goes, they would emit fewer gases that act like a greenhouse around Earth, thereby preventing it from heating to ever more deadly levels. That might not sound controversial, but climate activists are increasingly dismissing the focus on personal carbon footprints as a distraction. Many scientists, meanwhile, see tweaking individual lifestyles as a vital step to changing systems. At the heart of the debate is a simple question: how much does anything we do for the climate actually matter? What is a carbon footprint? A carbon footprint is the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere through the actions of an individual, organization or country. The idea of a footprint came from two Canadian researchers in the 1990s as a metaphor for humanity’s impact on the planet. A decade later, oil and gas giant BP took what was still an obscure term to the public. They popularized carbon footprints as part of an estimated $100 million annual marketing campaign. They took out whole-page adverts in newspapers like The New York Times, stuck posters on billboards in airports around the world and ran commercials on TV asking viewers “What size is your carbon footprint?” They created a calculator to let people work it out themselves. In doing so, they shifted responsibility for the damage caused by their products onto the public. At the same time, they and other fossil fuel companies were extracting millions of barrels of oil a day. Talking about a company’s footprint in the same way you talk about a person’s “levels the playing field in a way that’s misrepresentative of the true nature of the climate challenge,” said Geoffrey Supran, a researcher at Harvard University who studies how fossil fuel companies have misled the public on climate change. “The footprint literally personifies greenhouse gas emissions. It brings it down to the scale of a human footprint.” Oil and gas companies have emphasized society’s role in cutting emissions What do cigarettes and plastic have to do with it? Fossil fuel companies promoted the idea of personal carbon footprints and individual action even while lobbying to weaken regulations to limit their pollution. But they weren’t the first industry to do so. As early as the 1970s, the environmental group Keep America Beautiful made adverts that criticized people for littering and encouraged them to recycle. But the organization was funded by corporations churning out plastic bottles who were fighting regulation to address the root of the problem. The tobacco industry then took these tactics further. It distanced itself from the damage that cigarettes cause by downplaying the science and running adverts centered around the idea of an individual’s “freedom to choose.” When companies got taken to court by doctors, they argued that deaths from heart and lung disease were the smokers’ fault for buying their products. A study Supran co-authored in the journal,One Earth found that oil giant ExxonMobil targets individuals while downplaying the reality of climate change.  “These patterns mimic the tobacco industry’s documented strategy of shifting responsibility away from corporations — which knowingly sold a deadly product while denying its harms — and onto consumers,” the authors wrote. Fossil fuel companies have used similar tactics to the tobacco industry Is it the fault of big business? When asked whether the industry is passing blame onto consumers, ExxonMobil told DW it is committed to working to decarbonize high-emitting sectors by investing in technologies that help society achieve a net-zero emissions future. “Ultimately, changes in society’s energy use, coupled with the development and deployment of affordable lower-emission technologies, will be required,” the company wrote in a statement.   Two other fossil fuel companies, BP and Shell, did not respond to a request to comment. But along with French oil giant Total, these four privately-owned companies are indirectly responsible for 11% of the CO2 and methane emissions from burning fossil fuels between 1965 and 2018, according to a September study published in the journal Energy Research & Social Science. Together with state-owned companies in Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran, just seven companies are behind 20% of emissions. “You and I contribute relatively little to the climate crisis,” said Emily Atkin, a climate journalist who runs a newsletter highlighting hypocrisy in the fossil fuel industry. “Our personal carbon footprints don’t actually matter that much in the grand scheme of climate change.” That feeling is echoed widely. A statistic that holds 100 companies responsible for 71% of CO2 emissions has become a viral rallying cry for people arguing that personal action is useless. But while these companies extract the oil, gas and coal that is used to generate those emissions, the responsibility for burning it is still shared with people who buy their products.  Structural changes make it easier for people to cut their emissions What can individual action achieve? The International Energy Agency projects that 40% of emissions cuts needed to decarbonize the global economy by 2050 will come from policies over which the public has little control — like making more electricity from renewable energy or using cleaner technologies in industry — while just 4% are expected to come from purely personal actions like flying less or walking to work. The remaining 55% comes from changes that need a mix of government action and active consumer choices. That means — with the help of subsidies and advances in technology — buying electric cars, installing a heat pump or better insulating homes.  In rich countries, that would still require enormous changes to lifestyles. A study published in the journal Nature in November found such solutions can cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050 and improve quality of life at the same time. Plant-based alternatives to meat have become more popular as people try to cut their carbon footprint What’s more, experts say, every action taken to cut emissions has a bigger impact on society than simply shrinking one person’s carbon footprint. The rise of veganism, for instance, has encouraged companies to invest in tastier meat alternatives that make it easier for meat-eaters to choose a plant burger over a steak. Individual action is also not limited to consumer choices: voting and putting pressure on politicians can also trigger policy changes that shift society. People say their actions are a “drop in the ocean” and the system needs to change, said Stuart Capstick, deputy director of the Center for Climate Change and Social Transformation at the University of Cardiff in the UK. “Well, my response to that is how is that system going to change? Systems don’t change unless people push for them to change.” Edited by: Tamsin Walker