Search for any green Service

Find green products from around the world in one place

‘Biodegradable’ plastic will soon be banned in Australia—that’s a big win for the environment

‘Biodegradable’ plastic will soon be banned in Australia—that’s a big win for the environment

To start dealing with Australia’s mounting plastic crisis, the federal government last week launched its first National Plastics Plan.

The plan will fight plastic on various fronts, such as banning plastic on beaches, ending polystyrene packaging for takeaway containers, and phasing in microplastic filters in washing machines. But we’re particularly pleased to see a main form of  will also be phased out.

Biodegradable plastic promises a plastic that breaks down into natural components when it’s no longer wanted for its original purpose. The idea of a plastic that literally disappears once in the ocean, littered on land or in landfill is tantalizing—but also (at this stage) a pipe dream.

 

Why ‘biodegradable’ ain’t that great

“Biodegradable” suggests an item is made from plant-based materials. But this isn’t always the case.

A major problem with “biodegradable” plastic is the lack of regulations or standards around how the term should be used. This means it could, and is, being used to refer to all manner of things, many of which aren’t great for the environment.

Many plastics labeled biodegradable are actually traditional fossil-fuel plastics that are simply degradable (as all plastic is) or even “oxo-degradable”—where chemical additives make the fossil-fuel plastic fragment into microplastics. The fragments are usually so small they’re invisible to the naked eye, but still exist in our landfills, water ways and soils.

The National Plastics Plan aims to work with industry to phase out this problematic “fragmentable” plastic by July, 2022.

Some biodegradable plastics are made from plant-based materials. But it’s often unknown what type of environment they’ll break down in and how long that would take.

Those items may end up existing for decades, if not centuries, in landfill, litter or ocean as many plant-based plastics actually don’t break down any quicker than traditional plastics. This is because not all plant-based plastics are necessarily compostable, as the way some plant-based polymers form can make them incredibly durable.

So it’s best to avoid all plastic labeled as biodegradable. Even after the ban eliminates fragmentation—the worst of these—there’s still no evidence remaining types of biodegradable plastics are better for the environment.

Home compostable label. Source: Australian Bioplastics Association (ABA).

 

Compostable plastics aren’t much better

Compostable plastic is another label you may have come across that’s meant to be better for the environment. It’s specifically designed to break down into natural, non-toxic components in certain conditions.

Unlike biodegradable plastics, there are certification standards for compostable plastics, so it’s important to check for one the below labels. If an item doesn’t have a certification label, there’s nothing to say it isn’t some form of mislabelled “biodegradable” plastic.

But most certified compostable plastics are only for industrial composts, which reach very high temperatures. This means they’re unlikely to break down sufficiently in home composts. Even those certified as “home compostable” are assessed under perfect lab conditions, which aren’t easily achieved in the backyard.

And while certified compostable plastics are increasing, the number of industrial composting facilities that actually accept them isn’t yet keeping up.

Nor are collection systems to get your plastics to these facilities. The vast majority of kerbside organics recycling bins don’t currently accept compostable plastics and other packaging. This means placing compostable plastics in these bins is considered contamination.

Even if you can get your certified compostable plastics to an appropriate facility, composting plastics actually reduces their economic value as they can no longer be used in packaging and products. Instead, they’re only valuable for returning nutrients to soil and, potentially, capturing a fraction of the energy used to produce them.

Finally, if you don’t have an appropriate collection system and your compostable plastic ends up in landfill, that might actually be worse than traditional plastic. Compostable plastics could release methane—a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide—in landfill, in the same way food waste does.

So, you should only consider  plastics when you have a facility that will take them, and a way to get them there.

And while the National Plastics Plan and National Packaging Targets are aiming for at least 70% of plastics to be recovered by 2025 (including through composting), nothing yet has been said about how collection systems will be supported to achieve this.

 

A brief guide to help you responsibly dispose of your plastics. Source: University Technology Sydney

 

Is recycling helpful?

Only an estimated 9% of plastics worldwide (and 18% in Australia) are actually recycled. The majority ends up in landfill, and can leak into our oceans and natural environments.

In Australia, systems for recycling the most common types of plastic packaging are well established and in many cases operate adequately. However, there are still major issues.

For example, many plastic items can’t be recycled in our kerbside bins (including soft and flexible plastics such as bags and cling films, and small items like bottle lids, plastic cutlery and straws). Placing these items in your kerbside recycling bin can contaminate other recycling and even damage sorting machines.

What’s more, much of the plastic collected for recycling doesn’t have high value “end markets.” Only two types of plastic—PET (think water or soft drink bottles and some detergent containers) and HDPE (milk bottles, shampoo/conditioner/detergent containers)—are easily turned back into new plastic containers.

The rest end up in a stream called “mixed plastics,” much of which we have traditionally exported overseas for recycling due to low demand here. The new waste export ban may help fix this in the future.

 

So what do you do about plastic?

The obvious answer then, is to eliminate problematic plastic altogether, as the National Plastics Plan is attempting to do, and replace single-use plastics with reusable alternatives.

Little actions such as bringing your reusable water bottle, coffee cup and cutlery, can add up to big changes, if adequately supported by businesses and government to create a widespread culture shift. So too, could a swing away from insidious coffee capsules, cling wrap and cotton buds so many of us depend on.

Opting too, for plastic items made from recycled materials can make a big impact on the feasibility of plastic recycling.

If you do end up with  on your hands, take a quick glance at the graphic above, or read the University Technology Sydney’s Detailed Decision Guide to Disposing of Plastics.

 


 

By Jenni Downes, Kim Borg and Nick Florin, 

Source: PHYS.ORG

More than 50 countries commit to protection of 30% of Earth’s land and oceans

More than 50 countries commit to protection of 30% of Earth’s land and oceans

A coalition of more than 50 countries has committed to protect almost a third of the planet by 2030 to halt the destruction of the natural world and slow extinctions of wildlife.

The High Ambition Coalition (HAC) for Nature and People, which includes the UK and countries from six continents, made the pledge to protect at least 30% of the planet’s land and oceans before the One Planet summit in Paris on Monday, hosted by the French president, Emmanuel Macron.

Scientists have said human activities are driving the sixth mass extinction of life on Earth, and agricultural production, mining and pollution are threatening the healthy functioning of life-sustaining ecosystems crucial to human civilisation.

In the announcement, the HAC said protecting at least 30% of the planet for nature by the end of the decade was crucial to preventing mass extinctions of plants and animals, and ensuring the natural production of clean air and water.

The commitment is likely to be the headline target of the “Paris agreement for nature” that will be negotiated at Cop15 in Kunming, China later this year. The HAC said it hoped early commitments from countries such as Colombia, Costa Rica, Nigeria, Pakistan, Japan and Canada would ensure it formed the basis of the UN agreement.

Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, the executive secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, welcomed the pledge but cautioned: “It is one thing to commit, but quite different to deliver. But when we have committed, we must deliver. And with concerted efforts, we can collectively deliver.”

The announcement at the One Planet summit, which also saw pledges to invest billions of pounds in the Great Green Wall in Africa and the launch of a new sustainable finance charter called the Terra Carta by Prince Charles, was met with scepticism from some campaigners. Greta Thunberg tweeted: “LIVE from #OnePlanetSummit in Paris: Bla bla nature Bla bla important Bla bla ambitious Bla bla green investments…”

As part of the HAC announcement, the UK environment minister Zac Goldsmith said: “We know there is no pathway to tackling climate change that does not involve a massive increase in our efforts to protect and restore nature. So as co-host of the next Climate Cop, the UK is absolutely committed to leading the global fight against biodiversity loss and we are proud to act as co-chair of the High Ambition Coalition.

“We have an enormous opportunity at this year’s biodiversity conference in China to forge an agreement to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and ocean by 2030. I am hopeful our joint ambition will curb the global decline of the natural environment, so vital to the survival of our planet.”

However, despite support for the target from several countries, many indigenous activists have said that increasing protected areas for nature could result in land grabs and human rights violations. The announcement may also concern some developing countries who are keen for ambitious commitments on finance and sustainable development as part of the Kunming agreement, not just conservation.

Unlike its climate equivalent, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity covers three issues: the sustainable use of nature, sharing benefits from genetic resources, and conservation. The three pillars of the treaty can clash with each other and richer, developed countries have been accused of focusing too much on conservation while ignoring difficult choices on agriculture and providing finance for poorer nations to meet targets.

The HAC, currently co-chaired by France, Costa Rica and the UK, was formed in 2019 following the success of a similar climate body that spurred ambitious international action before the Paris agreement. By promoting action on biodiversity loss, it is hoped early commitments from the HAC will ensure a successful agreement for nature.

Over the last decade, the world has failed to meet a single target to stem the destruction of wildlife and life-sustaining ecosystems.

On Monday, leaders from around the world met in person and virtually at the One Planet summit in Paris to discuss the biodiversity crisis, promoting agroecology and the relationship between human health and nature. Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel and Justin Trudeau addressed the event, which also included statements from UN secretary general, António Guterres, and the Chinese vice-premier Han Zheng .

The UK government has also committed £3bn of UK international climate finance to supporting nature and biodiversity over the next five years.

Johnson told the event: “We are destroying species and habitat at an absolutely unconscionable rate. Of all the mammals in the world, I think I am right in saying that 96% of mammals are now human being or livestock that human beings rely upon.

“That is, in my view, a disaster. That’s why the UK has pledged to protect 30% of our land surface and marine surface. Of the 11.6bn that we’ve consecrated to climate finance initiatives, we are putting £3bn to protecting nature.”

The funding was welcomed by conservation and environmental organisations, including the RSPB and Greenpeace, but there were questions about the scale of the funding and whether it came at the cost of international aid.

“Increasing funds to protect and enhance nature is critical to help secure success at the global biodiversity conference in China this year. Siphoning off cash from funds already committed to tackling the climate crisis simply isn’t enough,” said Greenpeace UK’s head of politics, Rebecca Newsom.

“This announcement raises concerns that the UK’s shrinking aid budget is being repurposed to pay for nature and biodiversity. As important as these are, the first priority of overseas aid should be the alleviation of poverty,” said Oxfam’s senior policy adviser on Climate Change, Tracy Carty.

  • This article was amended on 12 January 2020 to better reflect that the High Ambition Coalition (formed 2011) and the High Ambition Coalition for People and Nature (formed 2019) are separate organisations

 


 

By  and 

Source The Guardian

2020: a dismal year for coal power

2020: a dismal year for coal power

Long seen as a critical emerging market for coal power, South and Southeast Asian countries radically reconsidered their commitment to it last year in the face of new economic realities following the spread of coronavirus.

According to a new analysis from Global Energy Monitor (GEM), four of the region’s largest emerging economies— Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam—may have cancelled nearly 45 gigawatts (GW) of coal power in 2020, equivalent to the total installed capacity of Germany.

Prospects for a revival of coal development plans in 2021 have also been limited by announcements from major coal financiers in South Korea and Japan of new restrictions on coal power investments beyond their borders.

Analysts have for years warned that coal power expansion plans in several countries in South and Southeast Asia risked overcapacity in the sector, wasted capital and asset stranding—not to mention greenhouse gas emissions and environmental costs. The year 2020 may prove to be when the regions’ coal power expansion plans were finally re-evaluated in the face of the pressing need for climate action and the reality of declining low-carbon technology costs.

 

Falling one by one

Perhaps the most dramatic development in Asia’s energy sector last year was the summer flurry of coal power plant cancellations and postponements. It started in Bangladesh in June when Nasrul Hamid, Minister for Power, Energy and Mineral Resources, unexpectedly announced that the government was planning to “review” all but three of the country’s under-development coal plants, capping coal power capacity at 5GW. Suddenly, planned coal plants totalling 23GW were in doubt. By November, Bangladeshi media were reporting that the plan to scrap most of the country’s planned coal was awaiting approval from the prime minister.

A month later, details of Vietnam’s draft Power Development Plan, which is due to come into force next year, became public. The draft plan proposed cancelling seven coal plants and postponing six others until the 2030s, by which point it is highly unlikely they will go ahead. The 13 plants represent almost half of Vietnam’s planned coal power development.

Then, in November, the Philippines’ Department of Energy proposed a moratorium on new coal power plants which, according to analysis by GEM, could lead to 9.6GW of cancellations. And, in December, on the fifth anniversary of the Paris Agreement, Pakistan’s Imran Khan announced that the country would not construct any new coal power plants, though the real-world impact of this grandiose announcement has been questioned.

Adding in proposed project cancellations in Indonesia, GEM estimates that the coal power pipeline in South and Southeast Asia’s four major emerging economies may have dropped by as much as 62GW in 2020. That leaves just 25GW under development, an 80 per cent decline from just five years ago. Exact figures for cancelled and remaining plants will depend on how last year’s flurry of announcements is manifested in specific policies.

 

Source: Global Energy Monitor (GEM)

 

The financial drought continues

One contributing factor to the wave of coal power cancellations and moratoriums around South and Southeast Asia last year was the decline in finance. Banks faced growing public pressure to identify and manage the climate and biodiversity risks associated with coal power development and respond to the climate crisis by committing resources to renewables. A recent report from Greenpeace Japan estimates that Southeast Asia’s renewable energy market could be worth up to US$205 billion over the next 10 years.

In Japan, 2020 saw banks Mizuho, Sumitomo Mitsui, and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group announce restrictions on coal power investments. In Korea, state financial institutions Korea Export-Import Bank and KSURE both stepped away from involvement in coal power projects, while Samsung corporation and the state-owned Korea Electric Power Corporation pledged no further investments in overseas coal projects.

The Japanese government also committed “in principle” to limit investments in overseas coal power plants, declaring that such investments would be contingent on the use of ultra-supercritical technology and the host country having a decarbonisation strategy. There have also been strong moves within the Korean parliament this year to ban Korean financing of coal power overseas, with progressive MPs from the ruling Democratic Party proposing related bills on four occasions.

The wave of announcements comes on the back of Singapore’s three major banks announcing an end to coal power financing in 2019. This leaves Chinese banks increasingly the “lender of last resort” to coal power projects around Asia. According to the Global Coal Public Finance Tracker, Chinese banks have provided finance to a total of 53GW worth of under construction or currently operating coal power, far more than the 21GW propped up by the second biggest financier in overseas coal, Japanese banks.

 

Source: Global coal public finance tracker • Note: The data covers all projects under development since 2013, including currently proposed projects, which have received or are likely to receive public finance.

 

All eyes on China’s policymakers

But movement may be on the horizon in China too. At the beginning of December, a report released by the BRI International Green Development Coalition and supported by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment detailed how the Chinese government could establish a “classification mechanism” of overseas project types based on their impacts on local pollution, climate change and biodiversity. The mechanism labels coal power and coal mining as “red”, meaning that involvement of Chinese actors in such projects would be off-limits. Eyes are now on policymakers to adopt the report’s suggestions.

The growing number of national pledges to reach carbon net-zero has arguably given impetus toward “greening” the Belt and Road Initiative. Though China’s new 2060 net-zero goal is targeted at the domestic economy, numerous voices are calling for the expansion of the development target to overseas investments.

While these dizzying developments in Asian energy are certainly welcome news, “king coal” is still clinging on in several places. Countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia, despite their large-scale cancellations, are still pursuing the construction of significant quantities of coal power, while Cambodia has announced new coal power projects, backed by Chinese finance and construction. Meanwhile, despite its welcome net-zero announcement, China is still building new coal-fired power plants at an alarming rate at home.

Asia’s journey away from coal will be a long one but in 2020 many countries at least picked up the pace.

 


 

By Tony Baxter, China Dialogue

Source Eco Business

Why 2021 could be turning point for tackling climate change

Why 2021 could be turning point for tackling climate change

Countries only have only a limited time in which to act if the world is to stave off the worst effects of climate change. Here are five reasons why 2021 could be a crucial year in the fight against global warming.

 

Covid-19 was the big issue of 2020, there is no question about that.

But I’m hoping that, by the end of 2021, the vaccines will have kicked in and we’ll be talking more about climate than the coronavirus.

2021 will certainly be a crunch year for tackling climate change.

Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, told me he thinks it is a “make or break” moment for the issue.

So, in the spirit of New Year’s optimism, here’s why I believe 2021 could confound the doomsters and see a breakthrough in global ambition on climate.

 

1. The crucial climate conference

In November 2021, world leaders will be gathering in Glasgow for the successor to the landmark Paris meeting of 2015.

Paris was important because it was the first time virtually all the nations of the world came together to agree they all needed to help tackle the issue.

The problem was the commitments countries made to cutting carbon emissions back then fell way short of the targets set by the conference.

In Paris, the world agreed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change by trying to limit global temperature increases to 2C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. The aim was to keep the rise to 1.5C if at all possible.

 

Source: Getty Images

 

We are way off track. On current plans the world is expected to breach the 1.5C ceiling within 12 years or less and to hit 3C of warming by the end of the century.

Under the terms of the Paris deal, countries promised to come back every five years and raise their carbon-cutting ambitions. That was due to happen in Glasgow in November 2020.

The pandemic put paid to that and the conference was bumped forward to this year.

So, Glasgow 2021 gives us a forum at which those carbon cuts can be ratcheted up.

 

2. Countries are already signing up to deep carbon cuts

And there has already been progress.

The most important announcement on climate change last year came completely out of the blue.

At the UN General Assembly in September, the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, announced that China aimed to go carbon neutral by 2060.

Environmentalists were stunned. Cutting carbon has always been seen as an expensive chore yet here was the most polluting nation on earth – responsible for some 28% of world emissions – making an unconditional commitment to do just that regardless of whether other countries followed its lead.

That was a complete turnaround from past negotiations, when everyone’s fear was that they might end up incurring the cost of decarbonising their own economy, while others did nothing but still enjoyed the climate change fruits of their labour.

 

China is responsible for around 28% of global greenhouse gas emissions Source: Getty Images

 

And China is not alone.

The UK was the first major economy in the world to make a legally binding net zero commitment in June 2019. The European Union followed suit in March 2020.

Since then, Japan and South Korea have joined what the UN estimates is now a total of over 110 countries that have set net zero target for mid-century. Together, they represent more than 65% of global emissions and more than 70% of the world economy, the UN says.

With the election of Joe Biden in the United States, the biggest economy in the world has now re-joined the carbon cutting chorus.

These countries now need to detail how they plan to achieve their lofty new aspirations – that will be a key part of the agenda for Glasgow – but the fact that they are already saying they want to get there is a very significant change.

 

3. Renewables are now the cheapest energy ever

There is a good reason why so many countries are now saying they plan to go net zero: the collapsing cost of renewables is completely changing the calculus of decarbonisation.

In October 2020, the International Energy Agency, an intergovernmental organisation, concluded that the best solar power schemes now offer “the cheapest source of electricity in history”.

Renewables are already often cheaper than fossil fuel power in much of the world when it comes to building new power stations.

 

 

And, if the nations of the world ramp up their investments in wind, solar and batteries in the next few years, prices are likely to fall even further to a point where they are so cheap it will begin to make commercial sense to shut down and replace existing coal and gas power stations.

That is because the cost of renewables follows the logic of all manufacturing – the more you produce, the cheaper it gets. It’s like pushing on an open door – the more you build the cheaper it gets and the cheaper it gets the more you build.

Think what this means: investors won’t need to be bullied by green activists into doing the right thing, they will just follow the money. And governments know that by scaling up renewables in their own economies, they help to accelerate the energy transition globally, by making renewables even cheaper and more competitive everywhere.

 

 

4. Covid changes everything

The coronavirus pandemic has shaken our sense of invulnerability and reminded us that it is possible for our world to be upended in ways we cannot control.

It has also delivered the most significant economic shock since the Great Depression.

In response, governments are stepping forward with stimulus packages designed to reboot their economies.

And the good news is it has rarely – if ever – been cheaper for governments to make these kind of investments. Around the world, interest rates are hovering around zero, or even negative.

 

 

This creates an unprecedented opportunity to – in the now familiar phrase – “build back better”.

The European Union and Joe Biden’s new administration in the US have promised trillions of dollars of green investments to get their economies going and kick-start the process of decarbonisation.

Both are saying they hope other countries will join them – helping drive down the cost of renewables globally. But they are also warning that alongside this carrot, they plan to wield a stick – a tax on imports of countries that emit too much carbon.

The idea is this may help induce carbon-cutting laggards – like Brazil, Russia, Australia and Saudi Arabia – to come onside too.

The bad news is that, according to the UN, developed nations are spending 50% more on sectors linked to fossil fuels than on low-carbon energy.

 

5. Business is going green too

The falling cost of renewable and the growing public pressure for action on climate is also transforming attitudes in business.

There are sound financial reasons for this. Why invest in new oil wells or coal power stations that will become obsolete before they can repay themselves over their 20-30-year life?

Indeed, why carry carbon risk in their portfolios at all?

The logic is already playing out in the markets. This year alone, Tesla’s rocketing share price has made it the world’s most valuable car company.

 

Source: Getty Images

 

Meanwhile, the share price of Exxon – once the world’s most valuable company of any kind – fell so far that it got booted out of the Dow Jones Industrial Average of major US corporations.

At the same time, there is growing momentum behind the movement to get businesses to embed climate risk into their financial decision-making.

The aim is to make it mandatory for businesses and investors to show that their activities and investments are making the necessary steps to transition to a net-zero world.

Seventy central banks are already working to make this happen, and building these requirements into the world’s financial architecture will be a key focus for the Glasgow conference.

It is still all to play for.

So, there is a good reason for hope but it is far from a done deal.

 


 

By Justin Rowlatt
Chief environment correspondent

Source: BBC

Interceptor Series production to start

Interceptor Series production to start
  • The Ocean Cleanup has partnered with Konecranes to series produce Interceptors
  • This partnership prepares The Ocean Cleanup for global Interceptor scale-up
  • New design updates improve efficiency for operations and mass production
  • Two Interceptors with these design changes are being built in tandem, in Malaysia right now

To rapidly address the urgent problem of plastic pollution, we must deploy Interceptors on an industrial scale, but we cannot do this by ourselves. Today, we announced that we are partnering with Konecranes to handle manufacturing and series production of Interceptors in their MHE-Demag facilities in Malaysia – with two in production right now. Over the last year and a half, we have gained valuable insights into the Interceptor technology and, together with Konecranes’ MHE-Demag, we have made updates to the design that improve its operational and manufacturing efficiency.

 

Interceptors 005 and 006 being manufactured side by side at Konecranes’ MHE-Demag

 

INTERCEPTOR DESIGN UPDATES

Laying the groundwork for global scaleup, Interceptors 005 and 006 are currently being built simultaneously at Konecranes’ MHE-Demag facility in Klang, Malaysia and are expected to be completed in May 2021. These two Interceptors will be different from the 1st and 2nd generations deployed in Jakarta, Indonesia; Klang, Malaysia; and Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Because we have chosen an iterative design path, we continually learn about our technology in real-time and adjust the technology. This process is ongoing so that we are always learning, adapting, and iterating. The 3rd generation is the result of knowledge gained from these deployments to help improve its collection efficiency and ease of production. The key updates to the next Interceptors are:

  • Conveyor belt: The conveyor belt is now 2.5 meters (1.6x wider). The expanded width allows for a less obstructive flow and better distribution to the dumpsters.
  • Barge and dumpsters: To adapt to the new conveyor belt width, the barge and the six dumpsters inside the Interceptor are now widened as well, which makes transfer from conveyor to dumpster easier and more effective.
  • Power and energy system: The new Interceptor design features improved monocrystalline solar cell panels and a smart energy storage system, which is smaller but still meets the 100% solar energy demand required to operate the Interceptor.
  • Catamaran Structure: This updated version features a new frame and catamaran structure built from the ground up. The modular design is specifically designed to facilitate containerization and swift deployment globally.

 

Preliminary visual representation of Interceptor front view – 2nd Gen in the back and 3rd Gen in the front.

 

WHY KONECRANES IS OUR CHOSEN PARTNER

Konecranes is renowned for its market-leading technology and service in material handling and lifting products. Its engineering and design expertise, along with its global service network, will enable them to assemble and install Interceptors around the world. Moving forward, Konecranes will handle Interceptor manufacturing, installation, and maintenance; local partners will oversee operations, and The Ocean Cleanup will continue to act as the technology and best practices provider, lead business development for upcoming Interceptor projects, and further conduct scientific research.

 

GOING GLOBAL

Our aim is to address the 1000 most polluting rivers around the world to achieve our goal of clean oceans. Because we are a small team, we could not do this alone – and we never planned to. Thanks to partnerships like Konecranes we can benefit from their manufacturing expertise and global footprint while we continue to develop our technology. Interceptors 005 and 006 are expected to be completed in May 2021 with one more in the lineup for LA County.

 


 

Source The Ocean Cleanup

Coca-Cola’s largest European bottler targets net-zero by 2040

Coca-Cola’s largest European bottler targets net-zero by 2040

The company is among the cohort of We Mean Business Coalition members who first committed to aligning with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C trajectory at COP25 in Madrid last winter. According to the IPCC, global net emissions must be halved by 2030 and reach zero by 2050 if we are to have the best chance of capping the global temperature increase.

CCEP’s new commitments cover emissions from Scope 1 (direct), Scope 2 (power-related) and Scope 3 (indirect) sources. The company’s main emissions sources aside from operations are ingredients, packaging, transportation and refrigeration.

Given that the majority of the firm’s Scope 3 emissions are in the supply chain, the company is aiming to help all of its strategic suppliers set science-based targets and transition to 100% renewable electricity. For ingredient and packaging-related emissions, the company will accelerate plans relating to sustainable agriculture and 100% recycled plastics. Some life-cycle analyses have found that soft drinks bottles made using 100% post-consumer-recycled plastic generate 40% less CO2e than virgin plastic bottles.

CCEP has earmarked €250m, to be spent over a three-year period, to develop its immediate action plan for meeting its new climate goals. Money will be used to support suppliers, improve efficiency and accelerate R&D around packaging materials.

The company is prioritising reductions over offsetting and has had its targets approved by the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi). However, it will be investing in some verified carbon credits “where essential”, prioritising nature-based carbon removal.

CCEP said in a statement that it is ready to go further and faster after reducing value chain emissions by 30.5% since 2010. Its new targets are all baselined for 2019 and the company will develop new interim goals and projects in the coming years.

“We have a responsibility to the communities we serve to keep taking this action on climate,” CCEP’s chief executive Damian Gammell said.

“We know it will be a long and challenging journey – there are no quick fixes or silver bullets – but we are determined to drive this change as fast as we can and to play our part in helping and influencing others. We’ve made significant progress so far, and looking ahead, we will continue to help lead the transition to a low carbon future by putting environmental impact at the heart our decision-making.”

Net-zero movement

As of September, some 1,540 businesses globally had set net-zero targets of some kind, up from 500 in December 2019. That is according to research from Data-Driven EnviroLab and the NewClimate Institute.

Since then, new net-zero announcements have been made by companies including UberJapan Tobacco InternationalDiageoVodafoneKPMG and Tesco.

But for all the welcome noise on climate leadership in the private sector, there are concerns about how many net-zero targets will be met. A recent poll of 120 sustainability professionals at different companies, conducted by South Pole, found that just one in ten firms with a net-zero vision has an approved science-based targets framework to back it up.

 


 

By Sarah George

Source Edie

Time to consider petrol and diesel car import ban, says climate change minister

Time to consider petrol and diesel car import ban, says climate change minister

Climate Change Minister James Shaw​ wants to see a new petrol and diesel car ban, to kick in at the same time as the United Kingdom’s ban.

During an interview with Stuff on his second-term priorities, Shaw said he would recommend the policy to new Transport Minister Michael Wood​ as an “anti-dumping measure” as well as for environmental reasons.

The UK is planning to ban all new combustion engine vehicles by 2035 – though British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to bring this forward to 2030.

Shaw, the Green Party co-leader, is concerned about the fate of the UK’s cars after the UK ban, considering most of the world drives on the right. “If we let those into New Zealand, we are stuffed. We will have no chance of being able to reduce our transport emissions, which are the fastest-growing sector,” he said.

Despite the merits, Shaw is not sure a ban on vehicle imports will gain Cabinet approval. “I will be recommending that but we have to warm people up.”

Under a Labour-Green deal, Shaw kept his role as climate change minister after this year’s election.

Shaw said Labour MPs held many of the portfolios with the power to introduce the most effective carbon-cutting policies, such as Energy Minister Megan Woods​​.

“In this term, the priority has to be on working with the economic sectors where we are going to get the greatest gains in actual reductions in emissions,” he added. “For me, it is a co-ordinating role.”

 

Transport contributes a large chunk of the country’s emissions – will the Government take aggressive action this term? PETER MACDIARMID/GETTY IMAGES

 

Of the legislation Shaw will oversee this term, the requirement for large companies to report their climate-related risks – announced earlier this year – would have the biggest impact on emissions, he said.

“It is one of those things that most people do not care about, because it is corporate reporting … [but] the long-term effect of that could be one of the most significant things that we do.”

The proposed Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Act will also take much of Shaw’s attention this term. He would like to see it prepared in parallel with the reform of the Resource Management Act.

“Certainly, it has to be introduced in this term of Parliament but it is going to be very significant. Whether or not it passes in this term of Parliament … who knows?”

Outside his portfolio, Shaw thinks the country’s biggest emissions cuts will come from decarbonising travel.

“Transport emissions are the one area where our emissions growth is uncontrolled. In every other sector, including agriculture, emissions are roughly stable and have been for some time – they are high, much higher than they need to be, but at least they have been flat. But transport has just gone up and up and up because we fell in love with the Ford Ranger.”

Would he recommend the Government introduce measures – such as congestion charges – to make driving less desirable? “What I am going to fight for is more money on the other modes. You have to enable mode switching … You can apply all the stick you want but if there is no alternative, people are still going to drive.”

The country can also save carbon by encouraging businesses to ditch fossil-fuelled boilers and heaters. Shaw believes Woods will provide the right incentives this term.

Last week, the Government opened a $70 million fund to help companies pay for the switch but Shaw would like to see private investors increasingly take the helm – through the Green Investment Fund.

“The whole point of that is to develop a commercial investment system to enable that transition. It does not necessarily mean the Government has got to put taxpayer money up in every case.”

Shaw anticipates a bill outlining the methods to calculate agricultural emissions will be drafted this term. The He Waka Eke Noa partnership between government and the farming industry will present its recommendations in 2022.

“If you are going to have it in place on every farm in 2024, you have to legislate for it by the end of 2023. Because there is an election in 2023, that suggests you need to legislate for it before that.”

 

During this parliamentary term, an agricultural partnership is expected to detail how farms measure greenhouse gases. TOM LEE/STUFF

 

The partnership will get to decide how to measure emissions – as long as sufficient progress is made. How to price each greenhouse gas under the scheme remains up for discussion, Shaw said.

He had heard talk that the price for on-farm emissions would be pegged to the current carbon price under the emissions trading scheme, however, “those decisions are yet to come”, he said.

Shaw agreed that the Climate Change Commission (set to release its first recommendations next year) would provide political cover for carbon-cutting policies.

“Across the political spectrum, you can grumble and gnash your teeth because their view is different from your own set of reckons,” he said. “I said when we passed the Zero Carbon Act: as long as everyone hates it equally, we have probably landed in the right place.”

 


 

By Olivia Wannan

Source Stuff

The Pacific Ocean: All you need to know

The Pacific Ocean: All you need to know

 

The Pacific Ocean is the deepest and largest ocean on the planet, the ocean is located between a number of continents as depicted by the image below, these include the Australian, Asian, North and South American continents. Interestingly, the Pacific Ocean derives its name from the Latin phrase ‘Mar Pacifico,’ meaning a peaceful sea. The name was coined by the first European explorer to reach the Pacific, Ferdinand Magellan in the early 1520s, after sailing through a patch of calm waters on the ocean.

 

Source: NeedyFish

 

The size of the Pacific Ocean

 

The Pacific covers an estimated area of 165.25 million square kilometers ( 63.8 million square miles), covering about 30% of the earth’s surface. The size of the Pacific exceeds the total expanse of all the world’s seven continents. The Pacific also represents about half of the planet’s total water surface area.

 

 

Economic importance

 

Although its name refers to a calm and peaceful sea, the Pacific is a massive body of water teeming with life. Every year, the Pacific Ocean contributes billions of dollars to different countries across the world through multiple economic activities, as an example fishing from the Pacific contributes over 70% of the world’s catch.

Additionally, the Pacific is a great source of natural resources, including metal, sand and minerals. Even with the large quantities of mineral resources, only a few have been exploited, such as magnesium, bromine, and salt. The ocean also contains large deposits of oil, gas, and petroleum.

The Pacific is responsible for providing some of the key shipping and trade routes globally, including the North and South Pacific routes. The North Pacific route connects North America (specifically the West Coast) to East Asia. In terms of trade volumes per route and distance, the North Pacific route is the longest and the largest compared to other channels. The South Pacific route, on the other hand, interconnects Western Europe, North America, New Zealand, and Australia. Worldtradia released some stats back in 2017 that saw the North Pacific trade route see traffic volumes (number of vessels) of 30.5 million. The next busiest route being the North Atlantic with volumes just over 22.3 million.

 

 

The depth of the Pacific

 

The Pacific is the deepest ocean on earth, with an average depth of 13,000 feet (4,000 meters). Scientifically, the deepest points of any ocean are known as deep trenches. Out of the 20 major trenches worldwide, 17 of them are found in the Pacific, with the Mariana Trench being the deepest of them all. The Challenger Deep (which is the deepest point in the Pacific and on earth) measures at 10,994 meters (or 36,040 feet). In 2012, it took James Cameron, a National Geographic explorer and film producer, 2 hours and 36 minutes to reach the bottom of the Challenger Deep.

 

The Pacific is shrinking by 1cm a year

 

Scientists have discovered that the Pacific is shrinking at a rate of 1cm per year due to tectonic plates. Let’s put the academic hat back on and explore the why, tectonic plates are pieces of the earth’s crust and uppermost mantle, commonly referred to as the lithosphere.  As an estimate, the plates are around 100 km (62 mi) thick and mainly consist of two types of material: oceanic crust and continental crust.  This crust is always in a state of flux i.e. constant motion. The movement of these plates occur at a rate of a few centimetres per year, causing a collision known as subduction. As a result, the Pacific plate pulls away from the North American plate at about 1cm per year, causing the ocean to shrink in the same proportion.

 

 

What Is the Pacific Ring of Fire?

 

The largest volcano on earth is located in the Pacific, with over 75% of the world’s volcanos coming from the ocean’s basin. The volcanoes and earthquakes that originate from the Pacific occur from an area in the ocean known as the Ring of Fire. The occurrence of earthquakes and volcanoes here are as a result of heavy volcanic activity and the movement of tectonic plates. It is reported that over 80% of the world’s tsunamis also occur in the Pacific’s Ring of Fire.

 

Source: NeedyFish

 

Islands of the World

There are hundreds of thousands of islands across the world, some of which are yet to be inhabited. Among the endless list of ocean islands found on the planet, the Pacific has the highest number. With about 25,000 islands, the Pacific Island countries have become home to millions of people. This total equates to their being more islands in the pacific than in all the other oceans put together, why? The reason being is because the Pacific experiences the highest volcanic activity compared to all other oceans, thanks to the vigorous movements that occur in the Ring of Fire. Following oceanic crust movements that happen at the floor of the ocean, this can lead to a series of oceanic or volcanic islands being formed.

 

The El Nino Climate Cycle

El Nino is the Pacific’s climate cycle that impacts weather patterns globally. The pattern consists of unusual warming of the waters on the surface of the Eastern Pacific. El Nino influences local weather, the strength of ocean currents, and temperatures across South America, Australia, and beyond. This cycle has a significant impact on the global climate, and to some extent, can cause some lasting changes. The 2016 El Nino saw severe droughts in Africa and South-East Asia, catastrophic coral bleaching in the Great barrier reef and wildfires in Indonesia and Canada.

 

Source: NeedyFish

 

Source: NeedyFish

 

The La Niña Climate Cycle

The impacts of a La Niña climate cycle tends to be the exact opposite of the impacts of an El Nino Cycle. La Niña represents a period of cooling for the surface ocean waters across the tropical west coast of South America. During a La Niña year, winter temperatures in the US will be cooler than normal in the Northwest and warmer than normal in the Southeast.

 

The Birthing of Hurricanes

Hurricanes, also known as typhoons when formed over the Pacific, are the most violent storms experienced on earth. Evidence in the past has proven that the Pacific can stir extremely strong hurricanes. Hurricane Patricia, for example, was the strongest Pacific typhoon ever recorded in history, affecting Central America, Texas, and Mexico. Typhoon Nepartak is another Pacific storm that significantly affected Taiwan.

Hurricanes and cyclones are fuelled by warm sea surfaces (the Pacific being warmer than any other ocean on earth). The warmth of the Pacific waters can be persistent for a year, allowing a hurricane to last longer. This is why La Niña and El Nino are never ignored.

 

Increased marine pollution

Being the largest ocean on earth, the Pacific extends to several continents and a significant number of countries. Consequently, the ocean is more exposed to high levels of pollution. The Pacific is particularly prone to plastic, which comprises over 90% of the visible pollutants and debris covering the ocean. Studies indicate that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (the ocean’s garbage collection site) has grown 100 times bigger than it was 40 years ago. Nuclear waste and ocean dumping have also contributed to marine pollution significantly.

 

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is the ocean’s collection of debris (caused by human activity). A lot of plastics are pushed by the ocean currents into floating patches of debris, forming the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP). Today, GPGP is the largest plastic accumulation zone in the world’s oceans, covering an estimated area of 8 million square kilometres. The patch is so huge that it is estimated to be 2.3 the size of Texas. There are collective efforts by international organisations and individuals to control GPGP from growing.

 

Source: NeedyFish

 

Source: NeedyFish

 

Overfishing of the Pacific

 

Overfishing is the primary contributor of decline to aquatic life worldwide. Research shows that large quantities of fish are removed from the Pacific (every year) , far exceeding the rate they are able to reproduce. An estimated 1.6 million pounds (over 725,000 kgs) of fish are removed from the reefs of Pohnpei each year. Generally, over 30% of the species found in the coral reefs of Oceania are threatened with extinction.

In 2013, there was a recorded decline in the population of Pacific bluefin tuna. The Pacific bluefin tuna is one of the rarest fish species found in the Northern Pacific. The same trend has continued to date. In 2018, the value of a Pacific bluefin tuna was ranging at above $320,000. This is due to the continued decline in the Pacific bluefin tuna stocks. Why? The answer is simple, overfishing!  And what promotes overfishing? Overfishing can be as a result of the increase in illegal fishing, lack of fishing regulations and increased human activity in the ocean.

 

Summary

 

This Ocean is a lifeline to almost everyone on this planet, we therefore, need to respect it. The ocean doesn’t belong to us, we don’t own it, we shouldn’t see it as a trash can!! Instead, humanity should consider ourselves as “stewards”, protecting the ocean and its inhabitants, so it can support future generations of life, both sea life and human life. Our mindset has to change!

 


 

Source: NeedyFish

Rolls Royce plans 16 mini-nuclear plants for UK

Rolls Royce plans 16 mini-nuclear plants for UK

A consortium led by Rolls Royce has announced plans to build up to 16 mini-nuclear plants in the UK.

It says the project will create 6,000 new jobs in the Midlands and the North of England over the next five years.

The Prime Minister is understood to be poised to announce at least £200m for the project as part of a long-delayed green plan for economic recovery.

Rolls argues that as well as producing low-carbon electricity, the concept could become a new export industry.

The company’s UK “small modular reactor” (SMR) group includes the National Nuclear Laboratory and the building company Laing O’Rourke.

Last year, it received £18m to begin the design effort for the SMR concept.

The government says new nuclear is essential if the UK is to meet its target of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 – where any carbon released is balanced out by an equivalent amount absorbed from the atmosphere.

But there is a nuclear-sized hole opening up in the energy network.

Six of the UK’s seven nuclear reactor sites are due to go offline by 2030 and the remaining one, Sizewell B, is due to be decommissioned in 2035.

Together they account for around 20% of the country’s electricity.

 

What is a modular nuclear plant?

Rolls Royce and its partners argue that instead of building huge nuclear mega-projects in muddy fields we should construct a series of smaller nuclear plants from “modules” made in factories.

The aim is to re-engineer nuclear power as a very high-tech Lego set.

The components would be broken down into a series of hundreds of these modules which would be made in a central factory and shipped by road to the site for assembly.

The objective is to tackle the biggest problem nuclear power faces: the exorbitant cost.

The reason it is so expensive is that the projects are huge and complex and have to meet very high safety standards.

And, because so few new nuclear power stations are built, there are very few opportunities to learn from mistakes.

 

EDF says Sizewell C will provide electricity for six million homes and create 25,000 jobs

 

So, Rolls Royce and its partners are saying let’s make them smaller and make lots of them so we get really good at it.

The concept would dramatically reduce the amount of construction that would be associated with a nuclear project, claims Tom Samson, the CEO of the UK Small Modular Reactor consortium (UK SMR).

“If we move all that activity into a controlled factory environment that drives down cost by simplification and standardisation,” he explains.

Each plant would produce 440 megawatts of electricity – roughly enough to power Sheffield – and the hope is that, once the first few have been made, they will cost around £2bn each.

The consortium says the first of these modular plants could be up and running in 10 years, after that it will be able to build and install two a year.

By comparison, the much larger nuclear plant being built at Hinkley Point in Somerset is expect to cost some £22bn but will produce more than 3 Gigawatts of electricity – over six times as much.

In addition to the six nuclear plants going offline by 2030, there’s another challenge. You have to factor in a massive increase in electricity demand over the coming decades.

That’s because if we’re going to reach our net zero target, we need to stop using fossil fuels for transport and home heating.

The government has said this could lead to a three-fold increase in electricity use.

 

 

The government says it remains committed to the construction of new nuclear power stations. GETTY IMAGES

 

The renewable challenge

UK SMR isn’t the only player which has spotted that there could be a gap in the market for smaller reactors. There are dozens of different companies around the world working on small reactor projects.

That has got the critics of nuclear power worried. Greenpeace and other environmental groups say small nuclear power stations pose similar risks of radioactive releases and weapons proliferation as big ones.

Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, Doug Parr, says if the government wants to take a punt on some new technology to tackle climate change it would be better off investing in hydrogen or geothermal power.

And there are other reasons to question the SMR concept, says Professor MV Ramana of the University of British Columbia in Canada. He is a physicist and an expert on nuclear energy policy who has studied small modular reactors.

 

He says UK SMR’s 10-year time-scale for its first plant may prove optimistic. The one constant in the history of the nuclear industry to date is that big new concepts never come in on time and budget, he says.

He is sceptical that the factory concept can deliver significant cost savings given the complexity and scale of even a small nuclear plant. Smaller plants will have to meet the same rigorous safety standards as big ones, he points out.

He says where the concept has been tried elsewhere – in the US and China, for example – there have been long delays and costs have ended up being comparable to large nuclear power stations.

Finally, he questions whether there will be a market for these plants by the 2030s, when UK SMR says the first will be ready.

“Ten years from now, the competition will be renewables which are going to be far cheaper with much better storage technology than we have today,” says Prof Ramana.

 

Export opportunities

But Boris Johnson’s powerful adviser, Dominic Cummings, is known to be taken with the modular nuclear idea.

One of the reasons the government has been fighting so hard to free itself from the EU’s state aid rules is so it can get its shoulder behind technologies it thinks will give the UK economy and its workers a real boost.

Modular nuclear has the potential to do just that.

If Rolls Royce and its partners can show that the factory concept really does deliver high quality nuclear plants on time and on budget then there is potentially a huge world market for the technology.

The price per unit of electricity may be higher than with wind or solar, points out the clean energy consultant Michael Liebreich, but nuclear delivers power pretty much 24/7 and therefore can command a premium.

UK SMR is pitching the concept as a UK solution to the global challenge of tackling climate change and says there will be a vast export market as the world starts to switch to low carbon energy.

Boris Johnson is rumoured to be planning to take a big punt on nuclear power.

His government has always said new nuclear is going to be a key part of Britain’s future energy system.

As well as the potential investment in SMRs, the BBC has already reported that the government is expected to give the long-discussed new large nuclear plant at Sizewell in Suffolk the go-ahead.

Mr Johnson is expected to say these investments are essential if the UK is going to meet its promise to decarbonise the economy by 2050 as part of the worldwide effort to tackle climate change.

And, while there may be good reasons to question whether the SMR concept will deliver on its promise of low-cost nuclear power, there is no question it holds out exactly the kind of optimistic vision for the UK’s industrial future the government is desperate for.

 


 

Follow Justin on Twitter.

Source: BBC

 

 

Shell Oil Asks What Public Is Willing to Do to Reduce Emissions

Shell Oil Asks What Public Is Willing to Do to Reduce Emissions

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday denounced the “audacity” of oil giant Shell after it waded into the global discussion about the climate crisis by asking members of the public what they would do to reduce carbon emissions.

“I’m willing to hold you accountable for lying about climate change for 30 years when you secretly knew the entire time that fossil fuels emissions would destroy our planet,” the New York Democrat and co-sponsor of the Green New Deal legislation replied.

 

 

In the poll it posted to Twitter, Shell offered choices to the public including “stop flying,” “buy an electric vehicle,” and shifting to renewable electricity.

 

 

Coming from the world’s third-largest company, which knew as early as 1988 that its extraction of oil and gas was linked to the heating of the planet, the question was seen by Ocasio-Cortez and other critics as a gross deflection of Shell’s own responsibility.

“The audacity of Shell asking YOU what YOU’RE willing to do to reduce emissions,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “They’re showing you RIGHT HERE how the suggestion that individual choices—not systems—are a main driver of climate change is a fossil fuel talking point.”

The “good choices” American voters and lawmakers can make, the congresswoman added, are ones that will help “reign in fossil fuel corporations” that are actually fueling the destruction of the planet.

The journalism initiative Covering Climate Now called Shell’s tweet “a textbook example of greenwashing.”

Prof. Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Texas Tech Climate Center, echoed Ocasio-Cortez’s disgust at the company as she noted that out of 90 companies in the world, Shell is the sixth-highest contributor to fossil fuel emissions in history.

“Yes, everyone must do their part—starting with the biggest emitters,” Hayhoe tweeted, adding that the company has previously publicly suggested that individuals making changes to their daily habits is what will help save the planet.

 

 

Shell’s tweet drew outrage from international climate action group Greenpeace, international lawmakers, and climate experts.

 

 

 

 

“What am I willing to do?” Hayhoe wrote in reply to Shell’s poll question, which she later said was hidden on Twitter by the company. “Hold you accountable for 2% of cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to those of my entire home country of Canada. When you have a concrete plan to address that, I’d be happy to chat about what I’m doing to reduce my personal emissions.”

 


 

By Julia Conley

Source: Eco Watch