top of page

Posts List

AI’s Growing Environmental Footprint. As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes integrated into everyday life, demand for the infrastructure needed to power it is rapidly growing. Processing the vast amount of data required by AI consumes volumes of electricity in specialised data centres, fuelling a data centre building frenzy that contributes to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption and pressure on natural resources. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global electricity consumption for data centres has grown by 12% every year since 2017. This is more than four times the growth rate of total electricity consumption, with the USA and China at the forefront of this rise in consumption. With electricity demand projected to be more than double by 2030, greater reliance on fossil fuels could make global climate goals harder to achieve. Yet tech giants such as Google and Microsoft argue that AI could help tackle global climate change, with global greenhouse gas emissions potentially reduced by 36% by 2035. But how credible are these claims, and is AI’s green picture as straightforward as it seems? Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE AI Businesses’ Climate Claims Under the Microscope A report by the Norwegian analyst Ketan Joshi raises concerns about major tech companies’ claims about AI’s potential climate benefits. It distinguishes between traditional AI, which analyses data to identify patterns and make predictions, and generative AI, such as ChatGPT and Gemini, which generates original content such as images and text. Out of the 154 climate-benefit claims examined, an overwhelming 97% related to traditional AI, while only 3% concerned generative AI. Yet it is generative AI that is driving much of the expansion of AI infrastructure and its associated environmental impacts. Energy consumption and climate-benefit claims by AI type The lack of evidence reinforcing these claims is equally troubling. Only 26% cited published academic research, while 36% provided no supporting evidence. A further 29% relied on corporate publications, many of which lacked primary assessable evidence to validate their claims. AI Greenwashing Playbook Major tech companies can hide their climate-benefit claims behind a veiled wall of greenwashing. At the heart of this greenwashing is “tactical vagueness”, where two types of AI are grouped under the same umbrella, allowing companies to assert AI’s climate benefits while downplaying the environmental harm associated with generative AI. Tech companies deploying AI must move beyond vague promises and implement robust, evidence-based sustainability measures to address its environmental impacts, with greater transparency in their climate-benefit claims. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: Modern data centre - Image by DC Studio on Magnific (ST ref: 1428) Energy consumption and climate-benefit diagram from“The AI Climate Hoax” Report: ID 240305-A2

AI’s Green Climate Promise: Claims vs Reality

AI’s Growing Environmental Footprint. As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes integrated into everyday life, demand for the infrastructure needed to power it is rapidly growing. Processing the vast amount of data required by AI consumes volumes of electricity in specialised data centres, fuelling a data centre building frenzy that contributes to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption and pressure on natural resources. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global...

Read More

Climate

At first, you may wonder what gender has to do with plastic pollution. The chemicals in plastic harm everyone’s health with recent studies linking plastic-related chemicals and particles to reproductive disorders, cancers, neurological impacts and other long-term health risks. However, the Heinrich Böll Foundation’s research shows that women are more likely to be exposed to the dangerous chemicals involved in plastic production and consumption. But why is that? Labour The women working to dispose and manage our waste tend to work in the informal economy which has poorer job security, lower wages and worse protections. This leaves many female workers more exposed to toxic chemicals without any personal protective equipment. An example of this would be women and children in the global south who often work in unofficial landfills and dumps. These burn plastic to recover metal components, a process which releases carbon monoxides, particulates and dioxins that greatly increase the risk of respiratory and neurological diseases. Even if these women were given personal protective equipment, it wouldn’t be as effective as the equipment should be because it’s made for men’s sizes and needs since men make up the majority of the formal waste management workforce. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE Gender roles and biology Many of the products women are expected to use have harmful plastic related chemicals. Women usually do the care work and housework. But the cleaning products they use everyday may contain harmful chemicals like phthalates, formaldehyde and forever chemicals (PFAs and PFCs). The beauty products women are encouraged to own like lipstick and hairspray contain EDCs (endocrine disrupting chemicals), microplastics, parabens and formaldehyde. Even periods are affected by this issue since sanitary pads contain endocrine disruptors that can speed up hormonally triggered and other forms of cancer. The EDCs in many plastics also affect women’s bodies differently. Women’s sensitivity to toxins increases in hormonally active periods like puberty, menstruation and pregnancy making chemicals with hormonal (endocrinological) effects particularly disruptive to development processes. Can this be changed? Feminist organisations like WECF (Women Engage for a Common Future) have suggested several ways governments can combat the issue of plastic pollution and acknowledge women's experiences. 1. Clear labelling detailing the toxicity levels of all plastics used in the workplace and households. 2. Vulnerable groups like children and pregnant women should be taken as the norm when assessing risks and determining guidelines. 3. Any global plastics treaty needs to have concrete targets for reducing the production of plastic and phasing out the use of hazardous chemicals in plastic production. 4. Marginalised communities such as indigenous communities and BiPOC women should be actively involved in important negotiations like the UN global treaty for plastic pollution. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: Woman sorting recycling - Image by Mumtahina Rahman from Pixabay (ST ref: 1426) Fashion model in a salon - Image by StockSnap from Pixabay (ST ref: 1427) ID 250235- E3

The hidden ways women are affected by plastic pollution

At first, you may wonder what gender has to do with plastic pollution. The chemicals in plastic harm everyone’s health with recent studies linking plastic-related chemicals and particles to reproductive disorders, cancers, neurological impacts and other long-term health risks. However, the Heinrich Böll Foundation’s research shows that women are more likely to be exposed to the dangerous chemicals involved in plastic production and consumption. But why is that? Labour The women working to...

Read More

Health

Globally, cigarette butts are by number the largest form of plastic pollution in the world, with trillions being cast away annually. Few people are aware of the damage to our lives, waterways and ecosystems after cigarette ends are released into the environment. Why are filters so awful? Cigarette filters contain; residual nicotine, heavy metals and other harmful materials but it's an engineered plastic product. Cellulose acetate, the main component of a filter, can withstand heat, physical stress and solvents. This plastic is one of the main microplastic pollutants. Cellulose acetate can often take decades to break down in the environment. As the toxic filter degrades, it infects the surrounding soil and water sources, even entering the food chain. This lack of consideration and official disposal of cigarette butts poses a serious threat to our planet. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE Apart from the health costs, it was estimated in 2020 that littered cigarettes cost UK local authorities up to £40 million annually. Our world continues to be polluted by the tobacco industry due to a lack of regulation within governments across the globe and as part of a continuing global campaign BFFP is pressing for a ban on filters altogether, not just the plastic content. There are several opportunities available in different countries. In the UK the Tobacco and Vapes Bill - granted Royal Assent on 29 April 2026 – had the opportunity to seek the prohibition of all plastic in cigarette filters but the relevant clauses were withdrawn on the understanding that this would be pursued through DEFRA (considered to be more appropriate). However, a ban on single use plastics in cigarette filters will most likely be covered by the Circular Economy Growth Plan which is now considerably delayed. Despite this, if we continue to pressure our elected bodies to hold conglomerates accountable within the tobacco industry, we have the ability to protect our natural world and ban filters altogether. Watch this page for further exploration into this topic. Until next time. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: cigarette butts in ashtray - Image by Joe from Pixabay (St ref:1425) ID 250245-A

Is legislation on the tobacco industry the butt of the joke?

Globally, cigarette butts are by number the largest form of plastic pollution in the world, with trillions being cast away annually. Few people are aware of the damage to our lives, waterways and ecosystems after cigarette ends are released into the environment. Why are filters so awful? Cigarette filters contain; residual nicotine, heavy metals and other harmful materials but it's an engineered plastic product. Cellulose acetate, the main component of a filter, can withstand heat, physical...

Read More

Plastic pollution

Reuse means using packaging multiple times instead of discarding it after one use. That sounds simple, but making it work requires collection, washing, transport and return systems — all of which cost money. This helps explain why some businesses remain cautious. However, a Zero Waste Europe and Searious Business study⁠ suggests the economics can change when reuse operates efficiently and at scale. Importantly, the study does not compare today’s average reuse system with today’s average single-use system. It compared the profitability of a 100% optimised reuse system to an optimised single-use packaging system. The study identifies three factors as especially important: return rates, the number of times each package is used and how quickly it comes back into circulation. When these conditions improve, the initial cost of reusable packaging can be spread across more uses and the system can become more economically viable. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE Scale is therefore crucial. Shared collection networks, standardised packaging and efficient washing can reduce costs that would be harder for individual businesses to absorb alone. Zero Waste Europe’s policy recommendations⁠ similarly argue that coordinated infrastructure, economic incentives and regulatory certainty can help reuse systems reach economies of scale. The wider market is beginning to develop. The European Reuse Barometer 2025⁠ surveyed 115 reuse companies across Europe. Half were already profitable, while 61% of those not yet profitable expected to become so within three years. At the same time, the economics of single-use packaging are changing. The EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation⁠ introduces new waste-prevention, recyclability and reuse requirements, with several measures applying from 2030. The rules also increase producers’ responsibility for packaging and its waste-management costs. That changes the comparison. Reuse does not necessarily have to become dramatically cheaper on its own. If single-use packaging becomes more expensive while reuse systems become more efficient, reuse can become the more economically viable option. For businesses, the question may therefore be shifting from “Why invest in reuse?” to “When does reuse become the better financial choice?” . +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: workspace view - Leeloo The First 0n Pexels (ST ref: 1424) ID 250310-G

The Economics of Reuse Systems

Reuse means using packaging multiple times instead of discarding it after one use. That sounds simple, but making it work requires collection, washing, transport and return systems — all of which cost money. This helps explain why some businesses remain cautious. However, a Zero Waste Europe and Searious Business study⁠ suggests the economics can change when reuse operates efficiently and at scale. Importantly, the study does not compare today’s average reuse system with today’s average...

Read More

Reuse

Europe is falling behind on its promise of a healthy ocean by 2030. That is the warning from the 2026 Blue Manifesto assessment, published by a coalition of environmental organisations. It highlights a widening gap between the EU’s international commitments and what happens in its own waters. Destructive fishing continues, pollution remains inadequately addressed, and marine protection needs stronger enforcement. For anyone concerned about plastic pollution, the assessment offers a mixed picture. It recognises progress through EU rules to prevent losses of plastic pellets, the small raw materials used to manufacture plastic products. Packaging legislation also introduces measures to reduce waste, expand reuse and refill, and restrict certain single-use formats. These are useful steps towards preventing pollution before it reaches the sea. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE However, significant gaps remain. The report finds that, despite textiles, paints and tyres being included in EU product policy plans, requirements to prevent their microplastic emissions have yet to be set. It also warns that revising single-use plastics legislation could weaken existing protections or encourage replacement with other disposable materials, rather than reducing waste overall. Switching materials alone cannot deliver the wider shift towards less resource use and away from single-use that is needed. There are positive developments beyond plastics. The coalition welcomes the EU’s ratification of the High Seas Treaty (a global agreement to protect marine biodiversity in international waters, including by creating marine protected areas) and its continued opposition to deep-sea mining. Yet international leadership must be matched by action closer to home. The authors call for enforcement of existing laws and identify the forthcoming European Ocean Act and EU budget negotiations as opportunities to strengthen protection. The message for the public is clear. Ocean recovery depends on decisions about what we produce, how businesses operate and whether governments, including the UK, enforce their commitments. Supporting reuse, refill and preventing pollution matters. As does asking policymakers to turn promises into funded, timely and enforceable action. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: ocean waves in Hawaii - Image by Josh Withers (ST ref: 1423) Parliament and Big Ben - Photo by Marcin Nowak on Unsplash (ST ref: 1422) ID 250228-B

Europe’s ocean promises need action

Europe is falling behind on its promise of a healthy ocean by 2030. That is the warning from the 2026 Blue Manifesto assessment, published by a coalition of environmental organisations. It highlights a widening gap between the EU’s international commitments and what happens in its own waters. Destructive fishing continues, pollution remains inadequately addressed, and marine protection needs stronger enforcement. For anyone concerned about plastic pollution, the assessment offers a mixed...

Read More

Ocean Series

The first part in this two part series established what microplastics are. In this second part we are looking at whether they are harmful to humans, and if so, should we be worried? Microplastics are very likely present in our bodies. Dr Dušan Materić of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research says ‘We do have plastics in us … I think that is safe to assume’. Plastic is closely tied to our food and drink. Research by Retail Economics found that 70% of UK food packaging is plastic, a higher share than in Spain, Poland, France, Germany or Italy. If microplastics are in us, are they dangerous? One study on neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia found that in preclinical trials microplastics may contribute to the loss of neurons, yet it found no hard evidence of a ‘causal link’ to harmful effects on the human brain. A second study reported ‘a potential link between plastic pollution and brain disorders’ through animal testing. This shows that at the moment there is no direct evidence of microplastics being harmful within humans. However, scientists believe that there may be a link between microplastics and harms to human health. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE Despite the lack of evidence within humans, microplastics’ negative effect on the environment is well evidenced by scientists. Several studies commissioned by the EU have found that microplastics help deliver pollutants, pesticides and bacteria to soil. Short term effects include more antibiotic resistant pathogens and stunted plant growth. Healthy soil supports both human and animal ecosystems, so taking action and raising awareness of microplastics matters for a more sustainable world. For the moment, current research has not established that microplastics harm the human body, yet scientists expect evidence of harm to emerge within the next few years. Dr. Desiree LaBeaud of Stanford Medicine urges that ‘all of us need to stop using plastic as much as we can to protect our health’. Given the potential risk to our health and the damage microplastics already cause to ecosystems, we should all act to reduce our plastic use. This is part two of a two part series on microplastics in the human body. Part one: ‘What Are Microplastics and Are They in Humans? +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: microorganisms under a microscope - Photo by turek on Pexels (ST ref:1350) ID 250235-C1

Microplastics in the Body, Should We Be Worried?

The first part in this two part series established what microplastics are. In this second part we are looking at whether they are harmful to humans, and if so, should we be worried? Microplastics are very likely present in our bodies. Dr Dušan Materić of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research says ‘We do have plastics in us … I think that is safe to assume’. Plastic is closely tied to our food and drink. Research by Retail Economics found that 70% of UK food packaging is plastic, a...

Read More

Health

The UK produces an exorbitant amount of plastic packaging waste (such as food and snack wrappers and single-use plastic bags).In 2024, the UK produced an estimated 2.3 million tonnes of plastic waste. Only 17% of that plastic waste was recycled, while over 58% was burned in incinerators and the remainder was sent to other countries to be dumped in landfills, according to The Big Plastic Count by Greenpeace. Despite increased customer awareness of plastic packaging’s harmful effects and public calls for more sustainable products, disposing of plastic sustainably remains complex. Greenwashing misleads ecologically aware consumers by encouraging them to buy “recyclable” products containing either LDPE and other unrecyclable materials. Even when products are recyclable, they are often too contaminated to be recycled, not properly categorised during waste pick-up, or only recyclable under very specific conditions that UK recycling plants cannot create. The gap between consumer perception and actual impact is known as “plastic blindness”. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE In the UK, we face a lack of capacity for the million tonnes of plastic pollution we produced each year, impaired by the recent closing of 21 plastic recycling and processing facilities, as reported by ENDS Waste and Bioenergy. Petrochemical (plastic) and fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell, and INEOS are among the most powerful and profitable businesses. These companies constantly lobby for the continued production of plastic. They are so powerful that lobbyists outnumber many national delegations, scientists, and indigenous activist groups fighting to stop plastic pollution. This allows petrochemical and fossil fuel companies to influence international and local laws, making the path towards progress a slower, more difficult one. It is predicted that plastic production will triple by 2060, with only 9% of all plastic ever made being recycled. Read more about packaging and supermarkets' greenwashing tactics in episode 6 of this series. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: excavator at waste disposal site - Image by Tom Fisk (St ref: 1421) ID 250400

Disheartening Reality of the Recycling Scam

The UK produces an exorbitant amount of plastic packaging waste (such as food and snack wrappers and single-use plastic bags).In 2024, the UK produced an estimated 2.3 million tonnes of plastic waste. Only 17% of that plastic waste was recycled, while over 58% was burned in incinerators and the remainder was sent to other countries to be dumped in landfills, according to The Big Plastic Count by Greenpeace. Despite increased customer awareness of plastic packaging’s harmful effects and...

Read More

Corporate

Latest research shows that patients who suffer heart attacks have more micro and nanoplastics in their blood. When we talk about plastic and health, the conversation usually revolves around the stomach and digestion. But microplastics don't stay in the gut. Nanoplastics are small enough to pass through the lungs or gut into the bloodstream, where they can travel throughout the body, and they have been found in the blood vessels supplying the heart. The first big warning came in 2024. A New England Journal of Medicine study, researching plastic particles in artery plaque, found a link with a combined risk of heart attack, stroke or early death. Patients with microplastics in their artery plaque were 4.5 times more likely to suffer a heart attack, stroke, or early death in the following years. However, correlation should not be conflated with causation, and this is not to say that the particles directly caused the heart attacks, nor can it be taken as proof that plastic caused these outcomes. Now, a new study adds to the picture. Italian researchers sampled blood from the vessels supplying the heart in 61 patients. Plastics were detected in 84% of heart attack patients, compared with 40% of those with chronic ischemic heart disease and 32% of those with normal coronary arteries. The study found associations to smoking and air pollution, but it did not confirm that either exposure caused the particles to be present. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE It's important to be honest about the limits. This was a small study, and it shows an association, not proof of cause. Scientists are still working out how plastics might harm the heart. Proposed routes include abnormal heart rhythms, damage to red blood cells and blood vessels, increased blood clotting, and scarring. The science is still young, but plastic may be a cardiovascular issue, not just an environmental one. Researchers are investigating an interesting possible link, but it is still too early to confirm a connection. So what can you do? You can't remove plastic from your life, but you can cut exposure. Using glass containers instead of plastic, especially in the microwave, and choosing loose-leaf tea over teabags are personal ways to reduce plastic contact. Cardiologists also stress the basics: exercising regularly, eating a heart-healthy diet, keeping blood pressure and cholesterol under control, and not smoking remain important for heart health. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: apples clear plastic bag - Image by Sophia Marston on Unsplash (ST ref: 1171) ID 250235-A4

Could microplastics affect heart health?

Latest research shows that patients who suffer heart attacks have more micro and nanoplastics in their blood. When we talk about plastic and health, the conversation usually revolves around the stomach and digestion. But microplastics don't stay in the gut. Nanoplastics are small enough to pass through the lungs or gut into the bloodstream, where they can travel throughout the body, and they have been found in the blood vessels supplying the heart. The first big warning came in 2024. A New...

Read More

Health

Microplastics, tiny fragments of plastic measuring less than five millimetres in length, are everywhere. They are in our clothes, our homes, and even the food we eat. Small enough to go unnoticed, and near impossible to clean up once they have entered the environment, they have infiltrated the food chain at every level. The main route via which microplastics enter the environment is through our waterways. Water degrades large plastic waste into tiny fragments, which are quickly swept away into rivers and oceans. It is well-documented how microplastics are ingested by marine life and accumulate in the food chain, including the seafood we eat. A 2024 case study suggests that 41.5% of commercial marine fish in the UK have ingested microplastics. It’s not just seafood that’s impacted. Recent research has found that microplastics are accumulating in soil, with the UK being among the most contaminated in Europe. This contamination is a result of using sludge from waste water treatment works as fertiliser, irrigating with contaminated water, and plastic litter degrading. Microplastics are absorbed by soil microbes and taken up through plant roots, infiltrating the food chain from the very bottom. They are thus present in plants, the animals that eat those plants, and the humans who eat both. So how much plastic are we actually ingesting? Estimates have differed, and until recently, the popular belief was that we were eating a credit card’s worth of plastic every week. New research and evaluation of this claim suggest that this was a vast overestimate: it is likely much lower. However, it is difficult to provide conclusive evidence. Nonetheless, microplastics are ubiquitous in our daily diets and habits, and could have lasting impacts on our health. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE Research is still in its infancy on how exactly microplastics impact human health. They have been detected in blood, saliva, the liver and placenta. Studies in cell cultures and animal models indicate that microplastics cause DNA damage and change gene activity, which are both known risk factors for cancer development. Additionally, they have been found to impact fertility in animal models. In addition to the plastics themselves, microplastics absorb toxic chemicals and heavy metals, the negative health impacts of which include disruption to the reproductive and nervous systems. Learning about microplastics exposure can feel overwhelming, but there are steps you can take to reduce your microplastic consumption. For meat, rice, and vegetables, rinsing before cooking can remove residual microplastics, reducing, but not entirely eliminating, their plastic content. Prioritising whole foods and avoiding ultra-processed foods can help; the more processing a product goes through, the more plastic it is exposed to. Collectively, if we reduce our plastic consumption and pollution, we can reduce the amount of microplastics entering our environment and therefore our food chain. Make changes where you can to reduce your plastic usage, and we can work towards a plastic free diet. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: Girl holding plastic recycling - Image by Wayhomestudio (ST ref: 1230) ID 250235-H2

May Contain Microplastics: Food Chain Contamination and What it Means for Us

Microplastics, tiny fragments of plastic measuring less than five millimetres in length, are everywhere. They are in our clothes, our homes, and even the food we eat. Small enough to go unnoticed, and near impossible to clean up once they have entered the environment, they have infiltrated the food chain at every level. The main route via which microplastics enter the environment is through our waterways. Water degrades large plastic waste into tiny fragments, which are quickly swept away...

Read More

Health

Chemical recycling breaks down plastic and turns it into its plastic components. It is a collection of technologies using heat, solvents, enzymes and sound waves to do so. The idea is that chemically recycled plastic can be used for new plastic products., but some of the messaging around it makes this method seem more ecologically sound than it really is. Chemical recycling uses pyrolysis, a process of heating material in a sealed chamber without oxygen. In this case, shredded plastic or pellets are put into the chamber, which is heated to 300°-700°. Though it doesn’t create ash and smoke like a more traditional incinerator, it does produce pollutants such as particulate matter, which are particles that are so tiny that they can get into the human bloodstream and reach vital organs. Methane is also a byproduct, potentially leading to respiratory and neurological conditions. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE The mass balance approach Chemical recycling works on a mass balance model. Mass balance is a series of processes where the inputs and outputs are transferred, monitored and controlled as they move through each part of said process. With the mass balance approach, materials or products with one set of characteristics are mixed with ones without that set of characteristics. This could be mixing up recycled and virgin plastic, for example. There’s a lot hiding in the small print here. On a ‘recycled’ product, it’s not easy for a consumer to discern how much of the product is recycled. In theory, it could be 70% virgin plastic and 30% recycled plastic and still be labelled as ‘recycled’ under mass balance accounting (MBA). Mass balance accounting is a system that businesses use to track how much recycled plastic is in their products. Will chemical recycling replace mechanical recycling? If anything, chemical recycling risks undermining mechanical recycling. Although it’s an imperfect system, mechanical recycling is the second-best option we have, behind simply using less plastic. Mechanical recycling is also substantially cheaper than chemical recycling, so the more traditional method is unlikely to be replaced soon. Chemical recycling is over-touted as a miracle solution as, on top of being expensive, it is labour and fuel-intensive. Independent chemical engineering experts describe it as a form of partial recycling that won’t be commercially viable for another 50 years. Read more in The Recycling Industry's Dirty Secret. All in all, this method increases pollutants and facilitates an increase in plastic production, stifling better solutions to the crisis at hand. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: power plant dusk - Photo by Kindel Media (ST ref:1353) ID 240420-A

What is Chemical Recycling?

Chemical recycling breaks down plastic and turns it into its plastic components. It is a collection of technologies using heat, solvents, enzymes and sound waves to do so. The idea is that chemically recycled plastic can be used for new plastic products., but some of the messaging around it makes this method seem more ecologically sound than it really is. Chemical recycling uses pyrolysis, a process of heating material in a sealed chamber without oxygen. In this case, shredded plastic or...

Read More

Rethinking Waste

In January 2026, the Guardian reported that the ‘bombshell’ research paper claiming to have found microplastics in the human brain has been strongly refuted by academics, due to what they call insufficient ‘methodological’ precautions taken by the original research team to arrive at their conclusion. The article concluded, with interviews from experts, that the presence of microplastics in the human body is not fully proved, but according to some experts, very likely to be proved soon. They also said that the possible effects of microplastics being present in the human body has not been determined either. What are Microplastics? Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic that measure less than 5 millimeters in length and occur as plastic breaks down over time, for instance, due to UV radiation. For more see image (left): These microplastics can be found in oceans, lakes, waterways, soil, air, and even in our food. Scientists believe that microplastics mainly enter the human body through digestion. Common routes include when we microwave our food in plastic or drinking from plastic bottles. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE How can we reduce our exposure to microplastics? Scientists say that great ways to reduce your contact with microplastics can be to use alternatives to plastic, especially when drinking or heating food. Other things you can do include reducing your consumption of ultra-processed foods and ventilating your living space. Despite the lack of scientific consensus on whether microplastics are present in humans, an important question remains: if microplastics are present, could they be harmful to human health? This is part one of a two part series on microplastics in the human body. Read more in part two: ‘Microplastics in the Body: Should We Be Worried?’ +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: Little girl, Drinking water - Image by Nguyen Ngoc Tien from Pixabay (ST ref: 1359) Fig. 1. Main sources of unintentionally released microplastics. Fattore et al., Effects of microplastics and nanoplastics on the brain and behavior: Evidence from rodent and human studies, ID 250235-C1

What Are Microplastics and Are They in Humans?

In January 2026, the Guardian reported that the ‘bombshell’ research paper claiming to have found microplastics in the human brain has been strongly refuted by academics, due to what they call insufficient ‘methodological’ precautions taken by the original research team to arrive at their conclusion. The article concluded, with interviews from experts, that the presence of microplastics in the human body is not fully proved, but according to some experts, very likely to be proved soon. They...

Read More

Plastic pollution

Plastic pollution is easy to see on a beach—but much harder to measure, understand and prevent. Artificial intelligence, or AI, can be used as a tool to collect and analyse information on plastic pollution. This can help guide positive action. Not all AI is the same “AI” is often discussed as though it is one single technology. That can be misleading. Much of the current debate focuses on generative AI: tools that produce text, images, audio or video. These systems are linked to concerns about large data centres, energy demand and environmental claims. This article focuses on a different use of AI: machine learning for finding, classifying and understanding plastic pollution. These task-specific systems are trained to recognise patterns in photographs, sensor readings or laboratory data. They use substantially less energy and resources than generative AI; they are designed to perform a defined task rather than generate new text, images or video. Machine learning can help identify litter in images, distinguish types of plastic during sorting, examine underwater debris and speed up microplastic analysis. For example, “BePLi Dataset v1: ” describes a dataset of more than 3,700 real-world coastal photographs with manually created annotations of visible plastic litter. A later update expands the types of litter that can be recognised, including bottles, bags, rope, fishing nets, buoys, foam and fragments. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE These tools do not replace action to reduce plastic production, improve waste services or hold polluters accountable. But they can help communities, researchers and public bodies collect and organise stronger evidence about where plastic pollution is happening. From observation to action AI-supported monitoring can turn community and research observations—such as litter photographs, underwater debris or collected samples—into useful evidence when records include location, time, source, setting and the type or amount of plastic. Machine learning can speed up image review, litter classification and pattern detection, but people must verify significant or uncertain findings. Traceable, confidence-rated evidence can then guide clean-ups, pollution investigations, better waste services and follow-up monitoring. Empowering citizen scientists: A web app for plastic litter classification describes an AI-enabled tool designed to help citizen scientists classify litter observations. AI is only one part Machine learning can speed up plastic-pollution monitoring and analysis, from citizen reports and beach surveys to recycling and microplastics testing, but it should support rather than replace human judgement. Trusted results require traceability to the original observation, human review of important or uncertain findings, and translation into practical action. The real question Seek reliable AI evidence that supports action against plastic pollution. When you see an AI-supported pollution claim, map or report, ask: Where did the information come from? Has it been checked by people? Can the evidence be traced to the original observation? What action will follow? +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: plastic pollution Accra beach - Image by Muntaka Chasant (ST ref: 1404) Graphics - BFFP ID: 240305-A

AI Can Help Find Plastic Pollution—But Can It Help Us Act?

Plastic pollution is easy to see on a beach—but much harder to measure, understand and prevent. Artificial intelligence, or AI, can be used as a tool to collect and analyse information on plastic pollution. This can help guide positive action. Not all AI is the same “AI” is often discussed as though it is one single technology. That can be misleading. Much of the current debate focuses on generative AI: tools that produce text, images, audio or video. These systems are linked to concerns...

Read More

Plastic pollution

Disinformation and the ongoing concerns of greenwashing continues to present as a key barrier to transitioning to greener and more sustainable ways of living. This is certainly true of the plastics industry. Plastic use in healthcare is undoubtedly widespread and we’re often led to believe that plastic is the only solution. We all know that plastics are bad for the environment, but could this widespread application also be contributing to ill-health? Initiatives that promote the message “Plastics Save Lives” is a narrative that, unsurprisingly, is driven by companies who profit from plastic production. These companies have played a key role in ensuring widespread plastic use, as well as controlling public perception of plastic. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE The reality is that plastics are often used unnecessarily, even though better alternatives are available. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which is used in 26% of medical devices globally, is known to leach toxic plasticisers during medical treatments, including diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP). Notably, it has been documented by The European Commission that DEHP poses significant risk for infants and unborn children, with babies in neonatal intensive care units likely exposed to unsafe levels of DEHP. Moreover, for something as simple as a plastic glove, research suggests they are used needlessly in 62% of cases, and lead to the spread of infection with improper use. The Royal College of Nursing indicates that handwashing is often the most effective method at preventing the spread of infection for core nursing activities. Organisations such as the Alliance for Action on Climate Change and Health (ATACH) continue to advocate for alternatives, whilst raising awareness of the adverse health impacts. Of course, in some instances, plastic-free may not always be suitable, but when better, safer alternatives do exist, it is important to consider what’s stopping us. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: Surgery, Operation, Hospital - Image from Pixabay (ST ref: 1420) shelves of syringes - Image by Wirestock on Magnific (ST ref: 1419) ID 250235-F1

Plastic dependency? Debunking myths in the healthcare industry

Disinformation and the ongoing concerns of greenwashing continues to present as a key barrier to transitioning to greener and more sustainable ways of living. This is certainly true of the plastics industry. Plastic use in healthcare is undoubtedly widespread and we’re often led to believe that plastic is the only solution. We all know that plastics are bad for the environment, but could this widespread application also be contributing to ill-health? Initiatives that promote the message...

Read More

Health

What if your latest purchase wasn’t really a choice? What if the product was designed to be replaced, the promise of “free” delivery, and the item you threw away never really went away? What if the problem isn’t that we aren’t buying the wrong things, but that we have been encouraged to buy far more than we actually need? These are the questions at the centre of Netflix's Buy Now! The Shopping Conspiracy, a thought-provoking documentary that takes a critical look at modern consumer culture and the environmental consequences of our seemingly endless desire to shop. The documentary explores how major brands and retailers use sophisticated marketing strategies to encourage consumers to keep buying. From fast fashion and constantly changing trends to the pressure to upgrade our phones, replace our clothes, and chase the latest products, Buy Now! examines how consumption has become deeply embedded in everyday life. The documentary looks beyond the idea that consumers simply ‘choose’ to over buy, exploring how companies take advantage of psychological responses to having something new; a dopamine rush. It can make us feel up to date, or even feel different. Trends encourage us to feel that what we already own is old, while advertising creates associations between products and happiness, status or success. Certain marketing language like ‘last chance’ or ‘limited time’ makes discounted items feel like an opportunity foolish to miss. The result… a cycle in which wanting something new can become normal rather than extraordinary. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE Shifting the focus away from individual consumers and towards the industries, makes this documentary particularly effective. Planned obsolescence is a huge factor, with products becoming undesirable, unrepairable, or seemingly outdated long before they are unusable. However, the environmental consequences are difficult to ignore. The scale of this throwaway culture is incomprehensible, the documentary highlights striking figures such as 13 million phones discarded every day and 2.5 million shoes produced every hour, drawing attention to the huge volumes of products being made and discarded globally. This is where the documentary asks not only ‘Why did I buy this?’ but the critical question of ‘Why was I encouraged to buy this?’ The environmental impact, however, is difficult to ignore. Every product we buy requires resources, energy, packaging, transportation, and ultimately disposal. The documentary highlights the enormous amount of waste created by our throwaway culture and challenges the idea that recycling alone can solve the problem. If we continue producing and consuming at an ever-increasing rate, simply recycling more of what we throw away isn’t enough. One of the documentary’s biggest strengths is that it leaves you questioning your own shopping habits. Do you really need that new outfit? Is your current phone genuinely no longer usable? And when an item is advertised as a must-have, who benefits most from you buying it? Importantly, Buy Now! isn’t a documentary about telling people they can never shop again. Instead, it encourages viewers to become more conscious consumers. Buying less, buying better, and thinking carefully before making a purchase can be small but meaningful steps towards reducing our environmental footprint. For anyone interested in sustainability, plastic pollution, waste, or the environmental impact of consumerism, this is a documentary worth adding to your watchlist. It is accessible, engaging, and perhaps, most importantly, likely to make you think twice the next time you are tempted to click ‘Buy Now’. Watch it, not because you should feel guilty about shopping, but because understanding the system can help us make more informed choices about what we buy +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: modern woman landfill consumerism versus pollution - Image by Ground Picture on Shutterstock (ST ref: 1140) ID 240620-A

Buy Now! The Shopping Conspiracy - Why We Should All Watch It

What if your latest purchase wasn’t really a choice? What if the product was designed to be replaced, the promise of “free” delivery, and the item you threw away never really went away? What if the problem isn’t that we aren’t buying the wrong things, but that we have been encouraged to buy far more than we actually need? These are the questions at the centre of Netflix's Buy Now! The Shopping Conspiracy, a thought-provoking documentary that takes a critical look at modern consumer culture...

Read More

Lifestyle

Fatty liver disease, also known as Metabolic Dysfunction Associated Steatotic Liver Disease, is caused by a build up of fat in the liver and affects one third of the adult global population. Many factors contribute to fatty liver disease including diet, obesity, insulin resistance, genes, and gut dysbiosis. There are four stages of fatty liver disease: Steatosis: Accumulation of fat, with no damage to the liver Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: Accumulation of fat has caused inflammation in the liver Fibrosis: The liver is damaged but is still working Cirrhosis: There is severe damage to the liver, which affects its function and can lead to serious health problems Plastic induced liver injury The liver is a major organ of the reticuloendothelial system, which clears foreign particles like microplastics in blood circulation. This means that the liver is repeatedly exposed to microplastics and nanoplastics, which can trigger oxidative stress, fibrogenesis, and inflammation. Recent studies have shown that the presence and accumulation of microplastics and nanoplastics in the liver can contribute to fatty liver disease. Microplastics and nanoplastics cause oxidative stress and inflammation, which exacerbates high fat diet induced liver fibrosis. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE Plastic packaging A study on polyethylene, which is commonly used in food packaging, found that polyethylene exposure led to increased signs of fatty liver disease. When combined with a diet high in fat, sugars, and cholesterol, polyethylene further contributes to liver damage. The researchers discovered that polyethylene activated the protein PPAR-alpha, which regulates fat production in the liver. They also identified the gene ANXA2, which is involved in tissue repair. Identifying this pathway helps explain how polyethylene influences liver health and can point researchers towards potential therapies. Prevention and treatment The contribution of microplastics to fatty liver disease can be prevented by limiting exposure to microplastics. Where possible, it is best to avoid plastic packaging and plastic cooking utensils, choose natural fibres, and ventilate living areas. Although microplastics are unavoidable, researchers have found that dietary fiber can bind to microplastics and reduce their absorption into the bloodstream. Fatty liver disease can often be treated through lifestyle changes, by eating a balanced diet, exercising, and limiting alcohol. Medication can also be prescribed alongside lifestyle changes If the liver is damaged. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: Warning: Plastic is in your body - Image: YuriArcursPeopleimages; graphic: Stefan Setchell (ST ref: 1286) ID 250235-G

Microplastics may increase risk of fatty liver disease

Fatty liver disease, also known as Metabolic Dysfunction Associated Steatotic Liver Disease, is caused by a build up of fat in the liver and affects one third of the adult global population. Many factors contribute to fatty liver disease including diet, obesity, insulin resistance, genes, and gut dysbiosis. There are four stages of fatty liver disease: Steatosis: Accumulation of fat, with no damage to the liver Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: Accumulation of fat has caused...

Read More

Health

Plastic is used everywhere, for everything. From the food we eat to the clothes we wear, many of these products come wrapped in unnecessary plastic packaging that all too often ends up in our streets, oceans, or landfill sites when it can’t be recycled. Reusable packaging and containers are central to a circular economy for plastic because it helps to eliminate waste and plastic pollution by replacing single-use items with longer lasting alternatives. Opting for reusable alternatives to plastic is not only better for the environment, it’s also better for our health. Recycling has proven not to be a sustainable solution to combat plastic pollution, as it is expensive, energy-intensive, and requires specific infrastructure. Additionally, many studies have found associations between plastic exposure and adverse health effects, including certain cancers and endocrine disruption. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE Reusable containers can be filled with anything, rinsed, and used again. Many food products already come in reusable containers, so they can be washed and reused. For example, pickle and jam jars can be cleaned and used to store other household items like cotton buds, loose seasoning powders, and staples, giving them a second life while reducing the need to purchase new storage containers. Some examples of alternatives to plastic containers include: Glass or stainless-steel coffee cups and water bottles Fabric shopping bags Beeswax food wraps Mesh produce bags Another way to avoid plastic waste is by shopping at refill stores. These allow customers to purchase store-cupboard essentials, cleaning products, and toiletries without the packaging which is often plastic. It’s simple; bring your own reusable container, fill it up with the desired product, weigh it, and pay. By bringing a reusable container instead of buying a new plastic bottle or pouch each time, customers avoid packaging altogether, leaving nothing to recycle or send to landfill. You can find your nearest refill store by using a refill locator like this one, searching for "refill store" or "zero-waste shop" on a map app, or asking in local online community groups, where members often share their favourite spots. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: TurnOffThePlasticTap - Image by Von Wong - (ST ref: 1310) ID 250310-F

Reusables to avoid plastic waste: a brief guide

Plastic is used everywhere, for everything. From the food we eat to the clothes we wear, many of these products come wrapped in unnecessary plastic packaging that all too often ends up in our streets, oceans, or landfill sites when it can’t be recycled. Reusable packaging and containers are central to a circular economy for plastic because it helps to eliminate waste and plastic pollution by replacing single-use items with longer lasting alternatives. Opting for reusable alternatives to...

Read More

Reuse

England’s waste system faces a second problem closely connected to lock-in: capacity. The Government’s statutory 2042 target requires residual waste to fall to 287 kg per person, while the interim target is 437 kg per person by 2030⁠. Defra’s modelling indicates that collection and packaging reforms will contribute towards the reduction, but further policies will be required to close the remaining gap. That matters because incinerators are long-lived assets. If more capacity is built than future waste volumes require, councils and operators could be left with underused infrastructure or financial incentives to keep waste flowing into it. Defra’s 2024 capacity assessment⁠ specifically warned against infrastructure that creates long-term barriers to recycling and waste reduction. Current figures demonstrate how central incineration has become to England’s waste system. In 2024/25, around 12.7 million tonnes of local-authority-collected waste were sent for incineration, representing 50.3% of the total⁠. Regional differences are substantial: London sent 65.2% of its local-authority waste to incineration, compared with 35.8% in the East of England. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE There is also a climate dimension. The Climate Change Committee has called for clearer planning around future Energy-from-Waste capacity and stronger action to address emissions from the sector⁠, including consideration of how capacity aligns with recycling and Net Zero objectives. UKWIN’s letter⁠ argues that England should progressively reduce incineration capacity and avoid new plants that could create further lock-in. This is an advocacy position rather than settled government policy. However, it raises a broader planning question: If England succeeds in producing much less residual waste, what happens to infrastructure built on the assumption that there will always be enough waste to burn? The issue is therefore not simply whether England needs incineration. Some genuinely residual waste will continue to require treatment. The more difficult question is whether the amount of infrastructure being planned today reflects the considerably smaller waste stream England is aiming to create tomorrow. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: smoky chimneys - Photo by Dominik Dancs on Unsplash (ST ref: 1416) ID 240401-B

Too Much Capacity? The Next Question for England’s Incinerators

England’s waste system faces a second problem closely connected to lock-in: capacity. The Government’s statutory 2042 target requires residual waste to fall to 287 kg per person, while the interim target is 437 kg per person by 2030⁠. Defra’s modelling indicates that collection and packaging reforms will contribute towards the reduction, but further policies will be required to close the remaining gap. That matters because incinerators are long-lived assets. If more capacity is built than...

Read More

Waste

Flexible plastic spout pouches are the most widely used packaging for baby food globally, used by 92% of parents in the UK with children between 0-3. The polyethylene inner layer, which comes into direct contact with the food, has been found to be a source of microplastics and plastic-associated chemicals. Greenpeace commissioned the testing of two popular baby food products from Nestle and Danone to assess the levels of microplastics and plastic associated chemicals in both the packaging and food. They assessed Nestles Gerber yogurt pouches and Danones Happy baby organics fruit purée pouches. What was found? Microplastic particles were found in every sample analysed. Polyethylene, the material used to line the pouches, was found in all food samples- indicating a link between the plastic lined pouches and microplastics contamination of the food inside. The gerber yogurt pouches contained up to 54 microplastic particles per gram, equivalent to over 5000 particles per pouch. The happy baby organics fruit pouches were worse still, containing up to 99 microplastics per gram - over 11,000 microplastics per pouch. A range of chemicals were also found in both the packaging and the food. Danone’s happy baby organics fruit pouch contained 91 chemicals, 28 of which were plastic -associated. Nestle's yogurt pouches contained 111 chemicals, 55 of which were plastic-associated - including 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol, a substance hazardous to human health and associated with endocrine disrupting effects. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE Risks of exposure Many chemicals found in plastic are biologically active, meaning they can interfere with biological processes and bodily functions. Chemical contaminants of this kind can disrupt the brain, immune system, and endocrine (hormonal) systems. Babies are much more vulnerable to microplastic and chemical contaminants than adults: their exposure per unit of body weight is much higher, and their organs and biological systems are still developing. In the first few months of life, a baby’s ' detoxification systems (liver enzymes and kidneys) are not fully functional. This means that toxins circulate longer and nanoplastics are more likely to accumulate in sensitive organs. How can this be changed? There are currently no regulations limiting the release of microplastics from packaging, nor control on use of plastics for products that can affect human health. Greenpeace has called on Nestle, Danone, and all baby food producers to urgently investigate products, prove they don’t put young children at risk, and commit to phase out plastic packaging for non toxic, plastic free, reusable alternatives. Regulators and policy makers must close these policy gaps toprotect public health. Governments negotiating the UN global plastics treaty must act urgently to ban these products, reduce plastic production and end uncontrolled, unregulated plastic and chemical contamination that threatens human health. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: in-house photos ID 250235-D

Tiny plastics, Big Problem

Flexible plastic spout pouches are the most widely used packaging for baby food globally, used by 92% of parents in the UK with children between 0-3. The polyethylene inner layer, which comes into direct contact with the food, has been found to be a source of microplastics and plastic-associated chemicals. Greenpeace commissioned the testing of two popular baby food products from Nestle and Danone to assess the levels of microplastics and plastic associated chemicals in both the packaging...

Read More

Health

The plastics crisis is often believed to be a waste management problem exacerbated by irresponsible consumers. This false perception is the result of a campaign of disinformation from the plastics industry. The real problem – excessive plastic production – has been deliberately obscured by corporate interests that make profit from plastic. Dark PR: How Corporate Disinformation Undermines Our Health and the Environment by Grant Ennis presents 9 recurring frames as a way to understand disinformation tactics across corporate industries. In a 2026 report, the Center for International Environmental Law applied these frames to the plastics industry to show how they plot against the public. Denialism – Initially, environmental issues surrounding plastics may be denied or minimised, despite scientific research showing otherwise. Post-denialism – As the evidence builds up about the harms of plastics, it may be argued that plastics are still good overall. For example, plastics preserve foods or save lives in hospitals. Normalisation – The industry may claim that plastics are an unavoidable part of life, even though plastic is a relatively recent invention and is often used unnecessarily, e.g. single-use packaging. Silver boomerang – Vested interests may promote false solutions that do very little or even worsen the problem. For example, plastic producers and the fossil fuel industry have long known that recycling will not stop plastic pollution. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE Magic – Technology is often suggested as a magical solution. For example, bioplastics are promoted even though bioplastics are limited in scope and have sustainability issues. Treatment Trap – The industry may advocate for improving recycling and waste-to-energy (incineration) facilities or advertise their involvement in plastic clean-up projects. However, these ‘treatments’ exist to deliberately obscure the root cause of the problem: escalating plastic production. Victim Blaming – Corporations blame consumers for the plastic problem. The Keep America Beautiful Campaign, supported by plastic giants like Coca-Cola, deliberately promotes individual responsibility for litter. Knotted Web – The ongoing Global Plastics Treaty negotiations are repeatedly stalled by claims that the plastic problem is a ‘complex’ web of issues. This intentionally moves the focus away from industries’ role in producing plastic. Multifactorialism – Vested interests present the plastic problem as multifactorial. For example, The Alliance to End Plastic Waste, led by industry, presents a whole range of solutions. Yet again, the root problem – excessive plastic production – is conveniently ignored. Disinformation confuses the public about the real environmental issues, preventing action. It is vital to spread awareness of these tactics; once you know them, it’s easy to spot. We need to hold corporations to account and act to reduce plastic production. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: manufacturing plant blue sky - Photo by Pixabay (ST ref: 1356) man and girl with globe covered eyes - Image by ArtHouse Studio (ST ref: 1323) ID: 240510-B

Nine Disinformation Tactics Used by the Plastics Industry

The plastics crisis is often believed to be a waste management problem exacerbated by irresponsible consumers. This false perception is the result of a campaign of disinformation from the plastics industry. The real problem – excessive plastic production – has been deliberately obscured by corporate interests that make profit from plastic. Dark PR: How Corporate Disinformation Undermines Our Health and the Environment by Grant Ennis presents 9 recurring frames as a way to understand...

Read More

Corporate Greenwash

As plastic is part of our lives, using innovative solutions for waste management may be necessary. However, this can mislead the public into believing that plastic use is sustainable. When considering the consequences and complexities, these may not be sustainable solutions at all. Improved recycling collections - As plastic is part of our lives, it is obviously desirable to recycle as much of our waste as possible. Innovative collection methods may lead to higher rates of recycling, but there are limits to plastic recycling: many plastics are not recyclable, and even those that are cannot be indefinitely recycled. Better recycling techniques - Chemical recycling is often promoted as a new sustainable solution, but it is energy intensive, economically unviable and qualifies as partial recycling at best. Creating energy from waste - ‘Waste-to-energy’ has been put forward as a clean way to deal with plastic by burning it to create energy. However, this is just a type of incineration; it leads to greenhouse gas emissions, pollution and ultimately provides very little energy. Advanced plastics - Bioplastics may have a role to play in cases where plastic use is necessary. However, they still have sustainability issues surrounding them, including greenhouse gas emissions, extensive use of resources and pollution. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution! SUBSCRIBE With fossil fuel and petrochemical giants ramping up plastic production, these solutions are not nearly enough. In fact, they distract from the real problem—excessive plastic production. Vested interests spread disinformation about plastic, denying a problem exists, offering up false solutions and deliberately misleading the public about the root problem. Most people don’t know what terms like ‘bioplastic’, ‘bio-based’, ‘biodegradable’ or ‘recyclable’ really mean. The terminology is complicated and leads people to believe that the plastic problem is being taken care of. This is exploited by corporations. Labelling products with these terms means environmentally conscious consumers are more likely to buy them. This greenwashing allows corporations to continue to profit from plastic. We need to hold the entire plastics industry to account, preventing greenwashing, disinformation and demanding stricter legislation. Rather than dealing with managing plastics, we need to cut off the problem at its source. To create a sustainable plastics system, we need to drastically reduce plastic production and use. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: how much plastic has been produced - Image from www.boell.de (ST ref: 1064) WWF guide to greenwashing - from WWF (ST ref: 1302) ID 240621-6

Can Plastic be Sustainable?

As plastic is part of our lives, using innovative solutions for waste management may be necessary. However, this can mislead the public into believing that plastic use is sustainable. When considering the consequences and complexities, these may not be sustainable solutions at all. Improved recycling collections - As plastic is part of our lives, it is obviously desirable to recycle as much of our waste as possible. Innovative collection methods may lead to higher rates of recycling, but...

Read More

Waste

bottom of page