top of page

Posts List

Waste incineration in the UK has increased five-fold  in the 20 years between 2001 and 2021. It is a major part of the UK's waste disposal operations for residual waste that falls outside the scope of reuse and recycling. Although incineration is seen as a better alternative to landfill, the UK Government recognizes the need for stringent requirements to be met for the construction of new facilities . More incinerators would undermine new waste management schemes  such as Simpler Recycling, the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) are initiatives designed to  boost recycling, cut waste and prevent waste through 'polluter pays' principles. These schemes aim to support 2023 environmental regulations  that target capping residual waste at 287kg per person by 2042 – an astonishing 50% reduction from 2019 levels. Projections suggest that current incineration infrastructure capacity  to process residual waste in 2035 exceeds forecasted demand for 2042. However, pressure to develop additional facilities remains due to their role in energy generation, despite the much lower gross efficiency thresholds of 23%  compared to using coal or gas. As of December 2024, new facilities must support net-zero and circular economy agendas, gearing towards 'energy from waste' (EfW)  operations, divert non-recyclable waste from landfill and replace less efficient facilities. Incinerators already supply district heat networks across the EU, but adopting this in the UK would require a significant investment in infrastructure. Heat generation from incinerators is more carbon intensive than using fossil fuels. District heat networks may also undermine progress in energy efficient building design and create contractual ' lock in ' demand for incinerator-produced heat. Studies indicate that 53% of waste currently classified as residual is ' readily recyclable '. Furthermore, concerns about air pollution and facilities located in low-income areas highlight how incineration contributes to social inequalities as well as environmental issues. Arguments that some waste in landfill does not rot  down and can be biostabilised to limit methane emissions question whether burning wa ste is less polluting than burying it. Concerns about mercury, cadmium and thallium emissions  have been raised by UKWIN, who claim current emissions are likely incorrectly measured. Government reviews from 2014 also acknowledge the complexities of comparing landfill with incineration , but favour incineration nevertheless. Despite ongoing debates, the UK government’s plan to restrict incinerators is encouraging, and the inclusion of waste incinerators in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)  from 2028 may help accelerate decarbonisation technologies in the sector. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: Smoke, Pollution, Environment - Image by Annabel_P from Pixabay  (ST r ef:1357) Edited by Amanda Dandagama

Turning Down the Heat? What the UK’s Incinerator Crackdown Really Means

Waste incineration in the UK has increased five-fold  in the 20 years between 2001 and 2021. It is a major part of the UK's waste disposal operations for residual waste that falls outside the scope of reuse and recycling. Although incineration is seen as a better alternative to landfill, the UK Government recognizes the need for stringent requirements to be met for the construction of new facilities . More incinerators would undermine new waste management schemes  such as Simpler Recycling,...

Plastic pollution has become one of the most critical and urgent threats to ocean health, affecting marine ecosystems from the surface to the deepest seabed through biological and chemical impacts at both macro- and microscales. Each year, an estimated 8 to 11 million metric tonnes of plastic enter marine environments, where they persist for decades to centuries and continuously interact with seawater, organisms, and sediments. At the macroscale, large plastic debris, such as bags, bottles, and packaging materials, can cause direct and visible harm to marine macrofauna. Abandoned fishing gear, also known as “ghost gear”, for example, can continue to capture organisms passively and indiscriminately. Whales, turtles, seabirds, and fish are frequently found entangled in plastic waste, often injured or dead. The ingestion of macroplastics by these organisms can also block their digestive tracts, create false satiety, and impair their growth and reproduction. Beyond impacts on individual organisms, large plastic debris can also damage entire habitats such as coral reefs and seagrass meadows, altering structure, function,  and overall health of entire ecosystems.  Macroplastics gradually brake down through physical, chemical, and biological processes into microplastics (<5 mm), which are also introduced directly as primary microplastics, including synthetic fibres from textiles, microbeads, and industrial pellets. At the microscale, these small particles are easily ingested by organisms at the the base of marine food webs, such as plankton and small invertebrates and fish. Through bioaccumulation and trophic transfer, microplastics then move up the food chain, ultimately reaching top predators and humans. Beyond the mechanical damage and ingestion, plastic pollution significantly impacts water quality. Plastics contain a wide range of toxic chemical additives, such as plasticisers and flame retardants, which can leach directly into the seawater as plastics age and degrade. This continuous release of toxic chemicals occurs across all scales, posing risks to marine wildlife and, ultimately, human health even without direct ingestion. Plastics can also accumulate pollutants from the surrounding water, including persistent organic compounds, hydrocarbons, and heavy metals, which may later be released back into the environment, further amplifying contamination and exposure throughout marine ecosystems. Moreover, plastics get rapidly colonised by microbial biofilms, forming the so-called “plastisphere.” These biofilms can harbour pathogenic bacteria, making plastics potential vectors for the spread of diseases in marine environments. Additionally, the plastisphere facilitates the transport of invasive species across oceans, further degrading water quality and altering microbial and biogeochemical processes. These combined impacts highlight the urgent need for comprehensive strategies to address plastic pollution, as its impact extends beyond individual organisms to disrupt water quality, entire marine habitat, and the ecosystem services provided by them. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image

The Multi-Scale Impacts of Ocean Plastic Pollution

Plastic pollution has become one of the most critical and urgent threats to ocean health, affecting marine ecosystems from the surface to the deepest seabed through biological and chemical impacts at both macro- and microscales. Each year, an estimated 8 to 11 million metric tonnes of plastic enter marine environments, where they persist for decades to centuries and continuously interact with seawater, organisms, and sediments. At the macroscale, large plastic debris, such as bags, bottles,...

Chemical Recycling  is the process of converting plastic waste into raw materials to make new plastic, helping reduce the need for fossil fuels - the feedstock of most plastics. Chemical Recycling initially appeared to be a promising solution to the plastic waste crisis, however, concerns are growing about its effectiveness, environmental impacts and economic sustainability.     The Reality Behind the Technology Chemical Recycling is proving to be a costly gamble. The most common chemical recycling method, pyrolysis , is very expensive and requires considerable investment and regulations to be used widely. Additionally, the oil produced from this process is often heavily contaminated , making it unsuitable for producing new plastics. Experts estimate that by 2075, half of the world’s plastics could come from recycled sources. However, around one-third of the materials used in chemical recycling will still come from fossil fuels. A key strategy to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels is to significantly cut back on the consumption of plastics and fertilisers, both of which are major consumers of fossil fuels.  Conflict of Interest The chemical recycling industry must take its share of responsibility in combating the plastic waste crisis. The EU and UK have recently signed the Bridge to Busan  declaration, a global pledge to reduce the production of virgin (brand new) plastic to meet the broader climate targets of the Paris Agreement. While the EU pushes for systemic change, major chemical companies remain resistant. Many current chemical recycling processes still rely heavily on virgin oils extracted from fossil fuels to produce recycled plastics, contradicting the EU's goal to prioritise waste prevention.  A Roadmap for Systemic Change Relying too heavily on chemical recycling risks overlooking the real solutions needed to tackle the plastic waste crisis. To move beyond the fading promises, the Zero Waste Europe report  recommends key steps towards combating the plastic waste crisis by: Adopting the EU waste hierarchy framework to promote waste prevention. Imposing legal limits on the amount of virgin plastics produced. Ensuring a safe, non-toxic and transparent recycling process. Reallocating public funding away from unproven recycling technologies like pyrolysis. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: refinery tower dusk - Photo by Michael Pointner  (ST ref:1355)

Fifty Years: Chemical Recycling’s fading promise

Chemical Recycling  is the process of converting plastic waste into raw materials to make new plastic, helping reduce the need for fossil fuels - the feedstock of most plastics. Chemical Recycling initially appeared to be a promising solution to the plastic waste crisis, however, concerns are growing about its effectiveness, environmental impacts and economic sustainability.     The Reality Behind the Technology Chemical Recycling is proving to be a costly gamble. The most common chemical...

Waste

Microplastic pollution has become a major environmental concern, receiving growing interest from scientists, policymakers, and the general public. While much attention has been given to the persistence and toxicity of plastics themselves, research has more recently suggested that microplastics may pose an additional and less visible risk: they can act as carriers for microorganisms, including potentially harmful pathogens. Once in the natural environment, microplastics are rapidly colonised by microorganisms that form a biofilm on their surface, creating what is known as the “plastisphere”. Early laboratory studies provided the first indication that this biofilm could influence the movement of microbes through food webs. These experiments showed how filter-feeding organisms, such as oysters and mussels, are more likely to ingest microplastics coated with these microbial communities, as the biofilm makes the particles resemble food. This increased ingestion can raise microbial exposure and enhance the transfer of microorganisms along the food chain, raising concerns that microplastics could promote the bioaccumulation and spread of microbes within ecosystems. Subsequent field studies confirmed these findings and strengthened these concerns. Microplastics collected from marine and freshwater environments have been found to host diverse microbial communities, including bacteria known to cause disease in fish and invertebrates. Providing a long-lasting habitat, the durable surface of microplastics allow microbes to survive longer and be transported over greater distances than they would on natural particles. These observations suggest that microplastics may help spread harmful microorganisms to new areas and amplify infection risks in vulnerable ecosystems. The potential consequences extend beyond wildlife. Microplastics have been detected in seafood, drinking water, and other food products consumed by humans. Some studies suggest that microplastics in aquatic environments and wastewater can carry bacteria associated with human diseases. Although evidence that microplastics can have negative impacts on human health is still limited, their ability to transport microbes raises concerns about possible long-term health effects. In summary, microplastics are far from being inert pollutants. Their ability to host and transport microorganisms, including potential pathogens, introduces a new biological aspect of plastic pollution that scientists are only beginning to explore. Recognising microplastics as possible disease vectors highlights the need to reduce their entry into the aquatic environment and to mitigate plastic pollution. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: microorganism under a microscope - Photo by turek on Pexels  (ST ref:1349)

Microplastics as Pathogen Carriers: A Hidden Threat in Our Oceans

Microplastic pollution has become a major environmental concern, receiving growing interest from scientists, policymakers, and the general public. While much attention has been given to the persistence and toxicity of plastics themselves, research has more recently suggested that microplastics may pose an additional and less visible risk: they can act as carriers for microorganisms, including potentially harmful pathogens. Once in the natural environment, microplastics are rapidly colonised...

Pollution

The substantial water and energy consumption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) usage is acknowledged by many in the scientific community, yet public awareness of the ecological impact of AI usage is remarkably small. While certain social stigmas surround its usage - namely how it facilitates laziness or lack of creativity by the user - discussions around how AI damages the environment are rare outside of scientific debates. GenAI works by using large-scale machine learning models (usually ‘neural networks’) which have been trained on massive datasets to learn patterns and structures within that data. This enables AI to form a sentence which looks like  a human has written it. Many believe that AI can solve problems by ‘thinking’ about them, but it cannot  understand the human-written prompt or its own generated text. It acts as if it ‘understands’, but it doesn’t. The computational power needed to train and enable the decision-making capabilities of these machines is immense. All logic is performed by supercomputers, which are running 24/7 to train them on datasets. This training can consume 1,287 megawatt-hours  of electricity - equivalent to powering 100 US homes for a year. Additionally, every time a user sends a query to the machine, the entire model activates, using power hungry graphics processing units (GPUs) that consume nearly 4 times  as much as traditional computer chips. The water consumption required to support these computers is a large concern of GenAI. Computers are like radiators, where most of their energy is converted to heat. Water cooling systems are used to cool the servers by evaporating the heat. This water must be drinking quality because impurities can damage the servers.The servers built for AI process huge amounts of data, all the time, with significant  cooling demands. . For scale, 500 milliliters of water  is used upon every request with ChatGPT. Therefore, while GenAI is a transformative technology, the importance of conscientious use cannot be understated. Making small changes in how we interact with these systems can collectively make a big difference.

Why generative AI is not so smart

The substantial water and energy consumption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) usage is acknowledged by many in the scientific community, yet public awareness of the ecological impact of AI usage is remarkably small. While certain social stigmas surround its usage - namely how it facilitates laziness or lack of creativity by the user - discussions around how AI damages the environment are rare outside of scientific debates. GenAI works by using large-scale machine learning models...

Climate

You have dutifully cleaned, dried, and separated your household plastics. When you do your weekly shop, you take your plastic bags and chuck them into the supermarket’s soft plastics recycling bin. You have done your bit.  But where do your used plastics go? Despite your best efforts, your household recycling may end up in an illegal dump on the other side of the world. The UK exports 9.25 million tonnes of plastic waste every year, making it the sixth largest exporter in the world. Instead of processing our plastic at home, waste traders pack it into shipping containers and send it to developing countries to tackle. In the first half of 2025, the UK’s exports to developing countries rose by a staggering 84% in comparison to 2024 . Malaysia and Indonesia bore the brunt of this increase in exports. The UK went from exporting 18,872 tonnes of plastic waste to Malaysia in 2024, to 28,667 tonnes in 2025. For Indonesia, British plastic grew 46 times greater in this same period.  These are not statistics that the British government is proud to admit, and it has been the work of the United Nations, non-profit organisations, and academic researchers to expose these figures. What is worse is that these figures are likely an underestimate, as a significant portion of British plastic waste travels to the Netherlands, and other European countries, before being shipped to Asian countries . Why does the UK export its plastic waste? To maximise private companies’ profits, and to maintain the impression that we are moving towards net-zero. The UK and the rest of the top 10 exporters of plastic waste are responsible for 71% of all plastic waste exports worldwide, but we pass on the responsibility - and the blame - of processing our plastic waste to countries that have far less economic and infrastructural capacity to do so. It is not the case that the UK cannot process our own plastic waste, rather we refuse to invest in building our own recycling capacity. It is easier and cheaper to send it to countries where weaker laws and enforcement enable private waste traders to avoid environmental controls and responsibilities. Campaigners have described this as ‘unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism’. It is not enough for British consumers to follow recycling best practices. The UK government needs to step up and take responsibility for our own plastic waste on British soil. As long as plastic exports continue, the UK government is choosing private profit at the expense of developing nations’ economies, environments, and health. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: Garbage, Plastic cups, Recycling image - Image by EKM-Mittelsachsen from Pixabay  (ST ref: 1333) Landfill, Waste disposal, Garbage - Image by Mumtahina Rahman from Pixabay  (ST ref: 1334)

Is rinsing out your yogurt pot pointless?

You have dutifully cleaned, dried, and separated your household plastics. When you do your weekly shop, you take your plastic bags and chuck them into the supermarket’s soft plastics recycling bin. You have done your bit.  But where do your used plastics go? Despite your best efforts, your household recycling may end up in an illegal dump on the other side of the world. The UK exports 9.25 million tonnes of plastic waste every year, making it the sixth largest exporter in the world. Instead...

Legislation

Over the past decades, ocean plastic pollution has become one of the most urgent global environmental challenges.   Plastics continue to enter marine environments through a variety of pathways, accumulate and persist for long time periods in many different forms, from large items to microscopic fragments that are integrated into ecosystems and food chains. Most of the plastic entering the ocean originates on land. Mismanaged waste, especially single-use plastics such as packaging, bottles, and bags, can be transported by wind, stormwater runoff, and river streams into coastal waters. Rivers have been identified as major routes, carrying waste from inland urban and rural areas to the sea, with studies suggesting that a small number of heavily polluted rivers contribute a disproportionate share of this waste. Marine sources also contribute to ocean plastic pollution, with fishing vessels and lost or discarded fishing gear, as well as shipping activities, offshore oil and gas operations, and tourism directly introducing waste into the marine environment. Once in the ocean, plastics do not fully biodegrade, but they persist in our environment for longer than decades. When exposed to environmental factors, such as sunlight, waves, and temperature changes, large items undergo physical and chemical changes, breaking down into smaller pieces known as microplastics (plastic particles smaller than 5 mm). Microplastics can also enter the ocean directly as primary microplastics, found in some cosmetics, cleaning products, or industrial abrasives. These microplastics are now ubiquitous, found from surface waters to deep-sea sediments, and can be ingested by marine organisms at all trophic levels.  Quantifying the amount of plastic entering the ocean every year can be quite challenging, but it has been estimated that roughly 8 -12 million metric tons enter the ocean annually, equivalent to dumping more than a garbage truck full of plastic into the sea every minute. Some studies suggest the figure could be even higher, reaching up to 14 million metric tons per year, emphasising that these numbers are rough approximations, and that the real amount of plastic entering the ocean may be much larger. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: white and blue ocean waves - Photo by  Matt Paul Catalano  (ST ref: 1313) school of fish in plastic - Photo by Naja Bertolt Jensen (ST ref: 1181)

A plastic ocean

Over the past decades, ocean plastic pollution has become one of the most urgent global environmental challenges.   Plastics continue to enter marine environments through a variety of pathways, accumulate and persist for long time periods in many different forms, from large items to microscopic fragments that are integrated into ecosystems and food chains. Most of the plastic entering the ocean originates on land. Mismanaged waste, especially single-use plastics such as packaging, bottles,...

Plastic pollution

It is estimated that  11 million tonnes of plastic debris enter the oceans each year. Every year, the world produces over 400 million tonnes of plastic, and with recycling rates remaining below 10% globally, the volume entering our oceans continues to grow. Poor waste management and littering cause plastic to enter rivers and waterways, eventually pouring into the ocean. Discarded fishing gear is another major contributor. Once in the ocean, plastic is easily swept away by ocean currents, spreading far and wide, from the surface to the seafloor. Approximately only 1% of plastic debris remains on the surface , as the rest sinks or is carried into submarine canyons. Plastic debris has been found in every type of marine habitat, including coral reefs, seagrass meadows, and deep-sea sediment. In 2018, a plastic bag was even discovered at the bottom of the Mariana Trench , the deepest point in the ocean.  Plastic debris causes catastrophic damage to marine ecosystems. Large marine animals, such as dolphins and whales, turtles, and seabirds, can become entangled in or ingest plastic, often with fatal consequences. It is estimated that over 100,000 marine mammals and 1 million seabirds  are killed by plastic debris each year. Benthic organisms (those living on the seafloor) are at risk of being crushed or smothered by accumulating layers of plastic. Furthermore, exposure to the environment causes plastics to break down into microscopic fragments, which accumulate toxic chemicals and are consumed by marine life, contaminating the food chain. When microplastics enter the food chain, the damage extends far beyond individual species and begins to destabilise entire ecosystems that the planet, and we ourselves, depend on to survive. Losing ocean ecosystems will have an irreversible impact on our planet’s health. The ocean generates 50% of the oxygen we breathe, and absorbs 30% of the carbon dioxide  we produce. Increasing species loss and habitat degradation as a result of plastic pollution, in addition to global warming and ocean acidification, leave us at great risk of destroying the so-called ‘lungs of the planet’. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image:  fishing waste garbage trash - Image by Gude Pavan from  Pixabay  (ST ref: 1332)

From the Rubbish Bin to the Sea: What Happens to Plastic in the Ocean?

It is estimated that 11 million tonnes of plastic debris enter the oceans each year. Every year, the world produces over 400 million tonnes of plastic, and with recycling rates remaining below 10% globally, the volume entering our oceans continues to grow. Poor waste management and littering cause plastic to enter rivers and waterways, eventually pouring into the ocean. Discarded fishing gear is another major contributor. Once in the ocean, plastic is easily swept away by ocean currents,...

Plastic pollution

Plastic pollution fuels the climate crisis and social injustices, while also threatening human health and biodiversity. Tiny plastic particles, from micro to nanoscale, are found everywhere from oceans to human organs. Meanwhile, the production and disposal of larger plastics generate massive greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists warn that plastic production could triple by 2050, worsening waste, environmental toxicity, and climate impacts. Governments and communities all around the world are pushing for stronger regulations and policies. Many countries call for clearer production thresholds and more inclusion of scientific, Indigenous, and affected communities in the decision-making process. These efforts aim to reduce plastic waste in oceans and landfills, while protecting human health and wildlife. International initiatives, like the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, seek a coordinated global approach to tackle plastic issues at their source. However, despite reaching its final round in Geneva in August 2025, the Treaty failed to produce a legally binding agreement, leaving the world without a clear global plan. In this context, fossil fuel and petrochemical companies are expanding plastic production at unprecedented rates. Since the first treaty talks in 2022, just seven companies (including Dow, ExxonMobil, Shell, SABIC and INEOS) have produced enough plastic to fill more than six million bin lorries, while expanding their production capacity by 1.4 million tonnes. Because plastics are made almost entirely from fossil fuels, this growth locks in decades of additional greenhouse gas emissions, waste, and associated harm to human health and the environment. This rapid growth is not accidental, but strategic. As the world shifts towards renewable energies and electric vehicles, oil and gas companies see plastics as a reliable way to maintain profits. Industry leaders openly call petrochemicals a “window of opportunity” to keep drilling by turning crude oil into plastic. Production creates more demand: companies flood markets with single-use products while promoting false solutions like chemical recycling, even though true recycling rates remain extremely low. At the same time, these companies exert extraordinary political power. At COP30, for example, over 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists attended the conference, outnumbering almost every national delegation. They use their influence to weaken regulations, shape treaties in their favour, and present themselves as partners rather than polluters. This fundamental conflict of interest threatens the integrity of the global response to end plastic pollution. Advocates are now calling for fossil fuel lobbying to be banned from global negotiations, enforcing strict conflict-of-interest rules, and prioritising the voices of frontline communities. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images" TurnOffThePlasticTap  - Image by Von Wong  (ST ref: 1310)

Calling the fossil fuel industry to account

Plastic pollution fuels the climate crisis and social injustices, while also threatening human health and biodiversity. Tiny plastic particles, from micro to nanoscale, are found everywhere from oceans to human organs. Meanwhile, the production and disposal of larger plastics generate massive greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists warn that plastic production could triple by 2050, worsening waste, environmental toxicity, and climate impacts. Governments and communities all around the world are...

Corporate

Take a look around on a busy day. Parks, offices, cars, backpacks. You'll spot them everywhere: plastic water bottles. They're convenient, sure, but that convenience comes with a cost we don't always see. Reducing plastic bottle use and choosing tap water instead is one of the simplest and most powerful changes we can make for both the planet and our health. Let's start with the environmental side. "Around 117,000 plastic bottles  will have been used by the time you finish reading this sentence.” Yet they can linger in the environment for hundreds of years. Millions  end up in landfills, rivers, and oceans every single day, breaking down into smaller pieces that never truly disappear. Around 99% of plastics are made from fossil fuels ,   meaning their impact begins long before they become waste. It's not just the burden of plastic itself that needs to be considered; it's also the bottling, packaging, and transporting of water that often comes from municipal sources anyway. When we choose tap water, we cut down on waste, lower carbon emissions, and reduce pressure on already stretched ecosystems. Now here's the part that hits closer to home: our health. Plastic bottles don't just pollute the environment; they can pollute what we drink. Over time, especially when exposed to heat or reused, tiny microplastics  can leach into the water. Studies have found microplastics in bottled water, and while research is ongoing, scientists are increasingly concerned about how these particles may affect hormones, digestion, and long-term health . Choosing filtered tap water helps reduce this unnecessary exposure. Tap water also has seriously underrated benefits. In many countries, it's held to strict safety standards and tested far more frequently than bottled water. In the UK, 99.95%  of tap water has met both UK and EU regulatory standards since 2010, helping earn the country a perfect score of 100 for water quality  in global rankings. Tap water is affordable, accessible , contains essential minerals, and is often fortified with fluoride for dental health. With a reusable bottle, tap water is a clean, safe, reliable, low-waste option that fits easily into daily life. Reducing plastic bottles doesn't mean sacrificing convenience. It means changing habits. Refill instead of rebuy. Carry a bottle you love. Trust your tap . Small choices add up, and every refill is a quiet vote for a healthier planet and a healthier you. Sometimes change really can start with just turning on the tap. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact : info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: Drinking Glass With Body of Water - Photo by Marko Obrvan on Pexels (ST ref: 1331)

Drinking Water Without the Plastic Aftertaste

Take a look around on a busy day. Parks, offices, cars, backpacks. You'll spot them everywhere: plastic water bottles. They're convenient, sure, but that convenience comes with a cost we don't always see. Reducing plastic bottle use and choosing tap water instead is one of the simplest and most powerful changes we can make for both the planet and our health. Let's start with the environmental side. "Around 117,000 plastic bottles  will have been used by the time you finish reading this...

Lifestyle

Ghost nets, or “ghost fishing gear”, are fishing and aquaculture nets abandoned, lost, or discarded in the sea (ALDFG = Abandoned, Lost, or Discarded Fishing Gear). Once in the water, they do not become inert trash, but they continue to “fish” passively. Drifting with currents, or settling on the seabed, they can trap fish, turtles, marine mammals, seabirds, and other organisms, often killing them slowly by entanglement, starvation, or injuries. Ghost nets can also damage vulnerable habitats, such as seagrass meadows, coralligenous and oyster reefs, threatening sea bed biodiversity. Being typically made of synthetic materials, they degrade extremely slowly, sometimes over decades or even centuries, releasing micro- and nano-plastics that can ultimately enter the food chain. Because of their persistent and harmful nature, ghost nets are considered one of the most insidious forms of marine pollution.  The GhostNets  project To address this, Marevivo, an Italian NGO dedicated to marine conservation and sustainable management and development, launched the GhostNets  project in collaboration with ISPRA, CoNISMa, and other scientific partners. As part of the national Marine Ecosystem Restoration plan, this initiative aims to restore 20 coastal and marine areas across Italy by removing ghost nets. It combines high-tech mapping tools (multibeam sonar, side-scan, ROVs), specialised technical dives, and careful net recovery, even at depths exceeding 40 meters. Once retrieved, nets are examined by marine biologists to free any trapped organisms and then responsibly recycled or disposed of. Some materials are also tested through innovative experimental recycling methods, such as “Green Plasma” pyrolysis, which converts plastic waste into usable energy, reducing landfill disposal and giving new value to material that would otherwise pollute the seas.  Promising results were achieved with the first operations in 2025, with 3 tonnes of ghost nets removed and over 52,000 m² of seabed restored in Sicilian waters alone, roughly equivalent to 7 football fields. Earlier surveys recovered over 30 nets, some of them up to 260 meters long, from depths of 40–60 meters, freeing many marine organisms trapped for long periods. By retrieving abandoned fishing gear, promoting recycling, and restoring marine habitats, the GhostNets program directly supports key goals of the Global Plastics Pollution Treaty, providing a practical model for addressing ALDFG. Italy’s initiative demonstrates how coordinated action, through mapping, recovery, recycling, and habitat restoration, can begin to reverse the persistent damages caused by abandoned fishing gear, offering a concrete example of how seas can be defended, cleaned, and regenerated. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: Turtle entangled Net - Wix Media Sea Turtle swimming - Wix Media

GhostNets program - The Italian response by Marevivo

Ghost nets, or “ghost fishing gear”, are fishing and aquaculture nets abandoned, lost, or discarded in the sea (ALDFG = Abandoned, Lost, or Discarded Fishing Gear). Once in the water, they do not become inert trash, but they continue to “fish” passively. Drifting with currents, or settling on the seabed, they can trap fish, turtles, marine mammals, seabirds, and other organisms, often killing them slowly by entanglement, starvation, or injuries. Ghost nets can also damage vulnerable habitats,...

Pollution

Considered one of the greatest environmental risks to health, air pollution is laden with fine particulate matter that causes cardiovascular and respiratory disease, cancers, and substantial mortality. Cleaning  up our air demands concerted action by local, national, and international level policy makers.  A 2023 briefing  from the United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) examined claims and assumptions about the health impacts of ‘Energy from Waste’ incinerators, in particular their emissions: volatile gases that escape to the local environment. In the briefing, UKWIN fact-checked  claims   made by the Environment Agency (EA), UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), the UK Government and others. Several alarming messages emerge. The EA has granted permits even when applications predicted large contributions to local air pollution. It also doesn't require pollution-reducing infrastructure like higher stacks or catalytic converters, allowing operators to cut costs.   Incinerator impacts are obscured by outdated air quality thresholds and the EA's reliance on operators to self-report emissions. EA inspections are usually pre-arranged, raising concerns about site preparation. Important research has been disregarded, including studies on incinerator health risks and evidence showing harm at much lower pollution levels than previously understood.   Computer modelling estimating incinerator impacts is complex and uncertain due to numerous assumptions. Many values are based on typical (not protective) levels, and cumulative uncertainty isn't quantified. Actual pollution levels and health risks may be much higher than predicted.   The briefing concludes that UK air quality thresholds are insufficient to prevent significant harm. Thresholds can be exceeded, some pollutants have no safe level, and EA modelling isn't robust. Falsely denying incineration risks undermines public trust, stifles debate, blocks pollution reduction measures, harms public health, and increases societal costs. True sustainability demands transitioning to a circular economy that eliminates waste by design, removing the need for incineration altogether. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images Factory pollution ships - Image by  Chris Leboutillier  (ST ref: 1210) Quote: World Health Organisation: Ambient (outdoor) air pollution 24 October 2024 Fire, Flames, Fire wood Image by Alexa from Pixabay  (ST ref 1330)

The Burning Question: How Safe Are Waste Incinerators?

Considered one of the greatest environmental risks to health, air pollution is laden with fine particulate matter that causes cardiovascular and respiratory disease, cancers, and substantial mortality. Cleaning up our air demands concerted action by local, national, and international level policy makers.  A 2023 briefing  from the United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) examined claims and assumptions about the health impacts of ‘Energy from Waste’ incinerators, in particular...

Waste

“If you really believe in something you can make it happen and it’s okay to make it up as you go along.”* Back in 2016, Dan Webb thought that plastic pollution happened in other parts of the world, not at home in the UK. But when he moved out of London to the coast, he was really shocked to see how much plastic pollution there was on the beaches, and decided to do something about it. Inspiration He started to realise just how much packaging there was, the amount that he was bringing home and wondered how much he was throwing away. What was actually happening  to all of his plastic waste? This is where Dan’s story differs from most of ours.  He decided not to throw away a single piece of plastic waste for an entire year. He made sure that none of the plastic waste he produced would be thrown away. No bottle tops, no inner soles from his shoes, no toothbrushes, no toothpaste packets…  Towards the end of the year there were 4,500 pieces of plastic in 22 bin bags piled in his spare room! It took four days with 20 volunteers to separate, count, categorise, photograph and weigh every single piece, and he knew that he had a story to tell! Telling the story By offering this experience to others, he realised it would help them discover their own plastic footprint and galvanise and inform them, and so   the Big Plastic Count was born. Dan trialled the project for almost two and a half years. The brief was simple. All you had to do was count your plastic waste for just a week (not a year) and then submit your results online. This provides you with real data to help you understand and reduce your own plastic waste. Working with Greenpeace UK, the Big Plastic Count went national, and since 2022 472,000 people have taken part and they have counted 11 million pieces of plastic. Join the count! That was how Everyday Plastic got started. If you would like to take part in this year’s Big Plastic Count (9 - 15 March), or just want to make a change, then find out more   here . +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images Beach plastic UK - image by author screenshot from  www.everydayplastic.org/ *Dan Webb, founder Everyday Plastic

Join The Big Plastic Count!

“If you really believe in something you can make it happen and it’s okay to make it up as you go along.”* Back in 2016, Dan Webb thought that plastic pollution happened in other parts of the world, not at home in the UK. But when he moved out of London to the coast, he was really shocked to see how much plastic pollution there was on the beaches, and decided to do something about it. Inspiration He started to realise just how much packaging there was, the amount that he was bringing home and...

Waste

Many corporations engage in ‘greenwashing’ tactics. Greenwashing involves marketing products to appear more environmentally friendly than they really are. Profit-driven corporations are aware that many consumers care about the environment and want eco-friendly products. To appeal to these consumers, they use terms such as ‘carbon-neutral’, ‘organic’, ‘farm-fresh’, ‘biodegradable’ and ‘sustainable’. They may also use circular or green imagery on their packaging and promotional material.  These labels sound good but are often vague, misleading or meaningless. They are used to drive profits and are not backed up by any real commitment to looking after the planet. Greenwashing is not just about trying to sound environmentally friendly. It is a deliberate PR tactic by corporations to obscure the negative environmental imp act of their products. Making real ‘green’ improvements to products is expensive. It’s much more profitable to use clever marketing that appeals to the consumer’s conscience, whilst deliberately hiding the cost to the environment. Plastic corporations  continue to make profits by using greenwashing tactics to distract consumers from the devastating consequences of plastic. Plastic products are incredibly harmful to the environment, damaging ecosystems, affecting human health, and leading to greenhouse gas emissions.  Examples of greenwashing tactics by the plastics industry include: Token green gestures e.g .  promoting that a product is recyclable whilst continuing excessive plastic production. Making misleading statements that sound good like ‘made from 100% recycled content’ or ‘100% recyclable’ . Using vague imagery  such as green/circular labelling without the environmental credentials to back it up. Using meaningless terms  like referring to products as ‘ plastic neutral’ . Promoting plastic design changes e.g.  changes that supposedly aid in recyclability . Promoting false solutions e.g. using  bio-based  or  biodegradable  plastics, which sound eco-friendly but are problematic and often used to justify further plasti c use.  Ultimately, greenwashing distracts the public from the real issues - such as excessive plastic production - delaying us from being able to make any meaningful change. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: Greenwashing synonyms - Image from spunout.ie  (ST ref: 1297) Greenwashing one to ten - Image from sigmaearth.com  (ST ref: 1295)

What is Greenwashing?

Many corporations engage in ‘greenwashing’ tactics. Greenwashing involves marketing products to appear more environmentally friendly than they really are. Profit-driven corporations are aware that many consumers care about the environment and want eco-friendly products. To appeal to these consumers, they use terms such as ‘carbon-neutral’, ‘organic’, ‘farm-fresh’, ‘biodegradable’ and ‘sustainable’. They may also use circular or green imagery on their packaging and promotional material.  These...

Corporate

On 7 November, schools and young people worldwide came together for the Plastic Clever Schools International Day of Action to tackle plastic pollution through inspiring assemblies, expert talks and hands-on activities. It made a visible difference across schools and communities, showing how small changes can add up to big wins for our ocean and planet. Hundreds of schools from the UK to Indonesia took part in the Day of Action, stepping up to lead the way toward a plastic clever future. Their actions sparked conversations across communities and inspired other schools to follow their example. One school’s actions can ripple far beyond the classroom! Examples of what participants did Carried out litter picks and plastic audits of playgrounds, canteens and local areas. Delivered short assemblies or classroom sessions to spread awareness and inspire peers to adopt eco-friendly practices and strive for a sustainable future. Created student posters, artworks and short videos to share their plastic-reduction pledges. Hosted expert Q&As with local marine, waste or environmental experts, to discuss collective action schools can take. What you can do now Join now — sign up on the Plastic Clever Schools website to access free resources, support and to take part in upcoming actions. Pick one simple activity your class or school can do next week (litter pick, plastic audit, assembly or student media). Share your impact on social media to amplify learning and inspire other schools. See and Share See what others are doing, and share your own wins. Follow and post with #PlasticCleverSchools #BeatPlasticPollution on Facebook, Instagram and X to join the global movement. Find more ideas, free classroom materials, and the sign-up page on the Plastics Clever Schools website: https://plasticcleverschools.org/    Together, we can make our schools cleaner, our oceans healthier, and our voices louder. Join now and help lead your school to a plastic clever future. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk

Plastic Clever Schools

On 7 November, schools and young people worldwide came together for the Plastic Clever Schools International Day of Action to tackle plastic pollution through inspiring assemblies, expert talks and hands-on activities. It made a visible difference across schools and communities, showing how small changes can add up to big wins for our ocean and planet. Hundreds of schools from the UK to Indonesia took part in the Day of Action, stepping up to lead the way toward a plastic clever future. Their...

Lifestyle

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a large and diverse group of synthetic chemicals that have been widely used for decades. They are found in many everyday products, including water-repellent clothing, food packaging, furniture, and nonstick cookware. These chemicals do not break down in the environment, and once released, they can bioaccumulate for years or even decades, contaminating soil, water, and wildlife for generations unless active measures are taken to remove or contain them. One recent study found evidence of forever chemical pollution at 17,000 sites in Europe alone.   How can PFAS harm the environment and health? PFAS contamination poses serious threats to ecosystems, with animals contaminated by hazardous forever chemicals on every continent except Antarctica . These chemicals harm wildlife health and development, disrupt soil structure and microbial communities, and contaminate rivers, lakes, and drinking water supplies. In England alone, over one-third of watercourses contain medium to high risk PFAS levels. Recently, research has revealed that levels of two potentially cancer-causing PFAS chemicals washing into the Mersey from land runoff were among the highest recorded globally.  The UK is just one example-  throughout Europe , PFAS contamination follows a similar pattern, with numerous sources scattered across the landscape.  Furthermore, well-studied PFAS have been linked to a wide range of adverse health outcomes in humans, including cancer , liver toxicity, obesity, reproductive and developmental effects, and reduced fertility. In addition, PFAS exposure has been associated with immune system dysfunction, particularly immunosuppression, leading to reduced vaccine responses and increased susceptibility to infections. What can I do about PFAS? Firstly, you can reduce your exposure by avoiding products that contain PFAS where possible. Choose alternatives to non-stick cookware, opt for natural fabrics instead of waterproof clothing, and use glass or stainless steel containers rather than plastics. When using plastic, ensure it is PFAS-free. However, for most people, the main source of PFAS exposure is through food and water. You can also boycott products and companies that use PFAS, many of whom are blocking regulation of toxic chemicals . 
 Check here  for a list of retailers committed to phasing out PFAS.  Finally, take action by contacting your local representative, signing petitions for stronger regulation, or getting involved with an environmental organisation. Protecting your health and the environment starts with making your voice heard. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk With thanks to  CIEL (Ra chel Radvany) for support. Image:  Products that contain PFAS - graphic from NY State Dept of Health  (ST ref: 1251)

Forever Chemicals: Damaging the Environment and Your Body

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a large and diverse group of synthetic chemicals that have been widely used for decades. They are found in many everyday products, including water-repellent clothing, food packaging, furniture, and nonstick cookware. These chemicals do not break down in the environment, and once released, they can bioaccumulate for years or even decades, contaminating soil, water, and wildlife for generations unless active measures are taken to remove or contain...

Health

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill  will reach the report stage in the House of Lords on 24th February.  
 Every day, an estimated 3 million cigarette filters are littered in the UK. This means that since the first reading of the Bill in parliament on the 20th March 2024, approximately 1.8 billion cigarette filters have been dropped onto UK streets and into waterways. With this bill the UK government could reduce plastic pollution and improve public health by answering the call from researchers and public health experts to ban cigarette filters. So why haven’t they done it? Researchers  in the UK from the Brighton and Sussex Medical School have recently followed the World Health Organisation  and the EU  call for a ban on cigarette filters as an urgent public health matter. Because of historic advertising from the tobacco industry, cigarette filters are widely perceived to reduce the harmful effects of cigarette smoke on the body. 
 However, research  has indicated that cigarette filters do not provide meaningful protection and may even contribute to increased exposure of smokers to harmful substances. Also, banning cigarette filters may encourage people to stop smoking by dispelling the illusion of safety provided by the filter. When local authorities around the UK are spending an estimated total of £40 million  a year cleaning up discarded cigarette filters that pollute the environment with microplastics and toxins, a total ban on filters seems the obvious solution. However, the Government, unlike the Greens and Lib Dems , has voted against  including this ban in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. The legal sale of tobacco  in the UK will now slowly end over the course of the next century - at the cost of 3 million butts a day  - and any potential ban has been left to DEFRA. Rather than waiting for this to happen, the government could summon up the courage to confront the tobacco lobby and decisively end this huge source of microplastic pollution in UK waterways. You can take further action   by writing to individual members of the House of Lords, lobbying your MP or giving advance support  to    No Butts Day  (4th July 2026). +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image cigarette butt ground - Image by wirestock  on Freepik  (ST ref: 1229)

Legislation passing the Butt

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill  will reach the report stage in the House of Lords on 24th February.  Every day, an estimated 3 million cigarette filters are littered in the UK. This means that since the first reading of the Bill in parliament on the 20th March 2024, approximately 1.8 billion cigarette filters have been dropped onto UK streets and into waterways. With this bill the UK government could reduce plastic pollution and improve public health by answering the call from researchers and...

Legislation

Cigarettes are among the most littere d items worldwide with an estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette filters entering the environment every year. Cigarettes also make up around two thirds of all litter found in England across 80% of surveyed sites . Despite the prevalence of cigarettes discarded in the environment, filters have rarely been tackled as a source of plastic in efforts to reduce this environmental waste. So why should we be concerned about cigarette filters? Cigarette filters are usually made of a type of plastic called cellulose acetate. Each filter contains between 12,000 -15,000 strands  of this material which can break off and enter the environment as microfibres. While these are too small for humans to see, these fibres can potentially make up a substantial part of global microplastic pollution, spreading through ecosystems and entering the food chain, posing a threat to both wildlife and human health. Cigarette butts primarily end up in aquatic environments  and water sources contaminating rivers, lakes, and oceans. Further, recent research has demonstrated that plastic microfibers released from degrading cigarette filters in the environment potentially make up a very high and almost entirely overlooked proportion of microplastics in deep-sea sediment . In animal studies  conducted in these environments it has been demonstrated that both plastic fibres and toxic chemicals from cigarette butts can be absorbed by marine life.  This means these waste products are potentially contaminating human food sources and being bioaccumulated. Prior studies have indicated  the various harmful effects that microplastics can have on the human body. This highlights the urgent need to recognise cigarette filters as a source of plastic pollution, and scientists and public health experts in the UK and EU have recently advocated for regulatory action, including a potential ban. Watch out for the follow up article which will explore common myths around cigarette filters, current campaigns to ban the filters, the UK’s current failure to do so in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill , and details of No Butts Day  – Saturday July 4th, 2026 – when people around the world will join forces for the biggest cigarette filter action on the planet. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image handful of butts - Image by Annemarieke Celine - No Butts Day  (ST ref 13290)

Too many butts

Cigarettes are among the most littere d items worldwide with an estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette filters entering the environment every year. Cigarettes also make up around two thirds of all litter found in England across 80% of surveyed sites . Despite the prevalence of cigarettes discarded in the environment, filters have rarely been tackled as a source of plastic in efforts to reduce this environmental waste. So why should we be concerned about cigarette filters? Cigarette filters are...

Pollution

The Coca-Cola Company  is a multinational beverage corporation. In 2022, Coca-Cola produced 134 billion single-use plastic bottles  and were responsible for around one in five of the world’s PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) plastic bottles. It is the top plastic producing company in the world, with a plastic footprint of   3.45 million tonnes , estimated to increase to 4.13 tons by 2030.  Since 2018, Break Free From Plastic  (BFFP) member organizations and supporters have contributed to a global brand audit project. A brand audit is a global community initiative where branded plastic waste polluting the environment is collected, counted, and recorded. In this way, the companies responsible for plastic pollution around the world can be identified. In 2023, the analysis reveals the top ten global polluters : The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé, Unilever, PepsiCo, Mondelēz International, Mars, Inc., Procter & Gamble, Danone, Altria, and British American Tobacco. The Coca-Cola Company was responsible for 11% of all items collected. In fact, Coca-Cola has been the top polluter every year since the audits began. It is unsurprising that the biggest plastic producer is also the biggest plastic polluter. It is intuitively the case that the more plastic a company produces, the more plastic will be found polluting the environment. A 2024 study  has shown that every 1% increase in a companies’ plastic production is associated with a 1% increase in plastic pollution. This demonstrates how radical limits on plastic production   are needed to reduce pollution .  In their World Without Waste  campaign, Coca-Cola claims that they want to tackle plastic pollution. However, they continue to produce more and more plastic. Life Cycle Analyses (LCAs)  have consistently shown that reusable packaging is less damaging to the environment. However, the company that originally sold drinks in refillable glass bottles, has fully embraced cheap, disposable plastic.  Instead of reducing their plastic footprint, Coca-Cola has greenwashed  their products, making them appear sustainable, whilst successfully avoiding costly legislation restricting plastic.  +++++++++++++++++ Read more about The Coca-Cola Company’s greenwashing tactics in episode 3 of this seven part series... For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image

Coca-Cola: The Top Plastic Polluter

The Coca-Cola Company  is a multinational beverage corporation. In 2022, Coca-Cola produced 134 billion single-use plastic bottles  and were responsible for around one in five of the world’s PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) plastic bottles. It is the top plastic producing company in the world, with a plastic footprint of   3.45 million tonnes , estimated to increase to 4.13 tons by 2030.  Since 2018, Break Free From Plastic  (BFFP) member organizations and supporters have contributed to a...

Corporate

For a long time, the fossil fuel industry has been pushing the narrative that it is the fault of consumers that there is so much plastic pollution.  They have said that the public is not recycling enough.  They blame developing countries for the pollution that ends up in the sea.  With the fall in revenue from fossil energy, the industry ramped up plastic production to mitigate its losses and focused on single use products to maximise turnover.  They turned a blind eye to what happens after use and externalised the costs of cleaning up the mess they caused.  The result has been an exponential rise in global plastic pollution, including  11 million tonnes of plastic entering the ocean every year.  The only way for this to change is for the production and use of plastics to be reduced. This means that the industry, Big Plastic, must be prepared to at last pay their share, taking a hit on its profits.  There may be a few who are prepared to accept this because they see the damage that is being done, but a large proportion resist all attempts to limit production and hide their agenda behind a façade of sustainable ambition.  Like the Traitors in the television series, they lie to those around them while pretending to be Faithful to a circular economy. In a survey of brands littering coastlines worldwide the following were the top five  polluters: The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé, Unilever, PepsiCo and Mondelēz International. Time will tell whether governments will see through the artifice and banish single use plastic.  Meanwhile Coca-Cola is up next in our series ‘Corporates Making Profit from Pollution’.  Follow our newsletter and blogs to discover more Traitors.  +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image man and girl with globe covered eyes - Image by ArtHouse Studio  (ST ref: 1323) World without Waste: Facebook chart: The World in Data

Corporate greenwash. Who are the Traitors? Who are the Faithful?

For a long time, the fossil fuel industry has been pushing the narrative that it is the fault of consumers that there is so much plastic pollution.  They have said that the public is not recycling enough.  They blame developing countries for the pollution that ends up in the sea.  With the fall in revenue from fossil energy, the industry ramped up plastic production to mitigate its losses and focused on single use products to maximise turnover.  They turned a blind eye to what happens after...

Corporate

bottom of page