top of page

Posts List

Sustainable plastic solutions attempt to solve the plastic problem with innovation. Rather than reducing plastic production and use, ‘sustainable’ bioplastics have been developed, and better waste management processes have been proposed. Improved recycling collections have been suggested as a sustainable plastics solution. The more plastic that is appropriately collected, the more plastic gets recycled. However, a more complex system of collection may confuse or demotivate the public, lowering the effective collection rate.  Even if plastic collection is improved, plastic is not always easily recyclable. ’Recyclable’ PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) plastic can’t be recycled over-and-over again. Eventually ‘virgin plastic’ (newly manufactured plastic that has never been recycled) needs to be added to maintain quality. Much of the plastic collected for recycling is downcycled into lower grade plastics, which can no longer be recycled. Some plastic can’t be recycled or it’s not economically viable to do so. As plastic cannot be recycled into similar quality products in a circular fashion, better recycling systems alone cannot make plastic sustainable. More plastic will need to be produced and waste will become unmanageable.  Much of the plastic collected for recycling gets incinerated, particularly if it gets exported to other countries with less effective waste management systems. This export of recyclables and associated incineration often leads to underpaid and unsafe conditions for workers. Recycling is an energy intensive process, leading to an increased use of non-renewable resources. ’Energy from waste’ incineration avoids this problem, but is inherently unsustainable, as waste is never fully managed, and pollution is generated. Improved recycling processes have a role in managing waste, but it is not a fully sustainable solution to the plastic problem; the plastic crisis can’t be solved by technology and innovative waste management. With plastic use projected to triple by 2060, the real solution to this crisis is to cut plastic production. We need a strong Global Plastics Treaty that tackles harm across the whole life cycle of plastics and drastically limits production.

Sustainable plastics – is recycling a real solution?

Sustainable plastic solutions attempt to solve the plastic problem with innovation. Rather than reducing plastic production and use, ‘sustainable’ bioplastics have been developed, and better waste management processes have been proposed. Improved recycling collections have been suggested as a sustainable plastics solution. The more plastic that is appropriately collected, the more plastic gets recycled. However, a more complex system of collection may confuse or demotivate the public,...

Every  goal must have a planned course of action and a way to measure the impact of our actions in order to confirm it has been achieved. And when it comes to sustainability and climate change, we do not have any time to waste on subpar strategies. Despite this, businesses have opted to lean into “greenwashing” strategies that depend on recycling, falsely selling it as a fix-all solution.   Despite the environmentally friendly marketing on the packaging of various food wrappers  and household items, the impact of “eco-friendly”, “green”, and “recyclable” items is dishearteningly negligible. Many of these items are impossible to reuse or refill, and they are very rarely recycled.  In 2022, research from the Changing Markets Foundation found that almost 60% of sustainability claims by 12 major UK brands were either unsubstantiated or misleading. However, these brands used buzzwords to get environmentally conscious consumers’ attention and money.    Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE Carefully crafted marketing gives consumers the illusion of a greener, more environmentally conscious choice. Despite this, the products being sold rely heavily on smaller amounts of cheap single-use plastic or combinations and derivatives that cannot be processed and recycled because they contain mixed materials or metal components. These products include juice and coffee cartons made of bonded layers of thin paperboard, polythene plastic, and aluminium foil that cannot be easily separated and recycled.   The goal is therefore killed by policies that focus on recycling and end-of-life plastic solutions before it ever has a chance to be achieved. This allows businesses and producers to continue their original practices and manufacturing processes without making a meaningful change. Alternatively, producers could tackle the issue of plastic pollution during production by using sustainable and innovative materials, sustainably sourcing energy and raw materials, and opposing lobbying by big oil companies who want to increase plastic sales to make a bigger profit. Read more about packaging and supermarkets' greenwashing tactics in episode 5 of this series. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: man sorts recycling - Image by Lara Jameson (ST ref: 1410) Greenwashing six sins - Image from cdn.shopify.com (ST ref: 1296)

The Greenwashing Recycling Scam

Every goal must have a planned course of action and a way to measure the impact of our actions in order to confirm it has been achieved. And when it comes to sustainability and climate change, we do not have any time to waste on subpar strategies. Despite this, businesses have opted to lean into “greenwashing” strategies that depend on recycling, falsely selling it as a fix-all solution. Despite the environmentally friendly marketing on the packaging of various food wrappers and household...

Corporate

Plastic pollution is usually pictured as something outside the body: bottles on beaches, fragments floating in oceans or waste accumulating in landfill. Increasingly, however, scientists are finding evidence of plastic somewhere much closer to home - inside us. As plastic breaks down, it forms microscopic particles known as microplastics and even smaller nanoplastics. Humans can encounter these particles through food, drinking water and the air we breathe. Researchers have now reported microplastics in human blood, lungs, placentas, stool, reproductive tissues and other organs. Finding plastic in the body does not automatically mean it is causing disease. But it raises an important question: what happens when material designed for durability meets living tissue? Laboratory and emerging human research provides several reasons for concern. Micro- and nanoplastics may contribute to oxidative stress and inflammation - processes capable of damaging cells when they become excessive. Plastic is also more than a polymer. Additives including phthalates and bisphenols can interfere with hormonal signalling, creating particular concerns around reproductive and developmental health. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE Perhaps one of the most striking human findings came from research examining carotid artery plaques. Patients whose plaques contained micro- or nanoplastics have a higher risk of heart attack, stroke or death during follow-up than those without detected plastics. Crucially, this was an association and does not prove the particles caused these events. There is still much scientists do not know about dose, long-term exposure and which particles present the greatest danger. Yet one fact is becoming difficult to ignore: plastic pollution is no longer simply an environmental issue. The boundary between environmental health and human health is disappearing. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: doctor examines x-ray - Image by Anna Shvets (ST ref: 1411)

Plastic Is Not Just Around Us - It Is Inside Us

Plastic pollution is usually pictured as something outside the body: bottles on beaches, fragments floating in oceans or waste accumulating in landfill. Increasingly, however, scientists are finding evidence of plastic somewhere much closer to home - inside us. As plastic breaks down, it forms microscopic particles known as microplastics and even smaller nanoplastics. Humans can encounter these particles through food, drinking water and the air we breathe. Researchers have now reported...

Health

A business' main priority is to ensure consumers continue to purchase their products. To do so, they tiptoe the line between consumer opinion and company ideals and priorities. They will alter their company or product branding, manufacturing process, or recipe to remain aligned with consumer demand. Whether these changes create the real change desired by consumers is another topic entirely. This discrepancy is the basis of “the green concept”, also known as “greenwashing”. The United Nations describes greenwashing as “misleading the public to believe a company (or product) is doing more to protect the environment than it actually is”.    Greenwashing often occurs in two ways: slight manufacturing changes to products (most popularly, plastic packaging and single-use plastic products), and marketing ploys that include unfounded claims. For plastic food packaging specifically, many products marketed as recyclable with the universal three arrows in the shape of a triangle symbol or through marketing phrases such as “natural” and “biodegradable” will never be recycled. These products actually contain Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE), a lightweight and flexible plastic derivative that the UK does not have the capacity to recycle in large quantities, with around 10,000 tonnes being their annual domestic limit.  Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE The United Nations released a report titled Integrity Matters to address these misleading attempts at more sustainable business practices and outlined ten recommendations for a net zero future. The report asks  businesses to both pledge their commitment to environmentally friendly practices and match it with measurable action. Integrity Matters was followed by a Recognition and Accountability Framework and Draft Implementation Plan to assess expert groups’ ideas and recommendations, and to ultimately crack down on companies practising greenwashing or deceptive and inefficient action. But the question remains: will the efforts of such organisations, backed by environmentally aware consumers looking to offset their own carbon footprint, create change before it is too late? Or is there more we can do, as consumers and the source of income, to hold these businesses accountable? Read more about packaging and supermarkets' greenwashing tactics in episode 4 of this series. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: spotlight on plastic bottles - Image by Mart Production (ST ref: 1409)

Greenwashing: Another Buzzword, or a Silent Threat to Net Zero?

A business' main priority is to ensure consumers continue to purchase their products. To do so, they tiptoe the line between consumer opinion and company ideals and priorities. They will alter their company or product branding, manufacturing process, or recipe to remain aligned with consumer demand. Whether these changes create the real change desired by consumers is another topic entirely. This discrepancy is the basis of “the green concept”, also known as “greenwashing”. The United Nations...

Corporate

Biodegradable plastics (a type of bioplastic) have been developed to attempt to mitigate the plastic waste management problem. Plastic once produced, doesn’t just disappear. It’s either sent to landfill, incinerated, recycled (only 9% of plastic has ever been recycled), or ends up polluting the environment. Biodegradable plastics can be broken down by microorganisms into safe by-products such as water, natural gas and biomass. A big concern with biodegradable plastics is whether or not they actually degrade in practice.  Biodegradables need certain conditions to decompose e.g. certain levels of moisture, heat and oxygen. Compostable plastics are a type of biodegradable plastic that need specific industrial conditions to decompose; you can’t just leave them in your compost bin.  Conditions for biodegradability are often not met in the real world environment. Plastic that ends up on land and in oceans may not degrade for many years. If biodegradables do not properly degrade, or only partially degrade into microplastics, they may cause pollution and harm. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE Most biodegradable plastics are not bio-based (and vice versa). In other words, they are still made from fossil fuels and face the same sustainability issues as traditional plastics.  An unintended consequence of biodegradables is the confusion they may cause in waste collection. If they are accidentally mixed in with traditional plastic recyclables, lower grade recycled material may be produced. On the other hand, if biodegradables are collected with organic waste, some traditional plastics may be accidentally collected, leading to contamination.  Consumers may believe they are helping the environment by purchasing biodegradable plastics (and in fact all types of bioplastics). This enthusiasm may inadvertently increase overall plastic demand and associated pollution. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: nine per cent - World Recycling Day media - #BFFP bio compostable bag - Image by John Cameron (ST ref: 1149)

Biodegradable Plastics

Biodegradable plastics (a type of bioplastic) have been developed to attempt to mitigate the plastic waste management problem. Plastic once produced, doesn’t just disappear. It’s either sent to landfill, incinerated, recycled (only 9% of plastic has ever been recycled), or ends up polluting the environment. Biodegradable plastics can be broken down by microorganisms into safe by-products such as water, natural gas and biomass. A big concern with biodegradable plastics is whether or not they...

Waste

From a plastic bottle to microplastic particles, told as if it happened in a single day 6:00 AM It began the workday at 6 AM: filled, capped, handed to someone in a hurry. It held water for twenty minutes, then was put down and, missing the recycling bin by a few steps, dropped into a drain instead. It is made of PET, which is a recyclable plastic engineered to resist breaking down. It is built for permanence, but used within minutes. 9:00 AM Rain carried it to a stream, the stream to a river, the river to the sea – a journey our story fits into three hours, but which in reality takes months or years. At sea, it joined the North Pacific Gyre, a slow-rotating current that herds floating debris toward a calm centre. This is how the Great Pacific Garbage Patch forms – not an island of rubbish, but a calm soup of mostly invisible debris, spread over an area roughly three times the size of France. 12:00 PM Sunlight and waves go to work. UV light breaks down the chemical bonds that make plastic so durable while waves grind the rest. But the bottle never truly biodegrades; it just fragments into smaller pieces, until it qualifies as a microplastic, which is  any piece of plastic less than 5 millimetres.  By now, it looks a lot like food. 3:00 PM A small fish finds it. Fish that feed by sight struggle to tell a fleck of plastic from a fleck of plankton, especially at similar size and colour, swallowing both together. The fragment lodges in its gut, not digested, not excreted, just taking up space. 6:00 PM A larger fish eats the smaller one, plastic included. It is caught by a trawler. Microplastics move up the food chain this way — not sought out, just carried by whatever ate the microplastics first found in animals at nearly every level of marine life, from plankton to whales. The fish is sold. You buy it for dinner. 8:00 PM Microplastics start  travelling more directly, through tap and bottled water, sea salt, and shellfish eaten whole — no food chain required. Some particles are small enough to cross the gut lining into the bloodstream. They were first found in human blood in 2022, and since then they have also been found in lung tissue and breast milk. In studies from 2020 to 2024, every human placenta tested , microplastics were found in both the maternal and fetal sides. 12:00 AM Over 400 million tonnes of plastic are made every year, most never recycled, and none removable once broken apart in the ocean. A PET bottle can take around 450 years to break down this way, continuously releasing chemicals. The moment in this whole journey that could have changed everything was at 6 AM, by simply buying a glass or a steel water bottle. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: plastic bottle ocean - Photo by Naja Bertolt Jensen on Unsplash (ST ref: 1366) Microplastic particle with µMetre scale © Plastic People Documentary Productions Inc

A Day in the Life of a Microplastic Particle

From a plastic bottle to microplastic particles, told as if it happened in a single day 6:00 AM It began the workday at 6 AM: filled, capped, handed to someone in a hurry. It held water for twenty minutes, then was put down and, missing the recycling bin by a few steps, dropped into a drain instead. It is made of PET, which is a recyclable plastic engineered to resist breaking down. It is built for permanence, but used within minutes. 9:00 AM Rain carried it to a stream, the stream to a...

Waste

My recent post highlighted Ghana’s plight in waste colonialism related to the textile trade. This time we focus on Chile. Chile is Latin America’s biggest consumer of clothes and, in 2022, imported around 124,000 tonnes of second-hand textiles from across the world. In the same year, it was estimated that 300 hectares in northern Chile had been contaminated by textile waste. The world’s chronic overproduction of textiles and fast fashion culture are a big part of this story. So is the free-trade port of Iquique in northern Chile. There, businesses can import, store, and sell goods without paying customs fees or VAT. Those goods, of course, include used clothing. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE Though the clothes create much-needed local jobs, the unsellable stock is a huge problem. The local council's landfill only accepts household waste, not commercial imports. What traders should do is export unsold clothes, pay tax to sell them elsewhere in Chile or send them to an authorised company. However, these options cost money, whereas dumping them in the desert is free. In theory, you can get caught and receive a fine, but the under-resourced local authorities can’t keep up with lorry after lorry dumping clothes, including in the Atacama Desert. One of the many mountains of garments littering the desert can be seen from space and is growing by about 39,000 tons a year. For the most part, the garments are synthetic, will take centuries to biodegrade and will contaminate soil, air and water. The solution? The Debrand Team highlights the need to ensure imported clothes are usable, listen to local communities and involve brands, policymakers, recyclers, sellers and consumers in the process. In our own lives, we can hold governments, brands and retailers accountable and perhaps think twice about putting stained or ripped clothes in a clothing bank. How about repairing them, upcycling them or saving them for messy DIY jobs, a craft activity or a good spaghetti bolognese?! +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: A large pile of mixed clothing  - Image by NEOSiAM 18+ (ST ref: 1406) Map of Chile from Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook.

Visible from Space: The Atacama’s Dumping Ground for Unwanted Clothes

My recent post highlighted Ghana’s plight in waste colonialism related to the textile trade. This time we focus on Chile. Chile is Latin America’s biggest consumer of clothes and, in 2022, imported around 124,000 tonnes of second-hand textiles from across the world. In the same year, it was estimated that 300 hectares in northern Chile had been contaminated by textile waste. The world’s chronic overproduction of textiles and fast fashion culture are a big part of this story. So is the...

Waste Trade

A new symbol is showing up on cups, bottles, and return bins — and it isn’t the recycling triangle. It marks something recycling never could: proof that an item belongs to a working reuse system. A Symbol for a System, Not an Item Recycling’s triangle just means a material can theoretically be reprocessed. The new reuse symbol certifies something different: that the container sits inside a real loop — collected, washed, and redistributed, again and again — by a system built to take it back. The right question shifts from “can I reuse this?” to “is this part of a system designed to bring it back?”  Recycling reprocesses the material; reuse keeps the same item circulating intact. Recycling reprocesses the material; reuse keeps the same item circulating intact. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE Where It Came From — and Why It Appears Where It Does The symbol is the result of Rebrand Reuse, a 2025 design initiative from the PR3 Global Standards Panel (part of PR3, the Global Alliance to Advance Reuse), drawing 236 entries from 29 countries. The winning design, by Bogotá-based Epigrama Studios, was tested with over 1,275 respondents across 17 countries to ensure it reads as distinct from the recycling triangle. PR3 licenses the mark only to systems with real infrastructure for collection, sorting, washing, and redistribution — which is why it appears on more than just the container itself, including return bins, transport routes, certified wash facilities, and the signage or apps that guide a return. Spotting it in any one place signals the rest of the loop exists too.   An illustrative view of the touchpoints a licensed system covers Where It’s Already Showing Up Early adopters include: Huskee (Australia), Muuse (Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore), Eco-Dahab (Egypt), Re-Universe (UK), Bold Reuse (US) A VTT Finland / University of Vaasa deposit-return pilot for grocery and takeaway packaging Stadiums, concert venues, and festivals — controlled sites where collection loops are easiest to manage What Has to Change Behind the Symbol A logo doesn’t create a reuse system — it marks that one exists. The real work is PR3’s broader standards, built with 80+ organisations, covering container design, collection logistics, washing, and digital tracking. That’s why reuse sits above recycling on the waste hierarchy: it skips reprocessing, extending a container’s life to between 10 to 100 uses. It only works if cities and retailers actually build and share that infrastructure — which PR3’s certification programmes are now trying to standardise. The symbol’s value isn’t in judging any one container — it’s a signal that a system, not a guess, stands behind it. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images from author

Beyond the Recycling Triangle: The New Symbol for Reuse

A new symbol is showing up on cups, bottles, and return bins — and it isn’t the recycling triangle. It marks something recycling never could: proof that an item belongs to a working reuse system. A Symbol for a System, Not an Item Recycling’s triangle just means a material can theoretically be reprocessed. The new reuse symbol certifies something different: that the container sits inside a real loop — collected, washed, and redistributed, again and again — by a system built to take it back....

Waste

When we think about responding to the climate crisis, transitioning our energy systems away from oil and gas has always been clear. But what about investment in petrochemicals? Petrochemicals are fossil-fuel-derived substances – they’re used to produce a range of synthetic materials and substances, including plastics and fertilisers. Not only are they heavily reliant on fossil fuels, but they have the highest energy demand of all industrial sectors, and will likely override lorries, aviation and shipping for oil demand over the next two decades.  The sector has been described as a “blind spot” of the energy system, becoming key to continued growth for the fossil fuel industry. At the centre of this are financial institutions who are actively funding the petrochemical industry whilst sitting comfortably behind the next phase of fossil-based infrastructure. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE Financing is concentrated across a small number of banks, including Citigroup, Bank of America, Mizuho Financial, JP Morgan Chase and HSBC – covering the US, Japan and the UK, and providing US$66.4 billion in finance. Asset managers also play a key role, including Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street, Capital Group and Geode Capital, with collective holdings of US$53.4 billion.  Examining the petrochemical companies themselves, East Asia is dominant, including six companies located within this region, five in Europe, three in North America and one in West Asia. Specifically, Syngenta, INEOS and Dow account for just over half of all financing.  It is communities who sadly bear the cost, including risks to workers and retirees’ pension funds, as major firms, including both Norway’s Government Pension Fund and Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund, continue to invest in high-risk, carbon-intensive products, despite advancing climate-change-related losses and legal liability.  There are of course solutions, including adopting transition plans and redirecting funds to strategic investments that reduce fossil-fuel reliance. Without such, communities will continue to be exposed to climate-induced financial, social and environmental consequences.    +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: urban skyline with lightning bolt - Image by Pixabay (ST ref: 1405)

Deep Pockets, Dirty Profits: Banks and Investors are accelerating the climate crisis

When we think about responding to the climate crisis, transitioning our energy systems away from oil and gas has always been clear. But what about investment in petrochemicals? Petrochemicals are fossil-fuel-derived substances – they’re used to produce a range of synthetic materials and substances, including plastics and fertilisers. Not only are they heavily reliant on fossil fuels, but they have the highest energy demand of all industrial sectors, and will likely override lorries, aviation...

Climate

Many of us rely on ready meals to feed ourselves and our families as they’re a convenient way of eating our favourite dishes. Chowing down on these meals regularly can have an adverse effect on your health, but not in the way you might think. Though there’s conflicting evidence on exactly how much is released, a body of research is warning of the plastics that leach into the food from these containers, particularly when they’re heated in the microwave. Fatty food and acidic food tend to absorb more chemicals from plastic containers, too.   Ready meal packaging is made up of several plastics. Extra substances found in the packaging, such as colourants and solvents, also make their way into food – and into us.  The potential consequences for our health are wide-ranging. Food packaging typically contains phthalates and bisphenol A (also known as BPA), which change the plastic by making it soft, bendy or strong. Both affect the body’s hormones. Research from Covenant University in Nigeria shows that BPA exposure causes disruption to hormone signals and increases the threat of significant changes to a person’s reproductive health. These include sperm alterations, fewer eggs, and infertility.   Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE Further reports suggest that BPA:  Drives fat accumulation in your adipose tissue and liver Disrupts cytokine levels, which throws off your body’s cell signalling Affects glucose metabolism A wealth of research explains that BPA clings onto your body’s receptors, disturbing its normal processes. Immune function is especially susceptible. BPA contributes to the development of type 2 diabetes, allergies, asthma and breast cancer by altering immune function, according to this study from The University of Georgia.   In 2024, the European Commission banned BPA in ‘food contact materials’, meaning it can’t be used in the manufacturing of everyday products. The UK is taking steps towards something similar.    In the meantime, try these helpful tips to decrease your plastic food container use at home. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: pasta dish - Photo by Shawn Rain on Unsplash (ST ref: 1403)

The invisible health harms of plastic-packaged ready meals

Many of us rely on ready meals to feed ourselves and our families as they’re a convenient way of eating our favourite dishes. Chowing down on these meals regularly can have an adverse effect on your health, but not in the way you might think. Though there’s conflicting evidence on exactly how much is released, a body of research is warning of the plastics that leach into the food from these containers, particularly when they’re heated in the microwave. Fatty food and acidic food tend to...

Health

‘Bioplastic’ is a general term which includes bio-based plastics, biodegradable plastics and compostable plastics. These bioplastics have been developed with the idea of creating a more sustainable plastics system. Traditional plastics are made from non-renewable fossil fuels. In contrast, bio-based plastics (a type of bioplastic) are made in whole, or in part, from biomass e.g. sugar cane or starch. These are potentially more sustainable, as biomass is a renewable source; in theory it can be generated over and over again.  However, bio-based plastics may not be as environmentally sustainable as they first appear. Bio-based plastics may still be composed of up to 75% fossil fuels.  Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE The production of bio-based plastics still leads to greenhouse gas emissions due to the intensive energy, water, pesticides and fertilisers needed to grow plants. Land required for biomass production may lead to deforestation and loss of natural habitat.The process of bio-based plastic production may generate harmful by-products, which are often not disposed of properly.  There may be unintended economic consequences of bio-based plastic production making them unsustainable. Production of biomass will lead to competition for land against food production, potentially increasing costs for both.  In addition, most bio-based plastics are not biodegradable (i.e. they don’t break down easily into safe by-products). Bio-based plastics are often chemically the same as traditional plastics. They will have all the same related waste management issues. Recycling, landfill and incineration are all polluting, expensive processes. Bio-based plastics sound environmentally friendly, but have many sustainability issues associated with them. The concern is that consumers will believe they are purchasing sustainable products when they see the term ‘bio-plastic’ or ‘bio-based’ without knowing what this really means.  +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: bio compostable bag - Image by John Cameron (ST ref: 1149) BioplasticsVenn diagram - MJ image (ST ref: 1154) Edited 25 Aug 26

Bio-based Plastics

‘Bioplastic’ is a general term which includes bio-based plastics, biodegradable plastics and compostable plastics. These bioplastics have been developed with the idea of creating a more sustainable plastics system. Traditional plastics are made from non-renewable fossil fuels. In contrast, bio-based plastics (a type of bioplastic) are made in whole, or in part, from biomass e.g. sugar cane or starch. These are potentially more sustainable, as biomass is a renewable source; in theory it can be...

Waste

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a rotating vortex of plastic debris, now spans three times the size of France, holding an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic. That number keeps climbing not because solutions don't exist, but because the industry responsible for managing plastic waste has little financial reason to shrink it. Since 1950, the world has produced 6300 million tonnes of plastic waste. Of that, roughly 9% has been recycled; the rest was incinerated, landfilled, or leaked into the environment, much of it eventually funnelled into gyres like the Pacific patch.   Waste companies operate on what Kirstie Pecci, Conservation Law Foundation’s Zero Waste Project Director, calls a “trash-to-cash” pipeline, where profits are based on the amount of processed plastic waste. The more plastic production, collection and deposition in landfill, the more this system earns. Pecci argues these companies will “fight tooth and nail” against actual waste reduction, which could cost waste companies hundreds of millions of dollars in New England alone.  Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE This is the conflict of interest sitting underneath the garbage patch: incentivising companies to clean plastic up is not a logistical issue, but a revenue-based barrier. Responsibility is redirected to consumers - sorting recycling bins and cleaning up beaches - rather than producers, whose business models depend on high volumes of plastic.  Real change would mean changing legislation regarding these producers. In Europe, companies are required to pay tax on plastic packaging and fees for collection and recycling of products. The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment estimates that the industry pays  €3.1 billion in Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fees every year. The U.S. has not quite caught up to this: only some states enforce EPR laws, which require businesses to fund or manage plastic waste, and no federal scheme exists. Extending these policies nationally could shift the financial burden of plastic pollution back onto the producers, rather than leaving it to accumulate, quite literally, in oceanic garbage patches. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: Plastic waste and clothing floating in sea - Image by Naja Bertolt Jensen on Unsplash (ST ref: 1223)

Who Owns the Great Pacific Garbage Patch?

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a rotating vortex of plastic debris, now spans three times the size of France, holding an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic. That number keeps climbing not because solutions don't exist, but because the industry responsible for managing plastic waste has little financial reason to shrink it. Since 1950, the world has produced 6300 million tonnes of plastic waste. Of that, roughly 9% has been recycled; the rest was incinerated, landfilled, or leaked into...

Waste

When people picture the environmental toll of the war in Ukraine, they usually think of scorched fields, contamination, or leaking fuel depots. But a newer form of plastic pollution is spreading across the frontline, carried in on the back of the war's most iconic weapon: the drone. Both Russian and Ukrainian forces increasingly rely on fibre-optic-guided drones, which trail a physical cable back to the operator of up to 41 kilometres instead of using radio. This makes them much harder for electronic warfare systems to detect or jam, according to research from the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS). Once the drone completes its single mission, the cable is left behind where it lands, unspooled across the landscape. These cables are not biodegradable. They are a polymer optical fibre with a PMMA core and a fluoropolymer cladding, both derived from fossil-fuel feedstocks. Its long-term behaviour in the field isn't yet well studied. CEOBS estimates it could persist for over 600 years. Furthermore, Meduza reports that while the acrylic core resists weathering, battlefield fires could break it down into micro- and nanoplastics. Multiply that by the tens of thousands of drone missions since the fighting began in 2022, and a new kind of debris is accumulating across the conflict zone: a near-invisible mesh of plastic filament draining into hedgerows and woodland canopies. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE The scale is hard to pin down, but the estimates are large. Ukraine produces around four million drones a year, with fibre-optic models roughly a tenth of that output. In an NPR interview, CEOBS director Doug Weir estimated Russia alone may need around 6 million kilometers of fiber this year, and offered a rough working figure of about 2,900 km of cable per kilometre of frontline, while cautioning that both figures are hard to verify. Wildlife impact is an emerging and plausible risk, researchers stress, not yet a fully measured one. Charlie Russell, a University of East Anglia researcher, told CEOBS the cables “form dangerous webs across trees and clearings” threatening species including birds and bats for years to come. Field reports compiled by the Ukraine War Environmental Consequences Work Group observe entangled birds and cable used in nests already. There is a supply-chain dimension to this issue too. According to the Kyiv Independent, Russia has turned to Chinese-made optical cable after Ukrainian strikes destroyed its main domestic fibre-optic plant, while Ukraine relies on domestic production. Both, like most plastics, depend on oil and gas, refined into a single-use product with a use-life measured in minutes and a decay time measured in centuries. It is a sobering case study for anyone thinking about plastic pollution, as even a technology built for survival on the battlefield generates waste with none of that same concern and its long term consequences are still being established. One open question is what happens to the cable once fighting ends, the burden of which will likely fall on ecosystems and communities long after the conflict fades from the headlines. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: Bird, Northern gannet - Image by Georg Wietschorke from Pixabay (ST ref: 1402)

The Plastic Cost of Drone Warfare in Ukraine

When people picture the environmental toll of the war in Ukraine, they usually think of scorched fields, contamination, or leaking fuel depots. But a newer form of plastic pollution is spreading across the frontline, carried in on the back of the war's most iconic weapon: the drone. Both Russian and Ukrainian forces increasingly rely on fibre-optic-guided drones, which trail a physical cable back to the operator of up to 41 kilometres instead of using radio. This makes them much harder for...

Plastic pollution

Despite heavy sanctions, Russia’s war machine is still fuelled by the revenues from their oil and gas, which are the raw materials required to manufacture plastic products. While countries like the UK are no longer direct consumers, loopholes continue to allow products made from Russian oil to infiltrate the global market.  Despite a drop in exports to Europe, the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) found that in 2024, total export revenues fell by only 5 percent. Revenue lost from European markets has been offset by shifting exports eastward making the current three largest importers China, India, and Turkey. However, Russian hydrocarbons still reach sanctioning countries directly and indirectly. This occurs in two main ways:  Firstly, unlike the US and UK, the EU has not imposed a complete ban on all imports of Russian oil and gas. It exempts pipeline gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). In the last year, LNG imports from Russia to Europe have increased significantly (14% higher in June 2026 than June 2025).  Secondly, refineries which use Russian oil such as in India or Turkey still sell their products to sanctioning countries. This is known as the refinery loophole. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE Closing the loophole The EU launched its 18th sanction package in January and the UK has followed suit with a similar plan to target the refinery loophole. The new ban prohibits products made at refineries that use Russian oil and has been partially successful, leading to a 69% decrease of imports according to the Kyiv School of Economics Institute (KSE). However, the Institute estimates that around 50 thousand barrels per day, which cannot be confirmed as non-Russian, continue to reach EU ports. The CREA also reported that eight shipments to EU ports were completed in June that contained Russian oil products, highlighting the need for greater oversight. The limitations of these piecemeal legislative changes expose how our reliance on the fossil fuel industry contributes to the survival of aggressor states like Russia. It is, therefore, crucial for a more permanent shift away from the global fossil fuel industry if we want to move towards a cleaner and more peaceful future. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: Oil Prices, Oilfield - Image by Eden Moon from Pixabay (ST ref: 1401)

Closing the Loophole: have we done enough?

Despite heavy sanctions, Russia’s war machine is still fuelled by the revenues from their oil and gas, which are the raw materials required to manufacture plastic products. While countries like the UK are no longer direct consumers, loopholes continue to allow products made from Russian oil to infiltrate the global market. Despite a drop in exports to Europe, the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) found that in 2024, total export revenues fell by only 5 percent. Revenue lost...

Pollution

Delegations once again gathered in Nairobi this July to resume negotiations on the formation of a global plastics treaty, amid continuing disagreements on what is to be included. While some delegates reported “incredibly positive” engagement from this latest round of negotiations, several nations continue to push the proposal of a waste-only treaty, overlooking the compounding issues surrounding plastics such as chemicals and new plastics production. The exclusion of such issues was even noted prior to in-person negotiations, with many delegates highlighting their omission from proposals and guiding questions circulated to attendees beforehand. Such pressure against the curbing of new plastics production, in particular, comes predominantly from larger petrochemical-producing nations, including the United States, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and India, who ultimately argue that focus should solely be on the management of existing plastic waste. This has had further implications on negotiations, scaling back the ambitions of many other nations to vague limitations of production to “sustainable levels”. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE While any progress on the curbing of plastics pollution and its ecological implications is welcomed, many delegates, scientists,and experts overwhelmingly agree that simply tackling waste is far from enough; the full life cycle of plastics must be considered to ensure a robust response, especially concerning marine plastic pollution. Further, following this latest round of negotiations, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has highlighted the importance of financial considerations when implementing any plastics treaty proposals, stating the treaty’s effectiveness will depend “not only on the ambition of its substantive obligations, but also on the availability of adequate, predictable, accessible and sustainable financial resources”. This will prove especially crucial for ensuring many developing nations, which are frequently also recipients of wealthier nations’ waste, are able to achieve the goals of a global plastics treaty. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: Greenpeace Philippines protest banner - Image courtesy of Daniel Müller / Greenpeace (ST ref: 1158)

Global Plastics Treaty – We’re Still Mopping The Floor While The Tap Continues To Run

Delegations once again gathered in Nairobi this July to resume negotiations on the formation of a global plastics treaty, amid continuing disagreements on what is to be included. While some delegates reported “incredibly positive” engagement from this latest round of negotiations, several nations continue to push the proposal of a waste-only treaty, overlooking the compounding issues surrounding plastics such as chemicals and new plastics production. The exclusion of such issues was even...

Legislation

It is generally well known that microplastic particles are found all over our environment, including in the food we eat. Alarmingly, one of the biggest reasons behind that is the textile industry, the third-largest consumer of plastic, standing just behind packaging and construction. Clothing items from familiar fast-fashion brands have been found to contain plastic fibres which not only end up in landfills and oceans, but consequently in our food, seriously impacting our physical health.  Current research identifies a strong link between microplastics within seafood and environmental textile waste. Because it makes up a large part of all sources of microfibers, it directly impacts marine life, with the same fibers accounting for 82% of the total plastic particles detected in seafood. These particles then make their way into our bodies through digestion, affecting our blood, tissues and organs.  Our uninformed microplastic consumption has been linked to health issues such as higher risks of stroke, heart attack, cardiovascular disease, inflammation, hormonal disruption and premature death, according to a recent report. Even the general decline in male reproductive qualities, such as decreasing sperm counts and increasing numbers of testicular dysgenesis syndrome (TDS) and other reproductive disorders, is potentially contributed by pollutants like pesticides and heavy metals.  Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE So what actions have been taken? Big brands such as Adidas and H&M have attempted to shift the narrative on their environmental impact by investing in recycled polyester as the new eco-friendly alternative to virgin polyester, even though this new ‘sustainable’ solution has proven to contain more microfibers than its original version (shedding 55% more particles according to a Changing Markets report). This material is also made up majoritively of plastic from water bottles, not textile waste, and can be found in clothing from brands who claim to be sustainability-focused, such as Patagonia. Moreover, aiming to reduce waste and remove textiles from landfills, recycling companies and fashion brands have become increasingly involved in high-profile sustainability initiatives, such as WRAP’s Textiles 2030 Initiative, despite their environmental consequences being evidently greater than their new efforts to take responsibility. Nevertheless, the public effort to effect change does not go unnoticed, with existing reports like Trashion: The Stealth Export of Waste Plastic Clothes to Kenya presenting policy recommendations for eliminating clothing synthetics from our environment, through EU-mandated measures such as ‘recycle and reuse’ targets for the sector and plastic taxes.  Given that plastic pollution is set to more than double within 15 years, the fashion industry must take action. Less plastic in our clothes equals less plastic in our bodies. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: modern woman landfill consumerism versus pollution - Image by Ground Picture on Shutterstock (ST ref: 1140)

How our Clothing Choice affects Health

It is generally well known that microplastic particles are found all over our environment, including in the food we eat. Alarmingly, one of the biggest reasons behind that is the textile industry, the third-largest consumer of plastic, standing just behind packaging and construction. Clothing items from familiar fast-fashion brands have been found to contain plastic fibres which not only end up in landfills and oceans, but consequently in our food, seriously impacting our physical health. ...

Textiles

Netflix’s documentary, The Plastic Detox, explores potential health impacts of microplastic exposure in everyday life, focusing on endocrine-disrupting chemicals and fertility. Unlike other plastic documentaries, this one gives an intimate insight into plastic’s effect on human health in their home and town, rather than on plastic pollution in the oceans.  It highlights the scarily vast and extensive amount of plastic that is in our daily lives. From the minute you wake up and shower using products in plastic containers, to eating lunch from plastic tubs using plastic cutlery, and cleaning your house with products containing plastics that are in plastic bottles: plastics are everywhere.  Different from your regular environmental documentary, it follows 6 couples experiencing unexplained infertility as they undertake a 90-day plastic detox under the guidance of environmental and reproductive epidemiologist, Dr Shanna H. Swan. The couples dramatically reduce their exposure to plastics by replacing food containers, utensils, cosmetics, and clothing with alternatives that contain fewer plastic-related chemicals. Their exposure to substances such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) is monitored through biological testing before and after the intervention.  Phthalates: makes plastic soft and flexible  BPA: makes plastics hard and is used on thermal paper receipts  Various scientists explain how plastics release chemicals that act as endocrine disruptors, interfering with hormones that regulate reproduction, development, and metabolism. Examining how microplastics have been detected in human tissues including the blood, brain, reproductive organs and placenta, the documentary highlights the growing evidence linking these chemicals to declining sperm counts, infertility, cancers, and developmental disorders. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE Combined with personal accounts, the documentary explores the wider issue of chemical regulation. Researchers argue that many plastic-related chemicals enter the market with limited long-term safety testing and that regulatory systems have struggled to keep pace with scientific evidence.  This inquisitive documentary combines expert insight with an intimate 90-day experiment, exposing the effects of plastic exposure in daily life on health and fertility. It also offers practical ways to reduce exposure anyone can try:  Avoiding heating food in plastic containers  Reducing consumption of ultra-processed foods  Limiting the use of plastic packaging where possible  The Plastic Detox is an engaging documentary that blends personal stories with emerging analytical research to increase awareness about the potential health impacts of plastic exposure in everyday life. It encourages viewers to think critically about their use of plastics while providing an investigative yet intimate insight into what is potentially going on in their homes. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: Poster from Netflix’s Plastic Detox from #BreakFreeFromPlastic

What is The Plastic Detox? A Review of Netflix’s Must Watch Documentary

Netflix’s documentary, The Plastic Detox, explores potential health impacts of microplastic exposure in everyday life, focusing on endocrine-disrupting chemicals and fertility. Unlike other plastic documentaries, this one gives an intimate insight into plastic’s effect on human health in their home and town, rather than on plastic pollution in the oceans. It highlights the scarily vast and extensive amount of plastic that is in our daily lives. From the minute you wake up and shower using...

Health

98% of plastic is made from natural organic materials like oil and gas. Ranking in the top three global producers of oil and natural gas. In the context of Russia’s war on Ukraine, purchasing Russian hydrocarbons to make products like plastic is inextricably linked to the funding of the Russian war economy. The question then is whether our current international regulations are effective at responding to this dual problem? Before the war, Russia’s hydrocarbon industry accounted for roughly 45% of their federal budget, which makes up 14% of global produce or 10.5 million barrels of oil per day. Since 2022, this proportion has fallen due to sanctions imposed on Russia by the EU, the UK and Australia, but recent reports show that export volumes have in fact begun to increase since 2024, signalling the need for even stricter international action.  Last year, the Zero Waste Alliance Ukraine (ZWAU) conducted a study titled “How Russian Fuel Feeds the World of Plastic: A study of the correlation between fossil fuels and plastic”. The report underlined the vicious cycle of how consuming Russian fuel to make plastic is essentially funding aggression. They conclude that the solution to countering Russian aggression is interconnected with our responsibility to counter plastic pollution, which requires policy steps that go further than the current sanctioning.  Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE The ZWAU recommends: Diversifying energy supplies away from Russia and other authoritarian regimes, and towards renewable energy Pushing for a Global Plastic Treaty Creating a more circular economy by building a system on waste minimization, reuse and refill systems, and better recycling infrastructure The global petrochemical industry consumes around 15% of the world’s oil to make its products. However, this figure could reach closer to 40% by 2030 if consumption patterns of materials like plastic continue. As policymakers look for ways to reduce reliance on Russian fuel, they should also consider how a broader shift away from reliance on the fossil fuel industry can be pursued.  +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: Factory pollution ships - Image by Chris Leboutillier (ST ref: 1210)

Closing the Loophole: Plastic fuelling Russia's war

98% of plastic is made from natural organic materials like oil and gas. Ranking in the top three global producers of oil and natural gas. In the context of Russia’s war on Ukraine, purchasing Russian hydrocarbons to make products like plastic is inextricably linked to the funding of the Russian war economy. The question then is whether our current international regulations are effective at responding to this dual problem? Before the war, Russia’s hydrocarbon industry accounted for roughly 45%...

Pollution

Plastic is a non-biodegradable material that has long-lasting negative effects on both the environment and public health. However, it has also become the preferred material of food packaging manufacturers because of its easy storage, cost-effectiveness, and extensive availability. The vast majority of the packaging industry is not looking to replace plastic, even in light of the current pollution crisis. However, the industry's marketing teams have noticed that younger consumers (aged 20 to 50 are more likely to reject single-use plastic bags or items packaged in single-use plastic and prefer items that align with their vision of a greener, more sustainable future.   Consumer opinions can have a large impact on other consumers’ decisions and product salesTherefore, consumer views play a major role in the packaging industry considering more environmentally friendly and health-conscious changes, such as reducing single-use plastic packaging. However, making sustainable changes in an impactful manner has proven too costly or difficult for most businesses. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE This has led to a phenomenon known as ‘greenwashing’, whereby businesses address consumers’ desires for more sustainable and ecologically friendly products, and enact practices to moderately reduce their usage of plastic packaging. This looks like replacing the bottom of their packaging with cardboard, while keeping a thin plastic film on top, or incorporating some recycled plastic into their packaging. Businesses may then market their products as more environmentally friendly or recyclable, despite the reality that these changes have little to no impact on the recyclability of their packaging or their contribution to the plastic pollution crisis. Customers then overestimate the positive environmental impact of their choices in packaging,food, or household items, and incorrectly assume that their waste is being recycled or biologically degraded. Due to the misleading effect of the Greenwashing Wave, consumers who actively avoid non-recyclable plastic packaging may find that their plastic waste still ends up in a landfill or in nature. The lack of truly environmentally friendly choices leaves us asking how we can positively impact the plastic pollution crisis. If consumers understand greenwashing and businesses do not provide affordable and verifiably sustainable options, how do we decide which items to consume? Read more about packaging and supermarkets' greenwashing tactics in episode 3 of this series. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: Greenwashing synonyms - Image from spunout.ie (ST ref: 1297)

How Businesses Lied to us About Sustainability

Plastic is a non-biodegradable material that has long-lasting negative effects on both the environment and public health. However, it has also become the preferred material of food packaging manufacturers because of its easy storage, cost-effectiveness, and extensive availability. The vast majority of the packaging industry is not looking to replace plastic, even in light of the current pollution crisis. However, the industry's marketing teams have noticed that younger consumers (aged 20 to...

Corporate

Plastic pollution should be on everyone’s mind, with single-use plastic items such as plastic bags and snack and food wrap packaging being at the top of the list. These items pose a serious risk globally by destroying natural environments, creating unmanageable waste, and increasing health hazards. A typical UK household generates 20 to 30 items of single-use plastic a week (most of which comprises soft plastic packaging such as film lids and food wrappers). This has led to an increase in calls for the consumption of more environmentally friendly and recyclable alternatives. Tackling the ever-growing mountain of single-use waste has jumped to the forefront of global policy making, such as the UK Simpler Recycling legislation calling for improved waste separation from businesses. Increased awareness of single-use waste has also led consumers to rethink their plastic-buying choices when shopping at the supermarket or their local corner shop. Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter Get our top stories straight to your inbox every two weeks and stay informed about plastic pollution!         SUBSCRIBE Campaigns to raise awareness and influence public consumer behaviour have proven critical to the success of the most popular plastic management solution: recycling. The solution has been sold, marketed and popularised by both governments and businesses alike to instil environmental consciousness through media and public education. But how successful is recycling as a strategy? And are UK households doing enough to help off-set the negative effects of plastic pollution? In April 2024, a survey conducted by Greenpeace and Everyday Plastic estimated that UK households discard 1.7 billion pieces of plastic per week. A large portion of the plastic packaging within that figure that has been accredited as “recycled” in the United Kingdom is actually making its way elsewhere, largely to Turkey, that allows exported waste to be included in recycling figures.This is due to a loophole in post-brexit regulations following a process of “prior informed consent”, a system that is open to abuse with Britain being the second-biggest producer of plastic waste globally.,   This raises a final question: are green consumer choices really better than non-green ones? Read more about  packaging and supermarkets' greenwashing tactics in episode 2 of  this 4 part series. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image: shelf of vegetables - Image by Firda Faradiba (ST ref: 1303)

Recycling plastic - real solution or marketing ploy?

Plastic pollution should be on everyone’s mind, with single-use plastic items such as plastic bags and snack and food wrap packaging being at the top of the list. These items pose a serious risk globally by destroying natural environments, creating unmanageable waste, and increasing health hazards. A typical UK household generates 20 to 30 items of single-use plastic a week (most of which comprises soft plastic packaging such as film lids and food wrappers). This has led to an increase in...

Waste

bottom of page