top of page

Posts List

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   Incinerator impacts are obscured by outdated air quality thresholds and the EA's reliance on operators to self-report emissions.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

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

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to addressing the ever-growing threat of plastic pollution and established the Global Plastics Treaty. The treaty aims to regulate the full lifecycle of plastic from production to disposal. This includes regulation of the most harmful marine plastic pollution: Abandoned, Lost, or  Discarded Fishing and aquaculture Gear (ALDFG).  It is estimated that over 11000 tonnes of ALDFG enters European seas annually, the majority of which is non-degradable plastic. This is driven by several factors. When fishing gear is lost due to extreme environmental conditions, retrieval is difficult and costly, thus it is often abandoned. Additionally, there is inadequate infrastructure for disposal of end-of-life fishing gear, creating logistical barriers and disincentivising proper disposal.  Accumulation of fishing and aquaculture gear in the ocean poses a serious threat to marine life and ecosystems. Marine animals become entangled in ALDFG, suffering severe injury or fatal consequences. Ingestion of plastic fishing gear leads to blockages and internal build-ups of toxic plastic. ALDFG is also a leading source of microplastic pollution in the oceans. Long-term exposure to the environment causes nets and lines to break down into microplastic particles, which can disrupt healthy functions and contaminate the entire food chain.  Many marine animals impacted by ALDFG are already endangered; losing populations to plastic threatens the stability of our ocean ecosystems. Furthermore, this can reduce fishery stocks, negatively impacting global food security and communities that depend on fishing.  For the treaty to effectively reduce the impact of ALDFG, it must address the following points. (1) Production and use of sustainable fishing gear should be made more accessible. (2) Fishing gear disposal and recycling facilities should be widely available. (3) Recovery programmes should be initiated to mitigate impacts of current ALDFG waste and microplastic pollution. By establishing a legal framework considering these factors, the Global Plastic Treaty can incorporate fishing and aquaculture gear into a sustainable future.  +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image

Plastic Fishing Gear and the Global Plastics Treaty

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to addressing the ever-growing threat of plastic pollution and established the Global Plastics Treaty. The treaty aims to regulate the full lifecycle of plastic from production to disposal. This includes regulation of the most harmful marine plastic pollution: Abandoned, Lost, or Discarded Fishing and aquaculture Gear (ALDFG).  It is estimated that over 11000 tonnes of ALDFG enters European seas annually, the majority of which...

Pollution

The United Nations is currently tackling a global crisis: ghost gear .  Ghost gear is plastic fishing or aquaculture gear that is abandoned, lost or discarded and it is the most damaging source of marine pollution in the ocean . Why ghost gear is so harmful  Every year, 2% of ghost gear  ends up in the ocean due to extreme weather, tangled on the seabed or simply thrown away. Ghost gear does more than just pollute; it harms protected or endangered marine life, it damages the livelihoods of our coastal communities, and directly threatens our food supply. For example, 90% of species  caught in ghost gear are commercially important, causing viable fish stocks to drop over time.  Taking action to combat ghost gear pollution   Negotiators have recognised ghost gear as a primary pollutant under Article 7  of the International Legally Binding Instrument on plastic pollution. To make the treaty more effective, there needs to be tougher and more dedicated legal language in the existing articles. The treaty must cover the entire lifecycle of the fishing gear, from their design to end-of-life so that we can manage the existing waste AND prevent future losses.  Therefore, the Global Plastics Treaty should include regulations that:  ARE MANDATORY for all the nations involved TARGET specifically the fishing industry  COVER the full lifecycle of fishing and aquaculture gear These regulations should be created in collaboration with smaller fishing communities to fit their needs and ensure they can participate meaningfully in the process.

The Global Plastics Treaty and the War on Ghost Gear

The United Nations is currently tackling a global crisis: ghost gear .  Ghost gear is plastic fishing or aquaculture gear that is abandoned, lost or discarded and it is the most damaging source of marine pollution in the ocean . Why ghost gear is so harmful  Every year, 2% of ghost gear ends up in the ocean due to extreme weather, tangled on the seabed or simply thrown away. Ghost gear does more than just pollute; it harms protected or endangered marine life, it damages the livelihoods of...

Pollution

We have normalised plastic. We wrap food in it, we drink from it, it sits in every supply chain. Yet the numbers are astonishing. Production has jumped from two million tonnes in 1950 to four hundred and seventy five million tonnes today. Without intervention the world is on track to pass one point two billion tonnes by 2060. Almost all plastic begins as fossil carbon. This links plastic to climate at the root. And less than ten per cent is recycled. The rest accumulates in soil, rivers, oceans and in human tissues. The health burden does not only come from litter on beaches. It starts at the point where feedstocks are extracted. Fracking fields and drilling pads carry known risks. Then come monomers and additive chemistry including substances such as vinyl chloride. Consumer products can expose us to endocrine active chemicals. And end of life disposal such as burning, informal dumping or poorly controlled incineration adds another toxic tier. Signals in epidemiology are no longer subtle. Higher rates of stillbirth and preterm birth. Childhood asthma and leukaemia. Elevated cancers in highly exposed worker groups. Microplastics and nanoplastics now show up in remote ecosystems, in food webs on land and at sea, and in human samples. When economists count the health losses and productivity losses and environmental damages the annual global bill exceeds one point five trillion US dollars. Communities living next to production plants and waste sites carry the largest burden. This makes plastic a matter of environmental justice as much as pollution control. This evidence arrives as the United Nations negotiates a global plastics treaty. Alongside this is the new  Lancet Countdown on Health and Plastics . It is an independent monitoring system which will track production, consumption, waste, exposures, disease burdens, financial costs, inequalities and policy change. Indicators must be scientifically valid, interpretable, updatable, geographically representative and sensitive to equity. The central idea is simple. Policy for plastics must be judged on health and not only on waste management.  +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image

Plastics: the blind spot in planetary health

We have normalised plastic. We wrap food in it, we drink from it, it sits in every supply chain. Yet the numbers are astonishing. Production has jumped from two million tonnes in 1950 to four hundred and seventy five million tonnes today. Without intervention the world is on track to pass one point two billion tonnes by 2060. Almost all plastic begins as fossil carbon. This links plastic to climate at the root. And less than ten per cent is recycled. The rest accumulates in soil, rivers,...

Health

Plastic pollutes our land and our oceans, disturbing wildlife and ecosystems. Microplastics have been found throughout the human body and have unknown health effects. Almost all plastics are produced from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels, with production contributing to climate change. Worryingly, plastic production is growing exponentially , approximately doubling every decade. Much of this is single-use plastic.  Corporate Responsibility Profit-driven corporations are largely responsible for excessive plastic production and consumption. Plastic is cheap, convenient and disposable. Fossil fuel giants, packaging companies and consumer goods corporations all make profit through plastic. As the public becomes concerned with plastic pollution, consumer-goods corporations have successfully greenwashed  their products; rather than making any meaningful change that might affect business, companies attempt to make their plastic products appear less harmful to the environment. Recycling and the Consumer Instead of taking responsibility, corporations have put the blame on consumers. They have focused on public littering campaigns and championed recycling as the solution to the plastic problem. Many corporations make misleading claims about the recyclability of their products and offer voluntary pledges for ‘sustainable’ change – many of which have been quietly abandoned. Distraction and Lobbying Corporations have continued to use more and more single-use plastic whilst promoting various false solutions . This gives them environmental credibility, maintaining profits, without any accountability. Consumers are distracted from the real problem of excessive plastic production  and meaningful action and legislation is delayed. In fact, corporations often actively undermine real solutions, offering pledges for change whilst lobbying against legislation to restrict the use of plastic.  The Big Polluters Over half of global branded plastic pollution can be tracked to just   56 companies . Despite many environmental claims and pledges,   The Coca-Cola Company  is consistently found to be the   top global polluter.  Coca-Cola uses a range of marketing tactics to obscure the harm that their products are causing. Although this greenwashing is by no means exceptional, it provides a case study of how corporations operate when the bottom line is profit. +++++++++++++++++ Read more about The Coca-Cola Company’s greenwashing tactics in episode 2 of this seven part series... For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image ' Plastica '

Coca-Cola: Plastic and Profit

Plastic pollutes our land and our oceans, disturbing wildlife and ecosystems. Microplastics have been found throughout the human body and have unknown health effects. Almost all plastics are produced from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels, with production contributing to climate change. Worryingly, plastic production is growing exponentially , approximately doubling every decade. Much of this is single-use plastic.  Corporate Responsibility Profit-driven corporations are largely responsible...

Corporate

As the sun sets in Africa, 600 million people do not have a light to turn on. Despite having 60 percent of the world’s best solar resources, and over 30 percent of the essential minerals required for the world’s renewable technologies, the continent has received less than two percent of global renewable investment. Energy is the key to African development, but the expansion of renewables goes beyond reliable energy as it is indispensable for both climate resilience, and the fight against poverty.  People in Africa are still dependent on its land, which is vulnerable to climate change. just as the world awakens to Africa’s potential to pioneer the energy sector’s transformation – which would be of undeniable benefit to its people – governments across the continent are caving to the pressures of select international advocates lobbying to expand oil and gas production. The problem is that African oil and gas fields are approximately 15-20 percent more expensive and 80 percent more carbon intensive than comparable global ventures. In addition, Africa’s fossil fuel markets have historically suffered from a ‘resource curse’; assets bound to guarantee a country’s wealth, have instead led to corruption and poverty caused by poor governance and weak institutions of state. African countries which aim to re-invest in their non-renewable resources must take on enormous debt to subsidise investment, risk burdening their economies with stranded assets, and potentially lose the opportunity to invest in renewable infrastructure. All while locking in dangerously high emissions, and subsidising an energy product that their people cannot afford. Africa must now make a decision on which direction to turn. But it is vital that rich nations must stop pushing fossil fuels on Africa, and instead pledge finance to help an Africa energy transition. Energy is vital for Africa , but it must come in a form that can be of benefit to everyone. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images

Africa’s renewable future: the economic, political and climate cost of fossil fuels

As the sun sets in Africa, 600 million people do not have a light to turn on. Despite having 60 percent of the world’s best solar resources, and over 30 percent of the essential minerals required for the world’s renewable technologies, the continent has received less than two percent of global renewable investment. Energy is the key to African development, but the expansion of renewables goes beyond reliable energy as it is indispensable for both climate resilience, and the fight against...

Climate

From bread bags to bubble wrap, crisp packets to cling film, we are still heavily reliant on soft plastic packaging despite the damage it does to the planet after use.  Recycling has been shown to be largely ineffective . We need to reduce our reliance on soft plastics in the first place and encourage reusable packaging. The Role of Supermarkets Despite promising to phase out  soft plastics, UK supermarkets have been failing to meet their own targets on reducing soft plastic usage. To date plastic packaging has only been reduced by 7% since 2018. Supermarkets do not have the profit incentive to phase out soft plastic packaging and there is not enough consumer pressure pushing them to change. This is why it is so important that the government introduce wide-ranging legislation to ban soft plastic packaging. Lessons from Overseas In 2022, France introduced  a ban on single-use plastic packaging for 30 types of unprocessed fruits and vegetables, estimated to eliminate over a billion  unnecessary plastic packages every year.  Spain introduced a similar ban  on plastic wrapping for fruits and vegetables in 2023.  The UK government has introduced bans on various types of single-use plastics, some of which include soft plastics. However, this does not include  most examples of soft plastics, such as fruit and vegetable packaging. Currently only 19% of fruits and vegetables are sold without plastic in UK supermarkets. What the UK government should be doing about soft plastics In a recent report  conducted jointly by Everyday Plastic and the Environmental Investigation Agency , a range of suggestions were made for the UK government, in advance of any global treaty on plastics, including: Set legally binding targets to reduce single-use plastic packaging by weight and by unit. Set legally binding targets on reuse and refill packaging use. Ban plastic packaging on unprocessed fruit and vegetables by 2030. Ban all exports of UK plastic waste by 2027. Introduce an immediate moratorium on new incineration and energy-from-waste capacity across the UK.  Prevent the uptake of chemical recycling as a treatment option for plastic, including packaging. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image apples clear plastic bag - Image by Sophia Marston on Unsplash  (ST ref: 1171)

The Crisis of Soft Plastic Packaging: Our Role in a Global Problem

From bread bags to bubble wrap, crisp packets to cling film, we are still heavily reliant on soft plastic packaging despite the damage it does to the planet after use.  Recycling has been shown to be largely ineffective . We need to reduce our reliance on soft plastics in the first place and encourage reusable packaging. The Role of Supermarkets Despite promising to phase out  soft plastics, UK supermarkets have been failing to meet their own targets on reducing soft plastic usage. To date...

Waste

Since the start of the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s, fossil fuels have played a pivotal role in the expansion of our economies. The Western world has developed off the back of carbon intensive non-renewable resources, yet the consequences of these actions are becoming increasingly evident, and it is the poor who are set to pay the disproportionate price. Our warming climate is unequivocally linked to our preceding and continued use of fossil fuels, and the evidence that links our carbon intensive past to climate change, is scientifically, virtually irrefutable. Despite the seemingly positive outlook that the European Union’s (EU) fossil fuel reliance is at an all-time low, there is no denying the EU’s continued requirement for non-renewables, and the need for them to be sourced outside of pre-existing partnerships. Nearly four years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, loopholes in the somewhat failed sanctions’ regime have allowed Europe to maintain its fossil fuel ties with Moscow. But with a continent-wide pledge to terminate all deals with the Russian energy sector by 2027, the alternative for resource extraction, is likely to become Africa. European companies have already made a dash for African reserves, which, as described by the International Institute of Sustainable Development, will undermine African state interests for the sake of European company profits. It appears – at least at present – that Africa’s energy future will rest in the hands of the Western world. Africa could now be poised to play a critical role in fuelling the oil and gas requirements of Europe, but while the latter triumphs in its success of finding a solution to its own energy problem, has the world given any consideration to the impacts that will face Africa? At risk, is Africa’s own energy requirements, and its potential for a green economy. By investing in its fossil fuels, it is forced towards an unsustainable non-renewable future that threatens its people, its peace, and its continental stability. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images industry sunrise fog germany - Image by Foto-Rabe on Pixabay  (ST ref: 1112)

Carbon colonialism at Africa's expense.

Since the start of the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s, fossil fuels have played a pivotal role in the expansion of our economies. The Western world has developed off the back of carbon intensive non-renewable resources, yet the consequences of these actions are becoming increasingly evident, and it is the poor who are set to pay the disproportionate price. Our warming climate is unequivocally linked to our preceding and continued use of fossil fuels, and the evidence that links our...

Climate

Imagine this: you're carefully preparing your baby's meal or drink, ensuring healthy ingredi ents with little to no salt or sugar, and every utensil sterilised. Yet, unbeknownst to you, the very container you're using might be leaching billions of microscopic plastic particles into your child's food. It's not a dystopian fiction; it's the unsettling reality revealed by a study from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Researchers discovered that microwaving plastic baby food containers can release up to 4.22 million microplastic and 2.11 billion nanoplastic particles per square centimetre within just three minutes. These particles, invisible to the naked eye, infiltrate the food and milk we give to our most precious loved ones. But the story doesn't end there. The study also revealed that even storing food in these containers at room temperature or in the refrigerator over extended periods can result in the release of millions to billions of microplastics and nanoplastics. But what are the implications of these findings? An in vitro study assessing cell viability showed that the extracted microplastics and nanoplastics from the plastic containers can cause the death of 76.70% and 77.18% of human embryonic kidney cells after 48 and 72 hours of exposure, respectively. The concern intensifies when considering infants' exposure. Research indicates that bottle-fed babies may consume more than 1.5 million microplastic particles per day on average. This exposure is far higher than previously thought and also affects plastic food containers.   The Guardian+2NPR+2Reddit+2 The Guardian So, what can be done? When storing food, try and store the food in different containers such as glass, bamboo , stainless steel tins , wax food wraps . When heating food/liquids in the microwave, do so in microwave- safe ceramic bowls/plates etc. Provide your toddler/baby with plastic free drinking/eating utensils, such as a stainless steel bottle  or bamboo eating sets . In conclusion, while plastics have become an integral part of our daily lives due to their convenience, it's imperative to be aware of their potential hidden dangers, especially concerning our children's health. By making informed choices and opting for safer alternatives, we can take proactive steps to protect our children from the unseen threats lurking in everyday items. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk

Tiny Threats: Unveiling the Dangers of Microplastic Ingestion in Infants and Toddlers

Imagine this: you're carefully preparing your baby's meal or drink, ensuring healthy ingredi ents with little to no salt or sugar, and every utensil sterilised. Yet, unbeknownst to you, the very container you're using might be leaching billions of microscopic plastic particles into your child's food. It's not a dystopian fiction; it's the unsettling reality revealed by a study from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Researchers discovered that microwaving plastic baby food containers can...

Menstrual hygiene affects billions of people each month, with most relying on single-use plastic products like pads and tampons. However, have we considered what happens to plastic menstrual products when we dispose of them? The average person who menstruates uses around 11,000 menstrual products  during their lifetime. That’s enough to almost fill a London city bus! However, the majority of these menstrual products are made of plastic , from the product itself to the packaging it comes in. In fact, one pack of pads can contain as much plastic as five carrier bags . So what happens to these products after use? Not only can these products cause major sewage issues , but the majority end up in landfill, where they will exist as waste for over 500 years  and threaten ecosystems . The current system clearly isn’t sustainable. But is it truly possible to have a plastic-free period? What are the benefits of a plastic-free period? Luckily, there are options. Menstrual cups, reusable pads, and period underwear are just a few non-plastic alternatives. So, what are the benefits of having a plastic-free period, and why would you make the switch? Reduced waste and environmental impact 
 When compared to plastic products like pads and tampons, one study found that the use of menstrual cups had significantly lower environmental imp act , even when used for just one month. Similarly, using period underwear can reduce waste by almost 80%  compared to pads.  Menstrual cups can have a lifespan for up to ten years , and period pants can be used for two to three years, significantly cutting down on menstrual plastics waste. Reduced costs 
 Over half of people who menstruate consider traditional period products to be expensive . However, switching to plastic-free products can significantly reduce costs.  Buying period products costs  roughly £10 per month , which amounts to £4,800 in a menstruating lifetime. Period underwear can save you up to 94%  compared to plastic disposable products. Not only are plastic-free products good for the environment, they are good for your bank balance too!  The solution Switching to plastic-free menstrual products benefits both the environment while saving money. Making the switch has been made easier thanks to education campaigns that raise crucial awareness of the alternatives, as well as reducing the stigma  associated with periods and period products. This will lead to a more sustainable future for ourselves and our planet.

How to have a plastic-free period

Menstrual hygiene affects billions of people each month, with most relying on single-use plastic products like pads and tampons. However, have we considered what happens to plastic menstrual products when we dispose of them? The average person who menstruates uses around 11,000 menstrual products  during their lifetime. That’s enough to almost fill a London city bus! However, the majority of these menstrual products are made of plastic , from the product itself to the packaging it comes in....

Lifestyle

As consumers, we often view the market through a “what’s inside” lens. The delicious pastry in its bag, moisturizing cream in its tub or brand-new clothes wrapped in plastic. But what about the outside? These discarded layers might not feel like our choice, yet they quietly become a part of our daily lives, and our growing waste problem.  Packaging waste has been rising over the past decade and in response, the EU launched its European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy  in 2018.  Despite imposing measures like the taxing or banning of single-use plastic bags across many EU countries in 2019, packaging volumes continued to climb.  Recent efforts to make packaging safer and more sustainable in the EU may open the door to meaningful improvements. In March 2024 the European Parliament and the Council proposed a new set of measures called the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation  (PPWR). The PPWR came into effect in February 2025, with measures  set to apply from August 2026. The legislation's overarching goal is to make all packaging recyclable, cut unnecessary packaging, limit harmful chemicals, and improve recycling across the EU.  PPWR: Some Highlights  at a Glance: Regarding health:  The regulation will ban packaging that comes into direct contact with food if it contains certain levels of Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Regarding volume and single-use waste: The regulation will ban unnecessary packaging for fresh fruit and vegetables under 1.5 kg, food and drinks consumed within hotels, restaurants, and cafes, as well as single-use condiment portions in hospitality settings. Regarding recyclability:  From 2030, packaging must meet specific design-for-recycling criteria and be graded A  ≥95% recyclable, B : ≥80% recyclable and  C : ≥70% recyclable. Products scoring below 70%, will be considered non-recyclable and restricted from being sold.  The recent EU regulation  signals a major shift towards sustainability, with the potential to completely change how businesses design their products and in turn, how we consume and discard them.  +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Image

The EUs Latest Plans to Tackle Growing Packaging Waste

As consumers, we often view the market through a “what’s inside” lens. The delicious pastry in its bag, moisturizing cream in its tub or brand-new clothes wrapped in plastic. But what about the outside? These discarded layers might not feel like our choice, yet they quietly become a part of our daily lives, and our growing waste problem.  Packaging waste has been rising over the past decade and in response, the EU launched its European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy  in 2018. ...

Waste

Ben Addelman and Ziya Tong’s Plastic People exposes the problems presented by plastic production and pollution in the world today. Fortunately, there is a glimmer of hope. Some solutions are afloat  in this time of crisis. Rick Smith ( Slow Death by Rubber Duck ) is confident that society can solve pollution problems . Previous generations were exposed to pollutants that ceased to exist once the health costs became clear. Banning certain chemicals improved population health. But can we do these a second time around? One of the most important aspects of finding a solution to these problems is education. Knowledge, highlights Chelsea Rochman, is power. Understanding facilitates action and having ended up here one step at a time, she is certain we can “turn back the clock one piece at a time”. But how do we initiate this reversal? One solution lies in replacing hazardous chemicals  and developing safer alternatives to reduce their toxicity. This would be a costly endeavour, but worth it for the health benefits. When single-use plastics were peddled to consumers under the slogan “the future of plastics is in the trash can”, consumers got excited at the prospect of an easy life. Coming to terms now with the disastrous consequences of plastic consumption , we must look towards the trash can again - but for the concept of plastic as a whole. Plastic is so tightly woven into our everyday lives that it will be nearly impossible to eradicate. According to Susan Freinkel, we’ve developed a “kind of unhealthy dependence” on plastic. We must reset the terms of this relationship by turning off the tap to “ dramatically reduce the amount of plastic being produced. ” +++++++++++++++++ For more information co ntact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk *Featured in Plastic People : Rick Smith PhD, co-author: Slow Death by Rubber Duck Chelsea Rochman PhD, Ecologist, University of Toronto Jeanette Rotchell, PhD Dr. Pete Myers, Chief Scientist, Environment Health Sciences Susan Freinkel, author: Plastic: a Toxic Love Story Image: greenpeace banner global plastics treaty  - Greenpeace  (ST ref: 1155)

Plastic People: 8. Plastic Solutions: Conclusion

Ben Addelman and Ziya Tong’s Plastic People exposes the problems presented by plastic production and pollution in the world today. Fortunately, there is a glimmer of hope. Some solutions are afloat  in this time of crisis. Rick Smith ( Slow Death by Rubber Duck ) is confident that society can solve pollution problems . Previous generations were exposed to pollutants that ceased to exist once the health costs became clear. Banning certain chemicals improved population health. But can we do...

Plastic pollution

As shown in Ben Addelman and Ziya Tong’s Plastic People, national and community-scale decisions and  bans on plastics can be effective. In Rwanda, Juliet Kabera*, Director General of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority, discusses their 2004 nation-wide implementation of an effective plastic carrier bag ban. This was followed by a law against polythene bags in 2008. The next step is curtailing use of other single-use plastic items  including straws, plates and cutlery.  The issue with smaller countries is that research and the development of alternative products can be lacking. Kabera states that there needs to be a critical mass of countries banning the use of single-use plastics to attract such R&D  - and that until that happens, progress is limited. On a smaller scale change can also be effective. In Bayfield, Canada,  a whole community has declared itself plastic free , changing to wood-based containers, cutlery and cups.  Tests are also underway in the Experimental Lakes Area, Canada, to work out how to prevent plastic from getting into water . Accountability is another key factor in solving this crisis . Christina Dixon, from the UN’s Environmental Investigation Agency, states there’s nothing that requires producers to declare how much plastic is being produced. With  less than 10% of plastic worldwide getting recycled,  things need to change.  The growth of the plastics industry is a steep upward curve. Fracking, deep sea drilling and more make way for a constant oversupply of oil leftovers, incentivising plastic production . Single-use versions of what were durable products came to be depended upon in daily life. The only solution is to step away from reliance on oil , ban single-use plastics  and avoid hazardous chemicals . If we have to have any plastic, it has to be recyclable, and recycling systems must be functional. Shipping waste abroad is not a solution, and misleading consumers needs to end. We need to become aware of what we use and its potential effects to be able to make educated decisions about our lifestyle, health and environmental pollution. Read our next blog to find out more about Plastics Solutions: Conclusion… +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Featured in Plastic People : Juliette Kabera, Director General of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority Christina Dixon, Environmental Investigations Agency Image: plastic free communities - Surfers agains Sewage

Plastic People: 7. Plastic Solutions: Case Studies

As shown in Ben Addelman and Ziya Tong’s Plastic People, national and community-scale decisions and  bans on plastics can be effective. In Rwanda, Juliet Kabera*, Director General of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority, discusses their 2004 nation-wide implementation of an effective plastic carrier bag ban. This was followed by a law against polythene bags in 2008. The next step is curtailing use of other single-use plastic items  including straws, plates and cutlery.  The issue with...

Health

bottom of page