fbpx
Greenpeace report exposes how multinationals are pretending to solve the plastic crisis

Greenpeace report exposes how multinationals are pretending to solve the plastic crisis

Washington DC, United States – A Greenpeace USA report released today, Throwing Away the Future: How Companies Still Have It Wrong on Plastic Pollution “Solutions,” warns consumers to be skeptical of the so-called solutions announced by multinational corporations to tackle the plastic pollution crisis. These false solutions, such as switching to paper or ‘bioplastics’ or embracing chemical recycling, are failing to move us away from single-use packaging and divert attention away from beneficial systems that prioritize refill and reuse.

“Despite the increasing scientific understanding of the irreversible damage plastic can cause to our environment and communities, plastic production is projected to dramatically increase in the coming years,” said Greenpeace USA Senior Research Specialist Ivy Schlegel, who authored the report. “Multinational consumer goods companies continue to promote so-called sustainable alternatives that would put unacceptable pressures on natural resources such as forests and agricultural land, which have already been overexploited. To solve the plastic pollution crisis, companies need to rethink how products are delivered to consumers and invest significantly in reusable and refillable delivery systems.”

Many of the world’s largest global consumer goods companies, including Nestlé, Unilever, PepsiCo, and Procter & Gamble, have signaled their intent to make plastic packaging more recyclable, reusable, compostable, or from recycled content. Meanwhile, they are aiming to continue, and even increase, the manufacturing of products wrapped in single-use plastic or disposable packaging made from other materials.

The report finds that companies are investing in risky emerging chemical conversion “recycling” technologies, which offer false hope and lock in demand for plastic packaging. Companies have obscured the true impacts of packaging behind confusing marketing terms, sustainability language, and industry alliances, hoping that consumers will continue to believe the false promise that plastic can be improved. These misleading claims that a product is compostable, biodegradable, or made from plants, does not mean that product is good for the environment or will reduce plastic pollution.

“Due to public concern about the plastic pollution crisis worldwide, we are witnessing a parade of corporations scrambling to look greener by putting forward false solutions to justify their addiction to single-use packaging,” said Greenpeace USA Global Project Leader Graham Forbes. “Moving to bioplastic, paper, 100% ‘recyclable’ packaging, incineration and chemical recycling all but guarantee this environmental crisis will get worse. And consumers need to be wary of groups with flashy names like the Alliance to End Plastic Waste—comprised of oil companies, plastics producers, and multinational corporations—which have emerged to help maintain the world’s dependence on plastic. We will only see real change when companies like Nestlé, Unilever, Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo, which profit from single-use models, end their expanding plastic use and invest heavily in systems that prioritize reuse.”

By the end of 2019, globally, plastic production and burning will emit the carbon equivalent of 189 coal-fired power plants. And it is estimated that by 2050, there will be 12 billion tonnes of plastic waste in natural environments. As companies recognize the threat of plastics, Greenpeace is demanding that they not simply embrace a quick fix that harms the planet elsewhere.

To date, more than 4 million people around the world have demanded that corporations take action to end the plastic pollution crisis by signing Greenpeace’s International petition.

Header photo from Greenpeace.

73 corporate polluters identified in Davao del Sur, Philippines for #BrandAudit2019

73 corporate polluters identified in Davao del Sur, Philippines for #BrandAudit2019

The brand audits were the collective effort of a coalition of 1101st Army Reserved Group, Sarangani Divers, Brgy. Almendras and SMSP Batch 80’s Advocacy for Environmental and Cultural Preservation, Inc. from Davao del Sur, Philippines

 

I coordinated with a dive buddy in General Santos City, Philippines for an underwater clean-up and introduced him and his team to #breakfreefromplastic and #BrandAudit2019.

After two meetings and few calls, we were able to get the management of London Beach Resort on board, who provided us with a space for brand auditing and even treated the volunteers to a sumptuous lunch. Sarangani Divers led the underwater clean-up with volunteer divers from the Philippine National Police, Mindanao State University, and Sox Divers. The local news station, ABS-CBN covered the event. 

We conducted two dives on that day in poor visibility conditions, as silt was stirred up while picking up the trash. In spite of these conditions, we were able to collect around 40 bags of trash and audited 73 brands. The biggest percentage of trash collected was unnamed plastic cups, followed by Coke products and fishing lines. 

 

Simultaneously, Barangay Almendras in Padada, Davao del Sur, mobilized by their active Chairman, also organized a clean-up on land. Volunteers went out and picked up trash along the streets and deposited the collection at the Barangay Hall for brand auditing. 

23 September 2019 

We started the brand audit of the trash collected by Barangay Almendras residents at 8:00am and finished around 3:30pm. The top three audited polluters using single-use plastics are Maxx Candy, Wings Detergent, and Hansel Biscuit respectively. 

 

In Latvia cotton swabs are the unfortunate star of the brand audit

In Latvia cotton swabs are the unfortunate star of the brand audit

Cotton swab sticks – the surprising discovery of our brand audit

 

This was the second brand audit for Latvia. This year, we selected Daugavgriva, a beach that was identified as the second most contaminated beach in Latvia based on the number of waste units per square meter. After the cleanup, we collected the results and decided that this year, instead of focusing on cans and bottles, where results were similar to the ones from previous years (basically, local beer producers are the ones producing majority of bottles and cans found on the beach), another object deserved our attention–cotton swabs. 

In a bit over an hour, we had collected more than 600 of these tiny pieces of plastic, and this result was surprising, as this was not a normal occurrence in other beaches. We discussed our results with the organization doing the beach waste statistics, and they confirmed that one of the reasons why the result of this beach was so high was exactly these swabs. So this was not a specific occasion, but, unfortunately, a normal result in this beach.

This beach is located next to the Daugava’s (the biggest river in Latvia) entrance to the sea, the local wastewater treatment center, and the passenger port. We contacted the local wastewater treatment plant, and they confirmed that cotton swabs are an issue. Many people throw them in the toilets and it is hard to filter them due to their size and weight–they pass through the filters and then flow above the water surface.

 

beach cleanup Latvia

As always, cans and bottles are the easiest types of waste to spot on the beaches.

 

However, some years ago they improved their system, adding additional filters, partly precisely because of the swabs. Two of our biggest television stations asked our opinion on the topic and visited the water treatment center. The video material they provided showed a lot of cotton swabs in the residue produced during purification processes. We are organizing an excursion to this water treatment center in two weeks to learn about their improvements.

We do not know if these swabs come from the ferries, if the river brings them from places where a water treatment system has not solved this problem yet, or if they come from Riga as a result of cases of water treatment system overcharging due to heavy rains. One indication of the source of the sticks might be their color–even if most of them are white, some of them are blue, a color that has not been observed in local shops.

We have received messages from people stating that they did not know that cotton swabs are an issue, and will not throw them in toilets anymore, so this year’s brand audit definitely raised people’s awareness.  On the other hand, we are glad to remind people that in 2021 it will not be possible to buy cotton swabs made from plastic in the EU. It will be interesting to see if this law manages to reduce the contamination in the beaches in Daugavgriva and in other EU beaches.

Mairita Luse is a Zero Waste Latvia board member and zero waste activist. 

 

Coalition of Environmental Groups Oppose Flawed Plastic Pollution Bill Being Voted on in U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Today

Coalition of Environmental Groups Oppose Flawed Plastic Pollution Bill Being Voted on in U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Today

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 25, 2019

WASHINGTON, DC — Today, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will vote on the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act. A group of 38 environmental organizations have banded together to urge the Committee members to reject this flawed piece of legislation and demand meaningful action. (See the joint letter below that was sent to the members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.)

Local governments and businesses across the country are working hard to reduce the use of plastic as evidenced by the hundreds of new local laws that ban plastic bags, straws and polystyrene. The European Union has adopted a new law banning ten major sources of plastic pollution. In stark contrast, The Save Our Seas 2.0 bill, which is strongly supported by the chemical industry, perpetuates the continued production of single-use packaging and meekly attempts to clean up plastic pollution after it has entered rivers, lakes and oceans.

“The Save Our Seas 2.0 Act does virtually nothing to require a reduction in the production of plastics while propping up an anemic approach to recycling. Congress can and must do much better on this urgent matter,” said Judith Enck, former EPA Regional Administrator and founder of Beyond Plastic, adding, “We cannot solve the climate change crisis without addressing the production and disposal of plastics, particularly with the petrochemical industry’s ambitious plans to build new ethylene cracker facilities to turn ethane, a byproduct of hydrofracking, into new plastic. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has been a champion on climate change issues and it is puzzling to see him sponsoring this bill which would lock us in to further fossil fuel production.”

“The continued reliance on single-use plastics has resulted in irreversible consequences for our air, water, and land, not to mention the serious effects on human health. We need to see real change at the federal level to effectively address this crisis by focusing on reducing the overall production and consumption of plastics, not cleaning it up after the fact,” said Shilpi Chhotray, Senior Communications Officer at Break Free From Plastic in Oakland, California.

Until yesterday, the bill promoted risky and false solutions to the plastic pollution crisis including incineration, gasification, and pyrolysis of plastics. Significant contributors to climate change and air pollution, these approaches are harmful to both the environment and public health. Expanding the role of these burning- and chemical-based approaches to the management of our ever-growing plastic pollution crisis will make it even harder to reduce the usage and production of single-use and other unnecessary plastic. It is unclear if the pro-burning provisions will be added back in to the bill after the committee vote.

“Instead of focusing on reducing plastics, the Save Our Seas Act had promoted false solutions like incineration that poison our communities and drive up the greenhouse gas emissions that are killing our oceans. This bill is a swing and a total miss,” said Denise Patel, U.S. and Canada Program Director at Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA).

“By focusing on waste management, this legislation fails to address the climate, health, and environmental impacts of fracking, cracking, and manufacturing plastic,” said Steven Feit, a staff attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “Without dealing with the problem of plastic production, this legislation risks further entrenching a linear system of plastic production which is damaging in all its stages.”

Per a recent report by CIEL and partners, Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet, emissions from U.S. plastic incineration in 2015 accounted for an estimated 5.9 million metric tons of CO2e. If growth in plastic production and incineration continue as predicted, the conservative estimate for cumulative greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 will be over 56 gigatons CO2e, or between 10-13 percent of the total remaining carbon budget.

The section of the Senate bill which requires a “Study on Options to ADVANCE Technologies For Converting Plastic Waste to Chemicals, Feedstocks, and Other Products” will not be voted on in the EPW committee on September 25, 2019 but may be back again in the next version of the bill.

“We sincerely hope that incineration, gasification, and pyrolysis options are not falsely presented as solutions to the plastic pollution crisis in any future versions of the bill,” said Chhotray.

CONTACT
Judith Enck, founder of Beyond Plastics – 518.605.1770, JudithEnck at Bennington dot edu
Steven Feit, staff attorney at Center for International Environmental Law – 202.742.5832, sfeit at ciel dot org

 

 

Photo Essay: BFFP Members Conduct Brand Audits All Across China

Photo Essay: BFFP Members Conduct Brand Audits All Across China

In Dongying city Shangdong Province, about 43 people took part in a brand audit by the lakeside.

In Wuxi city, 15 people took part in a brand audit on the hill.

In Zhongshan city, 79 people took part in a brand audit by the seaside.

In Shishi city Fujiang province, 102 people took part in a brand audit by the seaside.

In Shijiazhuang citiy, about 100 people (including 58 kids) took part in a brand audit on the hill.

 

In Zhuhai city Guangdong province, 30 people took part in a brand audit under the water.

In Hunan province Pingjiang county, 12 people took part in a brand audit on the hill.

 

 

 

Opposition Letter to Save our Seas Legislation

Opposition Letter to Save our Seas Legislation

September 24th, 2019

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
717 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510
And
Senator Dan Sullivan
302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510

Re: Opposition to the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, Senate bill 1982, Senate bill 2260, Senate bill 2364, Senate bill 2372

Dear Senator Whitehouse and Senator Sullivan:

The undersigned are writing to oppose the “Save our Seas 2.0 Act”. While we appreciate your attention to the important issue of plastic pollution, this legislation does not provide a comprehensive approach to solving the growing problem of plastic pollution and certain provisions of the bill will make the problem worse.

We need Congress to pass legislation that reduces the generation of plastic, particularly single-use plastic packaging. This bill does not do that.

The public and a growing number of businesses are focused on the impacts of the entire lifecycle of plastic, from production, including fossil fuel extraction, to manufacturing, use, disposal – especially plastic incineration – and pollution in the environment. These impacts include significant and growing greenhouse gas emissions, toxic health impacts, plastic and microplastic pollution, degradation of water quality, damage to fish and wildlife, and the severe and too often unnoticed environmental justice impacts in communities where petrochemical facilities are sited. That is why hundreds of local governments, many in bi-partisan fashion, have adopted laws that ban or limit a range of plastic packaging such as plastic bags, polystyrene containers, plastic straws, balloons, plastic utensils and other single-use plastics. Beyond bans, we need a national law that reduces plastic generation, not just end-of-pipe approaches to manage plastic waste once it has been produced.

The primary focus of legislation addressing the plastic pollution crisis should focus on reducing the manufacturing and use of plastics – not attempts to clean it up after the fact. Your legislation directs a number of federal agencies to do studies, launches a Genius prize, and establishes a new Foundation housed at NOAA. While these efforts may have some positive impact, the bill ultimately approaches the issue as one of waste management, not overproduction of plastic, and risks further entrenching the systems that produce plastic rather than dislodging them. In particular, sections 305 (Study on repurposing plastic waste in infrastructure) and 306 (study on options to advance technologies for converting plastic waste to chemicals, feedstocks, and other useful products) are likely to expand markets for plastic waste which will then rely on a steady stream of plastic to stay viable. Many of these false solutions, such as incineration, waste-to-fuel, and pyrolysis approaches, are dangerous in their own right, and expanding their footprint on the American economy will only make it harder to phase out single-use and unnecessary plastic. We understand that the section of the bill dealing with incineration, gasification, pyrolysis of plastics has been removed from this bill but may be again added at a future date.  We applaud it being removed and urge you to keep that section out of all future bills.

This is particularly concerning when considered alongside the enormous investments being made by the petrochemical industry in new facilities to produce ever more virgin plastic. According to the American Chemistry Council, over $204 billion in capital investment have been announced for 334 new or expanded facilities linked to US shale gas. Most of this investment is in facilities to produce plastic or plastic precursor chemicals. Industry plans to expand plastic production will overwhelm any efforts to strengthen the US recycling system.

This expansion is a climate and environmental justice crisis. The climate crisis cannot be solved without dealing with plastic production. A recent report calculated that, if trends in the plastic industry continue as planned, the plastic lifecycle could account for up to 13% of the global carbon budget just by 2050. Moreover, communities living close to facilities which produce and incinerate plastic, disproportionately low-income communities and communities of color, will be exposed to dangerous levels of air toxins while massive amounts of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere.

We the undersigned organizations request that you withdraw this bill or fundamentally change it so it focuses on reducing the generation of plastic, not the continued generation of plastic that inevitably damages the marine environment and then adds a new layer of problems from the air pollution at the gasification or incineration or pyrolysis or waste to fuel facilities that are not viable environmental or economic options.

The American people are actively working on the perils of plastic pollution and taking action at the local and state level. It would be a shame not to capitalize on the growing public interest in this issue and pass federal legislation that does not effectively address this problem.

We would be happy to discuss these concerns with you at your convenience. Please contact Judith Enck, founder of Beyond Plastics at 518.605.1770 or JudithEnck@Bennington.edu to arrange a time to discuss this matter.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

    1. Judith Enck, Beyond Plastics, Bennington, Vermont
    2. Steven Feit, Center for International Environmental Law, Washington, DC
    3. Jackie Nuñez, The Last Plastic Straw, Santa Cruz, California
    4. Harith Wickrema, Island Green Living Association, St. John, Virgin Islands
    5. Young Grguras, Post-landfill Action Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    6. Ellie Cohen, The Climate Center, Santa Rosa, California
    7. Elise Semonian, Town PLanner, San Anselmo, California
    8. Anna Cummins, The 5 Gyres Institute, Los Angeles, California
    9. Heather Trim, Zero Waste Washington, Seattle, Washington
    10. Stiv Wilson, Story of Stuff Project, Berkeley, California
    11. Leslie Tamminen, 7th Generation Advisors, Los Angeles, California
    12. Denise Patel, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, New York, New York
    13. Yvonne Taylor, Seneca Lake Guardian, a Waterkeeper Alliance Affiliate, Watkins Glen, New York
    14. Jon Phillips, Co-Chair, Keep-It-Greene, Catskill, New York
    15. Mark Lichtenstein, Embrace Impatience Associates, Mexico, New York
    16. Debby Lee Cohen, Cafeteria Culture, New York, New York
    17. Craig Williams, Kentucky Environmental Foundation,  Berea, Kentucky
    18. Tricia Cortez, Rio Grande International Study Center, Laredo, Texas
    19. Christopher Chin, The Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education, Oakland, California
    20. Paul Burns, Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Montpelier, Vermont
    21. David Bezanson, Ph.D., 350, Silicon Valley, California
    22. Dianna Cohen, Plastic Pollution Coalition, Los Angeles, California
    23. Patricia Wood, Grassroots Environmental Education, Port Washington, New York
    24. KT Andresky, Breathe Free Detroit, Detroit, Michigan
    25. Bradley M. Campbell, Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts
    26. Miriam Gordon, UPSTREAM, San Francisco, California
    27. Theresa Landrum, Original United Citizens of Southwest Detroit, Detroit, Michigan
    28. Pamela Carter, 48217 Community and Environmental Health Organization, Detroit, Michigan
    29. Mary Buxton, 350, Silicon Valley, California
    30. Nicole Kemeny, 350, Silicon Valley, California
    31. Shilpi Chhotray, Break Free From Plastic, Oakland, California
    32. Sandra Steingraber, PhD, Concerned Health Professionals, New York, New York
    33. Robert Nuñez, Californians Against Waste, Sacramento, California
    34. Tracy Frisch, Clean Air Action Network, Glens Falls, New York
    35. Joanie Steinhaus, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Galveston, Texas
    36. Charlene Lemoine, Waukesha County Environmental Action League, Waukesha, Wisconsin
    37. Melissa Cooper Sargent, Ecology Center, Detroit, Michigan
    38. Lynn Hoffman, Eureka Recycling, Minneapolis, Minnesota
WordPress Video Lightbox Plugin