Bin liners to takeaway containers – ideas to solve your plastic conundrums

Plastic has become an environmental disaster. Microplastic pollution has been found in our waterways, fish stocks, salt, tap water and even the air we breathe. Reducing our reliance on plastic by refusing it wherever possible has never been more important, especially as Australia’s recycling system is in crisis.

Plastic water bottles are derived from crude oil and take
thousands of years to break down in landfill. Choose
 stainless steel bottles with silicon lids. 

Yet there are conundrums that continue to defeat even those dedicated to going plastic-free. From bin liners to takeaway containers, Guardian Australia has tried to solve them. And we want to hear from you: share your plastic conundrums and the solutions. We’ll round up the best ideas for a follow-up article.

Read Koren Helbig’s story from The Guardian - “Bin liners to takeaway containers – ideas to solve your plastic conundrums.”

The hills are alive with the signs of plastic: even Swiss mountains are polluted

Microplastic pollution contaminates soil across Switzerland, even in remote mountains, new research reveals. The scientists said the problem could be worse in other nations with poorer waste management and that research was urgently needed to see if microplastics get into food.

Microplastic soil contamination was found even in remote areas,
 leading scientists to conclude it must be windborne.

In the first major study of microplastics in soil, the researchers analysed soil samples from 29 river flood plains in nature reserves across Switzerland. They found microplastics, fragments under 5mm in size, in 90% of the soils. The scientists believe the particles are carried across the country by the wind.

Research on microplastic pollution to date has largely concentrated on the oceans, in which it is found across the globe, including the Arctic. The particles have been shown to harm marine life and can absorb toxins from the water.

Read Damian Carrington’s story from The Guardian - “The hills are alive with the signs of plastic: even Swiss mountains are polluted.”

Federal budget: Half-a-billion dollars for the Great Barrier Reef

The Turnbull government will deliver the largest single environmental protection package in Australian history by committing half a billion dollars to protect the Great Barrier Reef from climate change and pollution.

The Great Barrier Reef, the largest living structure on the planet.

The investment, to be detailed in the May budget, will aim to shore up support in key Queensland seats ahead of an election in the next year, as the Coalition tries to balance environmental concerns with its pro-mining jobs focus through the Adani coal mine.

Read the story by Eryk Bagshaw from The Age - “Federal budget: Half-a-billion dollars for the Great Barrier Reef.”

(Don’t fall for this, it is political and rhetorical trickery. If the Federal Government was serious about saving the Great Barrier Reef it would tell Mr Adani to take his money, return to India and leave the coal he was so anxious to exploit in the ground. Climate change is the main player in the destruction of the reef and if Mr Frydenberg and his coalition counterparts were serious in their intentions to save the reef they would make climate change mitigation its first priority and that means an immediate shift from the use of any fossil fuels - Robert McLean)

Environmental advocate dies after setting himself on fire in New York

New York City: A prominent gay rights lawyer has died after setting himself on fire in a New York park to protest against pollution and the use of fossil fuels.

The lawyer David Buckel in New Jersey Supreme
Court during a 2006 case about same-sex marriage.

The body of David Buckel was found in Brooklyn's Prospect Park early Saturday. He left a note in a nearby shopping trolley that he also emailed to several news outlets including The New York Times.

"Pollution ravages our planet, oozing inhabitability via air, soil, water and weather," he wrote in the email sent to the Times.

Read The Sydney Morning Herald story - “Environmental advocate dies after setting himself on fire in New York."

Coal-fired power stations caused surge in airborne mercury pollution, study finds

Airborne mercury pollution from coal-fired power stations in Victoria’s Latrobe valley increased 37% in just 12 months, according to an annual national survey of toxic emissions.

The mercury output from Loy Yang B coal-fired power station alone
 more than doubled to 831kg in 2016-2017, the national survey of
toxic emissions found.

The mercury output from Loy Yang B power station alone more than doubled to 831kg in 2016-2017, an increase of 123% over five years.

The brown coal burning power station produced more than 640 times the airborne mercury pollution of Eraring power station near Newcastle, New South Wales.

Eraring, Australia’s largest coal-fired power station, produces three times the energy of Loy Yang B power station but reported just 1.3kg of airborne mercury pollution in 2016-17, a reduction of 97% over the past five years.

Read Calla Wahlquist’s story from The Guardian - “Coal-fired power stations caused surge in airborne mercury pollution, study finds.”

Mining firm in talks with government over Clean Energy Finance Corporation oil field funding proposal.

Resources Minister Matt Canavan said carbon
capture and storage can cut emissions and
 retain access to coal-fired power.

The company behind an Australian-first plan to use pollution from power stations to extract oil says taxpayers should help fund the project, despite criticism that it uses an unproven and expensive technology.

The Turnbull government has been in talks with the proponent over the venture, and believes such technologies can lower carbon emissions while keeping coal-fired power stations running.

Read Nicole Hasham’s story from The Age - “Mining firm in talks with government over Clean Energy Finance Corporation oil field funding proposal.”

Less laundry less often: how to lighten the washday load on the environment

The clothes we wash and wear each week might seem unconnected to the growing plastic pollution crisis in our oceans but a sobering truth is emerging.

 Front-loading washing machines use far less energy and water.

With each wash, synthetic fabrics shed thousands of plastic particles, leading to broad-scale contamination of waterways. Now it appears we’re drinking that plastic, with a study of tap water in various countries finding 83% of samples were contaminated with plastic fibres.

Doing the laundry has other environmental implications, too, from the water and power used to the harmful substances hidden in common detergents. A more natural approach to laundry is crucial for the health of humans and the planet, so consider our practical steps on how to make the switch.

Read The Guardian story - “Less laundry less often: how to lighten the washday load on the environment.”

Vaunted plan to cut power emissions will have 'negligible impact’

New analysis has found the Turnbull government’s plan to tackle climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power generators is superfluous because the pollution cuts would be achieved regardless, largely due to state policies.

The national energy guarantee aims to cut pollution from the electricity sector..

It means the government’s much-heralded national energy guarantee will force an administratively complex overhaul of the national electricity market without applying targets ambitious enough to tackle global warming beyond action already being taken.

But Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg says the analysis does not consider the need to make electricity supplies more reliable, which is an aim of its proposed policy, along with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Read Nicole Hasham’s story from The Age - “Vaunted plan to cut power emissions will have 'negligible impact’.”

Final straw? Darebin bans balloons, other plastics from council parks

Balloons, water bottles and other plastics, including bags, straws and cups, are to be banned from public land in part of Melbourne’s north in a bid to reduce pollution.

There'll be no balloons at your next park party.

Darebin Council, which includes Northcote, Thornbury and Preston, has voted unanimously to prohibit single-use plastics from being used or sold on council land.

“They are polluting our parks and waterways, including our many creeks,” Greens councillor Trent McCarthy said.

The ban includes the use of balloons at parties, festivals, workshops and markets and during election campaigns on all council property, including public parks. 

Read the story by Chloe Booker in The Age - “Final straw? Darebin bans balloons, other plastics from council parks.”

Emissions increases approved by regulator may wipe out $260m of Direct Action cuts

Nearly 60 Australian industrial sites have been given the green light to increase greenhouse gas pollution, potentially cancelling out hundreds of millions of dollars of public spending on emissions cuts under the Coalition’s Direct Action climate policy.

Citic Pacific’s Sino Iron project in the Pilbara is
among the industrial sites that have been allowed
to increase emissions under the safeguard mechanism.

The increases have been quietly approved under the “safeguard mechanism”, which was introduced as part of Direct Action to ensure cuts paid for using the main part of the policy – the emission reduction fund – were not undone by emissions increasing in other parts of the economy.

Under the safeguard mechanism, government agency the Clean Energy Regulator sets an emissions limit for each large industrial site based on its highest level of emissions over the previous five years. But companies can apply to have the limit recalculated.

Read Adam Morton’s story on The Guardian - “Emissions increases approved by regulator may wipe out $260m of Direct Action cuts.”

Controversial Abbott-era climate fund will survive climate review: Josh Frydenberg

A controversial Abbott-era fund that uses public money to pay companies to reduce their pollution will survive the federal government's review of Australia's climate policies.

Environment and Energy Minister, Josh Frydenberg.

In an interview with Fairfax Media, Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg also expressed confidence that future generations would avoid disastrous predicted impacts of climate change, saying technology would drive the transition to decarbonised economies and "get us where we need to be". 

Read Nicole Hasham’s story in today’s Melbourne Age - “Controversial Abbott-era climate fund will survive climate review: Josh Frydenberg.”

America Crowns a New Pollution King

For the first time in 40 years, power plants are no longer the biggest source of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution. That dubious distinction now belongs to the transport sector: cars, trucks, planes, trains and boats.  

The big reversal didn’t happen because transportation emissions have been increasing. In fact, since 2000 the U.S. has experienced the flattest stretch of transportation-related pollution in modern record keeping, according to data compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The big change has come from the cleanup of America’s electric grid. 

The chart below shows carbon dioxide emissions from transportation exceeding those from electricity production in 2016 for the first time since 1978. The pollution gap has continued to widen further in 2017, according to a Bloomberg analysis.

Read the Bloomberg story by Tom Randall - “America Crowns a New Pollution King.”

Some bad actors': Coal burning found to release possibly toxic nanoparticles

Coal combustion, already one of the main sources of pollution, has also been found to release nano particles of titanium that are potentially harmful to humans and other life forms, researchers say.

Researchers in the US discovered the titanium
suboxides when examining a coal ash spill.

US-based scientists accidentally discovered the tiny traces of the metal – in the form of titanium suboxides measuring in the billionths of a metre – when studying a coal ash spill in the Dan River in North Carolina in 2014, Science Daily reported earlier this year.

The substance had previously been considered rare, located in mudstones in a small area of western Greenland, moon rocks and in some meteorites.

It turns out, however, that forms of titanium oxides "are essentially a ubiquitous accessory phase in all coals worldwide", the researchers said in a paper published in Nature Communications.

Read Peter Hannam’s story in today’s Melbourne Age - “‘Some bad actors': Coal burning found to release possibly toxic nanoparticles.”

Thousands of scientists issue bleak ‘second notice’ to humanity

In late 1992, 1,700 scientists from around the world issued a dire “warning to humanity.” They said humans had pushed Earth's ecosystems to their breaking point and were well on the way to ruining the planet. The letter listed environmental impacts like they were biblical plagues — stratospheric ozone depletion, air and water pollution, the collapse of fisheries and loss of soil productivity, deforestation, species loss and catastrophic global climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

“If not checked,” wrote the scientists, led by particle physicist and Union of Concerned Scientists co-founder Henry Kendall, “many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know.”

But things were only going to get worse.

Read The Washington Post story - “Thousands of scientists issue bleak ‘second notice’ to humanity.”

Global pollution kills 9m a year and threatens 'survival of human societies’

Pollution kills at least nine million people and costs trillions of dollars every year, according to the most comprehensive global analysis to date, which warns the crisis “threatens the continuing survival of human societies”.

A Bangladeshi rickshaw puller rides past smoke created
 by burning waste materials on a street in Dhaka.

Toxic air, water, soils and workplaces are responsible for the diseases that kill one in every six people around the world, the landmark report found, and the true total could be millions higher because the impact of many pollutants are poorly understood. The deaths attributed to pollution are triple those from Aids, malaria and tuberculosis combined.

The vast majority of the pollution deaths occur in poorer nations and in some, such as India, Chad and Madagascar, pollution causes a quarter of all deaths. The international researchers said this burden is a hugely expensive drag on developing economies.

Read Damian Carrington’s story on The Guardian - “Global pollution kills 9m a year and threatens 'survival of human societies’.”

Pollution kills 9 million people each year, new study finds

Dirty air in India and China. Tainted water in sub-Saharan Africa. Toxic mining and smelter operations in South America. Pollution around the globe now contributes to an estimated 9 million deaths  annually — or roughly one in six — according to an in-depth new study published Thursday in the Lancet. If accurate, that means pollution kills three times more people each year than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined, with most of those deaths  in poor and developing countries.

Traffic moves at dusk in New Delhi, home
 to some of the world’s most polluted air. 

“Going into this, my colleagues and I knew that pollution killed a lot of people. But we certainly did not have any idea of the total magnitude of the problem,” said Philip Landrigan, dean of global health at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and co-chair of the commission behind the report. “I think all of us were really surprised when we saw this.”

The two-year project, which relied on data from researchers in more than 130 countries documenting the causes of disease and premature deaths in recent decades, found that poor air quality was the most significant pollution-related killer. That includes both outdoor pollution tainted by mercury, arsenic and other harmful particulates, and household air dirtied by the burning of wood, dung and other organic materials. The result: An estimated 6.5 million deaths in 2015 from heart disease, strokes, lung cancer and other respiratory problems.

Read The Washington Post story by Brady Dennis - “Pollution kills 9 million people each year, new study finds.”

'As individuals, none of us have much incentive or reason to pollute less'

(Jason Brennan is something of a contrarian, but his views are worth considering, both about democracy and how and why we should respond too climate disruption. The following passage is taken from his book, “Against Democracy”)

How Do We Respond to Pollution? Most of my readers and fellow philosophers believe that the government not only may but instead must regulate carbon emissions. Their basic assertion is that pollution is a collective action problem. On an individual basis, any one of us can pollute to our heart’s content, and it would have no real impact. But if we all pollute to our hearts’ content, the results can be catastrophic. The problem is that as individuals, we have little reason to change our behavior. Consider some of my behaviors. I fly over twenty times per year. I drive a twin-turbo sports sedan, which I generally leave in Sport or Sport + mode for maximal acceleration. I play electric guitar through a high-wattage tube amp rather than acoustic guitar. I leave the air conditioner on in my house all summer. I almost never shut off any of my three computers. Out of the goodness of my heart, I might reduce my energy usage, but what good would it do? My individual impact is so small that such sacrifices would make no difference. I would suffer, but it wouldn’t help. This line of reasoning applies to each of us. As individuals, none of us have much incentive or reason to pollute less, even though we all want everyone to pollute less. Unilateral reductions in consumption have purely symbolic value. Therefore, most of my colleagues conclude, we should license the government to regulate pollution levels. Government can solve our collective action problem. Call this kind of reasoning the public goods argument for environmental protection. As we saw in chapter 2, we face something similar to this collective action problem when it comes to voting. It’s not precisely the same: if I were the only voter, my vote would make all the difference, while if I were the only polluter, my pollution would still make little difference. But it’s similar enough: given that there are so many other voters, for each of us, our individual votes make no difference. We have every incentive to free ride on others’ efforts, externalize the cost of our biases onto others, and pollute democracy with our uninformed, misinformed, or irrational votes. If the argument for regulating air pollution is sound, why not regulate votes as well? Why does the public goods argument justify regulating air pollution, but doesn’t justify regulating voting pollution? Why is it legitimate to regulate pollution to protect us from ourselves, yet not legitimate to regulate voting to protect us from ourselves? In chapters 4 and 5, I examined a series of deontological arguments that tried to show that voting rights are different, but none of these arguments succeeded. So these questions remain open.

Florida’s Poop Nightmare Has Come True

In the days and hours before Hurricane Irma slammed into Florida, its residents were treated to copious media speculation about nightmare scenarios. This monster storm, journalists said, could bring a 15-foot storm surge, blow roofs off of buildings, and cause tens of billions of dollars in damage. But perhaps no scenario seemed more dire than the one Quartz warned about the day before Irma made landfall: “Hurricane Irma will likely cover South Florida with a film of poop.”

Quartz’ apparent hyperbole turned out to be an understatement. Pollution reports submitted to Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection show that, due to power outages and flooding caused by Irma, human waste has been spilling into streets, residences, and waterways across the entire state. At the time of this article’s publication, at least 113 “Public Notices of Pollution” had been submitted to the DEP. Combined, those discharge reports showed more than 28 million gallons of treated and untreated sewage released in 22 counties.The total amount is surely much more; at least 43 of those reports listed either an “unknown” or “ongoing” amount of waste released and new reports continue to roll in—sometimes as many as a dozen per hour.

Read the New Republic story by Emily Atkin - “Florida’s Poop Nightmare Has Come True.”

Cruise ships showed contempt for customers by breaking clean air pledge, report says

The world’s cruise ships have done virtually nothing to reduce their pollution over the past year, with some still emitting as much particulate matter as 1m cars a day, a report says.

MSC Divina leaves Venice by St Mark’s Basin in 2012.
 The cruise industry has been criticised for not acting on
air pollution in the past 12 months. 

The annual survey of 63 ships, conducted by the German environment group Nabu, refused to recommend a single one for adequately reducing its environmental impact in 2017.

It accused the industry of having “contempt” for the health of its customers, saying companies had reneged on promises to clean up their fleets.

“Last year the sector claimed 23 ships would be operating with soot filters,” said Nabu’s Dietmar Oeliger. “The truth is not a single filter is working at present.”

The report’s authors say a mid-size cruise ship’s diesel engine can use 150 tonnes of fuel each day, which would emit as much particulate as one million cars. In December, the Australian government passed a regulation forcing cruise ships in Sydney harbour to use low-sulphur fuel, after residents complained emissions were negatively affecting their health.

The New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency had earlier warned that docked cruise ships posed a health risk to those who lived near them.

Read The Guardian story - “Cruise ships showed contempt for customers by breaking clean air pledge, report says.”

FOI documents confirm government holding almost one year's worth of pollution data

The federal government has been keeping almost a year's worth of pollution data secret, despite it being scheduled for release in May, documents obtained under freedom of information laws reveal.

The government is sitting on almost one year's
worth of national greenhouse pollution data.

Independent estimates suggest Australia's greenhouse gas emissions have risen sharply since the government last released its quarterly data in December – a trend that would make the nation's commitment to cutting emissions more disruptive and expensive.

Quarterly updates by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, described as "up-to-date information on emissions trends for business, policymakers and the public", have been released 28 times since 2009, but not since last year.

Documents obtained under FOI by the Australian Conservation Foundation reveal that while the government possesses data on greenhouse pollution for the two quarters leading up to the end of last year, it has failed to release them.

Read Lucy Cormack’s story in today’s Melbourne Age - “FOI documents confirm government holding almost one year's worth of pollution data.”