Plastic Truths?

 

The Centre for Climate Integrity opines that, for more than 30 years, producers of plastics have known that recycling their product is neither economically nor technically feasible. They recognised, however, it would be difficult to defend single use plastic. A symbol for 'recyclable' plastic was consequently devised and a centre funded to study plastic recycling at the US's Rutgers University. In spite of this, recycling plastics seems to be largely a myth (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-plastics-producers-report). The vast majority of carefully-collected UK and European plastic is sent to other countries (such as Turkey) to be dumped or burned. Consequently, it's hardly surprising that microplastics are becoming a ubiquitous feature of the environment (and, eventually, the rock strata). It's said we now all have the equivalent of a credit card inside us!

Corporate Raiders and Ethical Investments

 

2024 was a bad year for shareholder proposals that aimed to tackle environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. ShareAction (a campaign group for responsible investment) found that only 4 of 279 (1.4%) ESG resolutions, presented at annual general meetings, secured majority support. In 2021, that figure was 21%. This drop was most marked in the US, where right-wing activists and politicians have targeted firms supporting climate and diversity policies   (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/18/support-for-esg-proposals-at-record-low-driven-by-us-investors-report-shows). David Yelland and Simon Lewis, give an illustration of this phenomenon in their 'When it hits the fan' PR podcast. US hedge fund Elliot Management have bought a 5% stake in British Petroleum (BP). That company is now very vulnerable, as it pledged earlier to reduce its fossil fuel extractions, as well as to invest in renewables. This makes good economic sense but the BP share price has remained lower than those of its fossil fuel rivals. Yelland and Lewis note that, whereas BP has to follow financial rules when making pronouncements, Elliot Management can simply get a 'source' to reveal they're unhappy with BP's basic strategy. It's an unequal PR contest. The podcasters feel that BP's current executives are likely to be ejected. BP's oil extraction activities (in the US) may be hived off as a separate, more active, body. In spite of underpinning many pension funds, BP may even cease to be a British company. As the song goes, 'money doesn't talk, it screams'.

Cancer Warning Labels on Alcohol?

 

The World Health Organization (WHO) has called for cigarette-style warnings on alcohol cans and bottles. It's argued that such labels are needed to warn drinkers of the link between heavy drinking and seven forms of cancer. This WHO move has been supported by cancer charities including Cancer Research UK and the World Cancer Research Fund. Ireland is the first European country to compel alcohol producers to include health warnings on their labels. France and Lithuania both require product labels to warn about the negative  impact of alcohol on pregnancies. The Portman Group, representing UK alcohol producers, claim the labels would be 'too harsh' and would 'unsettle' people (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/14/who-world-health-organization-calls-for-cigarette-style-cancer-warnings-on-alcohol-packaging). Alcohol is a venerable, old drug. If it were discovered today, there would undoubtedly be regulations surrounding its use. The link between alcohol and cancer isn't generally well appreciated by the general public (they tend only to know about alcohol's impact on the brain and the liver). The warnings on cigarette packets seemed to work for tobacco. It might be worth doing the same for beer, wine and spirits. It's debatable, however, whether they will work.

Sunstroke In the Sea

People lavishly apply UV filters (sunscreen) to prevent sunburn. Large numbers of people take beach holidays. Sunscreen's chemicals consequently globally pollute marine environments. For example, an estimated 6000 to 14000 tonnes of sunscreen are annually released in coral reef zones. The contained chemicals can bleach and deform the coral. They also decrease fish fertility in these same areas (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/18/sunscreens-impact-on-marine-life-needs-urgent-investigation-study-finds). Folk, holidaying in locations near coral reefs, are likely to both use sunscreen and go snorkelling. They might consequently be destroying the organisms they have paid to see. There must be ways of reducing the release of sunscreen's 'pseudo persistent pollutants', without increasing the damage to human skin by intense UV light.

Wake Up But Can You Afford to Smell the Coffee?

 

2024 was the hottest year on record. Steep rises in the prices of a number of food commodities in the year up to January 2025, correlated with the extreme weather. The biggest rises were for cocoa (163%) and coffee (107%). This was due to higher than average rainfall and temperatures in their production areas. Cocoa and coffee 'beans' are both grown on bushes, that take time to become established. It's not easy to quickly move them to other locations. Even, theoretically more mobile, crops showed lesser price increases. Climate breakdown leads to food shortages. These shortages drive up prices (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/15/extreme-weather-likely-to-cause-further-food-price-volatility-analysts-say) .The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research's data, confirms that heat extremes directly affect food prices. Even in the UK (a relatively rich country), climate breakdown has been linked to a rise in the number of hungry and malnourished households. Agriculture is another human activity relying on predictability. Climate change is feeding into global food security concerns. 

Wolf At the Door?

 

For many years, it's been claimed  that wolf reintroduction greatly improves the health of northern forests. The wolf packs efficiently prevent deer populations expanding. This is generally done, by the predator taking young and semi-incapacitated deer. A balance between predators and prey is achieved. Otherwise, deer populations have to be 'culled' by forest wardens with guns. Forest deer especially feed on tree saplings, preventing tree replacement after storms. Forests, also can't expand at their margins. A Leeds University study has now calculated that a reintroduction of the Grey wolf to the Scottish Highlands, would expand these native woodlands. This expansion could store an extra 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/17/wolves-reintroduction-to-highlands-could-help-native-woodlands-to-recover-says-study). There's no doubt that such a Highland reintroduction would reduce 'greenhouse gas' emissions. This would be a local contribution, countering climate change. People might even travel to see the wolf packs (it could have commercial benefit). The persistent problem (seen recently in Sweden), however, is that some groups will passionately resist the process. This will include hunters who might want to shoot wolves, as well as deer. Nearby farmers, also tend to express inflated concerns about their flocks. Humans living and/or working in such areas will worry about their (and their families?) safety. Although such risk would be very slight, folk take being consumed by wolves very personally. It's not going to be easy to get general agreement.

Flying With Bias

 

Air travel's a very major source of the greenhouse gasses', that cause climate change. The UN Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) meets every 3 years, to address issues related to aircraft emissions and noise. Its parent body, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is sponsored by large fossil fuel companies and airlines. Critics feel the ICAO has been 'captured by its sponsors' in order to go slow on efforts to efforts to reduce aircraft carbon emissions. Many of this parent body's meetings have had a strong industry bias, with very few 'green' delegates. The next CAEP meeting starts today.  Little public information has been made on its agenda or its key participants. It's in marked contrast to the UN's climate body (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/14/industry-influence-un-aviation-body). The ICAO enthusiastically forecast a doubling of air passenger numbers by 2042. It claims that more efficient aircraft, 'sustainable' fuels and its own offsetting scheme will control the consequent carbon emissions. Independent experts doubt these measures can offset the huge traffic growth. Experts also maintain that aviation growth must be curbed if climate targets are to be met. Is the next CAEP meeting being rigged to favour the ICAO line? Surely, they wouldn't be influenced by their sponsor's money?