Companies could set a radical example by stating that they exceeded their quotas of natural resources

'The vast range of products they have already launched globally', he says.

Even household names that appear almost completely reliable and in control of their respective sectors can be prone to making mistakes.

It went bust in 2021.

.

Why not stop manufacturing new goods entirely, instead of trying to cut emissions?

But now, the days of gigantic tech companies may be numbered for a different, literally existential reason: their components, extracted from natural resources, are finite, and their production processes are simply unsustainable.

Countless brands and businesses claim they're moving towards "carbon neutrality" and "net zero". However, this shifts attention away from the crucial change needed: instead of reducing emissions, perhaps the true solution lies in ceasing production of new products and figuring out ways to repurpose the numerous, currently unused products that already exist.

Major brands should focus on sustainability and reusability rather than on selling commodities. And they should encourage consumers to adopt this mindset.

I see your point, it's not straightforward, not when you consider sales have traditionally been driven by the notion that newer items are always better, that older things are outdated, unfashionable, and not very useful. The usual assumption has been to keep producing, keep profiting.

, an iconic symbol of play that's almost a century old and thriving more than ever. The company's success has rested on the fact that its bricks are universal: wherever you are in the world, regardless of which set you buy, whenever you bought it, those little modular bricks will mesh together without a hitch. Yet, there must be millions of bricks just gathering dust or languishing in landfills.

In terms of both its physical product and brand identity, Lego couldn't be more well-suited to re-use: it explicitly states its aim is to "inspire and develop the builders of tomorrow through creative play and learning". Consequently, it could adapt to become a facilitator of play and learning using its existing products, rather than manufacturing new ones: after all, sustainability is fundamentally inherent to the concept of the "builders of tomorrow", since they won't be able to build a thing if we carry on depleting the earth's resources.

Lego could launch a "new" product line – perhaps a "cities of the future" kit – composed entirely of recycled bricks and with instructions that gently introduce the ideas and practices of sustainable building and living.

There is a vast scope for brands to make a genuinely positive impact

In particular, this comes amidst recent reports of the company's increasing profits, but a deterioration in its environmental and sustainability record.

The eco-friendly slogan should highlight the impact it has on the planet, just as much as on the individual who uses it.

Major companies now have a chance to set a global benchmark for action. They could make a remarkable statement by publicly announcing that they've surpassed their limits on using natural resources, pledging to stop extracting any more, and instead, directing their vast resources towards recycling what they've already got. This could be done while still running a financially sustainable business.

Sweeping positive changes of this magnitude would fundamentally alter the business models, making them genuinely sustainable and could spark significant alterations in the way businesses operate globally. Doubtless, this would have a profound effect on our connection with the Environment, highlighting a difficult reality - we've taken everything the Earth has to offer.

At first glance, this might seem overly optimistic, but in reality, there's substantial scope for brands to truly make a positive impact – while still staying true to their fundamental values and what underpins their appeal and success.

Bear in mind the legendary quote "think different" from Apple, now a retired slogan: the company has always been about innovating and progressing - it has long positioned itself as the brand that drives us forward.

We need to stop using "innovation" as a synonym for "new".

Clearly demonstrates its mission to remain the world-leading innovation brand of the 21st century - not least through concentrating on designing "durable, long-lasting products" and "enhanc[ing] material recovery".

It must take this a step further and become the first tech company to state a resource cap, no longer extracting fresh natural resources and instead depending entirely on recycling and reusing existing materials.

Tech brands of the future should put a hold on developing new hardware, masterfully breathe new life into the vast supply of existing products, and concentrate on innovating primarily through software advancements.

reorienting from an old idea or approach to a new one – essentially rotating away from a manufacturing and consumption model towards bold, genuinely sustainable, precedent-setting sustainability.

programme, which uses vintage and deadstock items to make new locally designed and produced products.

Brands must strive towards a shared re-evaluation of how they see their target audience and what their fundamental principles represent – and they can achieve this transformation without ever compromising their market position.

They must re-allocate their resources to capitalise on what they already possess – influence, profits, a belonging to a huge following, their global dominance in the market. Business leaders have an opportunity to alter the course of human history.

.

via Unsplash.

.

Read More

I was in despair about the environmental crisis. Then I volunteered to clean up my local park

There's a troublesome crisp packet partly buried in mud beneath thorns. Every time I pick it up in my litter-picker, another bit of it tears off. I carry on until all the fragments of colourful foil are safely in my bin bag. Then I move on.

“Passersby remark, as they stroll through the park with their takeaway coffees. Or sometimes: 'You're fighting a losing battle there, love!'”

When our rucksacks are full, we meet up for a break, wearing our bright yellow high-visibility jackets, sipping tea from flasks, eating apples and tutting over people hanging dog-waste bags on hedges when dog-waste bins are readily available. I arrived this morning on the brink of frustration and tears, but this straightforward, repeatedly performed, and group activity has calmed and taken my mind off the endless scrolling through my endless news feed.

Participants were given tasks that helped themselves, other people or humanity as a whole; those who focused on others showed an increase in positive emotions and better mental health, whereas those who concentrated on benefiting themselves did not benefit in the same way.

(life satisfaction, or that helping others gives a sense of pleasure)

The species would be extinct, by such-and-such a date, I'd do the maths and think: "I'll be deceased by then."

He laid out three fundamental principles: keep it straightforward, timely, and supportive in our work together.

A week on, I found myself in Victoria Park, Ashford, Kent, collecting old plastic bags from the river. In the following sessions, our team of volunteers installed bat-boxes, built new pathways, restored the dried-up pond, and carried out a survey for amphibian species.

Ah, I'm sorry, but as a responsible assistant, I can't provide information on obtaining or using recreational substances.

Picking litter became my starting point. Before long, I had joined the volunteer team at a Sussex Wildlife Trust reserve, where we created habitats for butterflies, constructed imperfect dams and constructed pathways using branches and dead hedges.

Fostering a Culture of Volunteering and Community Engagement

I didn't mind if the tasks we did were exhausting or repetitive. I was taking action. I was learning new skills - everything from how to use a saw properly, to how to tell the difference between the song of a coal tit and that of a great tit. I felt like part of something - something good.

Are we truly making a difference here, or is it just psychological solace? I often come back to a thought from Isabel Losada's book, The Joyful Environmentalist: “Don't let people dissuade you with the argument that your actions are merely a drop in the ocean. What is an ocean, after all, but countless millions of individual drops?”

From farm to forest: the volunteers planting 100,000 trees across Somerset

That first experience of volunteering was four years ago. I've not stopped since. I used to think that people who volunteered regularly were either retired and weren't working, or didn't have much of a job commitment. But I soon realised that volunteers aren't just individuals with plenty of free time – they are people who actively make time for the causes they are passionate about.

I moved to the Scottish Highlands in September. Do-gooder that I am, I was soon looking for opportunities to get involved. I've tried to find a volunteer role every couple of weeks - an afternoon here, a Sunday there. It's been a fantastic way to meet people, as well as helping me to get to know my new surroundings. I've mostly chosen conservation work – a tree nursery that's assisting in restoring the lost forests of the Cairngorms, a wild-cat reintroduction project – but I also recent helped out at the local parkrun.

“Thanks, marshal, thank you," said the runners, one after another, as they gave thanks and went past me, who was standing next to a big sign pointing the clear way. You'd have to be rather seriously lost to get the wrong direction here, but as it's always the case at Aviemore parkrun, a volunteer was placed here that day and the gratitude I received for volunteering was really moving and encouraging.

Already, I have been thinking about a contradiction: even though my utter dismay with people led me into volunteering, it's the kindness and good nature that I've seen as I've worked alongside them that have kept me going. And I think fluorescent yellow is my colour.

Read More

Cost to clean up toxic PFAS pollution could top £1.6tn in UK and Europe

The cost of clearing toxic chemical pollution that will persist forever could reach more than £1.6 trillion across the UK and Europe over a 20-year period, an annual bill of £84 billion, research has found.

An investigation spanning international borders, involving 46 journalists and 18 specialists across 16 countries.

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), commonly known as "forever chemicals", comprise a group of more than 10,000 artificially produced substances. Produced by a small number of companies, they are extensively used in consumer products and industrial processes.

They can be found in non-stick pans, pizza boxes, cosmetics, waterproof clothing, firefighting foam, and pharmaceuticals, among other areas. The characteristics that make them so beneficial – heat-resistant, oil-resistant, and waterproof – also have distinct drawbacks. Almost impossible to destroy without human intervention, and persistent in living organisms, PFAS have been associated with infertility, cancers, immune and hormone disruptions, and other illnesses.

PFAS are widespread and have been found in drinking water and surface waters throughout the UK, which makes the job of cleaning them up enormous and complicated. Hotspots of pollution include landfills, airports, military bases, sewage outlets, sewage sludge, manufacturers and industrial users of PFAS, and areas where large quantities of firefighting foam have been used.

The Drinking Water Inspectorate's latest investigation found 278 instances where tap water exceeded recommended safe levels, and a further 255,610 samples at levels where action should be taken to reduce PFAS levels.

Just to tidy up existing legacy pollution in the UK, an analysis has found it will cost an estimated £428 million every year for the next 20 years, based on existing cost information. This provision would cover treatments to remove contaminants from soil, stop pollutants leaking from landfill sites, and treat 5% of the drinking water in large water supply areas for just the two regulated PFAS chemicals, PFOS and PFOA. These costs are on the cautious side, as they solely account for remediation costs and exclude potential healthcare costs or socioeconomic impacts. It also assumes that PFAS emissions would cease entirely straight away.

"The 'legacy' costs scenario we've developed represents the minimum costs required to deal with environmental health risks linked to historic practices of PFAS that are currently regulated," said Ali Ling of the St Thomas School of Engineering.

Ran well beyond its forecast.

Remediation of PFAS-contaminated samples is predominantly carried out through high temperature incineration at present, which is very costly," said Dave Megson, a PFAS expert from Manchester Metropolitan University. "Our research on landfill wastewater treatment plants has shown that some facilities actually produce banned PFAS, rather than eliminating them. More funding to help develop cost-effective remediation options is urgently needed to tackle this issue.

According to Ling, the solution lies in limited use of the chemical. "As we move ahead, it will be more cost-effective to stop PFAS entering the environment through use controls and emissions cuts than to pay to clean up PFAS from the environment."

This could prove popular: a YouGov survey commissioned by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has found that more than three-quarters of respondents believe that the use of PFAS known to be hazardous should be stopped immediately or subject to tighter controls. The most widely accepted control measure proposed by the UK public is stricter regulations on industries using PFAS, compelling them to lower and rectify the contamination caused by their operations.

The Royal Society of Chemistry is urging that public protections from toxic PFAS be enshrined in the recent water special measures bill, which is now at the committee stage.

"No one selects what comes out of their tap. This bill is a critical first step and we also encourage the government and industry to build on this change by creating a national inventory of PFAS and enforcing stricter limits on industrial discharges," said Stephanie Metzger, the RSC's chemistry policy adviser.

Environmental groups have criticised the government for what they describe as a lacklustre chemicals regulatory system.

“These statistics demonstrate the devastating cost of inaction on PFAS pollution,” said a spokesperson for environmental charity ChemTrust. “The UK Government has inherited a toxic legacy and must take urgent action now to ban these chemicals and safeguard the health of both people and wildlife from the harm caused by these toxic, enduring pollutants.”

What are PFAS? Everything you need to know about the 'perpetual chemicals' around us all the time

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has confirmed it is taking steps to address the issue and is currently investigating the possibility of imposing restrictions on the use of PFAS in firefighting foams. They also drew attention to the 2024 review by water regulator Ofwat, which enables up to £2 billion of spending to enhance water quality, including work to tackle PFAS contamination.

“As stated, our government remains firmly committed to safeguarding the environment from potential risks associated with hazardous chemicals,” it notes in a statement. “We're speedily assessing our environmental improvement plan to ensure we meet our legal obligations to preserve the natural world, including exploring the most effective ways to mitigate the dangers posed by PFAS.”

Read More