Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the role of informal waste reclaimers in African cities, highlighting their significant contribution to recycling and waste diversion despite facing severe health risks, social marginalization, and low pay. It argues that the current linear 'take-make-waste' model is unsustainable and that an 'inclusive circular economy' must integrate these vulnerable workers into formal policy and value chains. The document provides a comparative analysis of the informal waste sector in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Uganda, detailing specific policy gaps and opportunities for reclaimer integration and formalization.

The document compares the Rwanda-Peru (RP) and Japan (JP) draft resolutions for UNEA 5.2, highlighting that while both seek a global legally binding instrument and an intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC), they differ significantly in scope and mandate. The RP resolution adopts a broad 'plastic pollution' scope across all environments using a full lifecycle approach (upstream production to downstream waste), whereas the JP resolution focuses specifically on 'marine plastic pollution' with a stronger emphasis on downstream interventions and a goal to reduce additional marine plastic pollution to zero by 2050. Additionally, the RP resolution proposes an 'open mandate' for the INC and a stronger institutional framework, including a financial mechanism and a scientific and socio-economic body, which are absent or more limited in the JP draft.

The document argues that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), 1999, is outdated and fails to address current environmental and health threats, such as the climate emergency and plastic pollution. It highlights the disproportionate impact of toxics on marginalized groups, including Indigenous people and lower-income Canadians, and calls for the implementation of 87 recommendations made by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in 2017. The authors advocate for specific amendments to Bill C-28, including the recognition of a human right to a healthy environment, the prohibition of carcinogenic and mutagenic substances, and the establishment of a presumption of non-confidentiality regarding chemical substances.

The Transparent 2021 report analyzes the plastic footprints of eight global companies (Amcor, Colgate-Palmolive, Keurig Dr Pepper, Kimberly-Clark, McDonald’s, Procter & Gamble, Starbucks, and The Coca-Cola Company). In 2020, these members reported a total of 4.60 million metric tons of plastic sold to retailers and consumers. The report finds that 31% of this plastic was estimated to be recycled, while 44% went to landfills and 16% was mismanaged. Key progress includes the elimination of polystyrene (PS) from Keurig Dr Pepper's K-Cup pods and a reduction in small plastics by Starbucks and McDonald's. However, the report highlights a significant gap in the availability of recycled content, with the aggregate portfolio containing only 7.9% recycled content. The document advocates for a binding global treaty on plastic pollution to harmonize waste management data and scale circular solutions.

The author identifies several key environmental priorities for the WTO's MC12, including a deal on fishery subsidies and the launch of member-led initiatives like the Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions (TESSD). The text emphasizes the need for inclusive cooperation that supports developing countries through financing and technical assistance to ensure a global green economy that does not leave the poorest behind.

The report by ClientEarth and the EEB uses ECHA data to project that intentionally added microplastics will continue to increase in the environment through 2030. It highlights that a one-year delay in the restriction's entry into force would increase total emissions by approximately 40,000 tonnes by 2030. The analysis identifies sports pitch infill as the largest source of pollution and criticizes the lack of data for sectors such as construction and food additives.

The report argues that the food industry's reliance on single-use plastics creates significant ecological and health crises while exposing the sector and its financiers to material financial risks. It highlights a 'financial bubble' in the plastics industry driven by overproduction and impending regulation. Research reveals that seven banks operating in Belgium provided over 78 billion euros in financing to nine food industry companies between 2015 and 2021, with Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, and ING as the primary financiers. The document calls for banks to implement concrete plastic policies and for the Belgian government to use its influence as a shareholder to drive a transition toward a circular economy.

The author contends that the European Commission's proposal to exempt CCU from the EU carbon market is flawed because it defines 'permanent storage' too narrowly, ignoring the end-of-life release of carbon from products like plastics and the emissions generated during the CCU production process.

The report evaluates three primary responses to the plastics crisis: chemical recycling, separate collection, and reuse/refill. It concludes that chemical recycling is technically and financially unviable, often serving as a 'smokescreen' for the petrochemical industry. In contrast, it identifies high growth potential in separate collection infrastructure, specifically reverse vending machines (RVMs), and long-term equity opportunities in refillable packaging systems, both of which are being driven by increasing global regulation and consumer pressure.

The document warns investors against chemical recycling due to high energy intensity and technical failures, while recommending separate collection (specifically reverse vending machines) and reuse-and-refill systems as high-growth, low-risk opportunities driven by regulatory shifts and consumer demand.

The document argues that 'Big Food' companies face escalating risks across three domains: waste, climate, and health. It highlights the 'Brussels Effect,' where strict EU directives on single-use plastics and chemical safety set global standards. The report warns that failure to transition from linear 'take-make-waste' models to circular reuse systems exposes companies to legal action, financial penalties, and loss of brand value, particularly among millennial and Gen Z consumers.

The document argues that 'Big Food' companies face escalating risks across waste, climate, and health dimensions due to their 'addiction to single-use plastics'. It highlights a wave of new legislation in Europe, increasing public backlash, and emerging legal precedents in the US and EU that could lead to significant financial and legal liabilities. The brief warns investors that many companies are failing to disclose these material risks or are relying on 'false solutions' rather than reducing their plastic footprints.

The document argues that while various plastic-related standards exist, they are currently fragmented, largely industry-driven, and insufficient on their own to solve plastic pollution. It emphasizes the need for government-led priorities and a complementary regulatory framework to make standards effective, particularly in supporting a potential global treaty on plastic pollution.

The document analyzes the role of standards in addressing plastics pollution, mapping existing efforts by organizations like ISO, CEN, and ASTM. It argues that current standards are fragmented, largely voluntary, and industry-driven, failing to cover the entire plastics value chain. The author proposes a shift toward a circular economy framework, the introduction of digital materials passports, and the reduction of material variety to improve recyclability. Finally, it suggests that a global treaty on plastic pollution could provide the necessary legal and policy framework to make these standards effective and comprehensive.

The document traces the history of hazardous waste regulation from the 1972 Stockholm Conference to the 2019 entry into force of the Basel Convention's Ban Amendment. It highlights the risks of 'toxic colonialism,' where developed nations export hazardous materials to vulnerable regions. A significant focus is placed on the rapid growth of e-waste and the complexities of defining 'waste' versus 'recyclable products.' The author argues for a more proactive, equity-based approach to waste management to address emerging streams from the energy transition, such as lithium and cobalt.

The document advocates for a multifaceted approach to plastic pollution that combines a circular economy with the use of renewable, plant-based feedstocks to replace virgin plastics derived from fossil fuels. It emphasizes that because infinite recycling is impossible, some virgin plastic remains necessary for health and safety standards. To prevent new environmental issues, the Bioplastic Feedstock Alliance (BFA) urges policymakers to implement sustainability metrics—covering carbon emissions, water use, and impacts on wildlife and communities—to ensure plant-based plastics are responsibly sourced and managed.

The document advocates for a comprehensive EU directive on corporate due diligence to prevent environmental harm. It argues against size-based thresholds for companies, citing the seafood and timber industries as examples where small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can cause significant damage. It emphasizes the necessity of a 'life cycle' approach to value chains, particularly for fossil fuels (addressing Scope 3 emissions and methane leakage) and plastics (addressing pellet pollution). Finally, it calls for mandatory, detailed public reporting to ensure corporate accountability, using the automotive sector's emissions and battery supply chains as a case for transparency.

The text highlights the human costs of plastic pollution, noting that production and incineration facilities are often sited in marginalized communities without adequate consultation. It links plastic production to respiratory and immune system health issues and climate change, while calling for extended producer responsibility and federal legislation to protect vulnerable populations.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and other organizations urge the passage of Bill C-28 with specific amendments to better protect human health and the environment. Key recommendations include establishing a non-qualified right to a healthy environment, prioritizing the prohibition of carcinogenic and mutagenic substances, and requiring assessments of aggregate and cumulative exposures. The authors also call for legally binding air quality standards, GMO food labelling, and alignment with the Basel Convention on plastic waste.

The report finds that the fashion industry is heavily reliant on synthetic fibres, which account for 69% of all textile materials and are projected to reach nearly 75% by 2030. Analysis of 46 brands reveals a significant lack of transparency and widespread greenwashing, with many companies using recycled PET bottles as a 'false solution' rather than pursuing true fibre-to-fibre circularity. A study of 4,028 products from 12 major retailers showed that 67% contained synthetic fibres, and 59% of products with eco-claims violated UK Competition Markets Authority guidelines. The report argues that voluntary commitments are insufficient and calls for EU legislation on extended producer responsibility and mandatory rules against misleading environmental claims.