Search Climate Insights Directory

The document describes a case study focused on the environmental challenges facing the pulp and paper industry during the 1990s, specifically the production of toxic dioxin during chlorine bleaching. It highlights the tension between environmental groups demanding the total elimination of chlorine and companies that viewed scientific evidence as inconclusive and were reluctant to invest billions in new equipment. The text introduces the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 'cluster rule' as a regulatory attempt to base decisions on better science and proposes a stakeholder dialogue to find sustainable solutions for the industry.

The document analyzes the environmental trade-offs between disposable and reusable diapers, noting that disposables use more raw materials while reusables require more water and nonrenewable energy. It highlights how regional priorities—such as solid waste management in New York versus water scarcity in California—determine which product is environmentally superior. Additionally, it discusses the role of labor costs in the economic assessment of reusable diapers and details Procter & Gamble's corporate efforts to mitigate negative publicity through research funds, recycling projects in Seattle, and lobbying campaigns using the Arthur D. Little study.

The document details a legal conflict between Mobil Chemical Company and several US state attorneys general over the claim that Hefty garbage bags were 'degradable'. While the bags were photodegradable, they did not break down in landfills, leading to charges of consumer fraud. The case is situated within a wider 1980s-1990s context of 'greenwashing', where vague environmental terms were used to meet consumer demand despite a lack of scientific substantiation or infrastructure for degradation.

The Green Offices Toolkit offers a comprehensive framework for Canadian health care providers to implement sustainable office practices. It outlines a phased approach to 'greening' a clinic, starting with the establishment of a 'Green Team' and the definition of a vision and mission. The document provides specific technical advice on reducing energy and water consumption, managing toxic substances like mercury and pharmaceuticals, and minimizing waste through recycling and composting. It also emphasizes the role of physicians as community leaders who can influence patient health and environmental behavior through education and by modeling sustainable lifestyles.

The guide establishes a four-stage methodology (planning, design, field, and analysis) for municipalities to collect reliable data on waste generation, density, and composition. It categorizes municipalities by population size and distinguishes between household and non-household generators. The framework was piloted in Cayambe and Puerto López, providing data on per capita generation and organic content to inform national sustainable waste management policies.

The document examines the application of environmental taxes, fees, and charges across different sectors in the U.S., including water, air, solid waste, and hazardous waste management. It distinguishes between revenue-raising taxes and cost-offsetting fees, noting that while many instruments are designed to recover administrative costs, some—such as the federal tax on ozone-depleting chemicals and certain state-level hazardous waste taxes—have demonstrated significant incentive effects in reducing pollution. The report also details specific state-level experiments with variable-rate waste collection and wetland compensation fees.

The report finds that German supermarkets could reduce material use across their product ranges by approximately 20% by switching to more efficient products and innovative business models. Despite their market power, no major German supermarket currently has a policy to reduce the material resource use embedded in the products they sell. The document argues that an economy-wide 20% increase in resource efficiency would create nearly 700,000 jobs and lower gross output prices by 4.3% by 2030. It recommends that supermarkets stop selling inefficient products, demand resource data from suppliers, and that the German government implement binding absolute resource efficiency targets.

The document identifies over 59 hazardous substances in carpets sold in the EU, including carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, which pose risks to consumers, workers, and the environment. It highlights a regulatory gap where many of these substances are not restricted and notes that recycled materials often face lower health standards than new materials. The briefing argues that these toxics hinder the circular economy by contaminating recycled products and complicating mechanical recycling. It recommends that the European Commission implement a product-specific carpet directive, establish Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, and introduce a comprehensive EU ecolabel to phase out hazardous chemicals and promote non-toxic, recyclable design.

The briefing identifies over 59 hazardous substances in EU carpets, including carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, which pose risks to consumers, vulnerable populations, and workers. It highlights that these toxics hinder circularity by contaminating recycled materials and creating technical recycling challenges. The document calls for a 'health-first approach' to the circular economy, recommending the introduction of a Carpet Product Directive, an EU-wide Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme, and the banning of identified hazardous chemicals and PVC to ensure safe and recyclable products.

The report identifies that carpets sold in the EU can contain 59 harmful substances, including carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, which pose risks to human health and the environment. These chemicals hinder recycling efforts and contaminate water and air during production and disposal. The document advocates for stricter EU regulations, the implementation of extended producer responsibility (EPR), and the adoption of ecodesign standards to eliminate hazardous substances and promote a circular economy in the carpet industry.

The report examines the carpet industry in Europe, finding that despite sustainability claims, the vast majority of carpets end up in landfills or incinerators. It highlights a significant gap between the environmental commitments of leading manufacturers like Interface and Desso and their actual recycling rates, which are estimated at 1.5% and 3% respectively. The document identifies specific systemic failures in France's events sector and Germany's waste management infrastructure, and calls for immediate regulatory action, including the inclusion of carpets in the Eco-design Directive.

The document asserts that plastics are fundamentally incompatible with a true circular economy because they rely on non-renewable fossil feedstocks and leach toxic chemicals. It warns that the term 'circular economy' is often used as greenwashing by the plastics industry to relabel waste management and burning as circular. The author recommends capping plastics manufacture and use by 2025, eliminating toxic chemicals in a new global plastics agreement, and prioritizing reuse and refill over waste management.

The report argues that while scientists identified ocean plastic pollution in the 1950s, the petrochemical and petroleum industries were aware of the issue by the 1970s. It details how industry actors participated in early workshops on marine pollutants and packaging waste, often framing the non-biodegradable nature of plastic as a benefit for landfills while privately acknowledging disposal problems. The document further asserts that the industry has historically shifted responsibility to consumers and fought regulations on single-use plastics, such as bag bans in California and Seattle, despite knowing the environmental impact of their products.

The document assesses plastic pollution in China, highlighting significant production and leakage into oceans, and contrasts this with the EU's comprehensive regulatory framework. It details EU strategies such as the Waste Framework Directive, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and the 'Plastics 2030' strategy, which aims for 100% reusable or recyclable plastic packaging by 2030. The report suggests China adopt similar integrated land-sea management, eco-design standards, and international cooperation to combat plastic waste.

The document assesses the challenges of the EU's proposed CBAM based on incurred emissions, noting that it fails to fully address carbon leakage for exports and value chains. It proposes an alternative 'climate contribution' based on standardised carbon intensity factors, which would act as an excise charge that can be passed along the supply chain and waived for exports. This model, combined with Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfDs) funded by CBAM revenues, is presented as a way to create immediate investment incentives for climate-neutral production of materials like steel, cement, and aluminium.

The report critiques CBAM designs based on incurred emissions due to legal, administrative, and economic risks, such as resource shuffling and export leakage. It proposes a three-pillar alternative: a 'climate contribution' charge on basic materials, dynamic free EU ETS allowance allocation conditional on transition plans, and Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfDs) to fund the incremental costs of clean production. This framework aims to provide effective carbon price signals across the value chain and support an inclusive transition across all EU industrial regions.

The document argues that current plastic production and consumption are unsustainable and that solutions must be applied based on specific product applications to avoid trade-offs between durability, biodegradability, and recyclability. It highlights the risks of chemical additives and the inefficiency of waste management systems, particularly the export of plastic waste from Europe to Asia. The authors propose a comprehensive definition of sustainable plastics based on environmental, economic, and social criteria to guide the UNEP's international policy instrument.

The document counters seven industry claims regarding coal ash, asserting that the material is hazardous, contaminates groundwater at both old and new sites, and is often recycled unsafely. It argues that federal regulation would encourage genuine innovation in recycling and that compliance costs would be negligible for the electric power industry.

The document outlines the status of coal ash ponds and landfills in Massachusetts, noting that between 300,000 and 600,000 tons of ash are generated annually. It highlights several EPA-identified damage cases where unlined landfills and ponds contaminated groundwater and air with metals such as arsenic and chromium. The text argues that the Massachusetts Solid Waste Act contains deficiencies by exempting coal ash from key solid waste regulations and local health board approvals.

This fact sheet by Earthjustice opposes Senate Bill S.1751, claiming it undermines federal oversight of coal ash disposal and poses significant risks to public health. The document argues that the bill is weaker than existing RCRA subtitle D regulations for household waste, fails to prevent catastrophic dam failures, and discourages the recycling of coal ash by allowing the indefinite operation of 676 ash ponds. It highlights the toxicity of coal ash—noting cancer risks 2,000 times the EPA's regulatory goal in some areas—and cites a Tufts University study suggesting a stronger EPA rule could have generated 28,000 jobs.