Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the increasing use of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) in consumer and industrial products creates significant risks in the waste stream due to unknown toxicity and difficulties in characterization. It demands that governments and companies implement extended producer responsibility, restrict the transboundary movement of MNM waste, and establish public registries of nano-products, particularly within the European Union, to ensure safe recycling and disposal.

The document argues that manufactured nanomaterials (NM) in waste streams pose risks to health and the environment due to incomplete toxicity understanding. It demands the implementation of extended producer responsibility, restrictions on transboundary movements of NM waste, and the creation of a public registry of nano-products in the EU to ensure transparent quantification of waste flows. Additionally, it advocates for public funding of research into waste prevention and the development of safe recycling and disposal technologies that prevent cross-contamination of secondary materials.

The report details how the hazardous materials in e-waste—including lead, mercury, and cadmium—violate fundamental human rights such as the right to life, health, and food. It highlights the severe health consequences for workers and children in informal recycling sectors, particularly in China, India, Ghana, and the Philippines, where archaic recovery methods lead to systemic toxic exposure.

The report evaluates the EU's Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, emphasizing the need to translate high-level promises into binding legislation. It details specific technical goals—such as the 'generic approach to risk management' and the restriction of PFAS—while arguing that the EU must align its international trade and diplomatic positions with its internal environmental ambitions to avoid 'double standards' in chemical exports.

The document argues that the increasing use of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) in consumer, industrial, and medical products is leading to their proliferation in waste streams, posing risks to human health and the environment that are not yet fully understood. Signatories demand that governments and companies implement extended producer responsibility, restrict the transboundary movement of MNM waste, and establish a public registry of nano-products in Europe to ensure transparency. The statement also advocates for the development of safe recycling technologies and the integration of waste prevention into publicly funded nanotechnology research to support a safe circular economy.

The Declaration on Waste Containing Nanomaterials argues that the increasing presence of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) in waste streams poses risks to human health and the environment due to uncertainties regarding their toxicity. The signatories call for the implementation of full producer responsibility, the restriction of transboundary waste movements, and the creation of an EU-wide public nano-product registry to ensure transparent quantification of waste flows. They further advocate for innovation in waste prevention, the development of safe recycling and disposal technologies, and the establishment of verifiable end-of-waste criteria to support a circular economy without introducing new environmental risks.

The document argues that the increasing use of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) in consumer and industrial products creates risks for human health and the environment as these materials enter waste streams. It advocates for a precautionary regulatory approach, including extended producer responsibility, restrictions on transboundary movement of nano-waste, and the development of safe recycling and disposal technologies to support a circular economy.

The document describes the global plastic pollution crisis as a systemic failure driven by increasing production and inadequate waste management. It highlights the environmental and health impacts across land and sea, specifically noting that plastics are projected to account for nearly 20% of total oil consumption and over 10% of the global 1.5°C carbon budget by 2050. The author advocates for a legally binding international framework focusing on reducing production and consumption, eliminating toxic additives, rejecting 'false solutions' like waste-to-energy incineration, and investing in zero waste city models.

The document analyzes the UNEP Options for Elements paper, identifying strengths such as the inclusion of chemicals and trade restrictions, while recommending improvements in upstream interventions, health integration, and the removal of voluntary language. It provides a detailed companion table mapping Member State submissions across twelve categories of core obligations and control measures, including primary polymer reduction, problematic product bans, microplastics, waste management, circular design, and just transition mechanisms.

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 outlines the systemic health risks associated with the full life cycle of plastics, from fossil fuel extraction to waste management. It highlights that 99% of plastics originate from fossil fuels and that exposure to associated toxic chemicals occurs via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact. The report emphasizes that current fragmented research is insufficient and calls for a precautionary approach, increased transparency regarding chemical additives, and a global reduction in plastic production to mitigate risks such as cancer, endocrine disruption, and neurotoxicity.

The report details how plastic exposure occurs at every stage of its life cycle—from extraction and refining to consumer use and waste management—releasing toxic chemicals and microplastics that cause severe health issues including cancer and endocrine disruption. It calls for a shift from fragmented assessments to a comprehensive life-cycle approach, increased transparency regarding chemical additives, and a global reduction in plastic production.

The document outlines the health risks associated with every stage of the plastic life cycle, from extraction to waste management. It highlights that 99% of plastic is derived from fossil fuels and that the process releases numerous toxins, including carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. The report emphasizes that microplastics and chemical additives enter the human body through inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact, leading to severe health issues such as cancer, diabetes, and neurological disorders. It concludes that current narrow approaches to plastic pollution are inadequate and calls for a precautionary approach focused on reducing overall plastic production and increasing transparency regarding chemical compositions.

The document outlines the systemic health risks posed by plastics across their entire life cycle, from fossil fuel extraction to waste management. It highlights how exposure to microplastics and toxic additives occurs through inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact, leading to severe conditions such as cancer and endocrine disruption. The author argues that current fragmented approaches are insufficient and calls for a preventive strategy based on transparency, legal frameworks for information access, and a general reduction in plastic manufacturing.

The document provides a practical framework for issuing green bonds, emphasizing that the 'green' status depends on the underlying assets rather than the issuer. It details a five-step workflow: identifying eligible green projects, obtaining independent verification, establishing tracking and reporting systems, executing the bond issuance, and providing annual reports on the use of proceeds. The guide also categorizes different types of green bonds—such as project-based, asset-backed securitisation, and general-purpose green bonds—and lists eligible sectors including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable water management.

The Climate Bonds Standard and Certification Scheme provides a globally recognised framework for labelling debt instruments, assets, and entities aligned with a 1.5°C pathway. Since 2012, it has certified over USD350bn of Use of Proceeds Green Bonds as of 30 September 2025. The scheme utilizes a network of Approved Verifiers to ensure climate integrity across various certification types, including Use of Proceeds, Asset, Entity, and Sustainability-linked debt. A 2025 update expanded the standard to include a Resilience Taxonomy for projects strengthening resilience to physical climate risks. Eligible sectors span energy, industry, transport, agrifood, and infrastructure.

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 argues that the lack of chemicals traceability in industry creates significant legal, financial, and environmental risks, hindering the EU's Green Deal and circular economy goals. It advocates for a horizontal traceability strategy combining strong regulatory incentives via the ESPR and capacity building for industry to ensure companies know the chemical composition of their products.

The paper examines the history and current state of EU environmental governance, detailing the roles of the Commission, Parliament, Council, and Court of Justice. It highlights a systemic failure in the enforcement of environmental law by Member States and the Commission, noting that economic interests frequently override environmental concerns. The author argues that the EU's 'good governance' principles of openness and participation are poorly implemented, leaving environmental NGOs with limited influence and citizens with minimal access to justice. While the EU has a comprehensive body of legislation, the author concludes that the lack of political will makes much of it a 'paper tiger'.

Peru's emissions are projected to triple by 2050, driven by economic growth and energy demand. While the country has established mitigation plans and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), implementation is hindered by financial, regulatory, and knowledge barriers. Significant potential exists in renewable energy, forestry, and waste management, though the energy sector is currently dominated by natural gas. The report suggests that SECO can support Peru through capacity building for market mechanisms, financing marginal abatement cost studies, and promoting specific technologies like solar water heaters and energy-efficient industrial equipment.