The Inflation Reduction Act: A pivotal opportunity to push back against false solutions

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) channels $270 billion in tax credits for climate investments but raises concerns about incineration—a false solution to waste disposal that could generate 637.7 million tonnes of CO2e emissions over two decades, further harming the environment and disadvantaged communities.

By: Marcel Howard (Zero Waste Program Manager, US/Canada) and Jessica Roff (Plastics & Petrochemicals Program Manager, US/Canada)

Key Highlights

  • The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is primarily a tax bill. Of the promised $369 billion in climate investments, $270 billion will come in the form of tax credits1
  • Incineration is one of the most polluting and expensive waste disposal systems. Industry2 often greenwashes incineration as  “waste-to-energy”3 despite producing minimal amounts of usable energy and massive energy input
  • By measuring the lifecycle climate impacts of incineration accurately, the Department of the Treasury can deny polluting facilities billions in tax credits intended for actual sustainable energy solutions and ultimately delay or block their construction or expansion
  • If industry succeeds in propping up incinerators for 20 years, they will produce 637.7 million tonnes of climate-change-inducing CO2e emissions and further exacerbate toxic pollution and environmental racism4
  • Pairing new subsidies for incinerators with incentives for EVs is perverse
  • Turning waste, including fossil fuel-derived plastics, into jet fuel is dangerous and does not decarbonize air travel 
  • Two-thirds of US incinerators are located in states that include incineration in their renewable energy portfolio
  • The IRA allocated billions of dollars in lending subsidies specifically meant to drive reinvestment in low-wealth and environmental justice communities. Environmental justice, frontline, and fenceline groups should consider applying for these IRA lending programs

Background

The United States (US) has a waste problem compounded by a plastic problem. For decades, we have been handling our waste in ways that harm communities, our climate, and the natural world. Federal, state, and municipal governments continue to site waste incinerators of all forms in Black, brown, indigenous, and lower-wealth communities — plaguing them with decades of harmful air emissions, high levels of greenhouse gasses, toxic waste, accidents, and other health and safety-related concerns. From fossil fuel extraction to final waste product disposal, the entire production process damages these communities and numerous others. Across the board, incineration is one of the most polluting and expensive waste disposal systems.

Industry often greenwashes incineration as  “waste-to-energy” despite producing minimal amounts of usable energy and leverages this greenwashing to access billions of dollars in federal, state, and local green, renewable, and sustainable energy subsidies and tax breaks. Against this backdrop, the Biden Administration signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law on August 16, 2022. Many agencies are already approving and funding false solutions under the IRA. The Department of Energy (DOE) is funding new carbon capture programs at nearly $3.5 billion and allocating $1.2 billion of Justice40 money to develop direct air capture facilities. We are in a pivotal moment where the US must decide if it will take critical steps to lower greenhouse gas and toxic emissions and move toward a truly sustainable future or will continue to subsidize the dirtiest industries to annually emit millions of tonnes of new CO2 and other dangerous air pollutants.

IRA Overview

The Biden Administration claims its 755-page IRA is the most comprehensive climate bill in US history that is supposed to “make a historic commitment to build a new clean energy economy.” Its provisions on climate change mitigation, clean energy, and energy innovation dominate headlines, as it raises nearly $800 billion from multiple sources. President Biden said, “With this law, the American people won and the special interests lost.” To ensure this is true and stop the incinerator lobby and other special interests from cashing in on a new pool of taxpayer money, the federal government must implement critical changes to its business-as-usual model.

The IRA is primarily a tax bill. Of the promised $369 billion in climate investments, $270 billion will come in the form of tax credits. Before the IRA, Congress awarded tax credits to specific technologies (including incinerators) regardless of greenhouse gas emissions or community harm. Beginning in 2025, however, their eligibility will depend entirely on the Department of Treasury (Treasury) determining that they are zero-emission technologies. By measuring the lifecycle climate impacts of incineration accurately, Treasury can deny polluting facilities billions in tax credits intended for actual sustainable energy solutions and ultimately delay or block their construction or expansion.

Threats & False Solutions

Lifelines to Old, Failing Incinerators

Corporate polluters are corrupting the IRA, lobbying to weaken its rules and definitions to qualify for billions in new subsidies to expand and retrofit existing incinerators, most of which have been operating for an average of 32 years. It is nearly impossible to construct new conventional incinerators due to cost and community opposition, so industry is focused on expansion and modification. If industry succeeds in propping up incinerators for 20 years, they will produce 637.7 million tonnes of climate-change-inducing CO2e emissions and further exacerbate toxic pollution and environmental racism. 

Codifying False and Greenwashed Definitions

The incinerator lobby’s goal is to maximize subsidies, profits, and expansion and to use the IRA and other climate bills as a subsidized path to an undeserved sustainable image upgrade. In the context of the IRA, federal agencies such as the Treasury, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can either categorize incineration as the dirty, expensive, polluting process it is or bolster industry’s claims that incineration produces sustainable energy. If the federal government supports industry’s definitions in the earliest stages of IRA implementation, they will frame agency action and provide billions in tax credits, likely being codified for many climate laws, including the IRA.

IRA Breakdown & Opportunities for the Incinerator Lobby 

The incinerator lobby is working to undermine all aspects of the IRA, specifically focusing on (1) the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), (2) Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), and (3) IRA lending programs. 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)

In consultation with the Department of Agriculture and DOE, EPA implements the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The RFS program is a “national policy that requires a certain volume of renewable fuel to replace or reduce the quantity of petroleum-based transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel.” The four renewable fuel categories under the RFS are biomass-based diesel, cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. Although long limited to liquid fuels like ethanol, Biden’s EPA is in the process of allowing electricity from certain types of bioenergy to generate eligible credits. Under the current proposal, electric vehicle manufacturers would contract with power producers to generate highly profitable RFS credits.

Pairing new subsidies for incinerators with incentives for EVs is perverse. While support for electric vehicles is vital, it must not be fueled by dirty energy nor sacrifice frontline and fenceline communities. Incinerator interests recently launched a lobbying campaign to secure these incentives. Fortunately, EPA is not required to allow incinerator electricity into the program and has recently tabled an industry-backed eligibility proposal. But, only public pressure on Biden’s EPA and key Administration climate deciders will ensure they don’t approve such proposals.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) 

As one of the most generous IRA incentives, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Tax Credit (SAF) poses an urgent environmental justice concern. The credit increases in value for lower lifecycle emissions fuels. Treasury’s implementation will determine if this approach succeeds or fails. Industry interests are pushing to make the credit friendlier– and more lucrative–to a new generation of incinerators masquerading behind greenwashing like “pyrolysis,”  “chemical or advanced recycling,” and “plastic-to-fuel.” Turning waste, including fossil fuel-derived plastics, into jet fuel is dangerous and does not decarbonize air travel. 

Although the new aviation production tax credit theoretically excludes petroleum-based feedstocks like plastic, industry is pressuring the Administration to interpret the law to maximize benefits for incineration-based aviation fuels. President Biden and Treasury must decisively determine that plastic-derived fuel — including that derived from pyrolysis oil or any other product of chemical recycling/pyrolysis/gasification — is ineligible for these tax credits.

Lending Programs

The IRA allocated billions of new dollars to EPA and DOE, in particular, to expand existing lending programs and launch entirely new ones. Like the rest of the IRA, these programs’ climate and justice benefits depend on implementation. EPA is in charge of the new Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), arguably the most important non-tax provision of the IRA. Worth $37 billion, it will be divided into three separate programs. EPA released broad, unenforceable guidelines in April 2023, suggesting they will focus lending on distributed generation, building decarbonization, and transport. These guidelines will not ensure the money is appropriately allocated, so EPA must prioritize applicants working on proven zero waste approaches. 

DOE is in charge of The Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment (EIR) Program, a new loan guarantee program with $250 billion that must be spent before 2026. It can fund energy infrastructure upgrades and the reopening of defunct energy infrastructure, both of which industry could coopt to support their ongoing incineration and chemical recycling plans. DOE must refuse to consider any incinerator applications to guarantee industry does not use loopholes to access clean energy tax credits. 

In July, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee passed the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies budget for Fiscal Year 2024. Their budget supports chemical recycling while cutting massive amounts from EPA’s budget and the IRA’s environmental justice efforts, including a nearly $4 billion EPA budget cut (a 39% reduction over 2023), reneging on the IRA’s $1.35 billion promised in environmental and climate justice grants.

Call to Action 

The incinerator lobby is so desperate for money and a government-greenwashed reputation that they launched a new, big-money–astroturf5 network, including DC power brokers and local government enablers. The combined movements6 for climate justice don’t have industry money, but we have people power, the truth, and a prime opportunity to fight against this industry push. There are three key areas in which to counter industry’s agenda: (1) Treasury engagement, (2) state-level renewable portfolio standards, and (3)  IRA lending subsidies. 

Treasury Engagement

As the Washington Post exposed in May 2023, the incinerator industry is among polluting industries racing to position themselves as green to access billions in subsidies and tax credits. In the last year alone, industry launched two trade groups to push their message: the Waste-to-Energy Association and the Circular Economy Coalition. Both have made comments to access benefits for incinerators under the Inflation Reduction Act, or considered prioritizing it. Industry is dedicated to getting Treasury to qualify incinerators as renewable, despite overwhelming evidence that incinerators are extremely polluting. 

It is critical to engage with Treasury as it develops policies, rules, regulations, and procedures to implement the IRA. If Treasury determines this most costly and polluting form of energy is zero emission, it will set an appallingly low bar within the IRA that will exacerbate rather than address the climate crisis, perpetuating and compounding the issues we currently face, and permanently scarring the Biden Administration legacy.

State-level Renewable Portfolio Standards 

The IRA has broad implications, reaching far beyond the federal level of government. Defeating federal government incinerator giveaways in the IRA and other federal climate initiatives will strengthen communities fighting state and local government incinerator giveaways. Currently, different states provide a patchwork of policies and incentives related to incineration. Perhaps most notable are state Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). Twenty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and four US territories have an RPS. Each RPS has its own renewable electricity targets, defines what technologies qualify as renewable, designates particular technologies as higher or lower tier within the mix, and enables the trading or sale of renewable energy credits. Two-thirds of US incinerators are located in the 26 US states and territories that include incineration in their renewable energy portfolio. Showing industry’s power, scope, and connections at both the federal and state levels of government. It also shows an entrenched mentality that incineration is a clean energy solution. It is imperative that the IRA does not follow suit.

IRA Lending Subsidies

Along with Treasury engagement, environmental justice, frontline, and fenceline groups should consider applying to IRA lending programs. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and DOE’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment (EIR) Program offers billions of dollars for projects specifically meant to drive reinvestment in low-wealth and environmental justice communities. Both programs provide an opportunity to fund proven zero waste solutions that push back against false solutions, like incineration. 

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF): The GGRFis a $27 billion investment program designed to achieve the following: “ (1) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants;  (2) deliver benefits of greenhouse gas, and air pollution-reducing projects specifically to low-wealth and disadvantaged communities; and (3)  mobilize financing and private capital to stimulate additional deployment of greenhouse gas and air pollution reducing projects.” The GGRF is being implemented via three grant competitions, which include: (1) the National Clean Investment Fund, (2) the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator, and (3) the Solar for All Fund.”7 

The National Clean Investment Fund: “The National Clean Investment Fund competition will provide grants to 2-3 national nonprofit clean financing institutions7 capable of partnering with the private sector to provide accessible, affordable financing for tens of thousands of clean technology projects across the country.” To learn more about the program and how to apply, visit Grants.gov. Application packages must be submitted on or before October 12, 2023, at 11:59 PM (Eastern Time) through Grants.gov.

The Clean Communities Investment Accelerator: “The Clean Communities Investment Accelerator competition will provide grants to 2-7 hub nonprofits that will, in turn, deliver funding and technical assistance to build the clean financing capacity of local community lenders working in low-wealth and disadvantaged communities so that underinvested communities have the capital they need to deploy clean technology projects.” To learn more about the program and how to apply, visit Grants.gov. Application packages must be submitted on or before October 12, 2023, at 11:59 PM (Eastern Time) through Grants.gov. 

DOE Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment (EIR) Program: “The EIR Program provides $250 billion for projects that retool, repower, repurpose, or replace energy infrastructure that has ceased operations or enable operating energy infrastructure to avoid, reduce, utilize, or sequester air pollutants or greenhouse gas emissions.” To learn more about the program and how to apply, visit Energy.gov. Individuals interested in applying should request a no-cost pre-application consultation with a member from DOE’s Loan Programs Office. 

USDA Empowering Rural America (New ERA) Program: “The ERA program provides $9.7 billion for projects that help rural Americans transition to clean, affordable, and reliable energy intending to improve health outcomes and lower energy costs for people in rural communities.” To learn more about the program and how to apply, visit USDA.gov. Individuals interested in applying should submit a Letter of Interest (LOI) by September 15, 2023.  

Conclusion 

On paper, the Biden Administration’s IRA may be the most comprehensive climate legislation in history, but it also has the immense potential to be a climate destroyer. We are at a crossroads where the Administration and all other levels of government have the power to use the IRA for its stated purpose to “confront the existential threat of the climate crisis and set forth a new era of American innovation and ingenuity to lower consumer costs and drive the global clean energy economy forward.” To make the promise a reality, the Administration — including all the executive agencies, particularly Treasury, Energy, and EPA — cannot succumb to industry greenwashing lobbying.

The Biden Administration must accurately measure the lifecycle climate and health impacts of all forms of incineration and its products (including pyrolysis and gasification) and unequivocally determine that it is not a source of clean energy or a safe way to make jet fuel. It will be up to our ever-expanding movement to hold the Administration accountable to the ideal of the IRA and ensure it is not another greenwashed handout to industry — and that its tax credits and funding go to sustainable solutions that benefit the Black, brown, indigenous, and low wealth communities as it initially intended. 

For more information on the Inflation Reduction Act and its lending programs, visit our fact sheet here.

Resources 
  1. As a tax bill, the categories and definitions of processes are critical because they will determine if a process is covered under it. Historically, there have been some good and some bad determinative definitions (including currently for chemical recycling). ↩︎
  2.  Industry refers to the plastics, incinerator, fossil fuel, and chemical industries who are all perpetuating the plastic waste problem ↩︎
  3.  Industry labels waste-to-energy (WTE) a number of different ways including: plastic-to-fuel (PTF), plastic-to-energy (PTE), refuse-derived-fuel, etc. ↩︎
  4.  This is entirely dependent on if the federal government places incinerators into favorable categories for purposes of massive amounts of tax credits and de facto subsidies. ↩︎
  5.  Astroturfing is the practice of hiding the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious, or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from, and is supported by, grassroots participants. ↩︎
  6.  The movement includes, but is not limited to – and is always open to expand – the environmental justice movement, climate movement, conservation movement, public health movement, plastics movement, etc. ↩︎
  7. The deadline for the Solar for All Competition has recently been extended to October 12, 2023. Please review this link for additional information: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-launches-7-billion-solar-all-grant-competition-fund#:~:text=The%20Solar%20for%20All%20competition,%2C%20Tribal%20governments%2C%20municipalities%2C%20and ↩︎
© Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka.
  • Los derrames a gran escala de pellets de plástico tóxico en el mar van en aumento. En mayo de 2021, 1.680 toneladas de pellets y 9.700 toneladas de otros plásticos se precipitaron a las aguas de Sri Lanka como consecuencia del hundimiento del carguero X-Press Pearl.
  • La limpieza está recién empezando. Se trata de una de las peores catástrofes medioambientales de la historia de Sri Lanka, dejando un profundo legado de contaminación tóxica que afectará al país durante décadas.

En mayo de este año, el barco de carga X-Press Pearl derramó 1.680 toneladas de pellets plásticos y 9.700 toneladas de otros plásticos a 9 millas de la costa de Sri Lanka. El plástico se acumuló en las playas hasta llegar a los 2 metros de altura, convirtiéndose en el desastre ambiental más grande de la historia del país, y el   mayor evento de contaminación por pellets de plástico que se haya visto en el mundo.

© Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka.

A pesar de esto, el hecho de que los pellets se encuentren en todas las costas investigadas, y con cada vez más evidencia de que los pellets actúan como esponjas tóxicas y que una gran cantidad de especies marinas se alimentan de ellos, actualmente no son considerados como contaminantes persistentes y peligrosos. Una clasificación más estricta por parte de la Organización Marítima Internacional (OMI) haría que los pellets se manejen en el mar como otras mercancías peligrosas. Esta clasificación supondría la aplicación de instrucciones de manipulación y etiquetado mucho más estrictas, la estiba bajo cubierta y protocolos adecuados de respuesta ante catástrofes que limitarían las consecuencias que se produjeron en Sri Lanka en posibles catástrofes marítimas a futuro. 

Urgencia de contar con regulaciones internacionales

© Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka.

La contaminación por plásticos de origen marino está contemplada en la política internacional de la OMI, concretamente en el Anexo V de MARPOL. La OMI cuenta con un Plan de acción relacionado con los desechos plásticos marinos procedentes de los buques, pero su avance ha sido lamentablemente lento y se ha visto obstaculizado por los problemas causados por la pandemia del Covid-19. 

En el Comité de Protección del Medio Marino (MEPC-77) que se desarrolló en noviembre,  los plásticos volvieron a estar en agenda después de casi dos años y de que varias ONG han trabajado para amplificar la importancia de este tema y destacar ejemplos concretos en los que la falta de supervisión y normativa internacional está teniendo un impacto en el medio ambiente, en medios de subsistencia y en las comunidades.

Hubo varias propuestas sobre la mesa, entre ellas una del gobierno de Sri Lanka y otra de ONG relacionada a los plásticos. Las iniciativas recibieron gran apoyo con más de 50.000 firmas en la declaración que exige el establecimiento de lineamientos internacionales y obligaciones para el transporte de pellets de plástico.

También te podría interesar

Mingas por el mar, Ecuador: La polución marina por nurdles es un problema global para el cual se necesita acción urgente

Otros países que también han sido afectados por contaminación de pellets:
  • Hong Kong (2012)
  • Sudáfrica 2017 y 2020
  • Dinamarca, Suecia, Noruega – 2020
  • Países Bajos y Bélica – 2019

Los líderes mundiales se reunirán este mes para negociar recortes en la producción de plásticos en el marco del Tratado de plásticos

PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA: 18 de abril, 2024 | 9:30 am EST

Berkeley, California, Estados Unidos– Antes de la cuarta ronda de negociaciones de las Naciones Unidas para un tratado global sobre plásticos que se llevará a cabo del 23 al 29 de abril en Ottawa, el Laboratorio Nacional Lawrence Berkeley (LBNL) publicó un estudio pionero que revela el enorme impacto climático de la producción de plástico. Según el análisis de LBNL, el 75% de todas las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero procedentes de la producción de plásticos primarios se producen antes de la etapa de polimerización. Este informe refuerzan la importancia de que el tratado de plásticos cubra todo el ciclo de vida del plástico, desde la extracción hasta la eliminación, tal como se consagra en el acuerdo entre 175 países -la Resolución 5/14 de la UNEA-, que constituye la base de las conversaciones en relación con el tratado. 

En respuesta al informe, el Dr. Neil Tangri, Director de Ciencia y Política de la Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración (GAIA), el Dr. Jorge Emmanuel de la Universidad de Siliman, Filipinas, y el Dr. Sam Adu-Kumi, ex Director del Centro de Control y Gestión de Productos Químicos de la Agencia de Protección Medioambiental (EPA), Ghana, han contextualizado las conclusiones del LBNL dentro del Acuerdo Climático de París y el presupuesto global de carbono. Cálculos de GAIA (incorporando los datos del informe del LBNL):

  • El impacto de los plásticos en el clima comienza con la fase de extracción. Con vistas a comprender, medir, evaluar y abordar en forma cabal el impacto de la contaminación por plásticos, la evaluación y los controles regulatorios deben considerar el ciclo de vida completo, que comienza con la extracción. 
  • El incremento en la producción de plástico por sí solo arruinará los objetivos climáticos internacionales. Incluso si todas las demás fuentes de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (transporte, electricidad, agricultura, industria pesada, etc.) se descarbonizaran milagrosa y completamente en 2024, con las tasas de crecimiento actuales, la producción de plásticos primarios por sí sola consumiría por completo el presupuesto mundial de carbono para el año 2060 y, a más tardar, para 2083. 
  • Se requieren recortes profundos y rápidos en la producción de plástico conforme lo establecido en el Acuerdo de París. Para evitar superar el límite de 1,5°C establecido en el Acuerdo de París, a partir de 2024, la producción de plásticos primarios debe disminuirse entre al menos 12% y 17% por año. 

Un punto clave de tensión en las negociaciones hasta el momento tiene que ver con la inclusión de recortes ambiciosos y vinculantes en la producción de plástico en la versión final del tratado. La gran mayoría de los países que participan en el proceso de negociación se han mantenido abiertos a incluir en el tratado objetivos de reducción de la producción. Sin embargo, una minoría reducida pero ruidosa, integrada principalmente por naciones productoras de combustibles fósiles, ha intentado sabotear las conversaciones mediante tácticas de obstrucción, y a través de argumentos que sostienen que la contaminación por plásticos comienza sólo en la etapa de eliminación. A la luz de los nuevos datos del LBNL, la obstrucción de este pequeño grupo pone en peligro la capacidad del mundo para descarbonizarse a tiempo y evitar así un desastre climático.  

La industria petroquímica en sí tiene una presencia significativa en las negociaciones ya que 143 lobistas de la industria  se inscribieron para asistir al INC-3, un grupo más grande que cualquier delegación nacional u organización de la sociedad civil, con lo que lograron amplio acceso a representantes gubernamentales de todo el mundo.   La sociedad civil pide que se los retire de futuras negociaciones a fin de evitar un conflicto de intereses. 

El Dr. Neil Tangri, Director de Ciencia y Políticas de GAIA y Senior Fellow de la Facultad de Políticas Públicas Goldman de la Universidad de California en Berkeley, afirmó lo siguiente: “Mientras los líderes mundiales intentan negociar una solución a la crisis del plástico, la industria petroquímica invierte miles de millones de dólares para empeorar rápidamente el problema. Necesitamos un acuerdo global para detener este crecimiento canceroso, reducir la producción de plástico y marcar el comienzo de un mundo con menos plástico y menos contaminación”. 

El Dr. Sam Adu-Kumi, ex Director del Centro de Gestión y Control de Sustancias Químicas de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA) de Ghana, sostuvo que “África ha sido una de las regiones más ambiciosas en las negociaciones del tratado de plásticos. Reconocemos el impacto de la contaminación por plásticos en la salud, el medio ambiente y los medios de vida de nuestra gente, y sabemos por experiencia que se necesitan medidas en las etapas iniciales y de producción para permitir el éxito en las fases posteriores respecto de la lucha contra la contaminación por plásticos”.

El Dr. Jorge Emmanuel, profesor adjunto y Research Faculty Fellow de la Universidad Siliman, en Dumaguete, Filipinas, afirmó que: “Filipinas está a la vanguardia tanto del cambio climático, como de la contaminación por plásticos. Las olas de calor, los fuertes tifones e inundaciones empeoran con el paso del tiempo, y la industria petroquímica ha desplazado nuestros sistemas tradicionales con montañas de plástico que envenenan a nuestras comunidades. Si el tratado incluye o no recortes en la producción de plástico no es sólo un debate político, es una cuestión de supervivencia”. 

Contactos de prensa:

Camila Aguilera, Comunicaciones GAIA América Latina 

camila@no-burn.org | +56 9 51111599

Claire Arkin, Comunicaciones Globales

claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869

Nota editorial: 

Dr. Neil Tangri fue el revisor experto del informe LBNL y las conclusiones del informe de políticas se basan en los datos de dicho reporte. El viernes 19 de abril de 2024, a las 12:00 de la mañana EST, estará disponible un informe político completo en el que se explicará cómo entender estos nuevos datos en el contexto de las negociaciones del tratado sobre los plásticos. Para recibir una copia embargada de este informe, póngase en contacto con claire@no-burn.org (EE.UU) o camila@no-burn.org (América Latina)

Para obtener más información sobre las próximas negociaciones del tratado sobre plásticos (INC-4), consulte nuestra carpeta de prensa. 

Global Leaders to Meet This Month to Negotiate Production Cuts in Plastics Treaty

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: APRIL 18, 2024

Berkeley, CA, USA– In advance of the fourth round of United Nations negotiations for an international plastics treaty in Ottawa April 23-29, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) has released a groundbreaking study revealing the enormous climate impact of plastic production. According to LBNL’s study, 75% of all greenhouse gas emissions from primary plastic production happen before the polymerization stage. This reinforces the importance of the treaty covering the entire life cycle of plastic, from extraction to disposal, as enshrined in the 175-country agreement Resolution 5/14, which forms the basis for the treaty talks. 

In response to the report, Dr. Neil Tangri, Science and Policy Director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Dr. Jorge Emmanuel of Siliman University, Philippines, and  Dr. Sam Adu-Kumi, former Director of the Chemicals Control and Management Centre of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ghana, have contextualized LBNL’s findings within the Paris Climate Agreement and global carbon budget. GAIA’s calculations (incorporating the data from the LBNL report):

  • Plastics’ impact on the climate starts with extraction. To fully capture, measure, evaluate and address the impacts of plastic pollution, assessment and regulatory controls must consider the complete lifecycle, beginning with extraction. 
  • Growth in plastic production alone will doom international climate goals. Even if every other source of greenhouse gas emissions – transportation, electricity, agriculture, heavy industry, etc. – were to miraculously and completely decarbonize in 2024, at current growth rates, primary plastic production alone would completely consume the global carbon budget as early as 2060 and no later than 2083. 
  • Deep, rapid cuts in plastic production are required by the Paris Agreement. To avoid breaching the 1.5°C limit set by the Paris Agreement, primary plastic production must decrease by at least 12% to 17% per year, starting in 2024. 

A key tension point in the negotiations thus far is over including ambitious and binding plastic production cuts in the final treaty. The vast majority of countries engaged in the negotiation process have remained open to including production reduction targets in the treaty. However a small but vocal minority, primarily made up of fossil fuel-producing nations, have sought to sabotage the talks through obstruction tactics and by arguing that plastic pollution starts only at the disposal stage. In light of the new data from LBNL, this small group’s obstruction imperils the world’s ability to decarbonize in time to avoid climate disaster.  

The petrochemical  industry itself has had a significant presence at the negotiations– 143 industry lobbyists registered to attend INC-3, a larger group than any national delegation or civil society organization, and has gained extensive access to government representatives from around the world. Civil society is calling for their removal from further negotiations to avoid conflict of interest. 

GAIA Science and Policy Director and Senior Fellow at UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy, Dr. Neil Tangri, states: “While global leaders are trying to negotiate a solution to the plastic crisis, the petrochemical industry is investing billions of dollars in making the problem rapidly worse. We need a global agreement to stop this cancerous growth, bring down plastic production, and usher in a world with less plastic and less pollution.” 

Dr. Sam Adu-Kumi, former Director of the Chemicals Control and Management Centre of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Ghana, says, “Africa has been one of the most ambitious regions in the plastics treaty negotiations. We recognize the impact of plastic pollution on our people’s health, environment and livelihoods and we know from experience that upstream measures are needed to enable downstream success in combating plastic pollution.”

Dr. Jorge Emmanuel, Adjunct Professor and Research Faculty Fellow, Siliman University, Dumaguete, Philippines, states, “The Philippines is on the frontlines of both climate change and plastic pollution. Heat waves, powerful typhoons and flooding are getting worse, and the petrochemical industry has displaced our traditional systems with mountains of plastic that poison our communities. Whether the treaty includes plastic production cuts is not just a policy debate. It’s a matter of survival.” 

Press contacts:

Claire Arkin, Global Communications Lead

claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869

Note to editor: 

Dr. Neil Tangri was an expert reviewer on the LBNL report, and the conclusions cited above are based on that report’s data. A full description of the methodology can be found here.  A full policy brief uncovering how this new data can be understood within the context of the plastics treaty negotiations will be available on Friday, April 19, 2024 at 12:00 am EST. To receive an embargoed copy of this report, please contact claire@no-burn.org. 

For more information about the upcoming plastics treaty negotiations (INC-4), please see our press kit. 

A Success Story from the Markets of Warwick

Written by Lily Nobel

Over the last 3 years, the Warwick zero waste composting project has taken food waste from the Early Morning Market (EMM) in the Markets of Warwick (a neighborhood in Durban, South Africa) and transformed it into nutrient-rich compost at the Durban Botanic Gardens. As landfills in South Africa are rapidly filling up, this project showcases the power of utilizing small spaces and limited resources to reduce methane emissions from the waste sector — a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide. According to the UNEP’s Global Methane Assessment, reducing methane is a crucial step to keep global warming under 1.5°C, the threshold established by the Paris Agreement.

Currently, this project is being upscaled across the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality and revolutionizing organic waste management in the area–unlocking resources through saving public funds and creating locally accessible jobs. Empowered by strong partnerships among local organizations, and fueled by effective data collection, this pilot successfully demonstrates the potential of decentralized, environmental justice-centered composting that not only brings climate benefits but also promotes social interests.

Team members from groundWork, the Durban University of Technology (DUT) Horticulture Department, the eThekwini Municipality Parks, Recreation and Culture Unit (PRC), the Cleansing and Solid Waste Unit (CSW), and the Business Support, Markets, Tourism and Agribusiness Unit (BSMTAU) pose together at the Durban Botanic Garden where the composting is done.
Collaboration at the Warwick Zero Waste Project. Photo credit: Lunga Benghu

Easily replicable decentralized composting model

In 2022, groundWork, the Durban University of Technology (DUT) Horticulture Department, the eThekwini Municipality Parks, Recreation and Culture Unit (PRC), the Cleansing and Solid Waste Unit (CSW), and the Business Support, Markets, Tourism and Agribusiness Unit (BSMTAU) partnered to launch a composting pilot project in the Durban Botanic Gardens’ permaculture site. It quickly evolved from composting a weekly 240 liter bin of food and vegetable waste to building 12 large compost windrows that are currently maintained to mature compost in a 3-month cycle.

Before zero waste: Organic waste from the EMM goes to the nearest landfills – Buffelsdraai and Illovu landfills – over 35 km away from the city. Photo credit: Lunga Benghu

As of March 2024, the pilot has diverted over 72 tonnes of organic waste from landfills by collecting approximately 1.5 tonnes of organic waste from the EMM weekly in two separate collection points and combining this with approximately 1 tonne of garden waste. Since July 2023, the project has supplied over 41 tonnes of compost to the city’s PRC Unit, free of charge, for use in parks and community gardens across the municipality. Samples of the compost undergo regular testing —such as full nutrient analysis, pot trails, and microbial analysis— to refine the ‘recipe’ and to ensure quality control. These tests demonstrate the high quality of the compost produced.

Cost-saving public funds for waste management

While many waste projects often seek investment from external actors, this project utilizes existing resources to unlock significant savings from public funds. By diverting organic waste from landfills, the city reduces the costs associated with landfilling and landfill airspace, which in Durban is estimated to be approximately R1,774 (93 USD) per tonne of waste. The Buffelsdraai and Illovu landfills, the only two operating landfills in Durban, are both located 35 kilometers or more from the city center, leading to high transportation costs. Findings from a cost-benefit analysis report on the project show how the various city departments have the potential to save money from reduced waste management costs and access to free compost. To date, the parks department alone has saved R23,600 (1,250 USD) from compost received through the project. As the project scales up, the savings can be used to sustainably cover the salary of the staff who manage the composters. Unlike waste incineration projects, which require huge capital and operational costs and lock cities in a put-or-pay scheme for decades, this composting model saves the city money, which is then reinvested to rapidly scale the composting model, leading to even bigger savings and opportunities to scale, in a virtuous circle. 

Job creation through zero waste

This environmental justice-centered model composting project improves social realities in the area by providing local jobs. On a tonne-for-tonne basis, composting can create three times as many jobs as landfill and incineration. In South Africa, 42.2% of people aged 15-34 years are neither employed, nor enrolled in formal education or training programs as of the last quarter of 2023. As this project is scaled up, composting is estimated to create four jobs per 400 tons of waste processed. The project also improves the working conditions and social protections of the informal market traders, waste collectors, and composters. Moreover, the Warwick zero waste project prioritizes the employment of people from the market and local communities, rather than using machines that often require external experts. In contrast, incineration creates the least amount of jobs and requires workers with highly specialized skills that are not accessible to the local population.

The delivery of Early Morning Market organics to the compost site and windrow preparations. Photo credit: Lunga Benghu

Waste methane reduction for South Africa

Meanwhile, source-separated organic collection with composting demonstrates significantly higher climate mitigation and adaptation benefits. Composting alone can prevent as much as 99% of methane emissions that would otherwise come from landfills. When the finished compost is utilized in place of synthetic fertilizer, further GHG emissions are saved by reducing emissions of nitrous oxide, not to mention avoiding the fossil fuel emissions from creating fertilizer. The application of compost to the soil also boosts flood and drought resistance and increases carbon sequestration capacity.

Although South Africa’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) provide neither specific targets nor roadmaps for the waste sector, the Warwick zero waste project paves a crucial pathway to help the country improve its national climate goals. By proving the efficacy of decentralized composting projects, the Warwick site can be used as a model for the nation and other countries on how to invest in empowering and inclusive organic management projects powered by local organizations and communities, thereby maximizing municipal resources and local knowledge.

Zero waste markets in Durban and beyond

Currently, the project team and city partners are working on expanding waste collection from the EMM to compost all 400 tonnes of waste generated by the market every year. Alongside this expansion, the team plans to replicate the model in a second market, the Bangladesh Market. In the longer term, the project team is targeting all nine fresh fruit and vegetable markets in Durban, proving the model’s feasibility and efficacy on a larger scale. The project has drawn an increasing interest among other municipalities in South Africa, and the team is actively engaging with government officials across the country and region.

map of markets in Durban, South Africa. Aside from The Early Morning Market where the project is currently ongoing, 8 other fresh produce markets are highlighted in the map. eThekwini municipal markets targeted for scale up and in relation to the Buffelsdraai landfill. We are currently at the Early Morning Market and will be moving to the Bangladesh Market this year. Credit: Ayanda Mnyandu
Growing the zero waste composting model in all the markets in Durban starting with Early Morning Market then moving on to Bangladesh Market this year. Credit: Ayanda Mnyandu

No to incineration, go for zero waste

The cost-saving model demonstrated by the Warwick zero waste project can be upscaled rapidly with the right flow of capacity and resource support. This also means ceasing support for inflexible, costly, and carbon-intensive infrastructures, particularly waste incineration. Policymakers and financiers must ensure that investment in organic waste management projects must be aligned with Environmental Justice principles and inclusive of local organizations and knowledge to build lasting environmental and societal impact. 

More Environmental Justice Stories

Controversy on Waste: To Burn or Not to Burn?

Canada in the Spotlight as Host of Plastics Treaty Negotiations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: APRIL 4, 2024

While Canada is set to host the next round of the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations April 23-29, Canadian groups are raising an alarm about the expansion of waste incineration across the country. Dubbed “waste-to-energy” (WTE) by industry, burning waste through methods like incineration, gasification and pyrolysis is a practice that would undermine federal climate, plastics, and waste management policies.

“Canada has goals to end plastic pollution and stop climate change. That means we must close the door to polluting and wasteful garbage incineration,” said Karen Wirsig, Plastics Senior Program Manager at Environmental Defence. “Incineration poses real risks to the environment and human health. Plus, garbage is not a clean or ‘renewable’ energy source and incinerators have been found to emit more greenhouse gasses per unit of electricity than fossil fuels.”

The Town of Pontiac, Quebec, is fighting a proposal for a new waste incinerator to burn garbage from the City of Ottawa, where the treaty negotiations will take place. Other incinerator proposals are surfacing in Brampton, Ontario, and Edmonton, Alberta, among others.

The rise in incinerator proposals follows a report released last year by the federal government and shared with municipal officials that suggests incineration is a climate-friendly approach to waste management. That federal report was recently debunked by research commissioned by Zero Waste BC and GAIA.

Incineration threatens efforts to establish Canada as a leader in tackling plastic pollution, climate change and diversion of organics.

Analysis by the Canadian Zero Waste Coalition shows that:

Report author and environmental engineer Belinda Li, noted, “it is very important that our government supports real solutions like waste prevention and reduction and not costly distractions such as WTE. If we prevent waste from being generated in the first place, we can extend the life of our landfills and make the best use of our existing infrastructure.”

The floundering of experimental WTE plants offers cautionary tales to other communities. “Across Canada incinerators have proven to be costly failures that waste millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, exceed emission limits, never meet operational targets, and delay municipalities from taking actions that would actually reduce and divert organics and post-consumer goods,” says Liz Benneian, founder of the Ontario Zero Waste Coalition. 

For instance, from its inauguration in 2008, until it declared bankruptcy in 2015, the Plasco incinerator in Ottawa burned through $13.5 million in federal and provincial funding plus $8 million per year in municipal subsidies. The plant had numerous operational issues, processed only one third of the waste it promised and racked up 25 records of noncompliance with emission regulations.

More than three-quarters of waste disposed in Canada could have been avoided, recycled, or composted. “Local governments are setting ambitious zero waste targets, but when we burn waste, those goals go up in smoke,” said Sue Maxwell, chair of Zero Waste BC and former municipal councillor. “Proactive municipalities are reducing their waste through zero waste policies and programs.”

“Europe is often cited as a model for WTE but the European Union is turning away from WTE and major European financial institutions have pulled funding from WTE projects,” notes Janek Vähk, Zero Pollution Policy Manager for Zero Waste Europe. “Meanwhile, the EU has established an ambitious target of halving total residual waste by 2030 and WTE would lock in generation of waste over time to keep the incinerators running.”

WTE facilities are often particularly harmful to environmental justice communities. 

“Fenceline communities are badly impacted by particulates and other hazardous air emissions, in addition to truck traffic” noted Dr. Neil Tangri, Science and Policy Director at GAIA,  “Some of the worst impacts are felt in the far north, where First Nations bear extremely high body burdens of persistent organic pollutants such as dioxins from incinerators that biomagnify in the food chain.” 

As all eyes look to Canada later this month, over 40 environmental groups across the country implore the country to be a true leader and reject WTE in favor of zero waste solutions. (link to action page)

For more information about this campaign and to access the coalition’s publications, please visit https://www.no-burn.org/stopping-waste-to-energy-in-canada/ 

CONTACT

Claire Arkin, Global Communications Lead: claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869

About the Coalition:

The Canadian Zero Waste Coalition is a coalition of environmental groups including the Ontario Zero Waste Coalition, Zero Waste BC, GAIA, Environmental Defence, Zero Waste Canada, Toronto Environmental Alliance, Durham Environment Watch, Waste Watch Ottawa, and Citizens of the Pontiac.

####

Sign the letter!

Canada is among the most wasteful countries in the world and most of our waste could be avoided, recycled or composted. Canada has goals to decrease waste by 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2040, to end plastic waste by 2040, and to reduce landfill methane emissions by 50% by 20301.2 Reaching even these goals will require ambitious and immediate actions to reduce waste. 

Waste to Energy (WTE) (sometimes called energy from waste) includes different technologies for disposing waste through a high-temperature process such as mass burn incineration, gasification, and pyrolysis. WTE is portrayed as a “climate-friendly” solution for waste management because of the avoided methane emission from landfilling and energy generation potential, however it emits more greenhouse gases than modern landfills when a full accounting of all GHGs is made.  WTE also emits more GHGs per unit of energy than gas and even coal plants. Waste minimization is a far better choice for the climate than either landfills or WTE.

Furthermore, the key to eliminating methane gases from landfill is to remove organics from the waste stream. Edible food waste makes up a large portion of landfilled organics and could be prevented in the first place. Canada has committed to Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 to reduce food waste by 50% by 2030. Remaining organics could be diverted through source separation to compost in an oxygen-rich environment so that no methane is generated during decomposition or anaerobic digestion in-vessel so no methane escapes. This is doable and should be a primary objective of any climate-friendly solution for waste management. Ignoring this obvious solution creates a false choice between landfilling and WTE.

WTE is not only extremely harmful for the climate but also harmful to environmental and human health. Burning waste to generate energy is the most carbon-intensive, toxic and expensive form of energy, and these industries have disproportionately harmed low-income communities and communities of colour, where these facilities are statistically more likely to be sited.3  WTE projects are very costly and compete with waste reduction and recycling4. Waste to energy is a drain on the circular economy, diverting public resources and funding from zero waste practices that create far more jobs for far less cost and running counter to actions on climate change and plastics waste.

We, the undersigned, therefore call on the Government of Canada, provinces and territories, and local governments to implement the following actions:

1. Properly account for all pollution for waste and fuels from waste: 

  1. Add biogenic emissions to the GHG Calculator.
  2. Include source reduction, recycling and all materials in the GHG Calculator similar to the US WARM calculator.
  3. Ensure carbon pricing is based on the full accounting of GHGs for waste and fuels from waste. Do not allow carbon offsets for WTE.
  4. Ensure the most stringent emission limits for all emissions (including mercury, dioxins, furans, lead, cadmium, SOx, NOx, etc) for all waste burning sources.
  5. Ensure continuous monitoring of all emissions from waste burning sources for which technology exists. Ensure ambient air monitoring and environmental biomonitoring is required.
  6. Ensure full accounting of material flows to land, water and air from WTE (fly ash, bottom ash, slag, air emissions, etc.).

2. Eliminate organic materials going to waste: 

  1. Set ambitious targets for reducing food waste and organic materials to disposal over time.
  2. Enhance actions to decrease food waste.
  3. Encourage rapid increase in organics diversion through the regulation of landfill methane emissions and other tools. 

3. Advance a zero waste, circular economy: 

  1. Adopt the internationally-accepted and peer-reviewed  Zero Waste Definition and Zero Waste Hierarchy as the guide for actions
  2. Develop a zero waste, circular economy strategy.
  3. Lead by example: use procurement to prioritize rethinking, reduction, reuse and refill; demonstrate action on the corporate operations of the government.
  4. Make reuse, repair and refill a priority in all regulatory, financial and policy measures.
  5. Ensure Canadians have the ability to repair their devices and appliances to keep materials in use.
  6. Scale up support for the collection and recycling of products through Extended Producer Responsibility and other measures.
  7. Plan for use of existing landfills as waste is decreased and maximize the lifespans of landfills by wasting less. Ensure the landfills manage the methane well and meet other environmental criteria.
  8. Encourage disposal levies on all waste going to WTE and landfills and use the funds to support waste reduction and reuse.

4. Ensure transparency and accountability: 

  1. Collect and publicly release annual data on materials flows for all materials. Report on progress towards goals.
  2. Collect and publicly release annual data on all emissions from waste facilities (including toxic substances, ash and GHGs).

5. End support and subsidies for WTE facilities: 

  1. Policy and funding should support waste reduction and should not support thermal treatment or incineration of mixed waste. Do not support carbon capture and storage integration with WTE facilities. Do not support district energy systems integrated with WTE facilities.
  2. Ensure no funds or grants are given directly or through government-supported agencies such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for WTE projects.
  3. Ensure preferential energy purchase rates and long-term contracts are not given to WTE facilities.
  4. Do not support put or pay contracts for WTE facilities.
  5. Ensure energy from WTE facilities or refuse-derived fuel is not considered clean nor renewable.
  6. Ensure burning waste materials in any facility (such as cement kilns, or steel smelters or the use of refuse -derived fuel) is considered a form of WTE and is not supported.
  7. Do not allow WTE facilities to be sited on government-owned or managed lands.
  8. Discourage the inclusion of WTE in federal, provincial, territorial, regional and municipal plans.
  9. Ensure any disposal taxes on landfills also apply to disposal at WTE facilities.
  10. Strictly control waste imports and exports, including shipments between Canada and the United States, to ensure they are destined for environmentally-sound management and not to be used as fuel.
  11. Educate the public on the full impacts of WTE.

Signatories: 

  1. Zero Waste BC
  2. Toronto Environmental Alliance
  3. Environmental Defence Canada 
  4. Ontario Zero Waste Coalition
  5. Zero Waste Canada
  6. Durham Environment Watch (DEW)
  7. Waste Watch Ottawa
  8. Citizens of the Pontiac (CoP)
  9. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) 
  10. Living Oceans Society
  11. Let’s Talk Trash
  12. Squamish Climate Action Network
  13. McNab Braeside Alliance for a Clean Environment
  14. HSR Zero Waste
  15. Association of Whistler Area Residents for the Environment (AWARE)
  16. Protect Our Winters Canada
  17. First Things First Okanagan Climate Action
  18. Biodiversity and Climate Action Niagara
  19. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  20. Waste Free Edmonton
  21. Planet Zero Waste Consulting, Inc. 
  22. Otter Housing Association
  23. Citizens Environment Alliance
  24. Nith Valley EcoBoosters
  25. AlRefai
  26. Wilderness Committee
  27. Ecology Action Centre
  28. David Suzuki Foundation
  29. Surfrider Foundation Canada
  30. Friends of the Earth Canada
  31. aedify consulting
  32. Grandmothers Act to Save the Planet (GASP)
  33. Prevent Cancer Now
  34. MiningWatch Canada
  35. Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick
  36. First Things First Okanagan
  37. Little River Enhancement Group
  38. Greenpeace Canada
  39. My Sea to Sky
  40. Nanaimo Climate Action Hub
  41. Sacred Earth Solar

  1.  Government of Canada (2021). Ocean Plastics Charter. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-reducing-waste/international-commitments/ocean-plastics-charter.html 
    ↩︎
  2.  Government of Canada (2022). Faster and Further -Canada’s Methane Strategy. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2022/eccc/En4-491-2022-eng.pdf ↩︎
  3.  Zero Waste Europe. Why is the global waste crisis a social justice issue? https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2022/02/why-is-the-global-waste-crisis-a-social-justice-issue/ ↩︎
  4.  Baxter, J., Ho, Y., Rollins, Y., & Maclaren, V. (2016). Attitudes toward waste to energy facilities and impacts on diversion in Ontario, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.02.017
    ↩︎
Sign the letter here

By Chaima Ktaifi

Ramadan is the fasting month. Fasting from eating and drinking encourages spiritual reflection and increases devotion and self-discipline. It is also the best time to stop bad habits, including food waste.

Unfortunately, with increased food consumption this month, it’s easy to fall into the trap of creating more waste than necessary. In Tunisia, about 900.000 pieces of bread are wasted and thrown away daily, which is the equivalent of 100.000 USD; moreover, according to the National Institute of Consumption, one-third of the cooked food is wasted and thrown away, the equivalent of 200.000 USD. On the other hand, more than 500.000 Tunisians are suffering from malnutrition diseases or are not able to buy food.

In addition to this economic and social impact on individuals and the country in general, food waste accounts for 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. It leads to water wastage as well as, other natural resources used in food production.

Therefore, it’s important for us to be conscious of how much food we waste, especially in this month of gratitude and self-reflection.

Zero Waste Tunisia (ZWT) has been engaged since 2018 in raising awareness against food waste and loss, which is basically a behavioral challenge. Through our digital and media campaigns, we present the shocking statistics of food waste in Tunisia, awareness illustrations, and zero waste tips and solutions to reduce food waste based on our culinary heritage, transforming food waste into new recipes, cosmetics, or hygienic products.

Our campaign has been successful for the past few years. Many Tunisian media outlets have been soliciting our expertise to spread the zero waste culture in our daily lives, especially to fight against food waste and loss. This big problem has been hidden for a long time, and through our digital campaign, we have highlighted and encouraged many communities and zero waste enthusiasts to talk about it freely, critique it, and propose possible solutions.

Ramadan is a time for spiritual reflection and growth. But it’s also a time to consider our impact on our communities and contribute to environmental sustainability. By making conscious choices about food consumption, we can reduce our environmental footprint and make a positive impact in this critical time when we are struggling with hunger, food insecurity, and climate change nationally and globally.

The page dedicated to zero waste food digital campaigns: https://www.facebook.com/antigaspillagetunisie

An Interview with BBC Arabia about food waste in Ramadan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA189PP1Zqs

Ends.

In the wake of the Nigerian plastic tsunami, a coalition of CSOs, including the Centre for Earth Works (CFEW) in Nigeria, have continued to amplify their voices to address this growing menace of plastic pollution, undermining sustainable growth, development, and ecological conservation. The plastic treaty has proven to be a strong framework for combating plastic pollution, CFEW in collaboration with members of the GAIA Nigeria team, including the Green Knowledge Foundation (GKF), Community Development and Advocacy Foundation (CODAF), and Environmental Right Action (ERA) through the Plastic Treaty policy project has been at the frontline of intense engagement with the Nigerian government at Federal, State and Local level to promote the ambitious positions of the BFFP movement and GAIA Network including the efforts to ban all single-use plastics and establish mechanisms for plastic withdrawal by industries, business centres and in households.

Nigeria is a major producer of plastics in Africa. Nigeria’s plastic industry is driven by the country’s petrochemical industry and large growing population. The country has a population of over 200 million people, and this number is expected to continue to grow in the coming years. The growing population is creating a huge demand for plastic products, such as packaging, bottles, and construction materials. Plastic production is set to increase along with the importation of virgin plastic pallets.

The past six decades witnessed the introduction of different nascent plastic materials, which were highly appreciated globally due to their water-resistance nature, durability, and affordability. These qualities of plastics support the convenient packaging of most household items and other industrial products that support human consumption, thus, promoting the production of large quantities of plastics, including single-use plastics. However, since plastics are made of non-biodegradable substances, they pose serious threats to the world’s ecosystem with grave health effects on both human and marine lives. A local study of children and adolescents living and going to school near major dumpsites across African urban centres reported respiratory, gastrointestinal, and dermatological illnesses. However, to date, there is no international data on the health impacts of burning plastic waste.

 Following several activities from CSOs, especially the GAIA Nigeria Team with CFEW spearheading the Plastic Treaty policy advocacy in the country. We have had press media briefings, social media engagement, and publications, including the Nigeria Plastic Tsunami launched in September 2023. Subsequent Pre and Post INC engagements with Federal and State government bodies, including The Federal and state Ministry of Environment, The Nigeria Customs Service,  The National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA),  Lagos State Waste Management Authority (LAWMA), and community leaders across the country at regular intervals to debrief the ongoing plastic treaty process and how the country can be better positioned for the implementation of the result. This advocacy has been carried on to the following states, such as Plateau, Delta, and Edo, where the Nigerian Plastic Treaty Project is being implemented.  

The Plastic Policy advocacy has yielded some positive outcomes in recent times, starting with a fresh commitment from the Ministries of Environment to ensure inputs from the GAIA Movement position as they look to revise the Environmental management policies, especially the one on Plastic pollution, followed by the ban on single-use plastics within their premises, which serves as a pace-setting. 

The government of Lagos state, which is the most populous and industrious state in the country, has recently announced a ban on the usage and distribution of styrofoam and other single-use plastics in the State, with Abia State following, and more states are expected to make their announcement in the coming days. Other major outcomes include individuals in various communities’ commitment to embrace a Plastic-free lifestyle. 

Ends.

In January 2024, Nipe Fagio (NF) celebrated Zero Waste (ZW) Month in Zanzibar Island, focusing on two key programs aimed at raising awareness and promoting sustainable waste management practices. With a focus on students and households, NF conducted impactful activities that shed light on the detrimental effects of plastic on human health and the environment, while also providing practical training on household composting. The outcomes of ZW Month in Zanzibar have paved the way for a more conscious and environmentally responsible community.

Storytelling of Plastic Effects to Students

On January 24, 2024, NF organized a storytelling session at Dr. Salim Amour Secondary School and Chumbuni Primary School, reaching out to over 1000 students, teachers, and local government representatives. The session highlighted the negative impacts of plastic on human health and the environment. Students were made aware of the harmful consequences of daily plastic usage, such as packaging hot food in plastic materials and indiscriminate disposal. By instilling a sense of responsibility and knowledge, NF aimed to inspire students to adopt a zero-waste lifestyle, reducing plastic consumption and practicing waste segregation.

Master Households Composting in Zanzibar

Recognizing the issue of organic waste disposal in Zanzibar, NF conducted a master training session on household composting on January 25, 2024. Many households in the region dispose of organic waste in open spaces or rivers, unaware of its potential for reuse. The training, attended by more than 60 participants from the Chumbuni local government and households, focused on equipping attendees with various composting techniques. The newly established Material Recovery Facility (MRF) served as the Zero Waste Model Implementation center, providing a practical setting for hands-on training. By promoting household composting, NF aimed to divert organic waste from improper disposal and create a valuable resource for improving soil conditions in farms and gardens.

The ZW Month activities in Zanzibar have yielded significant outcomes, contributing to a more sustainable and waste-conscious community:

Increased Desire for Zero Waste Living: The storytelling sessions and awareness campaigns have inspired students to adopt a zero-waste lifestyle. By reducing plastic consumption, practicing waste segregation, and choosing reuse, students are actively contributing to a cleaner and healthier environment.

Organic Waste Diversion through Composting: The master training on household composting has equipped households with the knowledge and techniques to divert organic waste from improper disposal. By composting at home, households can significantly reduce the amount of organic waste that ends up in open spaces or rivers.

Behavior Change and Best Practices: ZW Month activities have fostered behavior change among the community, encouraging the adoption of best practices in solid waste management. Concepts such as reuse, reduce, refuse, refurbish, and repurpose have become ingrained in the daily lives of Zanzibar residents, leading to a significant reduction in waste generation.

Opportunity Creation through Waste Diversion: The master training has not only raised awareness but also created opportunities for the community. By utilizing compost in their farms, residents can improve soil conditions and enhance agricultural productivity, leading to a more sustainable and self-sufficient future.

Nipe Fagio’s ZW Month in Zanzibar has been a resounding success, engaging students and households in the pursuit of a zero-waste lifestyle. Through impactful storytelling sessions and practical training on household composting, NF has empowered the community to take responsibility for their waste and make conscious choices. The outcomes of ZW Month in Zanzibar serve as a testament to the power of education, awareness, and community engagement in creating a cleaner and more sustainable future.

Ends.

Member Opinion By Gilbert Kuepouo, CREPD

Cameroon, a country with a population of around 23 million and a diverse climate, is known for its rich biodiversity and strong economy. However, waste management continues to be a significant challenge, despite the existence of policies on paper. It’s really disheartening to witness the sight of plastic bottles, plastic bags, and old rubber tyres being thoughtlessly discarded on vacant land, coastlines, rivers, bays, and streams, with the potential to be carried to other bodies of water, like the ocean. Several factors, including economic growth and shifting consumption and production patterns, have led to a significant rise in the production and use of plastics in Cameroon. As a result, plastic waste has become a prominent and expanding component of municipal solid waste. Pollution is a pressing issue that demands our attention.

Since November 2023, CREPD (Centre de Recherche et d’Education pour le Développement) has been actively involved in a range of initiatives to tackle the issue of plastic pollution in Cameroon. The goal is to raise awareness and highlight the significance of this problem by engaging with local communities, businesses, government authorities, and relevant ministries. Our efforts include conducting brand audits and organizing clean-up activities, sharing information, creating outreach materials, and launching a social media campaign to foster better communication, coordination, and commitment among all relevant national stakeholders in tackling plastic waste and its proper management.

The project partners include the Ministry of Environment, Protection of Nature, and Sustainable Development (MINEPDED) of Cameroon and UNITAR. The Basel Convention Small Grant Programme on Plastic Waste and GAIA (Plastic Solutions Fund) are funding the project. 

Some of our project outcomes include: 

  • The PWWG (Plastic Waste Working Group) has been established in Cameroon to effectively manage and address the issue of plastic waste. This group will play a crucial role in informing and implementing policies related to plastic waste management, both at the national and international levels. The PWWG has clear terms of reference that will guide its actions and ensure effective outcomes.
  • Facilitating community engagement meetings and sharing important information about the health effects of plastic waste (such as the presence of harmful chemicals that can lead to infertility, cancer, and harm to the fishing industry).
  • Organizing the clean up of the river Wouri waterways and shores, as well as establishing a swap-shop for discarded plastic fishing nets. Approximately 4 tonnes of fishing nets have been gathered and carefully stored, awaiting transportation for environmentally responsible recycling.
  • We conducted a thorough investigation into the plastic waste issue, specifically focusing on the major polluters. The results revealed 64 significant contributors to the problem, with Nestlé, Source du Pays SA, SABC Group, CHOCOCAM, and HOKA Industries being the top five offenders. Surprisingly, these companies alone accounted for a staggering 36 percent of the total single-use plastic waste. 

Plastic waste is becoming a rapidly increasing problem in Cameroon and around the world. Plastics, including plastic waste, can contain harmful substances that are released into the environment during use and disposal. These substances have been linked to issues such as infertility and cancer, which are often overlooked when discussing plastic pollution.

When it comes to tackling plastic pollution, it’s important to consider solutions that focus on eco-design for reuse and recycling. By following the waste hierarchy, which prioritizes preventing and minimizing waste generation, we can make a significant impact.

The government should ensure that regulatory measures, such as EPR in waste management, are effectively enforced. In 2021, there were a total of 63 enterprises engaged in the manufacturing of plastic products. In 2021, national plastic production reached a staggering 153,000 metric tonnes. However, it is disheartening to note that a significant amount of plastic products, totalling 88,000 metric tonnes, were illegally introduced in Cameroon during the same period. Every year, a staggering 6,000 metric tonnes of plastic waste are generated. Every year, an estimated 3000 tonnes of plastic are discharged into the ocean by the Wouri River. The amount of plastic that is released into the ocean each year by the Wouri River is quite substantial, and it has a significant impact on the pollution levels in the surrounding area.

In conclusion, efforts must be made to address the issue of illegal plastic waste disposal in Cameroon to prevent further environmental degradation and protect marine life. Additionally, implementing stricter regulations and increasing public awareness of proper waste management practices are crucial steps in reducing plastic pollution in the region.

Ends.

Our Work
Global Community
Donate