# data[].attributes.headline
Australians are washing microplastics down the drain and it’s ending up on our farms

# data[].attributes.subject
Australians are washing microplastics down the drain and it’s ending up on our farms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Australian wastewater treatment plants produce thousands of tonnes of treated sewage sludge every year. This nutrient-rich material is then dried to make "biosolids", which are used to fertilise agricultural soil.

Unfortunately every kilogram of biosolids also contains thousands of tiny pieces of plastic. These pieces are so small they can only be seen under a microscope, so they're called microplastics.

In our new research, we sampled biosolids from three states and calculated the average contribution of microplastics per person: 3g in New South Wales and 4.5g in Queensland. But the average in South Australia was 11.5g - that's about the same amount of plastic as a plastic bag.

Roughly 80% of this microplastic comes from washing clothes. We need to protect agricultural soil from contamination by making simple changes at home, mandating filters on washing machines and introducing more effective wastewater treatment.

Read more: Microplastics are common in homes across 29 countries. New research shows who's most at risk

Biosolids as fertiliser

Most domestic wastewater comes from household kitchens, bathrooms and laundries.

Wastewater treatment separates most of the water and leaves sewage sludge behind. This mixture of water and organic material can then be sent to landfill for disposal or dried to form a material called "biosolids".

In Australia, two-thirds of the 340,000 tonnes produced annually are used on farms to improve soil quality and stimulate plant growth. This not only boosts agricultural productivity but also allows for more sustainable disposal of treated sewage sludge. The waste becomes a resource, a useful and economically viable fertiliser, rather than ending up in landfill.

Read more: More than 1,200 tonnes of microplastics are dumped into Aussie farmland every year from wastewater sludge

Microplastics in Australian biosolids

Wastewater treatment plants can capture anywhere from 60% to more than 90% of the microplastics in sewage before the wastewater is discharged. But plastic is durable and does not degrade during treatment. So the microplastic particles removed from the wastewater are simply transferred to the sludge.

We assessed the abundance, characteristics and size ranges of microplastics in biosolids collected from 13 wastewater treatment plants across three states.

We found every kilogram of biosolid contains between 11,000 and 150,000 microplastic particles.

Most of the microplastics found were invisible to the naked eye, ranging from 20 to 200 micrometres in size.

The most common type of microplastic was microfibres from fabric. We found more microplastic fibres during cold seasons. We suspect this corresponds to people washing more synthetic fleece clothing and blankets.

Microbeads are tiny balls of microplastic sometimes added to personal care products and detergents. We did not find any microbeads in samples from South Australia and New South Wales. These states were among the first to support a voluntary industry phase-out of plastic microbeads.

In contrast, we found a small amount of microbeads in samples from Queensland, which only banned microbeads in September last year. That was more than a year after samples were collected for this study.

We estimate Australians release between 0.7g and 21g of microplastics per person into wastewater every year. This wide range is based on our results, which varied from state to state: 0.7g to 5.9g in NSW, 1g to 7.2g in Queensland and 1.9g to 21g in SA. We don't know why it varies so much between states.

This contributes to the amount of microplastics in biosolids. Our biosolid samples contained anywhere from 1kg to 17kg of microplastics per tonne. Remember this is being transported into our farmlands.

What's the problem?

Microplastics are steadily accumulating in agricultural soils, where they will remain for hundreds of years. While natural weathering processes such as sunshine and rain will slowly break down microplastics into smaller and smaller particles, that only makes matters worse. Smaller particles cause more harmful effects to soil organisms.

Eating small pieces of plastic can cause internal abrasions and blockages in the digestive tract. In very small aquatic animals such as zooplankton, microplastics can reduce absorption of nutrients from food, decrease reproduction rates, and cause death.

These tiny particles also contain a cocktail of toxic chemicals, either added during manufacturing to improve the product or soaked up from the environment. This makes them even more dangerous.

Smaller microplastics (less than 100 micrometres in size) are even more harmful for soil organisms.

Microplastics in soil can be ingested by soil organisms such as earthworms and cause harmful effects on these vital organisms. Microplastic exposure has also been shown to adversely affect soil health and plant growth.

Australian regulations govern the amounts of heavy metals, nutrients, pathogens and some emerging contaminants allowed in biosolids, but there is no guideline for microplastics concentrations. We think that has to change.

Here's what we can do

Our research shows biosolids are a significant source of microplastics in agricultural systems. More research is needed to better understand the risks.

We need to put effective control measures in place to minimise the accumulation of microplastic in productive agricultural soils.

The most effective way to do this is to reduce the level of microplastics in biosolids at the source.

We know most microplastics in biosolids come from washing clothes. While it may not be possible to eliminate the use of synthetic fabrics, there are some measures we can all take to reduce the amount of microplastic washing off our clothes into the wastewater stream. Properly installed filters in washing machines have been shown to significantly reduce microplastic levels in wastewater.

Australia's National Plastics Plan recommends the Australian government work with industry to "phase-in" microfibre filters on all washing machines by 2030. But why wait until 2030?

Several jurisdictions, including France, Ontario and California, have already made microfibre filters on washing machines mandatory. It's time Australia did the same.

In the meantime, there are simple things everyone can do at home. Wash clothes in cold water, avoid running the machine for light loads if you can wait to do a full load, and wash synthetic fabrics less frequently. These steps will also save energy and money.

It's far better to stop microplastics entering the wastewater stream than trying to remove them at the wastewater treatment plant. Prevention is always better than a cure.

Read more: 'Humanity's signature': study finds plastic pollution in the world's lakes can be worse than in oceans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australians are washing microplastics down the drain and it's ending up on our farms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We sampled sewage sludge from 13 wastewater treatment plants across three states. We found every resident adds microplastics to farmland, in dried sewage sludge (biosolids) used as fertiliser.

# data[].attributes.headline
The untapped power of ocean winds – why New Zealand is looking offshore for future renewable energy

# data[].attributes.subject
The untapped power of ocean winds – why New Zealand is looking offshore for future renewable energy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The untapped power of ocean winds – why New Zealand is looking offshore for future renewable energy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Building offshore wind farms is complex and expensive. But with plenty of wind coming in from the sea, New Zealand could harness the renewable resource as it aims to decarbonise the energy sector.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cutting agricultural emissions will reduce air pollution and save lives

# data[].attributes.subject
Cutting agricultural emissions will reduce air pollution and save lives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Air pollution is the fourth leading risk factor for early death worldwide. Only high blood pressure, tobacco use and poor diet cause more early deaths, while high body-mass index (BMI), malnutrition and alcohol use cause fewer.

We are reminded of air pollution when our cities are covered by smog or we drive past a power plant's exhaust chimney, but this pollution is otherwise largely invisible.

Air pollution is the fourth leading risk factor for early death worldwide. Picture: Getty Images

But it's these invisible pollutants that are especially hazardous to health. Particulate matter (or PM) are particles found in the air, including dust, soot, dirt, smoke, and liquid droplets.

The impact of air pollution on life expectancy

Particulate matter with a diameter under 2.5 micrometres (PM2.5) pose the greatest risk to health because it can penetrate the lungs and enter the bloodstream. PM is estimated to cause millions of premature deaths annually, and costing the global economy upwards of $US5.7 trillion per year.

The gases sulphur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen oxides (NOⅹ) and ammonia (NH₃) are the building blocks or precursors of PM2.5 in the atmosphere.

Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide mainly come from coal-burning power plants, industrial emissions and vehicle emissions, while ammonia emissions are mainly from agricultural and natural sources, including animal husbandry and ammonia-based fertiliser.

Most air pollution regulations have focused on nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide emissions from energy production, housing, transport and industry processes. But while developed nations have reined in sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from the energy sectors, ammonia emissions are largely unregulated and continue to rise.

Ammonia emissions are mainly from agricultural and natural sources, including animal husbandry and ammonia-based fertiliser. Picture: Getty Images

In our latest research, now published in Science we analysed ammonia's historical and current contributions to global PM2.5 pollution and human health, an area that hadn't been previously addressed.

Our team developed and applied a new metric known as the 'Nitrogen-share' (N-share) of PM2.5 pollution, to quantify the problem and determine how we can reduce the lives and health lost to PM2.5, efficiently and effectively.

Hope and courage in the climate crisis

The 'N-share' index

N-share is the contribution of reactive nitrogen (Nr) compounds (ammonia and nitrogen oxides) to total PM2.5 concentration, determined by modelling with and without Nr emissions. These compounds are defined as reactive because they are heavily engaged in complicated chemical interactions to form PM2.5.

Our results show Nr accounts for 39 per cent of the global share of total PM2.5 exposure in 2013, up from 30 per cent in 1990, with rising Nr emissions and successful controls reducing the proportion of sulphur dioxide.

From 1990 to 2013, total Years-of-Life-Lost (YLL) due to PM2.5 pollution derived from Nr emissions increased from 19.5 to 23.3 million globally, with an annual expenditure of $US420 billion in just health costs.

PM2.5 pollution has worsened in Asia and Africa, especially in China and India, which have experienced a dramatic increase in pollutant emissions. It has decreased in high-income countries as a result of environmental legislation.

The gases sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ammonia (NH3) are the building blocks of particulate pollution PM2.5 in the atmosphere. Picture: Supplied

The separate contribution and health impact of ammonia emission increased from 25 per cent with 16.3 million YLL in 1990 to 32 per cent with 19.3 million YLL in 2013, while for nitrogen oxide, the value increased from 17 per cent with 11.4 million YLL to 28 per cent with 16.2 million YLL.

Taking steps to cut your nitrogen footprint

Our study highlights and supports the important role of ammonia emissions on PM2.5 pollution. These emissions contribute more to PM2.5 pollution than nitrogen oxide emissions in most countries, indicating that the reduction of ammonia emissions may help mitigate PM2.5 pollution more efficiently than other PM2.5 building blocks.

curbing ammonia is the right path

While scientists have been aware for some time that decreasing pollution provides a net economic gain, the economic cost-benefit analysis in our research shows curbing ammonia is more cost-effective than nitrogen oxide for mitigating PM2.5. This gives us a clear path and strong rationale for better public policy.

Although stringent policies to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions could further improve air quality, our study suggests these controls are likely to come at an increase, aren't sufficient on their own to achieve clean air targets, and won't be as effective as cutting PM from ammonia.

Solutions to air pollution will require a multifaceted and ongoing effort. Picture: Shutterstock

However, our analysis shows global ammonia emissions could be reduced by 50 per cent at a total implementation cost of around $US38 billion. This is far cheaper than the health cost of $US172 billion.

Redefining Farmland value for climate and food security

This could also save about 20 per cent of global nitrogen fertiliser use, with a net value of around $US28 billion to farmers. This is in addition to reducing ammonia's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.

Our main opportunities to reduce air pollution from ammonia are in agriculture. Those abatement measures are relatively easy and cheap, but ammonia use is distributed over many individual businesses, so will require changes by farmers and their advisors in diverse environments.

The most promising control options are those that improve the overall nitrogen efficiency of fertilisers.

Our team is leading the ARC Research Hub for Smart Fertilisers that is working with industry partners Incitec Pivot Fertilisers and Elders Rural Services to develop new enhanced efficiency fertilisers (EEFs) that increase crops' nutrient use and reduce losses to the environment.

We have also achieved progress on other mitigation strategies like using processed brown coal to capture ammonia from waste on intensive livestock systems and farms, including cattle and poultry farms.

Our main opportunities to reduce air pollution from ammonia are in agriculture, including improving the efficiency of fertilisers. Picture: Getty Images

Policy drives change

The Netherlands and Denmark have already implemented policies to reduce ammonia emissions, leading to reported emission reductions of 35-66 per cent from 1990-2011.

Five priorities for managing nitrogen pollution

Other countries are following their lead. The Gothenburg Protocol has set emissions limits for ammonia and the EU committed to cutting emissions by 6 per cent by 2020, compared to 2005 levels.

China has addressed the reduction of ammonia emissions from agricultural sources during its 13th Five Year Plan (2016-2020), and our previous research shows one-third of its agricultural ammonia emissions could feasibly be reduced through policies such as subsidies to EEFs and fertilisation machinery.

Reducing air pollution will require multifaceted approaches and monitoring, as well as ongoing lobbying for policy changes given the serious health and environmental consequences of not acting.

Our research provides a new index and perspective to support ammonia mitigation as a cost-effective strategy for reducing air pollution and the impacts it has on human health.

Banner: Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Xiuming ZhangPhD Candidate, School of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Dr Baojing GuCollege of Environmental and Resource Sciences and Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Agricultural Resources and Environment, Zhejiang University; Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Professor Deli ChenSchool of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne; Director, ARC Research Hub for Smart Fertilisers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cutting agricultural emissions will reduce air pollution and save lives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Air pollution is the fourth leading risk factor for early death worldwide. Only high blood pressure, tobacco use and poor diet cause more early deaths, while high body-mass index (BMI), malnutrition and alcohol use cause fewer.

# data[].attributes.headline
It’s not just climate – we’ve already breached most of the Earth’s limits. A safer, fairer future means treading lightly

# data[].attributes.subject
It’s not just climate – we’ve already breached most of the Earth’s limits. A safer, fairer future means treading lightly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People once believed the planet could always accommodate us. That the resilience of the Earth system meant nature would always provide. But we now know this is not necessarily the case. As big as the world is, our impact is bigger.

In research released today, an international team of scientists from the Earth Commission, of which we were part, identified eight "safe" and "just" boundaries spanning five vital planetary systems: climate change, the biosphere, freshwater, nutrient use in fertilisers and air pollution. This is the first time an assessment of boundaries has quantified the harms to people from changes to the Earth system.

"Safe" means boundaries maintaining stability and resilience of our planetary systems on which we rely. "Just", in this work, means boundaries which minimise significant harm to people. Together, they're a health barometer for the planet.

Assessing our planet's health is a big task. It took the expertise of 51 world-leading researchers from natural and social sciences. Our methods included modelling, literature reviews and expert judgement. We assessed factors such as tipping point risks, declines in Earth system functions, historical variability and effects on people.

Alarmingly, we found humanity has exceeded the safe and just limits for four of five systems. Aerosol pollution is the sole exception. Urgent action, based on the best available science, is now needed.

So, what did we find?

Our work builds on the influential concepts of planetary boundaries by finding ways to quantify what just systems look like alongside safety.

Importantly, the safe and just boundaries are defined at local to global spatial scales appropriate for assessing and managing planetary systems - as small as one square kilometre in the case of biodiversity. This is crucial because many natural functions act at local scales.

Here are the boundaries:
1. Climate boundary - keep warming to 1℃
We know the Paris Agreement goal of 1.5℃ avoids a high risk of triggering dangerous climate tipping points.

But even now, with warming at 1.2℃, many people around the world are being hit hard by climate-linked disasters, such as the recent extreme heat in China, fires in Canada, severe floods in Pakistan and droughts in the United States and the Horn of Africa.

At 1.5℃, hundreds of millions of people could be exposed to average annual temperatures over 29℃, which is outside the human climate niche and can be fatal. That means a just boundary for climate is nearer to 1°C. This makes the need to halt further carbon emissions even more urgent.
2. Biosphere boundaries: Expand intact ecosystems to cover 50-60% of the earth
A healthy biosphere ensures a safe and just planet by storing carbon, maintaining global water cycles and soil quality, protecting pollinators and many other ecosystem services. To safeguard these services, we need 50 to 60% of the world's land to have largely intact natural ecosystems.

Recent research puts the current figure at between 45% and 50%, which includes vast areas of land with relatively low populations, including parts of Australia and the Amazon rainforest. These areas are already under pressure from climate change and other human activity.

Locally, we need about 20-25% of each square kilometre of farms, towns, cities or other human-dominated landscapes to contain largely intact natural ecosystems. At present, only a third of our human-dominated landscapes meet this threshold.
3. Freshwater boundaries: Keep groundwater levels up and don't suck rivers dry
Too much freshwater is a problem, as unprecedented floods in Australia and Pakistan show. And too little is also a problem, with unprecedented droughts taking their toll on food production.

To bring fresh water systems back into balance, a rule of thumb is to avoid taking or adding more than 20% of a river or stream's water in any one month, in the absence of local knowledge of environmental flows.

At present, 66% of the world's land area meets this boundary, when flows are averaged over the year. But human settlement has a major impact: less than half of the world's population lives in these areas. Groundwater, too, is overused. At present, almost half the world's land is subject to groundwater overextraction.
4. Fertiliser and nutrient boundaries: Halve the runoff from fertilisers
When farmers overuse fertilisers on their fields, rain washes nitrogen and phosphorus runoff into rivers and oceans. These nutrients can trigger algal blooms, damage ecosystems and worsen drinking water quality.

Yet many farming regions in poorer countries don't have enough fertiliser, which is unjust.

Worldwide, our nitrogen and phosphorus use are up to double their safe and just boundaries. While this needs to be reduced in many countries, in other parts of the world fertiliser use can safely increase.
5. Aerosol pollution boundary: Sharply reduce dangerous air pollution and reduce regional differences
New research shows differences in concentration of aerosol pollutants between Northern and Southern hemispheres could disrupt wind patterns and monsoons if pollutant levels keep increasing. That is, air pollution could actually upend weather systems.

At present, aerosol concentrations have not yet reached weather-changing levels. But much of the world is exposed to dangerous levels of fine particle pollution (known as PM 2.5) in the air, causing an estimated 4.2 million deaths a year.

We must significantly reduce these pollutants to safer levels - under 15 micrograms per cubic metre of air.

We must act

We must urgently navigate towards a safe and just future, and strive to return our planetary systems back within safe and just boundaries through just means.

To stop human civilisation from pushing the Earths's systems out of balance, we will have to tackle the many ways we damage the planet.

To work towards a world compatible with the Earth's limits means setting and achieving science-based targets. To translate these boundaries to actions will require urgent support from government to create regulatory and incentive-based systems to drive the changes needed.

Setting boundaries and targets is vital. The Paris Agreement galvanised faster action on climate. But we need similar boundaries to ensure the future holds fresh water, clean air, a planet still full of life and a good life for humans.
We would like to acknowledge support from the Earth Commission, which is hosted by Future Earth, and is the science component of the Global Commons Alliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's not just climate - we've already breached most of the Earth's limits. A safer, fairer future means treading lightly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People once believed the planet could always accommodate us. That the resilience of the Earth system meant nature would always provide. But we now know this is not necessarily the case. As big as the world is, our impact is bigger.

# data[].attributes.headline
Using electric water heaters to store renewable energy could do the work of 2 million home batteries – and save us billions

# data[].attributes.subject
Using electric water heaters to store renewable energy could do the work of 2 million home batteries – and save us billions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Australia's energy transition is well under way. Some 3 million households have rooftop solar and sales of medium-sized electric cars are surging. But as we work towards fully electric households powered by renewable energy, have we overlooked a key enabling technology, the humble electric water heater?

About half of Australian households use electric water heaters, while the rest use gas. So what's so great about electric water heaters?

Electric water heaters offer a cheap way to store large amounts of energy, in the form of hot water. A heater with a 300-litre tank can store about as much energy as a second-generation Tesla Powerwall - at a fraction of the cost.

Our research at the UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures has found Australians could use household electric water heaters to store as much energy as over 2 million home batteries of that kind. This could eventually save over A$6 billion a year on our energy bills while getting us closer to net-zero carbon emissions.

Our report, published today and funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), recommends that, to halve emissions by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, we urgently need policies to rapidly replace gas water heaters with "smart" electric water heaters. Smart heaters can be switched on and off in response to changes in electricity supply and demand across the grid.

This means these heaters can soak up excess "off-peak" renewable energy, particularly from solar, and so help us solve two key problems at once. They can help reduce and eventually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. And they can make our electricity grid more stable by providing flexible demand that helps balance out the fluctuating supply from renewable sources.

Cutting emissions

There are three main types of electric water heater. A conventional "resistance" heater uses electricity to heat water directly. Solar water heaters use sunlight and electricity, but have become less popular as newer "heat pump" units emerged. These collect heat from the air and "pump" it into water. A heat pump uses three to four times less electricity than a resistance heater.

Back in 2010, a resistance electric water heater typically produced around four times more emissions than its gas equivalent. Heat pump emissions were about the same as for gas. That's because electric water heaters use a lot of electricity, and most of it came from burning coal.

As we generate more electricity from renewables, this picture is changing dramatically. Australia's energy market operator, AEMO, publishes regularly updated pathways to a clean-energy future. In the most likely outcome, the " step-change scenario ", gas will become the most greenhouse-intensive water-heating option by 2030.

By 2040, once the transition to a renewable electricity system is largely complete, emissions from resistance and heat pump water heaters will be much lower than for their gas counterparts.

Water heaters can last 15 years or more. So the stock of heaters in our homes for the next two decades depends on what we install today. Replacing gas heaters with electric heaters should therefore be an immediate priority in our energy transition.

Our work explored a range of scenarios, each with a different mix of water-heating technologies. One was a business-as-usual baseline where gas water heaters remain prevalent. In alternative scenarios gas is phased out over the next 10-20 years.

We found that replacing gas with electric water heating would not only help us get to net-zero emissions sooner, it would save us money.

Gas is expensive and unlikely to get much cheaper. Abundant renewables offer an excess of cheap electricity that water heaters can help soak up. Embracing this opportunity could save over $6 billion a year on our energy bills by 2040.

Boosting grid stability

Solar and wind are now the cheapest technologies we've ever had for generating electricity. But to maintain a stable electricity system, we need to match demand with the fluctuating supply from renewable sources. Batteries offer a partial solution, but are still relatively costly.

Electric water heaters offer a much cheaper way to store large amounts of energy and provide the demand flexibility the grid needs.

Our research found that, compared to the business-as-usual baseline, a scenario that emphasises demand flexibility using smart electric water heaters could provide an extra 30GWh of daily flexible demand capacity. That's the equivalent of over 2 million home batteries across the National Electricity Market, which supplies electricity to eastern and southern Australia.

Back to the future for water heating

Since the 1950s, "off-peak hot water" has seen Australian electricity providers turning household water heaters off during the day and on at night to better match demand and supply. In return, customers received heavily discounted prices.

In recent decades we've moved away from off-peak electric hot water, as incentives dwindled and more homes connected to natural gas.

As we electrify our hot water, which technology should we embrace: resistance or heat pump? The answer is both.

Our research explored the trade-off between highly flexible resistance water heaters versus highly efficient but less flexible heat pumps.

Heat pumps use less electricity and cost less to run. Where electricity prices are high or power flow is limited, using heat pumps makes sense. However, they have a higher upfront cost and are not suited to all homes. Many apartments, for example, lack access to suitable outdoor space.

And because they use less electricity, heat pumps offer less flexible demand. As renewables, particularly solar, increasingly power our grid, the ability of resistance electric heaters to soak up excess "off-peak" renewable energy is a big advantage.

With the right policies and market reforms, we will all benefit from a system that once again rewards customers with cheap off-peak electricity in exchange for network operators being able to switch our water heaters off and on as needed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using electric water heaters to store renewable energy could do the work of 2 million home batteries - and save us billions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Australia's energy transition is well under way. Some 3 million households have rooftop solar and sales of medium-sized electric cars are surging. But as we work towards fully electric households powered by renewable energy, have we overlooked a key enabling technology, the humble electric water heater?

# data[].attributes.headline
Reusable containers aren’t always better for the environment than disposable ones - new research

# data[].attributes.subject
Reusable containers aren’t always better for the environment than disposable ones - new research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We are facing a waste crisis, with landfills across the world at full capacity and mountains of "recycled" waste dumped in developing countries. Food packaging is a major source of this waste, giving rise to an industry of "environmentally friendly" reusable food and drink containers that's projected to be worth £21.3 billion worldwide by 2027: well over double its 2019 value of £9.6 billion.

But while it might seem like reusing the same container is better than buying a new single-use one each time, our research shows that reusable containers could actually be worse for the environment than their disposable counterparts.

Reusable containers have to be stronger and more durable to withstand being used multiple times - and they have to be cleaned after each use - so they consume more materials and energy, increasing their carbon footprint.

Our research set out to understand how many times you have to reuse a container for it to be the more eco-friendly choice, in the context of the takeaway food industry.

We looked at three of the most widely used types of single-use takeaway containers: aluminium, polypropylene (PP) and extruded polystyrene (commonly known as Styrofoam®, but correctly referred to as EPS). We compared these with commonly used reusable polypropylene food containers, popular among eco-conscious consumers.

Types of food containers we investigated

The results showed clearly that Styrofoam® containers are by far the best option for the environment among single-use food containers. This is mainly due to their use of only 7.8g of raw materials compared with PP containers' 31.8g. Also, they require less electricity for production compared with aluminium containers.

Even a reusable container would have to be reused between 16 and 208 times for its environmental impact to equal that of a single-use Styrofoam® container.

We assessed 12 environmental impacts across the entire life cycle of a food container. These included the container's contribution to global warming and to acid rain, its toxicity to humans and natural ecosystems and its effects on the ozone layer.

Taking these into account, you'd have to reuse a container 16 times to "counteract" the impact on air pollution of using the single-use container - and 208 times to counteract the impact of resource consumption.

When it comes to endangering our landscapes, reusable containers are always a worse option - regardless of the number of times used - due to the electricity required to heat the water for washing them. This is thanks to the emission of substances like heavy metals in electricity generation, which are toxic to many land-based organisms.
Offsetting damage through reuse
Similar results to ours have been reported for coffee cups, with one study concluding that it takes between 20 and 100 uses for a reusable cup to offset its higher greenhouse gas emissions compared to a disposable cup.

Alternatives

A common criticism of Styrofoam® containers is that they are not currently recycled. Although technically possible, the low density of Styrofoam® (containing 95% air) means that vast amounts need to be collected and compressed before they can be shipped to a recycling plant, making Styrofoam® recycling economically tricky.

However, we found that increasing recycling rates for the three types of single-use takeaway containers to the level of the EU's 2025 packaging waste recycling target (75% for aluminium and 55% for plastic) would reduce their impacts by 2% to 60%. This includes an annual drop in carbon emissions equivalent to taking 55,000 cars off the road.

That doesn't mean that reusing containers is always worse for the planet. We just need to be realistic about the number of reuses it takes to make environmental sense. But reuse is a considerable challenge for an industry optimised for "on-the-go" consumption.

Unless it is highly convenient or they're offered an incentive (such as money back), customers aren't likely to carry around empty containers until they can return or reuse them. There are also potential issues with liability for food poisoning and cross-contamination from allergens when reusing containers.

Despite this, reuse has been shown to work in the takeout sector, as with reusable box schemes like reCIRCLE in Switzerland. However, systems like this require considerable investment, particularly to help customers return containers.

A more promising model may be one where the vendor directly collects empty containers from the customer to be refilled with the same substance, in the style of old-fashioned milk delivery rounds. Similar models, like Terracycle's Loop, aim to reuse each container up to 100 times.

The bigger picture

Unfortunately, single-use takeaway containers frequently end up contaminating natural environments. Almost half of the plastic polluting the world's oceans comes from takeaway containers.

But instead of switching from single-use, a better environmental solution may be to encourage food companies to invest in more efficient recycling systems worldwide.

The takeaway message? Individual packaging choices will have limited influence as long as the whole system remains in need of a complete overhaul. For example, a consumer might opt for a compostable container, but that won't help if their area doesn't have a industrial composting facility.

It's time we shifted packaging design from being product-based - focused on providing maximum features and functionality - to user-centred, focusing on improving customers' lives by empathising with their desires for a cleaner world.

That means coupling environmentally sound and low-impact materials with a waste infrastructure that appreciates how humans actually behave and is designed to help them lead sustainable lives. When convenience and sustainability are pursued together, everyone wins.

# data[].attributes.headline
Recycling is not enough. Zero-packaging stores show we can kick our plastic addiction

# data[].attributes.subject
Recycling is not enough. Zero-packaging stores show we can kick our plastic addiction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wrapped, sealed, boxed, cling-filmed and vacuum packed. We have become used to consumables being packaged in every way imaginable.

The history of "packaging" goes back to the first human settlements. First leaves, gourds and animals skins were used. Then ceramics, glass and tin. Then paper and cardboard. But with the invention of plastic and the celebration of "throwaway living" since the 1950s, the environmental costs of an overpackaged world have become manifest.

Plastic now litters the planet, contaminating ecosystems and posing a significant threat to wildlife and human health. Food and beverage packaging accounts for almost two-thirds of total packaging waste. Recycling, though important, has proven an incapable primary strategy to cope with the scale of plastic rubbish. In Australia, for example, just 11.8% of the 3.5 million tonnes of plastics consumed in 2016-2017 were recycled.

Initiatives to cut down on waste can initially be strongly resisted by consumers used to the convenience, as shown by the reaction to Australia's two major supermarket chains phasing out free single-use plastic shopping bags. But after just three months, shoppers have adapted, and an estimated 1.5 billion bags have been prevented from entering the environment.

Can we dispose with our disposable mentality further, by doing something to cut down on all the packaging of our food and beverages?

Yes we can.

The emergence of zero-packaging food stores is challenging the idea that individually packaged items are a necessary feature of the modern food industry. These new businesses demonstrate how products can be offered without packaging. In doing so they provide both environmental and economic benefits.

The zero-packaging alternative

Zero-packaging shops, sometimes known as zero-waste grocery stores, allow customers to bring and refill their own containers. They offer food products (cereals, pasta, oils) and even household products (soap, dishwashing powder). You simply bring your own jars and containers and buy as little or as much as you need.

These stores can already be found in many countries across the world. They are more than just individual trading businesses making a small difference.

They are part of an important and growing trend promoting an environmentally sustainable "reuse" mentality. Their way of doing business shows we can change the current 'linear' economic system in which we continuously take, make, use and throw away materials.

Rethinking the system

Food packaging is part and parcel of a globalised food market. The greater the distance that food travels, the more packaging is needed.

Zero-packaging stores encourage sourcing locally. They can therefore play an important role in enhancing local economy and supporting local producers. They can help break globalised agribusiness monopolies, regenerating the diversity of rural enterprises and communities. The book Home Grown: The Case for Local Food in a Global Market illustrates the benefits of reclaiming back the food industry.

Read more: Let's reap the economic benefits of local food over big farming

Packaging also contributes to another problem with the current industrialised food system. It doubles as an advertising tool, using all the psychological tricks that marketers have to persuade us to buy a brand. These strategies appeal to desire, encouraging people to buy more than what they really need. This has arguably exacerbated problems such as obesity and food waste. It has given multinational conglomerates with large marketing budgets an advantage over small and local producers.

Next steps

Not all of packaging is wasteful. It can stop food spoiling, for example, and enables us to enjoy foods not locally produced. But what is driving the growth of the global food packaging market - expected to be worth US$411.3 billion by 2025 - is rising demand for single-serve and portable food packs due to "lifestyle changes". Most of us recognise these are not lifestyle changes for the better; they are the result of us spending more time working or commuting, and eating more processed and unhealthier food.

Read more: Want to be happier, healthier, save money? It's time to get cooking

Zero-packaging stores show, in their own small way, a viable and healthier alternative to the current system. Both for ourselves, local economies and the planet.

While these shops are still niche, governments interested in human and environmental health can help them grow. Bans on plastic bags point to what is possible.

How easily we have adapted to no longer having those bags to carry food a few metres to the car and then to the kitchen show that we, as consumers, can change our behaviour. We can choose, when possible, unpacked products. There is, of course, a small sacrifice in the form of convenience, but we just might find that we benefit more, both personally and for a greater environmental, economic and social good.

# data[].attributes.headline
Millions of face masks are being thrown away during COVID-19. Here's how to choose the best one for the planet

# data[].attributes.subject
Millions of face masks are being thrown away during COVID-19. Here's how to choose the best one for the planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Face masks are part of our daily lives during the pandemic. Many are made from plastics and designed to be used just once, which means thousands of tonnes of extra waste going to landfill.

Masks may help stop the spread of the coronavirus. But according to one estimate, if everyone in the United Kingdom used a single-use mask each day for a year, it would create 66,000 tonnes of contaminated waste and 57,000 tonnes of plastic packaging.

Evidence also suggests masks may be a source of harmful microplastic fibres on land and in waterways and litter.

So let's look at how face masks might be designed to cause minimal harm to the environment, while still doing their job - and which type is best for you.

Circular thinking

China is the world's biggest face mask manufacturer. Its daily output of face masks reportedly reached 116 million units in February this year. That creates a big waste management problem around the world.

One way to address this is to adopt " circular design " principles. This thinking seeks to reduce waste and pollution through product design, keep products and materials in use, and regenerate natural systems.

Read more: Which face mask should I wear?

When it comes to face masks, the three common types are cloth, surgical and N-95. N-95 masks offer the highest level of protection, blocking about 95% of airborne particles. Cloth masks are designed to be used more than once, while surgical and N-95 masks are usually intended for single use.

Face masks may consist of one or more layers, each with different functions:

an outermost layer, designed to repel liquids such as water

the innermost layer, which absorbs moisture and allows comfort and breathability

a non-absorbent middle layer, to filter particles.

Each type of mask is made of different materials and used in varying settings:

- N-95 masks: These are designed to protect the wearer from 95% of airborne particles and are largely worn by health workers. N-95 masks are designed to fit closely to the face and are usually worn only once. N-95 masks comprise:

a strap (polyisoprene)

staples (steel)

nose foam (polyurethane)

nose clip (aluminum)

filter (polypropylene)

valve diaphragm (polyisoprene).

- Surgical masks: These are designed to protect sterile environments from the wearer, acting as barrier to droplets or aerosols. Generally intended as single-use items, they comprise mostly polypropylene between two layers of non-woven fabric.

- Cloth masks: These types of masks are worn by the general public. Some are homemade from fabric scraps or old clothing. They may be wholly reusable, or partially reusable with replaceable filters that must be disposed of.

These masks typically comprise an outer layer of polyester or polypropylene (or in some cases, cotton), and an inner layer designed for breathability and comfort - usually cotton or a cotton-polyester blend.

Research suggests cloth masks are less effective at filtering particles than medical masks, but may may give some protection if well-fitted and properly designed. Health advice is available to help guide their use.

Designing for a healthier environment

It's important to note that any attempt to redesign face masks must ensure they offer adequate protection to the wearer. Where masks are used in a medical setting, design changes must also meet official standards such as barrier efficiency, breathing capacity and fire resistance.

With this in mind, reducing the environmental harm caused by masks could be done in several ways:
- Design with more reusable parts
Evidence suggests reusable cloth masks perform almost as well as single-use masks, but without the associated waste. One life cycle assessment conducted in the UK found masks that could be washed and reused were the best option for the environment. Reusable masks with replaceable filters were the second-best option.

The study also found having a higher number of masks in rotation to allow for machine washing was better for the environment than manual washing.
- Make masks easier to dispose of or recyle
In high-risk settings such as hospitals and clinics, the reuse of masks may not be possible or desirable, meaning they must be disposed of. In medical settings, there are systems in place for disposal of such protective gear, which usually involves segregation and incineration.

But the general public must dispose of masks themselves. Because masks usually comprise different materials, this can be complicated. For example, recovering the components of a N-95 mask for recycling would involve putting the straps, nose foam, filter and valve in one bin and the metal staples and nose clip in another. And some recyclers may see mask recycling as a health risk. These difficulties mean masks often end up in landfill.

Masks would be easier to recycle if the were made of fewer materials and were easy to disassemble.

- Use biodegradable materials

For single-use items, placing synthetics with biodegradable materials would be a first step in circular design thinking.

The abaca plant, a relative of the banana tree, offers one potential option. Its leaf fibre reportedly repels water better than traditional face masks, is as strong as polymer and decomposes within two months. Most abaca is currently produced in the Philippines.

Which mask should you choose?

From a purely environmental perspective, research suggests owning multiple reusable face masks, and machine-washing them together, is the best option. Using filters with reusable face masks is a second-best option.

But when choosing a mask, consider where you will wear it. Unless cloth masks are shown to be as effective as other masks, health-care workers should not use them. But they may be suitable in low-risk everyday settings.

In the longer term, governments and manufacturers must make every effort to design masks that will not harm the planet - and consumers should demand this. Face masks will probably be ubiquitous on our streets for months to come. But once the pandemic is over, the environmental legacy may last for decades, if not centuries.

Read more: Cloth masks do protect the wearer - breathing in less coronavirus means you get less sick

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Millions of face masks are being thrown away during COVID-19. Here's how to choose the best one for the planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Face masks are part of our daily lives during the pandemic. Many are made from plastics and designed to be used just once, which means thousands of tonnes of extra waste going to landfill. Masks may help stop the spread of the coronavirus.

# data[].attributes.headline
Can we safely burn waste to make fuel like they do in Denmark? Well, it’s complicated

# data[].attributes.subject
Can we safely burn waste to make fuel like they do in Denmark? Well, it’s complicated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When it comes to handling the waste crisis in Australia, options are limited: we either export our waste or bury it. But to achieve current national targets, policy-makers are increasingly asking if we can instead safely burn waste as fuel.

Proposals for waste incinerators are being considered in the Greater Sydney region, but these have been lambasted by the Greens and independent members of the NSW parliament, who cite public health concerns.

Meanwhile, the ACT government has recently put a blanket ban on these facilities.

Read more: China's garbage ban upends US recycling - is it time to reconsider incineration?

But are their concerns based on evidence? In our systematic review of the scientific literature, we could identify only 19 papers among 269 relevant studies - less than 10% - that could help address our question on whether waste-to-energy incinerators could harm our health.

This means the answer remains unclear, and we therefore call for a cautious approach to waste-to-energy technology.

One person, one year, 500 kilograms of waste

Australia's waste crisis began in 2018 when China greatly reduced how much waste it imported. China's waste market was handling about half of the world's recyclable materials, including Australia's.

On average, Australia produces roughly 500 kilograms of municipal (residential and commercial) waste each year. This aligns with the OECD average.

New Zealand in comparison, despite its strong environmental stance, is among the worst offenders for producing waste in any OECD country. It produces almost 800 kilograms per person per year.

Now, most recyclable or reusable waste in Australia goes to landfill. This poses a potential risk to both climate and health with the emission of potent greenhouse gases such as methane and the leaching of heavy metals such as lead into the groundwater. As a result, local governments may want to seek alternative options.

Burning waste in Denmark

"Waste-to-energy" incineration is when solid waste is sorted and burned as "refuse-derived" fuel to generate electricity. This can replace fossil fuel such as coal.

Read more: The recycling crisis in Australia: easy solutions to a hard problem

The technology is on the rise among OECD countries. Denmark and Japan, for example, rely on waste-to-energy incineration to reduce their dependency on landfills and reach carbon neutrality.

In fact, Denmark's waste-to-energy incinerator, Amager Bakke, is so well known it has become a tourist attraction, and is celebrated as one of the world's cleanest waste-to-energy incinerators.

Every day, around 300 trucks filled with non-recyclable municipal solid waste are sent to Amager Bakke.

This fuels a furnace that runs at 1,000℃, turning water into steam. And this steam provides electricity and heat to around 100,000 households. Generally, people in Denmark warmly welcome it.

So what's the problem?

In Australia and the US, community reception towards the building of new incinerators has been cold.

The big concern is burning waste may release chemicals that can harm our health, such as nitrogen oxide and dioxin. Exposure to high levels of dioxin can lead to skin lesions, an impaired immune system and reproductive issues.

However, control measures, such as the technologically advanced filters used in Amager Bakke, can bring the amount of dioxin released to near zero.

Another concern is that implementing waste-to-energy incineration may go against recycling schemes, due to the potential for an increased demand for non-recyclable plastics as fuel.

Supply of this plastic could come from the waning fossil fuel industry. This would work against the goal of establishing a "circular economy" that reuses and recycles goods where possible.

An analysis from 2019 found that to meet European Union circular economy goals, Nordic countries would need to increase their recycling, and significantly shift away from incineration.

This concern is understandable given incinerators operate cleanest when fuelled at full capacity. This is because a higher temperature means a more complete combustion - a bit like less ash and smoke coming off of a well-built campfire.

A lack of evidence

As with many policy solutions, determining the safety of burning waste is complicated.

Our review found a lack of evidence to fully reject well-designed and operated facilities. However, based on the limited number of health studies we found, we support a precautionary planning approach to waste-to-energy proposals.

Read more: Garbage in, garbage out: Incinerating trash is not an effective way to protect the climate or reduce waste

This means we need appropriate health risk assessment and life cycle analyses built into the approval process for each and every incinerator proposed in the near-future.

The studies we found were all performed in the last 20 years. None were from the Nordic countries, however, where waste-to-energy incineration has been in use for many decades.

The reasons for the Nordic embrace of this technology are speculative. One reason may be that their level of economic development allows large capital investment for safe, state-of-the-art design and operation.

Where to from here?

If councils are determined to pursue waste-to-energy incineration, we suggest they prioritise specific applications.

For example, we found the process with the most favourable life-cycle assessment (the most beneficial to health compared to traditional fossil fuel use) was the "co-incineration" of refuse-derived fuel for industrial cement.

Read more: South African study highlights growing number of landfill sites, and health risks

Currently, cement kilns are mostly fuelled by burning coal, and it's difficult to reach the high temperatures required with traditional renewables. This means substituting coal for refuse-derived fuel could reduce the industry's dependency on coal, when renewables aren't an option.

Another solution is to focus instead on the waste hierarchy. This means first minimising waste production, maximising energy efficiency and maximising recycling and reuse of waste materials.

So, while we wait for more knowledge on how waste-to-energy incineration may affect our health, let's focus on improving our waste hierarchy, rather than exporting our waste to feed a global crisis.

# data[].attributes.headline
A third of our waste comes from buildings. This one’s designed for reuse and cuts emissions by 88%

# data[].attributes.subject
A third of our waste comes from buildings. This one’s designed for reuse and cuts emissions by 88%

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Designing buildings so they can easily be taken apart and the materials reused provides a feasible and commercial pathway for minimising waste and greenhouse gas emissions. Our research shows one such Curtin University building, the Legacy Living Lab in Fremantle, reduces construction waste and cuts emissions to almost a tenth of what a conventional building process would produce.

The modular, circular economy building produces benefits in all six environmental indicators we assessed. It's part of our vision for the decarbonisation of buildings.

Read more: Buildings produce 25% of Australia's emissions. What will it take to make them 'green' - and who'll pay?

Learning from nature

Natural biogeochemical cycles create little or no waste. These circular cycles eventually transform used material into a new resource. For example, through the nutrient cycle a fallen leaf provides the building blocks for future leaves.

It's simple and beautiful. The opposite of a linear model of "take, make, dispose". It's complex and ugly.

Unfortunately, this is the model industrialised society has adopted. And not only for our coffee pods, which mostly end up in landfill, but also for most commercial and residential buildings.

The building industry consumes about 50% of mineral resources and produces about 35% of waste. It's a major source of global greenhouse gas emissions. What, then, can be done?

Read more: We create 20m tons of construction industry waste each year. Here's how to stop it going to landfill

Rethinking 'downward spiral' recycling

The answer lies in revisiting the basics of our recycling practices. Since the late 1990s, recycling has been considered an environmental solution, with recycling bins popping up everywhere. However, researchers and consumers alike have begun to realise recycling often comes down to mere " wishcycling". Less than 10% of plastics is actually being recycled.

Reprocessing is considered the best way to keep materials in use, particularly for artefacts like coffee cups or microchips. However, for many other products, such as building materials, recycling often translates into less than helpful down-cycling.

Even seemingly environmentally benign material, such as timber, often cannot be recycled. Rather, it is remanufactured into products of lower economic value and quality. The material is in a downward spiral that only delays its disposal to landfill.

Clearly, it is much better for the environment if we can find ways to reuse products. Indeed, there are " reusable alternatives for almost everything: beeswax or silicone food wraps, reusable coffee pods, shampoo and conditioner bars, reusable safety razors and bars of soap, rather than liquid soap".

Read more: With the right tools, we can mine cities

Applying reuse principles to buildings

Can this reuse practice be adopted for buildings too? After all, a building is a sophisticated and complex product compared to coffee pods or cling wrap.

Researchers from Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute put this question to the test by building a modular, reusable laboratory. It's a place where researchers, builders and citizens alike can meet to prototype and study new products.

The Legacy Living Lab (L3) is a highly functional, state-of-the-art building with offices and space for collaboration. Yet it can be taken apart - deconstructed or disassembled - moved and reused anywhere within weeks.

Findings from studying the environmental impact of this facility point towards a resounding yes to the question of whether reuse practices can be adopted for buildings. The in-built reuse practices of the L3 save 18 tonnes of construction materials from disposal compared to common building industry practices. This leads to an 88% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.

So how was this done? Simply, by choosing reused steel frames, opting for steel foundations instead of concrete, and designing internal wall cladding that's easily disassembled. This makes it almost as easy to take the building apart as your average Lego spaceship.

Read more: Green cement a step closer to being a game-changer for construction emissions

When the time comes to decommission the building, it can be deconstructed as eight modules. These can be moved to the next site for reuse rather than being demolished.

Modular buildings are made of box-shaped structures, built off-site and delivered on-site in a matter of hours. This has the added benefit of minimum disruption for our cities compared to traditional construction sites.

Modular buildings come in all shapes and dimensions, from tiny houses to skyscrapers and factories. They are often more cost-effective to produce than traditional double-brick constructions.

Thus, as well as a minimal environmental footprint, the advantages of modular buildings include flexibility, speed and cost.

Creating a new building materials market

By adopting easily disassembled modular buildings, we can create a whole new market for reusable building materials. Design-for-disassembly and closed-loop supply chains can keep building components in the material loop as they are - without the need for wishy-washy and wasteful recycling procedures.

Similar to the way nature operates, the team at CUSP created a building whose byproducts from one process remain in the loop as inputs for the next, keeping waste to a minimum. In this way, disassembly becomes much safer and cleaner, which benefits our cities and their residents.

Read more: Unbuilding cities as high-rises reach their use-by date

All that does not mean recycling building waste isn't beneficial. It all depends on the project. Timber can at least be chipped into garden mulch, bricks and concrete crushed into road base, and so forth.

But this approach is not nearly as neat as nature's way of handling waste. Design for disassembly and modularity comes closer to that. It can lead the way towards a marketplace where it is common practice to retain material in the supply chain.

If our goal is to create products and processes that " solve our greatest design challenges sustainably and in solidarity with all life on Earth", it's time we turned toward nature. We believe it will be a wiser guide than any other in our efforts to redefine wasteful, linear business models.

# data[].attributes.headline
Packaging generates a lot of waste – now Maine and Oregon want manufacturers to foot the bill for getting rid of it

# data[].attributes.subject
Packaging generates a lot of waste – now Maine and Oregon want manufacturers to foot the bill for getting rid of it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most consumers don't pay much attention to the packaging that their purchases come in, unless it's hard to open or the item is really over-wrapped. But packaging accounts for about 28% of U.S. municipal solid waste. Only some 53% of it ends up in recycling bins, and even less is actually recycled: According to trade associations, at least 25% of materials collected for recycling in the U.S. are rejected and incinerated or sent to landfills instead.

Local governments across the U.S. handle waste management, funding it through taxes and user fees. Until 2018 the U.S. exported huge quantities of recyclable materials, primarily to China. Then China banned most foreign scrap imports. Other recipient countries like Vietnam followed suit, triggering waste disposal crises in wealthy nations.

Some U.S. states have laws that make manufacturers responsible for particularly hard-to-manage products, such as electronic waste, car batteries, mattresses and tires, when those goods reach the end of their useful lives.

Now, Maine and Oregon have enacted the first state laws making companies that create consumer packaging, such as cardboard cartons, plastic wrap and food containers, responsible for the recycling and disposal of those products, too. Maine's law takes effect in mid-2024, and Oregon's follows in mid-2025.

These measures shift waste management costs from customers and local municipalities to producers. As researchers who study waste and ways to reduce it, we are excited to see states moving to engage stakeholders, shift responsibility, spur innovation and challenge existing extractive practices.

Holding producers accountable

The Maine and Oregon laws are the latest applications of a concept called extended producer responsibility, or EPR. Swedish academic Thomas Lindhqvist framed this idea in 1990 as a strategy to decrease products' environmental impacts by making manufacturers responsible for the goods' entire life cycles - especially for takeback, recycling and final disposal.

Producers don't always literally take back their goods under EPR schemes. Instead, they often make payments to an intermediary organization or agency, which uses the money to help cover the products' recycling and disposal costs. Making producers cover these costs is intended to give them an incentive to redesign their products to be less wasteful.

The idea of extended producer responsibility has driven regulations governing management of electronic waste, such as old computers, televisions and cellphones, in the European Union, China and 25 U.S. states. Similar measures have been adopted or proposed in nations including Kenya, Nigeria, Chile, Argentina and South Africa.

Scrap export bans in China and other countries have given new energy to EPR campaigns. Activist organizations and even some corporations are now calling for producers to become accountable for more types of waste, including consumer packaging.

What the state laws require

The Maine and Oregon laws define consumer packaging as material likely found in the average resident's waste bin, such as containers for food and home or personal care products. They exclude packaging intended for long-term storage (over five years), beverage containers, paint cans and packaging for drugs and medical devices.

Maine's law incorporates some core EPR principles, such as setting a target recycling goal and giving producers an incentive to use more sustainable packaging. Oregon's law includes more groundbreaking components. It promotes the idea of a right to repair, which gives consumers access to information that they need to fix products they purchase. And it creates a " Truth in Labeling" task force to assess whether producers are making misleading claims about how recyclable their products are.

The Oregon law also requires a study to assess how bio-based plastics can affect compost waste streams, and it establishes a statewide collection list to harmonize what types of materials can be recycled across the state. Studies show that contamination from poor sorting is one of the main reasons why recyclables often are rejected.

Some extended producer responsibility systems, such as those for paint and mattresses, are funded by consumers, who pay an added fee at the point of sale that is itemized on their receipt. The fee supports the products' eventual recycling or disposal.

In contrast, the Maine and Oregon laws require producers to pay fees to the states, based on how much packaging material they sell in those states. Both laws also include rules designed to limit producers' influence over how the states use these funds.

Will these laws reduce waste?

There's no clear consensus yet on the effectiveness of EPR. In some cases it has produced results: For instance, Connecticut's mattress recycling rate rose from 8.7% to 63.5% after the state instituted a takeback law funded by fees paid at the point of sale. On a national scale, the Product Stewardship Institute estimates that since 2007 U.S. paint EPR programs have reused and recycled almost 24 million gallons of paint, created 200 jobs and saved governments and taxpayers over $240 million.

Critics argue that these programs need strong regulation and monitoring to ensure that corporations take their responsibilities seriously - and especially to prevent them from passing costs on to consumers, which requires enforceable accountability measures. Observers also argue that producers can have too much influence within stewardship organizations, which they warn may undermine enforcement or the credibility of the law.

Few studies have been done so far to assess the long-term effects of extended producer responsibility programs, and those that exist do not show conclusively whether these initiatives actually lead to more sustainable products. Maine and Oregon are small progressive states and are not major centers for the packaging industry, so the impact of their new laws remains to be seen.

However, these measures are promising models. As Martin Bourque, executive director of Berkeley's Ecology Center and an internationally known expert on plastics and recycling, told us, "Maine's approach of charging brands and manufacturers to pay cities for recycling services is an improvement over programs that give all of the operational and material control to producers, where the fox is directly in charge of the hen house."

We believe the Maine and Oregon laws could inspire jurisdictions like California that are considering similar measures or drowning under waste plastic to adopt EPR themselves. Waste reduction efforts across the U.S. took hits from foreign scrap bans and then from the COVID-19 pandemic, which spurred greater use of disposable products and packaging. We see producer-pay schemes like the Maine and Oregon laws as a promising response that could help catalyze broader progress toward a less wasteful economy.

[ Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week. Subscribe to The Conversation's science newsletter.]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Packaging generates a lot of waste - now Maine and Oregon want manufacturers to foot the bill for getting rid of it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most consumers don't pay much attention to the packaging that their purchases come in, unless it's hard to open or the item is really over-wrapped. But packaging accounts for about 28% of U.S. municipal solid waste.

# data[].attributes.headline
‘Do-gooders’, conservatives and reluctant recyclers: how personal morals can be harnessed for climate action

# data[].attributes.subject
‘Do-gooders’, conservatives and reluctant recyclers: how personal morals can be harnessed for climate action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's no shortage of evidence pointing to the need to act urgently on climate change. Most recently, a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed Earth has warmed 1.09℃ since pre-industrial times and many changes, such as sea-level rise and glacier melt, cannot be stopped.

Clearly, emissions reduction efforts to date have fallen abysmally short. But why, when the argument in favour of climate action is so compelling?

Decisions about climate change require judging what's important, and how the world should be now and in future. Therefore, climate change decisions are inherently moral. The rule applies whether the decision is being made by an individual deciding what food to eat, or national governments setting goals at international climate negotiations.

Our research reviewed the most recent literature across the social and behavioural sciences to better understand the moral dimensions of climate decisions. We found some moral values, such as fairness, motivate action. Others, such as economic liberty, stoke inaction.

Morals as climate motivators

Our research uncovered a large body of research confirming people's moral values are connected to their willingness to act on climate change.

Moral values are the yardstick through which we understand things to be right or wrong, good or bad. We develop personal moral values through our families in childhood and our social and cultural context.

But which moral values best motivate personal actions? Our research documents a study in the United States, which found the values of compassion and fairness were a strong predictor of someone's willingness to act on climate change.

According to moral foundations theory, the value of compassion relates to humans' evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel and dislike the pain of others.

Fairness relates to the evolutionary process of " reciprocal altruism ". This describes a situation whereby an organism acts in a way that temporarily disadvantages itself while benefiting another, based on an expectation that the altruism will be reciprocated at a later time.

Read more: Ordinary people, extraordinary change: addressing the climate emergency through 'quiet activism'

Conversely, a study in Australia found people who put a lower value on fairness, compared to either the maintenance of social order or the right to economic freedom, were more likely to be sceptical about climate change.

People may also use moral "disengagement" to justify, and assuage guilt over, their own climate inaction. In other words, they convince themselves that ethical standards do not apply in a particular context.

For example, a longitudinal study of 1,355 Australians showed over time, people who became more morally disengaged became more sceptical about climate change, were less likely to feel responsible and were less likely to act.

Our research found the moral values driving efforts to reduce emissions (mitigation) were different to those driving climate change adaptation.

Research in the United Kingdom showed people emphasised the values of responsibility and respect for authorities, country and nature, when talking about mitigation. When evaluating adaptation options, they emphasised moral values such as protection from harm and fair distribution of economic costs.

Framing climate decisions

How government and private climate decisions are framed and communicated affects who they resonate with, and whether they're seen as legitimate.

Research suggests climate change could be made morally relevant to more people if official climate decisions appealed to moral values associated with right-wing political leanings.

A US study found liberals interpreted climate change in moral terms related to harm and care, while conservatives did not. But when researchers reframed pro-environmental messages in terms of moral values that resonated with conservatives, such as defending the purity of nature, differences in the environmental attitudes of both groups narrowed.

Indeed, research shows moral reframing can change pro-environmental behaviours of different political groups, including recycling habits.

In the US, people were found to recycle more after the practice was reframed in moral terms that resonated with their political ideology. For conservatives, the messages appealed to their sense of civic duty and respect for authority. For liberals, the messages emphasised recycling as an act of fairness, care and reducing harm to others.

Read more: Communicating climate change has never been so important, and this IPCC report pulls no punches

When moralising backfires

Clearly, morals are central to decision-making about the environment. In some cases, this can extend to people adopting - or being seen to adopt - a social identity with moral associations such as " zero-wasters", " voluntary simplifiers" and cyclists.

People may take on these identities overtly, such as by posting about their actions on social media. In other cases, a practice someone adopts, such as cycling to work, can be construed by others as a moral action.

Being seen to hold a social identity based on a set of morals may actually have unintended effects. Research has found so-called " do-gooders " can be perceived by others as irritating rather than inspiring. They may also trigger feelings of inadequacy in others who, as a self-defense mechanism, might then dismiss the sustainable choices of the "do-gooder".

For example, sociologists have theorised that some non-vegans avoid eating a more plant-based diet because they don't want to be associated with the social identity of veganism.

It makes sense, then, that gentle encouragement such as "meat-free Mondays" is likely more effective at reducing meat consumption than encouraging people to "go vegan" and eliminate meat altogether.

Looking ahead

Personal climate decisions come with a host of moral values and quandaries. Understanding and navigating this moral dimension will be critical in the years ahead.

When making climate-related decisions, governments should consider the moral values of citizens. This can be achieved through procedures like deliberative democracy and citizen's forums, in which everyday people are given the chance to discuss and debate the issues, and communicate to government what matters most to them.

Read more: This is the most sobering report card yet on climate change and Earth's future. Here's what you need to know

# data[].attributes.headline
A promising new dawn is ours for the taking - so let's stop counting the coal Australia must leave in the ground

# data[].attributes.subject
A promising new dawn is ours for the taking - so let's stop counting the coal Australia must leave in the ground

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A study out today says the vast majority of Earth's coal, including 95% of Australia's, cannot be burned if global warming is to be limited to 1.5℃ this century. The findings are undoubtedly true. But examining how much fossil fuel the world can still use is not the question we should be asking.

Instead, the most useful questions are: how do we advance Australia's economic future outside high-emissions industries? And how can we seize the opportunities presented by the declines of coal, and then gas, rather than watching the economy go underwater as we try to stem an unstoppable tide?

The world is moving away fossil fuels, and there's nothing Australia can do about it. Racing to dig up and sell whatever fossil fuels we can before the timer stops is not a future-proof strategy. We need to prepare for the change and diversify the economy.

How much coal must remain in the ground is beside the point. Instead, we should grasp this moment - turning it into a positive step for the world community and future generations.

The numbers game

The new study by researchers at University College London examines how much fossil fuel can still be burned if we hope to keep the global average temperature rises to within 1.5℃ - the ambitious end of the Paris Agreement goals. It compares this "budget" with the known stores of coal, oil and gas in various parts of the world.

The study finds the vast majority of remaining fossil fuels must remain in the ground - specifically 89% of coal, 59% of gas and 58% of oil. For Australia, that equates to 95% of our coal reserves and 35% of our gas.

The research is a follow-up to a well-known 2015 study based on the 2℃ warming scenario. Similar findings have also been made in other research.

While it's long been clear that much of Earth's fossil fuel deposits must stay in the ground, there are uncertainties around the numbers. These come from varying assumptions about:

the exact size of the remaining global carbon budget for any particular temperature increase

how the carbon budget might be distributed between coal, oil and gas (which depends on technology choices and costs)

the extent of carbon capture and storage (or carbon use) and removal of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere

how much fossil fuel would be available for extraction.

The study released overnight offers results only from a single model and data set. The results remind us how little time remains to keep using fossil fuels, but we should not focus unduly on the headline numbers the study produced.

Read more: Yes, it is entirely possible for Australia to phase out thermal coal within a decade

3 lenses on the end of the fossil fuel age

Just as the Stone Age didn't end for a lack of stones, the fossil fuel age won't end for a lack of coal, gas or oil.

So while humanity is not running out of fossil fuels, we are running out of options for the waste product, carbon dioxide - and running out of time to deal with it.

Countries that produce and export large amounts of fossil fuels must address this undeniable reality. We characterise three different ways they can do this.

The first is the "hell-for-leather" approach: extract, use and sell whatever fossil fuels you can while there's still a market, and promote the global use of fossil fuels to extend the ride. This is the natural stance for companies focused solely on fossil fuel production.

Some countries that export fossil fuels are pursuing such strategies. In Australia, a statement by federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt this week can be interpreted along such lines.

In this mindset, remaining fossil fuel deposits should be exploited to the maximum, at whatever cost. It emphasises specific business interests, while defining national interests in narrow and short-sighted terms.

It also disregards the global climate change objective and international relations with countries that emphasise climate concerns. In short, it risks train wrecks down the track.

Read more: As the world battles to slash carbon emissions, Australia considers paying dirty coal stations to stay open longer

A second approach is to concede fossil fuels are on a long-term downward trajectory, due to climate change concerns and rapid improvements in clean technologies. It accepts this change is driven by consumers and there is nothing fossil fuel exporters can do about it.

The logical consequence is to prepare for the inevitable decline and cushion the transition. That could include using some revenue from fossil fuels to invest in a socially and environmentally sensitive transition.

Under this approach, the amount of fossil fuel available underground is simply irrelevant. The deposits are redundant - just like all those stones were at the end of the Stone Age. The question of what proportion must remain unexploited is of no particular interest.

A third option is to understand the challenge as a positive one: take the global shift away from fossil fuels as an opportunity to modernise and massively diversify the economy.

Taking this perspective, leaving coal in the ground is a positive step that helps nations and regions evolve in desirable ways and helps the world community, and future generations, deal with climate change. Not mining coal, then, takes on an ethical dimension - perhaps it can be seen as "ethi-coal".

Read more: Climate change has already hit Australia. Unless we act now, a hotter, drier and more dangerous future awaits, IPCC warns

Preparing for a post-fossil future

Whichever lens one chooses to look through, clean technologies will displace the burning of coal, oil and gas.

In Australia, large corporations (and to a lesser extent, some employees and public finances) have done well out of coal and gas. But that's far from the only way we can derive large export revenues.

Australia is exceptionally well placed to build up an energy and processing industry based on its practically limitless renewable energy potential, coupled with experience with and predisposition towards large resource industries. This could include clean hydrogen and even green steel.

But to once again become dependent on just a few large industries, such as minerals or energy, should not be the goal here. Rather, we should use the global low-carbon transition as a platform for a large range of new industries. There are many opportunities in new technologies and practices.

So let's keep our eye on the big picture: diversifying the economy into a broad range of activities with low environmental footprints, underpinned by modern infrastructure, top quality education and a strong social and health system.

Therein lies a desirable and economically sound future for Australia - one where we won't be worrying one bit about all the coal left in the ground.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A promising new dawn is ours for the taking - so let's stop counting the coal Australia must leave in the ground

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A study out today says the vast majority of Earth's coal, including 95% of Australia's, cannot be burned if global warming is to be limited to 1.5℃ this century. The findings are undoubtedly true. But examining how much fossil fuel the world can still use is not the question we should be asking.

# data[].attributes.headline
Renewable energy can save the natural world – but if we’re not careful, it will also hurt it

# data[].attributes.subject
Renewable energy can save the natural world – but if we’re not careful, it will also hurt it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A vast transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is crucial to slowing climate change. But building solar panels, wind turbines and other renewable energy infrastructure requires mining for materials. If not done responsibly, this may damage species and ecosystems.

In our research, published today, we mapped the world's potential mining areas and assessed how they overlap with biodiversity conservation sites.

We found renewable energy production will exacerbate the threat mining poses to biodiversity - the world's variety of animals and plants. It's fair to assume that in some places, the extraction of renewables minerals may cause more damage to nature than the climate change it averts.

Australia is well placed to become a leader in mining of renewable energy materials and drive the push to a low-carbon world. But we must act now to protect our biodiversity from being harmed in the process.

Mining to prevent climate change

Currently, about 17% of current global energy consumption is achieved through renewable energy. To further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this proportion must rapidly increase.

Building new renewable energy infrastructure will involve mining minerals and metals. Some of these include:

lithium, graphite and cobalt (mostly used in battery storage)

zinc and titanium (used mostly for wind and geothermal energy)

copper, nickle and aluminium (used in a range of renewable energy technologies).

The World Bank estimates the production of such materials could increase by 500% by 2050. It says more than 3 billion tonnes of minerals and metals will be needed to build the wind, solar and geothermal power, and energy storage, needed to keep global warming below 2℃ this century.

However, mining can seriously damage species and places. It destroys natural habitat, and surrounding environments can be harmed by the construction of transport infrastructure such as roads and railways.

What we found

We mapped areas around the world potentially affected by mining. Our analysis involved 62,381 pre-operational, operational, and closed mines targeting 40 different materials.

We found mining may influence about 50 million km² of Earth's land surface (or 37%, excluding Antarctica). Some 82% of these areas contain materials needed for renewable energy production. Of this, 12% overlaps with protected areas, 7% with " key biodiversity areas", and 14% with remaining wilderness.

Our results suggest mining of renewable energy materials may increase in currently untouched and "biodiverse" places. These areas are considered critical to helping species overcome the challenges of climate change.

Threats here and abroad

Australia is well positioned to become a leading supplier of materials for renewable energy. We are also one of only 17 nations considered ecologically "megadiverse".

Yet, many of the minerals needed for renewable energy exist in important conservation areas.

For example, Australia is rich in lithium and already accounts for half of world production. Hard-rock lithium mines operate in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.

This area has also been identified as a national biodiversity hotspot and is home to many native species. These include small marsupials such as the little red antechinus and the pebble-mound mouse, and reptiles including gecko and goanna species.

Read more: World-first mining standard must protect people and hold powerful companies to account

Australia is also ranked sixth in the world for deposits of rare earth elements, many of which are needed to produce magnets for wind turbines. We also have large resources of other renewables materials such as cobalt, manganese, tantalum, tungsten and zirconium.

It's critical that mining doesn't damage Australia's already vulnerable biodiversity, and harm the natural places valued by Indigenous people and other communities.

In many cases, renewables minerals are found in countries where the resource sector is not strongly regulated, posing an even greater environmental threat. For example, the world's second-largest untouched lithium reserve exists in Bolivia's Salar de Uyuni salt pan. This naturally diverse area is mostly untouched by mining.

The renewables expansion will also require iron and steel. To date, mining for iron in Brazil has almost wiped out an entire plant community, and recent dam failures devastated the environment and communities.

We need proactive planning

Strong planning and conservation action is needed to avoid, manage and prevent the harm mining causes to the environment. However global conservation efforts are often naive to the threats posed by significant growth in renewable energies.

Some protected areas around the world prevent mining, but more than 14% contain metal mines in or near their boundaries. Consequences for biodiversity may extend many kilometres from mining sites.

Meanwhile, other areas increasingly important for conservation are focused on the needs of biodiversity, and don't consider the distribution of mineral resources and pressures to extract them. Conservation plans for these sites must involve strategies to manage the mining threat.

There is some good news. Our analyses suggest many required materials occur outside protected areas and other conservation priorities. The challenge now is to identify which species are most at risk from current and future mining development, and develop strong policies to avoid their loss.
The map in this article has been updated, because due to a technical issue the previous version omitted some information.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate explained: how much of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels and could we replace it all with renewables?

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate explained: how much of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels and could we replace it all with renewables?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CC BY-ND

Climate explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.
If you have a question you'd like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz
How are fossil fuels formed, why do they release carbon dioxide and how much of the world's energy do they provide? And what are the renewable energy sources that could replace fossil fuels?

Fossil fuels were formed over millions of years from the remains of plants and animals trapped in sediments and then transformed by heat and pressure.

Most coal was formed in the Carboniferous Period (360-300 million years ago), an age of amphibians and vast swampy forests. Fossilisation of trees moved enormous amounts of carbon from the air to underground, leading to a decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels - enough to bring the Earth close to a completely frozen state.

This change in the climate, combined with the evolution of fungi that could digest dead wood and release its carbon back into the air, brought the coal-forming period to an end.

Oil and natural gas (methane, CH₄) were formed similarly, not from trees but from ocean plankton, and over a longer period. New Zealand's Maui oil field is relatively young, dating from the Eocene, some 50 million years ago.

Read more: Climate explained: why carbon dioxide has such outsized influence on Earth's climate

Burning buried sunshine

When fossil fuels are burnt, their carbon reacts with oxygen to form carbon dioxide. The energy originally provided by the Sun, stored in chemical bonds for millions of years, is released and the carbon returns to the air. A simple example is the burning of natural gas: one molecule of methane and two of oxygen combine to produce carbon dioxide and water.
CH₄ + 2 O₂ → CO₂ + 2 H₂O
Burning a kilogram of natural gas releases 15kWh of energy in the form of infrared radiation (radiant heat). This is a sizeable amount.

To stop continuously worsening climate change, we need to stop burning fossil fuels for energy. That's a tall order, because fossil fuels provide 84% of all the energy used by human civilisation. (New Zealand is less reliant on fossil fuels, at 65%.)

Shutterstock/YIUCHEUNG

There are many possible sources of renewable or low-carbon energy: nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass (burning plants for energy) and biofuel (making liquid or gaseous fuels out of plants). A handful of tidal power stations are in operation, and experiments are under way with wave and ocean current generation.

But, among these, the only two with the capacity to scale up to the staggering amount of energy we use are wind and solar. Despite impressive growth (doubling in less than five years), wind provides only 2.2% of all energy, and solar 1.1%.

The renewables transition

One saving grace, which suggests a complete transformation to renewable energy may be possible, is that a lot of the energy from fossil fuels is wasted.

First, extraction, refining and transport of fossil fuels accounts for 12% of all energy use. Second, fossil fuels are often burnt in very inefficient ways, for example in internal combustion engines in cars. A world based on renewable energy would need half as much energy in the first place.

The potential solar and wind resource is enormous, and costs have fallen rapidly. Some have argued we could transition to fully renewable energy, including transmission lines and energy storage as well as fully synthetic liquid fuels, by 2050.

One scenario sees New Zealand building 20GW of solar and 9GW of wind power. That's not unreasonable - Australia has built that much in five years. We should hurry. Renewable power plants take time to build and industries take time to scale up.

Other factors to consider

Switching to renewable energy solves the problems of fuel and climate change, but not those of escalating resource use. Building a whole new energy system takes a lot of material, some of it rare and difficult to extract. Unlike burnt fuel, metal can be recycled, but that won't help while building a new system for the first time.

Research concluded that although some metals are scarce (particularly cobalt, cadmium, nickel, gold and silver), "a fully renewable energy system is unlikely to deplete metal reserves and resources up to 2050". There are also opportunities to substitute more common materials, at some loss of efficiency.

Shutterstock/Jacques Tarnero

But many metals are highly localised. Half the world's cobalt reserves are in the Democratic Republic of Congo, half the lithium is in Chile, and 70% of rare earths, used in wind turbines and electric motors, are in China.

Wasteful consumption is another issue. New technologies (robots, drones, internet) and economic growth lead to increased use of energy and resources. Rich people use a disproportionate amount of energy and model excessive consumption and waste others aspire to, including the emerging rich in developing countries.

Read more: Renewable energy can save the natural world - but if we're not careful, it will also hurt it

Research analysing household-level emissions across European countries found the top 1% of the population with the highest carbon footprints produced 55 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent emissions each, compared to a European median of 10 tonnes.

Scientists have warned about consumption by the affluent and there is vigorous debate about how to reduce it while preserving a stable society.

One way of turning these questions around is to start from the bottom and ask: what is the minimum energy required for basic human needs?

One study considered "decent living" to include comfortable housing, enough food and water, 10,000km of travel a year, education, healthcare and telecommunications for everyone on Earth - clearly not something we have managed to achieve so far. It found this would need about 4,000kWh of energy per person per year, less than a tenth of what New Zealanders currently use, and an amount easily supplied by renewable energy.

All that carbon under the ground was energy ripe for the picking. We picked it. But now it is time to stop.

# data[].attributes.headline
From veggie gardening to op-shopping, migrants are the quiet environmentalists

# data[].attributes.subject
From veggie gardening to op-shopping, migrants are the quiet environmentalists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The organised environmental movement is largely a white, middle-class space. But our research shows migrants care for nature in other ways - including living sustainably in their everyday lives.

This is most obvious on the domestic front. From repurposing goods to keeping vegetable gardens and being careful with electricity use, migrants are highly likely to practise sustainable living - sometimes without even realising it.

In the debate about environmental issues, migrants are often blamed for making the problem worse, such as by adding to congestion. It's important to break this circuit and recognise migrants' positive contribution to environmental protection.

Migrants can successfully be harnessed to help with environmental causes. Doing this will require both learning from migrants, and helping them feel welcome in the green movement.

Busting migrant myths

Our qualitative pilot study sought to provide an in-depth picture of young first- and second-generation Australian migrants who care about the environment.

Research shows ethnic minorities are often under-represented in the urban environmental movement.

This can lead to suggestions migrants do not actively care for the environment - either due to apathy, or because they are preoccupied with climbing social and economic ladders in their new country.

But my research found first- and second-generation migrants in Australia care for the environment in particular ways, largely focused on the domestic front.

Read more: 4 assumptions about gender that distort how we think about climate change (and 3 ways to do better)

What we found

My research team interviewed eight first-generation migrants and nine second- generation migrants in Sydney, aged between 18 and 40 years. The group comprised seven women and ten men, roughly half of whom were parents.

We found the participants actively and consciously carried out environmental care practices, mostly in the domestic sphere. From a young age, first- and second-generation participants continued austerity and waste-consciousness inherited from their parents. These included:

recycling and repurposing consumable items

careful water and electricity use

home vegetable gardens and composting

ethical purchase and consumption.

Some second-generation migrants said their parents were "accidentally" environmentally friendly. For example, some parents who had experienced financial hardship were frugal with money and goods. Others from an agricultural background remained connected to the land through gardening.

As one second-generation participant from Vietnam observed:

Migrants are often the most environmentally conscious people I know. They're not purposefully being conscious, but they know about the scarcity of resources and its ingrained into them so it's part of their lifestyle.

The participant learned sustainable practices from her mother who didn't have a lot of money. The family's clothes and homewares came from second-hand stores. Car travel was kept to a minimum and her mother planted many vegetables in her backyard.

Read more: A type of 'biodegradable' plastic will soon be phased out in Australia. That's a big win for the environment

Outside the home

Second-generation migrants were much more likely to make the environmentally-motivated choice to become vegan and/or vegetarian. Of the 17 interview participants, five were vegan or vegetarian; all but one were second-generation migrants.

The second-generation migrants were slightly, but not significantly, more engaged with outward forms of environmental activism such as attending protests and marches.

Second-generation migrants said the first generation often eschewed public activism. Reasons for this included language barriers, alternative priorities that come with navigating a foreign country and fears of racism.

Second-generation migrants born in Australia were better equipped to overcome these barriers and felt more comfortable participating in the political sphere. However this group was still ambivalent about, or didn't prioritise, organised environmental protection.

Read more: 'Everyone else does it, so I can too': how the false consensus effect drives environmental damage

Participants - particularly parents - cited the recent Black Summer bushfires as a traumatic reminder of climate change. The tragedy motivated them to practice environmental care such as water conservation.

Just two interviewees, both women, were involved in environmental groups. The others preferred to donate money to environmental causes or sign petitions, usually due to a lack of time.

Other participants sought to influence their family and peers through conversation, work initiatives or buying "green" products. Only three reported being engaged with environmental initiatives of their local councils.

As one first-generation migrant said:

In my council meetings, I'm one of the few migrants ... They're not confident yet about how much information they know and how much they're missing out on. Even if they want to raise their voice they're hesitant and worried that they're saying something wrong.

Next steps

Migrants are already highly engaged with environmentally friendly behaviour at home. The next step is to help them engage with environmental issues more broadly. We suggest the following measures:

train first-generation migrants to confidently get involved with local council sustainability measures. Councils should also raise awareness of environmental care programs and provide migrants with volunteering opportunities

raise awareness in the broader community about how migrants can be part of the solution to environmental problems through their daily domestic practices

use interactive digital tools to engage time-poor migrants

leverage second-generation migrants to both pass on, and change, their parents' environmental practices

identify " community champions " to act as agents of change in migrant communities.

Our findings suggest migrants are interested in finding new ways to protect the environment. The green movement must help migrants achieve this, by making environmental initiatives safe, welcoming and accessible to them.
The author would like to acknowledge Claudia Sirdah and Nukte Ogun, who helped compile the research upon which this article is based.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From veggie gardening to op-shopping, migrants are the quiet environmentalists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The organised environmental movement is largely a white, middle-class space. But our research shows migrants care for nature in other ways - including living sustainably in their everyday lives. This is most obvious on the domestic front.

# data[].attributes.body
Article

# data[].attributes.headline
Shipping is tough on the climate and hard to clean up – these innovations can help cut emissions

# data[].attributes.subject
Shipping is tough on the climate and hard to clean up – these innovations can help cut emissions

# data[].attributes.body
Article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ships carry more than 80% of world trade, and they rely heavily on some of the least environmentally friendly transportation fuels available.

There are no cheap, widely available solutions that can lower the shipping industry's planet-warming carbon emissions - in fact, shipping is considered one of the hardest industries on the planet to decarbonize - but some exciting innovations are being tested right now.

As a professor of naval architecture and marine engineering, I work on ship propulsion and control systems, including electrification, batteries and fuel cells. Let's take a look at what's possible and some of the fuels and technologies that are likely to define the industry's future.

Shipping's climate problem

Shipping is the cheapest way to move raw materials and bulk goods. That has given it both an enormous economic impact and a large carbon footprint.

The industry emits roughly 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year - nearly 3% of global emissions, according to the International Maritime Organization, a specialized U.N. agency made up of 174 member nations that sets standards for the industry. If shipping were a country, it would rank between Japan and Germany as the sixth-largest contributor to global carbon dioxide emissions. Moreover, nearly 70% of ships' emissions occur within 250 miles (400 kilometers) of land, meaning it also has an impact on air quality, especially for port cities.

Technological innovation, in addition to policies, will be crucial for achieving low-carbon or zero-emission shipping. Academic research institutes, government labs and companies are now experimenting with electrification; zero- or low-carbon fuels such as hydrogen, natural gas, ammonia and biofuels; and alternative power sources such as fuel cells and solar, wind and wave power. Each has its pros and cons.

Why electrifying ships matters

Just as on land, electrification is one key to cleaning up the industry's emissions. It allows engines operating on fossil fuels to be either replaced by alternative power generation technologies, or downsized and modified for low-emissions operation. It also allows ships to connect to electric power while in port, reducing their emissions from idling.

Ship electrification and hybridization are significant trends for both commercial and military vessels. Electrifying a ship means replacing its traditional mechanical systems with electrical ones. Some fleets have already electrified propulsion and cargo handling. Hybrid power systems, on the other hand, integrate different power-generation mechanisms, such as engines and batteries, to leverage their complementary characteristics.

I see deeper electrification and broader hybridization as a core strategy for achieving green shipping.

Tremendous opportunities also exist for improving the operation of the existing fleet - and reducing fuel use - through automation and real-time control. Advanced sensors, artificial intelligence and machine learning can help ships to "see," "think," and "act" better to improve efficiency and reduce emissions.

Greener fuels for ocean voyages

Shifting to cleaner and greener fuel sources will be essential for decarbonizing the shipping industry.

Most of the power plants on today's ships are based on internal combustion engines that use cheap heavy fuel oil. Innovations in marine diesel and gas turbine engine design and treatment of exhaust gas have lowered harmful emissions. However, most of the "low-hanging fruit" has been harvested, with little room left for dramatic improvement in traditional power sources.

The focus now is on developing cleaner fuel sources and more efficient alternative power generation technologies.

Low or zero-carbon fuels, such as natural gas, ammonia and hydrogen, are predicted to be the dominant energy sources for shipping in the future. Ammonia is easy to transport and store, and it can be used in internal combustion engines and high-temperature fuel cells. But like hydrogen, it is largely still made with fossil fuels. It's also toxic. Both have the potential to be made with water and renewable energy using electrolysis, but that zero-carbon technology is still in the early stages and costly.

These fuels have started replacing heavy diesel fuels in some marine segments, primarily as demonstration projects and at a slower rate than needed. Cost and infrastructure remain major barriers.

Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and wave energy, are also promising. Integrating renewable sources as cost-effective and reliable energy solutions for oceangoing vessels is another challenge developers are working on.

Powering ships using fuel cells and batteries

Fuel cells and batteries also hold promise as alternative power generation technologies.

Through electrochemical reactions, fuel cells generate electric power in a highly efficient and clean manner, making them very attractive for transportation. Fuel cells are operated with pure hydrogen or reformed gases, except for high-temperature fuel cells that can use natural gas or ammonia as fuel.

Given the existing fuel infrastructure, most maritime fuel cell demonstration projects today have to store liquid hydrogen or use onboard systems that convert natural gas or other fuel to hydrogen-rich syngas. Infrastructure for hydrogen storage has to be developed for widespread adoption of fuel cell technology.

Battery technology is essential for electrification, even for ships with an internal combustion engine as their prime mover. It also has its own unique challenges. In addition to ensuring the batteries are safe and reliable - you don't want a fire or power outage in the middle of the ocean - ruggedness and flexibility are necessary for powering operations such as cargo handling and tugboat operations.

[ Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week. Subscribe to The Conversation's science newsletter.]

Investing in the future

In 2018, the International Maritime Organization's Marine Environment Protection Committee set targets to reduce the carbon intensity of the global fleet by at least 40% by 2030 and to cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050 from the 2008 levels.

Those targets are important, but they leave the deadlines for action well into the future. At its June 2021 meeting, the IMO agreed to some small short-term targets, including lowering ships' carbon-intensity by 2% a year from 2023 to 2026. It also agreed to ban the use of heavy fuel oil in the Arctic starting in 2024, but with waivers allowing some ships to continue using it there until 2029.

Countries and some shipping companies are recommending a faster transition. In early June, the governments of Denmark, Norway and the United States, along with the Global Maritime Forum and the Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping, announced a new Zero-Emission Shipping Mission to try to scale up and deploy new green maritime solutions faster.

The shipping giant AP Møller-Maersk has said it could support a carbon tax of $150 per ton of carbon dioxide to encourage more innovation and a faster transition, though others in the industry argue that a tax like that would nearly double the cost of bunker fuel and make freight far more expensive, with repercussions throughout the global economy.

I believe the grand vision of zero-emission shipping can be realized if the ship design and fleet operation communities work together with policymakers, the logistics industry and the broad academic and industry technical communities to find solutions.

This is an exciting time to work in the area of energy and power solutions for shipping. The technology developed today will have a transformative impact, not only on the marine industry but also on society.
This story was updated June 17, 2021, with the IMO meeting results

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shipping is tough on the climate and hard to clean up - these innovations can help cut emissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ships carry more than 80% of world trade, and they rely heavily on some of the least environmentally friendly transportation fuels available. There are no cheap, widely available solutions that can lower the shipping industry's planet-warming carbon emissions - in fact, shipping is considered one of the hardest industries on the planet to decarbonize - but some exciting innovations are being tested right now.

# data[].attributes.headline
Embodied Carbon: Three reasons we should care

# data[].attributes.subject
Embodied Carbon: Three reasons we should care

# data[].attributes.body
Article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Embodied Carbon: Three reasons we should care

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Embodied Carbon: Three reasons we should care

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We all need to be reducing our carbon emissions, both individually and as a society, to help prevent worsening climate change. The science suggests that time is running out. PhD student Freya wise…

# data[].attributes.headline
Why we’re mapping a million trees and more!

# data[].attributes.subject
Why we’re mapping a million trees and more!

# data[].attributes.body
Article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Why we're mapping a million trees and more!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
why we’re mapping a million trees and more!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why we're mapping a million trees and more!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr Phil Wheeler, Dr Nadia Dewhurst-Richman and Janice Ansine look at the benefits of trees, plus discuss the work of Treezilla.

# data[].attributes.headline
Four bins might help, but to solve our waste crisis we need a strong market for recycled products

# data[].attributes.subject
Four bins might help, but to solve our waste crisis we need a strong market for recycled products

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Australia is still grappling with what to do with the glut of recyclable material after China closed most of its market to our recycling in 2018.

Now the Victorian government has released the first major change to state recycling policy: a consistent kerbside four bin system by 2030, and a container deposit scheme.

So what's the proposed new kerbside bin system, and will it help alleviate Australia's recycling crisis? Here's what you need to know about the extra bin coming your way.

Read more: China's recycling 'ban' throws Australia into a very messy waste crisis

The problems with our recycling system

There are two big problems - particularly since the China ban.

One is about supply. The quality of materials we have for recycling is quite poor, partly from the design of the products, and partly how we collect and sort waste items.

The other is demand. There's not enough demand for recycled materials in new products or infrastructure, and so the commodity value of the materials, even high quality, is low.

And even though many of us think we're good at recycling, many households aren't getting recycling exactly right because they put things that don't belong in the recycling bin, such as soft plastics.

One reason is because of the confusion about what can be recycled, where and when. A standardised system of collection (no matter how many bins) will go a long way to improving this, and the most exciting aspect of the Victorian announcement is the strong leadership towards consistency across the state.

Read more: Don't just blame government and business for the recycling crisis - it begins with us

This means by 2030, no matter where Victorians live or visit, they'll have a consistent kerbside bin system.

But to boost our recycling capacity, we need consistency across the country. New South Wales, South Australian and Western Australian governments are already supporting combined food and garden organics bins, and other states are likely to follow as the evidence of the benefits continues to accumulate.

What will change?

Details are still being ironed out, but essentially, the new system expands the current two or three bins most Victorian houses have to four bins.

While paper, cardboard and plastic or metal containers will still go in the yellow bin, glass containers will now have their own separate purple bin (or crate). A green bin, which some Victorians already have for garden vegetation, will expand to collect food scraps.

Adapted by author from vic.gov.au/four-bin-waste-and-recycling-system

The purple bin will come first, with the gradual roll-out starting next year as some Victorian councils' existing collection contracts come to a close. The service is expected to be fully in place by 2027 (some remote areas may be exempt).

And the expanded green bin service accepting food scraps for composting will be rolled out by 2030, unless councils choose to move earlier (some are already doing so).

How extra bins will make a difference

A 2015 report on managing household waste in Europe showed separating our waste increases the quality of material collected. Some countries even have up to six bins (or crates, or sacks).

That's because it's easier for people to sort out the different materials than for machines, particularly food and the complex packaging we have today.

A separate bin for food (plus garden organics) will help recover Victoria's share of the 2.5 million tonnes of food and scraps Australian households chuck out each year.

Read more: Melbourne wastes 200 kg of food per person a year: it's time to get serious

And a separate bin for glass will help with glass breaking in the yellow bin or collection truck, contaminating surrounding paper and cardboard with tiny glass shards that renders them unrecyclable. It should also boost how much glass gets recycled, according to Australia's largest glass reprocesser.

What do they need to get right?

To make sure the transition to the new system is smooth, councils and the Victorian government must consider:

the space needed for four bins

Not everyone has enough space (inside or outside). This may require creative council and household solutions like those already found overseas (stackable crates and segregated bins).

Does the new purple bin mean we'll see a another truck, or perhaps a special multi-compartment recycling truck? And once councils have food waste in a weekly green bin, will the red bin collection go fortnightly? This actually makes sense because 35- 60% of the red bin is food scraps, which will be gone.

correct disposal of food waste

Many councils that have already added food waste to the green bin report contamination issues as people get their head around the transition, such as putting food wrappers in with the food scraps.

correct sorting of recycling

Putting the wrong thing in the recycling bin is a problem across the country, and taking glass out of the yellow bin won't solve this issue. While this is already being tackled in government campaigns and council trials, we'll likely need more government effort at both a systems and household level.

Sustainability Victoria, sustainability.vic.gov.au/recycling

Better collection won't mean much without demand

Collection is only one piece of the puzzle. Government support is needed to make sure all this recycling actually ends up somewhere. Efforts to improve the "supply-side" aspects of recycling can go to waste if there's no demand for the recycled materials.

Environmental economists have long pointed out that without government intervention, free markets in most countries will not pay enough or use enough recycled material when new, or "virgin", materials are so cheap.

Read more: Only half of packaging waste is recycled - here's how to do better

What's great for Victoria is the new four bin system is only one pillar of the state's new recycling policy.

It also includes many demand-side initiatives, from market development grants and infrastructure funding, to developing a Circular Economy Business Innovation Centre. The policy also deems waste management to be an "essential service" and has left space for strong procurement commitments. Today, Prime Minister Scott Morrison acknowledged the importance of procurement when he announced an overhaul of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines at the National Plastics Summit, to boost demand for recycled products.

Stepping up to the challenge

But to effectively combat Australia's recycling crisis, more must be done. This includes reinvestment of landfill levies; standards for recycled materials, and at a federal level; clear strategies to improve product design ; and funding to support the waste and recycling industry to meet the export ban.

Read more: A crisis too big to waste: China's recycling ban calls for a long-term rethink in Australia

We also need regulation on the use of recycled material in products. For example, through mandated targets or fiscal policies like a tax on products made from virgin materials.

Since 2018 when China stopped taking most of our recycling, the level of industry, community and media interest has created a strong platform for policy change. It's exciting to see Victoria responding to the challenge.

# data[].attributes.headline
How recycling is actually sorted, and why Australia is quite bad at it

# data[].attributes.subject
How recycling is actually sorted, and why Australia is quite bad at it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recycling in Australia used to be fairly simple. Our older readers may remember bottle drives, paper and cardboard collections, and the trip to the scrap metal merchant to sell metals.

This is called, in recycling parlance, sorting the "streams". It creates very clean recycling that requires little sorting at a plant.

But recycling got more complicated. As councils organised kerbside collection, it made less economic sense to sort at the kerb. Instead, trucks collected mixed recycling and took it to centralised sorting facilities.

The materials also changed, with glass often replaced by plastics. Plastics like the PET in drink bottles and HDPE in milk bottles were easy to separate and had a ready recycling market.

Then, when developing countries like China opened the floodgates to paper and plastics, there was no need to separate the seven categories of plastics. It was cheaper and easier for Australian companies to bundle it all up and send it to China for "recycling" - in 2017, some 600,000 tonnes.

Read more: Here's what happens to our plastic recycling when it goes offshore

When China found they were the world's dumping ground they shut the door and demanded only clean, separated plastics - and then only the ones that had a secondary market in China.

Suddenly Australia was expected to separate more carefully - and this cost money. Now the federal government has pledged A$20 million to boost Australia's recycling industry.

But what is Australia's recycling industry?

Right now, there are 193 material recovery facilities in Australia. Most are hand-sorted; nine are semi-automated, and nine are fully automated. These are nowhere near sufficient to sort Australia's annual recycling.

There are two basic ways to sort recycling: mechanical-biological treatment plants, which sort mixed waste into low-grade recycling, and material recovery facilities, which have a stronger focus on extracting reusable stuff.

Here's how they work.

Mechanical-biological treatment

MBT plants are in various stages of development in Perth, Melbourne, and Sydney. These plants take the rubbish we generate every day and inject it into a rotary drum (a bioreactor) that spins and is heated to 60-70℃.

The process shreds the waste and the organic wastes are stabilised and homogenised. Most of the water evaporates through a fermentation process in which microorganisms break down the organic material and release heat - much like a composting system.

Read more: Why can't all plastic waste be recycled?

The material then leaves the reactor and passes over a screen that separates the organic waste. The organic waste then fermented and composted, then separated again using a smaller mesh screen. The smallest particles are sent back to the bioreactor drum to provide the microorganisms.

Meanwhile, the larger material from the first screening is sent to a wind separator where the lightweight material, like plastics, are blown the furthest, medium-weight materials, such as textiles, fall in the middle and the heaviest, like metal, glass and stone, fall immediately. The heaviest fraction is sent along a conveyor and metals are separated by a magnetic separator.

The remaining material is sent to another wind separator, along with any remaining material from the other fractions that cannot be separated, which separates combustibles and debris.

The debris (about 10% of the original waste) goes to landfill, and combustibles are sent to a facility that compresses the material into blocks for industrial fuel.

Read more: We can't recycle our way to 'zero waste'

Material recovery facilities

Material recovery facilities accept mixed recycling. The first step is putting recyclables on a conveyor belt where they are carried up to a sorting line.

In the more mechanical processes, people line up along the belt and rip open bags and remove contaminants such as non-recyclable plastic, used nappies and other rubbish, which then goes to landfill.

In the more automated systems, ripping open the bags can be done by machines and the sorting is done in the next stage.

The material then goes onto a scalping screen that sorts out the small foreign objects before passing over a screen in which flat materials such as cardboard pass over and the others drop down. The paper and cardboard go off to storage. Meanwhile, the material that has dropped through hits another screen that breaks any glass, which drops through the screen and is taken by conveyor belt to a recovery bin.

The leftover material goes to fibre quality-control stations where the fibre materials (such as paper) pass by operators who pick off any contaminants before the paper goes into another bin for baling and recycling.

This leaves the cans and plastic containers. Passing this stream over a magnet means any steel cans will be removed from the stream and collected.

Next, any fibre that has made it through the process is removed manually and the plastics are then sorted manually into individual types. The bottles are perforated mechanically so they do not explode when compressed.

With the plastic containers removed, the next step is to divert the aluminium. Powerful magnetic fields created by an eddy current separator throws non-iron metals, like aluminium, forward from the belt into a product bin and non-metals fall off the belt into a separate bin. Finally most of the materials are compressed and baled for efficient transport.

Automated sorting systems

The nine more modern facilities in Australia use optical sorting systems to take out the manual and mechanical sorting. The optical sorters detect anywhere between three and eight varieties of material.

A new facility in New South Wales can detect eight different types of material: aluminium, cardboard, glass, HDPE plastic, mixed paper, newspaper, PET plastic, and steel. The combined stream passes through a light beam which then instructs a set of high pressure air jets to direct the material to one of eight collection bins.

Read more: Australian recycling plants have no incentive to improve

As worldwide demand for high quality, clean recycling material increases, Australia must upgrade its technology. Incentives and financial help for recycling companies may be necessary to see Australia develop a viable domestic recycling industry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How recycling is actually sorted, and why Australia is quite bad at it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recycling in Australia used to be fairly simple. Our older readers may remember bottle drives, paper and cardboard collections, and the trip to the scrap metal merchant to sell metals. This is called, in recycling parlance, sorting the "streams". It creates very clean recycling that requires little sorting at a plant.