# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nach Drummel on Tour, Earthperiments und dem letzten Landessieger Picon gibt es ab sofort ein neues Schülerunternehmen am GSC. Der Projektkurs der Jahrgangsstufe Q1 hat sich dabei für das ambitionierte Ziel entschieden, den Markt für Duschprodukte mit einem neuartigen Pulver zu revolutionieren.

Wichtig sind der Gruppe bei ihrem Produkt zwei Dinge. Das Duschpulver - übersetzt bedeutet der Firmenname „zum Waschen" - soll nicht nur attraktiv duften, sondern ebenso nachhaltig sein. Eine Verpackung, die dies ermöglicht, wird derzeit bereits intensiv gesucht. Für ihre herausfordernde Mission haben sich die Schülerinnen und Schüler bereits Kooperationspartner gesucht.

Einer davon ist Dr. Thomas Neubourg von der gleichnamigen Firmengruppe, die sich unter anderem auf die Herstellung hochwertiger Dusch-Schäume und Schaum-Cremes spezialisiert hat. Der Kontakt zum Experten ist entstanden, weil zwei Kinder des Firmenleiters das Gymnasium besuchen. Ein durch Neubourg vermittelter Experte ist Professor Dr. Rolf Daniels von der Universität Tübingen, der seine Unterstützung bei allen Fragen rund um chemischen Belange bei der Produktentwicklung angeboten hat.

„Wir wollen etwas machen, was neuartig und zugleich nachhaltig ist", sagt Schüler-Geschäftsführerin Carolin Fischer. Duschpulver gibt es zwar schon, diese sind überwiegend jedoch im oberen Preissegment angesiedelt. Die Schülergruppe möchte zeigen, dass dies auch erschwinglicher geht. Angestrebt wird, das Pulver, das dann Subpowder heißen soll, in verschiedenen Duftrichtungen zu produzieren, um möglichst viele Abnehmer zu finden.

Eine kleine Delegation der Gruppe wird Ende Oktober zu einer Kosmetikfachmesse nach München reisen, um sich dort mit möglichen Partnern zu unterhalten und sich zugleich über Verpackungsmöglichkeiten zu informieren. Wo die Produktion letztlich stattfinden wird, steht zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt noch nicht fest.

Die Gruppe ist optimistisch, dass rechtzeitig zum Weihnachtsgeschäft die ersten Produkte fertig sind, denn einen Stellplatz beim Adventsmarkt der Freilichtbühne Ende November hat sich das Unternehmen bereits gesichert.
https://werne-plus.de/gesellschaftlich/2021/neue-gsc-schuelerfirma-para-lavar-produziert-duschpulver/?fbclid=IwAR1YfcZInpNt9T4atS9Ro2lSF5hBRoBlBjqdqzrMbf0AgqxkmQIJA3Pc33E

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neue Schülerfirma am GSC - Para lavar will nachhaltiges Duschpulver herstellen - Gymnasium St. Christophorus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nach Drummel on Tour, Earthperiments und dem letzten Landessieger Picon gibt es ab sofort ein neues Schülerunternehmen am GSC. Der Projektkurs der Jahrgangsstufe Q1 hat sich dabei für das ambitionierte Ziel entschieden, den Markt für Duschprodukte mit einem neuartigen Pulver zu revolutionieren. Wichtig sind der Gruppe bei ihrem Produkt zwei Dinge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What really happens to the plastic you throw away - Emma Bryce

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This app makes it fun to pick up litter | Jeff Kirschner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why I live a zero waste life | Lauren Singer | TEDxTeen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A drop in a plastic ocean: how one person can make a difference. | Emily De Sousa | TEDxKanata

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The fast fashion graveyard in Chile's Atacama Desert - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic pollution in water is a deadly threat to marine animals and birds. On land, plastic waste litters shorelines, and plastic particles present in drinking water and in the air are a threat to human health. Plastic waste is omnipresent; it forms what is called the " Great Pacific Garbage Patch." And while undoubtedly an industrial success, plastic has over the long term contributed to economic crisis, especially in the tourism sector.

How to deal with the plastic crisis?

Plastic is an ideal material in that it is cheap, versatile, and reliable. Its production intensified in the 1950s, along with the boom in petrochemicals. It is estimated that between now and 2050 the plastics industry will release 2 billion tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, far more than does the transportation industry. Also, plastic is produced essentially from petrochemicals, proof that the planet is dependent on extremely polluting raw materials.

But now governments are more aware of and concerned by the ecological, economic, and societal challenges of the plastic crisis and are trying to address the problem. The European Commission, for example, has adopted a draft directive prohibiting the sale of single-use plastic products in 2021. This directive also sets a target for Member States to collect 90% of their plastic bottles by 2029. Meanwhile, in Africa, 34 countries have taken the decision to ban plastic bags by prohibiting their manufacture and distribution.

At the international level, the member countries of the United Nations Environment Assembly signed an agreement in 2018 on reducing the use of plastic: four of its resolutions are devoted to marine and microplastic waste. That same year, the G7 drew up a charter on plastics in the oceans. While all this represents noteworthy and significant progress, there will be no real impact without international consensus.

How the North manages its plastic waste: shipment to the South!

According to Glen Wright, a Research Fellow in International Ocean Governance at IDDRI, "the international framework is quite fragmented and not well adapted to plastic pollution of the oceans. " Indeed, there is no instrument that provides a comprehensive response to the problem of plastic pollution. Neither the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution nor the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal can provide a solution.

This fragmented response is aggravated by the fact that the waste-treatment economy is under pressure. To deal with their insufficient recycling capabilities, some industrialized countries in the North had been massively exporting their unwanted plastic waste, especially to Asia. But China and its neighbors, seeking to fight plastic pollution and unable to accommodate the growing volume of waste, have restricted waste imports, leaving global recycling in complete chaos. This embargo is above all designed to prohibit the entry of certain types of waste into their territories.

Meanwhile, in many developing countries, public or illegal landfills are sprouting up everywhere because governments lack budgets to implement effective formal collection and recycling systems. In fact, humanity produces more plastic waste than the recycling industry can handle.

COVID-19: a before and after that goes from bad to worse

According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), of the 8.3 billion tons of plastic produced since the 1950s, 79% has already become waste, and only 9% of total waste produced to date has been recycled-because not all plastics are recyclable.

This situation has been further aggravated by the coronavirus pandemic. Packaging, outer protective wrapping, masks, visors, barriers for shopkeepers, and plexiglass have all been mass-produced as means of protection against the virus. Wrongly perceived by many as unavoidable, this strong comeback of single-use disposable plastic is a big step backwards in the fight against plastic pollution. Indeed, scientists fear there will be a drastic increase in plastic pollution, which is already considered by the UNEP as one of the greatest environmental scourges of our time.

But while the COVID-19 health crisis is making plastic pollution worse, it is also leading to renewed awareness about the issue. A number of solutions have been recommended, such as a switch from polluting manufacturing materials to recyclable materials, use of reusable masks and gloves, and selective sorting. Setting up long-term circular economic networks would also be a sustainable response, but this requires involvement by all parties concerned: public, private, local, and international.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic: an environmental challenge made worse by COVID-19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic pollution in water is a deadly threat to marine animals and birds. On land, plastic waste litters shorelines, and plastic particles present in drinking water and in the air are a threat to human health. Plastic waste is omnipresent; it forms what is called the " Great Pacific Garbage Patch."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic waste from the Covid-19 pandemic weighing 25,900 tonnes, equivalent to more than 2,000 double decker buses, has leaked into the ocean, research has revealed.

The mismanaged plastic waste, consisting of personal protective equipment such as masks and gloves, vastly exceeded the capability of countries to process it properly, researchers said.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, an estimated 8.4m tonnes of plastic waste has been generated from 193 countries, according to the report, published on Monday.

"The Covid-19 pandemic has led to an increased demand for single-use plastics that intensifies pressure on an already out-of-control global plastic waste problem," said Yiming Peng and Peipei Wu from Nanjing University, the authors of Magnitude and impact of pandemic-associated plastic waste published in the online journal PNAS.

"The released plastics can be transported over long distances in the ocean, encounter marine wildlife, and potentially lead to injury or even death," they added.

A study in March presented the first case of a fish entrapped in a medical glove, encountered during a canal cleanup in Leiden, the Netherlands. In Brazil a PFF-2 protective mask was found in the stomach of a dead Magellanic penguin.

The scientists predicted that by the end of the century almost all pandemic-associated plastics will end up on either the seabed or on beaches.

The Chinese study found that 46% of the mismanaged plastic waste came from Asia, due to the high level of mask-wearing by individuals there, followed by Europe, 24%, and North and South America, 22%.

Peng and Wu said their research suggested 87.4% of the excess waste was from hospitals, rather than from individual use. PPE usage by individuals contributed only 7.6% of the total, while packaging and test kits accounted for 4.7% and 0.3% respectively.

"Most of the plastic is from medical waste generated by hospitals that dwarfs the contribution from personal protection equipment and online-shopping package material," they wrote.

"This poses a long-lasting problem for the ocean environment and is mainly accumulated on beaches and coastal sediments."

The thousands of tonnes of masks, gloves, testing kits and face visors which leached into the oceans from the start of the pandemic up to August this year, were transported in 369 major rivers.

Chief among these were Shatt al-Arab in south-eastern Iraq, which carried 5,200 tonnes of PPE waste to the ocean; the Indus river, which arises in western Tibet, carried 4,000 tonnes and the Yangtze river in China 3,700 tonnes. In Europe, the Danube carried the most plastic pandemic waste into the ocean: 1,700 tonnes.

The top 10 rivers accounted for 79% of pandemic plastic discharge, the top 20 for 91%, and the top 100 for 99%. About 73% of the discharge was from Asian rivers followed by European watercourses (11%), with minor contributions from other continents, the report said.

"These findings highlight the hotspot rivers and watersheds that require special attention in plastic waste management," the authors said.

"We find a long-lasting impact of the pandemic-associated waste release in the global ocean. At the end of this century, the model suggests that almost all the pandemic-associated plastics end up in either the seabed (28.8%) or beaches (70.5%)."

The authors said the findings showed better medical waste management was needed in pandemic epicenters, especially in developing countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About 26,000 tonnes of plastic Covid waste pollutes world's oceans - study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic waste from the Covid-19 pandemic weighing 25,900 tonnes, equivalent to more than 2,000 double decker buses, has leaked into the ocean, research has revealed. The mismanaged plastic waste, consisting of personal protective equipment such as masks and gloves, vastly exceeded the capability of countries to process it properly, researchers said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fast fashion: The dumping ground for unwanted clothes - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Electrical and electronic waste in Germany

In 2018 nearly 853,124 tons of electrical and electronic waste were collected in Germany, 772,934 of it from households. This is the equivalent of 9.31 kilograms per capita and year. The remaining 80,190 tons came from businesses.

Legal framework

Proper disposal of electrical and electronic waste prevents pollution and allows this waste to be recycled. The WEEE Directive was adopted in 2003 for the purpose of instituting harmonized European regulations for electrical and electronic waste. The directive was transposed into German law via adoption of the 2005 Elektro- und Elektronikgeräte-Gesetz (ElektroG) law. An amended version of the directive, known as WEEE II, was enacted in July 2012. This directive was transposed into German law via the amended version of the ElektroG law.

A mechanism known as "divided product responsibility" was instituted in Germany for electrical and electronic waste disposal operations. This means that the main obligations for electrical and electronic waste disposal fall to (a) public sector recycling companies; and (b) electrical and electronic device manufacturers. Public sector recycling companies are required to establish electrical and electronic waste recycling centres and to accept such waste at these centres free of charge. This mechanism is currently carried out at around 2.400 municipal recycling centres. Manufacturers are free to provide their own recycling mechanisms. Since July 2016 retailers with a sale area for electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) larger than 400 square meters are obliged to take back EEE which has a smaller edge length than 25 centimeter (0:1 take back). In case of EEE larger than 25 centimeters the retailer is obliged to take back the old device, if the customer is buying a new equivalent type (1:1 take back). The same rules apply to long distance retailers with storage area larger than 400 square meters. They can, for example, offer free return options or cooperate with the stationary trade. Smaller retailers may also voluntarily take back EEE free of charge. Consumers are required by law to take their electrical and electronic waste to such facilities.

Manufacturers are responsible for properly disposing of the electrical and electronic waste that is brought to such facilities and bear the financial cost of product stewardship entailed by disposing of electrical and electronic devices that were placed on the market. In addition, the RoHS directive governs the use of certain environmentally hazardous substances in electrical and electronic devices. This directive was transposed into German law via enactment of the Elektrostoff-Verordnung regulation, which took effect on 9 May 2013 and places severe restrictions on the use of lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybromated biphenyls (PBB) and polybromated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) in new electrical and electronic devices.

Recycling

Upon being returned, electrical and electronic waste is sorted into six different collection groups, so as to better meet the requirements of the various devices in terms of recycling and handling. For example, large devices and battery operated devices are separated from small ones, so as to ensure that these are not damaged. Refrigerators are processed separately owing to the CFCs often contained in them. Besides gas discharge lamps are collected separately owing to the mercury contained in them.
Recycling procedures vary greatly from one type of product to another in certain cases. For example, the refrigerant and oil mixture is suctioned out of a refrigerator's cooling circuit, the housing is shredded, and the gases in the housing insulation (including CFCs) are suctioned out and then disposed of harmlessly.

Fluorescent (energy saving) lamps are usually shredded and then undergo a wet or dry process, during which the mercury is suctioned out, passed through active charcoal filters, and then added to sediment sludge. This in turn allows for recovery of the mercury.
Computers, computer screens and TVs are first manually dismantled, whereby trained personnel remove pollutant containing components such as batteries, condensors, the background lighting of flat screens, some of them still contains mercury, or the cathode ray tubes of old tube televisions, which contain a lot of lead. Recyclable components such as printed circuit boards (PCB) are then removed, and the remaining components are shredded so as to allow for subsequent sorting into various types of materials. Automatic separation processes for the separation of components containing pollutants and recyclables are established in screen treatment.

This part of the recycling process yields many different types of sorted material. Recovered metals such as iron, steel, copper, aluminum and bronze are melted down to produce new metals. PCBs and elements such as plugs with gold-plated contacts are normally sent to copper foundries that specialize in the recovery of precious and special metals. As for sorted plastic, some is reused for energy, while some is recycled.

Collection and recovery rates for electrical and electronic waste

The WEEE directive sets targets for collection, recycling and recovery rates. Since 2006, Germany has been required to submit such rates to the European Commission.

Since 2016 the WEEE directive sets relative collection rates, whereby from 2016 to 2018 the target rate will be 45 percent of the average weight of electrical and electronic devices that were placed on the market in the prior three years. From 2019 onward, this target rate will be 65 percent. Germany's collection rate in 2018 was 43.1 %.

The WEEE directive and Germany's Electrical Products Act (ElektroG) also set specific recycling and recovery rates for various device classes. The target recovery rates for non-reusable devices range from 75 to 85 % depending on device class, whereas the target recycling rates for such devices range from 55 to 80 %. Germany has complied with all of these rates since 2007. In 2018 Germany kept all rates.

Graph of electrical and electronic equipment Act
Source: Umweltbundesamt schaubild_elektrog_englisch.pdf

Current problems

Increased collection rates

Germany narrowly missed the applicable collection rate of 45 % in 2018 (43.1 %). To reach the 65 percent rate that will take effect in 2019, we will need to considerably step up our efforts in WEEE collection. It is important here to ensure that waste of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is collected nationwide, free of charge and close to households, among other things by expanding the possibilities for returning it. In addition, the illegal collection and illegal export of WEEE and components must be curbed and all operators in the waste management chain must comply with their obligations to report quantities placed on the market and collected. There must also be more continuous information on the part of manufacturers, public disposal companies and distributors about legal ways of returning WEEE and consumer information about the reasons for the separate collection of WEEE, such as the conservation of resources or the reduction of pollutant emissions.

Improved collection of devices containing resource substances

Electrical and electronic waste recycling yields are already excellent for iron, copper and aluminum, but there is considerable room for improvement in precious and special metal recovery rates for laptops, cell phones, smartphones, computers and the like, all of which contain many resource metals. While oftentimes the amount of such metals in each individual device is minute, the overall substance stream adds up to a considerable yield. For example, a ton of cell phones contains around 250 grams of gold, whereas a ton of gold ore contains only around five grams of gold. In view of the fact that primary extraction of gold and other resource metals is often associated with an extremely high environmental load, these materials should be systematically recycled; and the first step toward reaching this goal is to improve collection rates of the devices that contain these materials. Combining this type of electrical and electronic waste with other such waste (e.g. from printers and copiers) containing fewer resources reduces the proportion of valuable materials in the substance stream.

Most electrical and electronic waste processing facilities first shred the devices and then sort them according to type of material, a process that precludes the recovery of many precious and special metals that are mixed in with other materials. Yields of such metals could be ramped up through optimization of sorting equipment and shredders. However, it is preferable for the relevant components such as motherboards and plugs to be removed manually prior to shredding, and this practice is in fact followed at many facilities for particularly valuable components, owing to the high prices fetched by the materials in question. But there is room for improvement in this arena as well. The UBA conducted several studies aimed at finding ways to improve collection and recovery rates for electrical and electronic waste containing valuable resource materials.

Recovery rates for specific types of devices need to be improved

While overall electrical and electronic waste recycling rates are relatively good, there's room for improvement in terms of certain types of apparatuses such as refrigerators and visual display apparatuses, whose collection and treatment methods are in need of optimization. For example, not all of the CFCs in end-of-life refrigerators are currently recovered and destroyed; and unlawful removal of refrigerator compressors for the copper they contain cripples cooling circuits and allows CFCs to freely escape into the atmosphere. Such theft is particularly likely to occur in cases where apparatuses are put out on the street at night for bulky-waste collection the next morning. Moreover, as many recycling facilities try to cut corners wherever they can for cost reasons, all CFCs are not always removed.

Indisputably, there is also room for improvement in the recycling of cathode ray TVs, LCD TVs and computer monitors, which are often damaged or destroyed upon being collected from large containers. This in turn complicates recovery of their components, and increases the risk of contamination from pollutants, such as the mercury used for LCD background lighting. Solar panel disposal and recycling are also set to take on greater importance in the foreseeable future. Owing to the long lifetimes of solar panels, little recycling has been necessary for them; but the scope of solar panel recycling is bound to increase dramatically in the coming decades. Hence sufficient recycling capacity needs to be created for these devices, and a suitable collection system will need to be established.

Illegal exporting

According to an Ökopol study that was commissioned by the UBA, in 2008 some 150,000 tons of electrical and electronic waste was exported from Germany to Nigeria, Ghana, India, South Africa and other countries. The customs declarations for these shipments identified the contents as "used devices." Such shipments consisted for the most part of TVs and computer monitors, many of which were in extremely poor condition. But unfortunately the aforementioned destination countries sorely lack professional recycling infrastructures. Oftentimes, young people manage to extract a minute amount of copper, aluminum or gold from broken TVs or computer screens - a procedure that jeopardizes their health and seriously pollutes the environment. The usual method for accessing the innards of computer screens is to smash them on the ground, The plastic sheaths of copper wires are then stripped away, resulting in the formation of toxic fumes. Other components are removed in acid baths, without any safety precautions of any kind. The remaining components are incinerated, deposited in improvised, unsafe dumps, or are deposited in rivers.

In the interest of remedying this untenable situation, the new WEEE directive stipulates that exporters must prove the functionality of devices declared as used before they are exported, the goal being to ensure that only intact apparatuses are exported. Reuse of such devices in the destination countries conserves resources in that the manufacture of new apparatuses is avoided. In addition to putting a stop to illegal exports, collection infrastructures and processing capacities in potential recipient countries need to be established and expanded, for the quantities of domestically generated electrical and electronic waste is also on the rise in these countries. Hence waste management processes that are safe for the environment and human health are needed.

The best way to conserve resources is to make durable products and avoid resource use wherever possible

Unfortunately, resource conservation cannot be achieved solely through efficient recycling, for technological advances in recycling are needed in order to keep up with the technological advances in electrical and electronic products. Lacking this, the raw materials contained in such devices will not be recovered optimally, or at all. For economic reasons, recycling companies are not always able to recover the entirety of such raw materials. But in the final analysis, the cause of resource conservation would be best served by simply reducing electrical and electronic waste; and the greatest obstacles to achieving this is that our consumption habits entail excessive resource use. The greater the number of products sold, the more electrical and electronic waste is generated. In other words, there's simply no getting around the correlation between products and waste ‒ not to mention the fact that manufacturing new products is an energy intensive activity. According to Germany's statutory waste hierarchy, consumption avoidance (and thereby waste prevention) is the top priority, followed by recycling and disposal. But this hierarchy is for the most part disregarded in practice.

Each of us can do our share by avoiding the purchase of non-essential consumer products, as this serves the cause of sustainable resource conservation, while also improving our quality of life. For if we do not ask ourselves what we really need in life, we ultimately undermine the quality of our own lives. By making needless purchases, we miss out on many other ways to improve our lives. Also, using devices and apparatuses longer reduces waste generation without imposing any significant restrictions on us. Thus before purchasing items such as computers, smartphones and household appliances, we should first ask ourselves if we really need to replace our current devices. By the same token, manufacturers should design and build their products in such a way that there is no obstacle to their providing quality service for as long as possible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Electrical and electronic waste contains recyclable metals and other materials; recycling them saves resources and protects the environment. But electrical and electronic waste often contains toxic substances, which if not properly disposed of, can cause pollution and health problems. It is for this reason that electrical and electronic waste is collected separately.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every single search query, every streamed song or video and every email sent, billions of times over all around the world - it all adds up to an ever-increasing global demand for electricity, and to rising CO2 emissions too. Our increasing reliance on digital tools has an environmental impact that's becoming increasingly harder to ignore.

Every single search query, every streamed song or video and every email sent, billions of times over all around the world - it all adds up to an ever-increasing global demand for electricity, and to rising CO2 emissions too. Our increasing reliance on digital tools has an environmental impact that's becoming increasingly harder to ignore.

Digital tools and services are an integral part of our lives. It's hard to imagine a life without smartphones, apps, Wikipedia, online banking, route planners with GPS and having a huge selection of music and movies at your fingertips pretty much everywhere, around the clock. All of these things make our lives so much easier. But it's not only in day-to-day life that digitalisation has become indispensable; digital technologies are also playing an increasingly important role in agriculture and industry, in the transition to renewable energies and in the future of our cities. At the same time, digitalisation offers new solutions for tackling climate change and protecting the environment. Reporting on them is an important part of what we do here at RESET, and our news blog is full of good examples.

However, just because we can't physically see or touch the data that we're sending and receiving all over the globe, it actually carries rather heavy baggage: its energy consumption is constantly growing, the smart devices we use are often produced under exploitative and environmentally harmful conditions and, at the end of their far too short lives, they end up as toxic electronic waste. This poses a very important question: will digitalisation be able to help us on the way to a greener and fairer world, or will our growing reliance on digital tools ultimately prove to be an accelerator for climate change and the destruction of the planet?

Right now, the question is still open. Let's take a closer look at the main causes of our digital carbon footprint - and also who and what is working to mitigate its climate impact.

How big is the world's digital carbon footprint?

More than half of the world's population is now online. According to a report by the digital agency We Are Social, more than four billion people used the Internet in 2019 - with more than one million people coming online for the first time each day. And with online activities such as cloud computing, streaming services and cashless payment systems on the up, the demand for online and digital services is constantly growing.

The non-profit organisation The Shift Project (PDF) looked at nearly 170 international studies on the environmental impact of digital technologies. According to the experts, their share of global CO2 emissions increased from 2.5 to 3.7 percent between 2013 and 2018. That means that our use of digital technologies now actually causes more CO2 emissions and has a bigger impact on global warming than the entire aviation industry! According to estimates, the aviation industry caused around 2.5 percent (and rising) of emissions. These figures may vary slightly from study to study, as the energy consumption of digital technologies is difficult to quantify: because too little data is available, because technological advances and changing consumption habits cause them to change rapidly and because they're highly dependent on certain conditions (for example, the type of power that's being used). Researchers in a new study criticise the fact that the Shift Project figures were calculated using outdated data. The short study "Climate protection through digital technologies" ( Klimaschutz durch digitale Technologien) from the Borderstep Institute compares various studies and comes to the conclusion that the greenhouse gas emissions caused by the production, operation and disposal of digital end devices and infrastructures are between 1.8 and 3.2 percent of global emissions (as of 2020).

Even if it's hard to work out specific figures, it is clear that our digital world has a huge energy appetite, especially if you include not only the use, but also the production, of our digital devices.

What digital activities are using the most energy?

Jens Gröger, senior researcher at the Öko-Institut, estimates that each search query emits around 1.45 grams of CO2. If we use a search engine to make around 50 search queries per day, this produces a huge 26 kilograms of CO2 per year.

Doesn't sound like a lot? Not at an individual level. But Google itself, in its 2017 Environmental Report 2017, puts its carbon footprint for 2016 at 2.9 million tons of CO2e and its electrical energy consumption at 6.2 terawatt hours (TWh).

But online searches are by no means the core of the problem: one of the biggest causes of the internet's huge power consumption is in fact music and video streaming. According to research by The Shift Project, 80 percent of all data flows through the net in the form of moving images. Online videos - available on different platforms and viewed without being downloaded - account for almost 60 percent of global data transfer. Transmitting these moving images requires huge amounts of data. And the higher the resolution, the more data is sent and received.

According to The Shift Project, the average CO2 consumption of streamed online video is more than 300 million tons per year (based on measurements taken in 2018). This is the same as emitted by the whole of Spain in a year. Another comparison out of interest: streaming ten hours of film in HD requires more bits and bytes than all of the articles in the English Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia put together.

Another suggests that streaming a Netflix video in 2019 typically consumed 0.12-0.24 kWh of electricity per hour, about 25 to 53 times less than the Shift project estimates. Ralph Hintemann at the Borderstep Institute for Innovation and Sustainability stresses that while video streaming causes high greenhouse gas emissions, no one knows exactly how high the figures are. Concrete figures are difficult to determine because the results depend heavily on the choice of device, the type of network connection and the resolution.

Using the internet on a mobile phone uses the most power, because buildings, vegetation and weather weaken the electromagnetic waves. That means that higher transmission power is required. But even with old copper cables, the signal has to be amplified, especially over long distances. Fibre optic cables, which transmit the signals via light, are definitely the most efficient form of transmission technology. Powered by the average global electricity mix, streaming a 30-minute show on Netflix would currently release 28-57 grams of CO2. This is about 27 to 57 times less than the 1.6 kg from the Shift project. Ralph Hintemann and his research group have calculated that streaming one hour of video in full HD requires about 220 to 370 watt hours of electrical energy, depending on whether the video is streamed via tablet or TV. This adds up to around 100 to 175 grams of carbon dioxide and would be about the same as driving one kilometre in a small car.

Music streaming also comes off quite badly: a new study by the universities of Glasgow and Oslo shows that music streaming services emitted around 200 to 350 million kilograms of greenhouse gas in 2015 and 2016. That means that using streaming services such as Spotify or Apple Music is in many cases more harmful to the climate than the production (and subsequent disposal) of CDs or records.

Cloud computing is another major power guzzler. This is where data is no longer stored locally on a computer or smartphone, but on servers that can be located anywhere in the world, meaning it can be accessed anytime and anywhere. Checking your email via gmail and backing up your photos to the cloud are just two examples of these kind of services.

Most cryptocurrencies also consume large amounts of energy. One example of this is Bitcoin, probably the best-known digital currency. According to calculations by the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index (2018), a single Bitcoin transaction consumes around 819 kWh. The same amount of energy could operate a 150-watt refrigerator for about eight months. And in a 2018 study, the Technical University of Munich determined that the entire Bitcoin system produces around 22 megatons of carbon dioxide per year, the same as the CO2 footprint of cities such as Hamburg, Vienna or Las Vegas.

But it's not only the Bitcoin blockchain that's energy-intensive. Other blockchains and distributed ledger technologies (DLTs) also entail a huge demand for energy. In our recent RESET Special Feature looking at how blockchain can be used for real-world positive impact, we delved even deeper into the question of whether blockchain and sustainability can ever truly go together.

Our digital energy consumption isn't only determined by what we do, but also how we do it; the software we use also has a big impact. For example, a less efficient word processor needs four times as much energy to process the same document as an efficient one. While at the same time, software updates often cause computers or smartphones to slow down or stop working, forcing consumers to buy new hardware.

And in the future, digitalisation's growing demand for electricity will certainly also be driven by an increase in smart technologies, such as those we are increasingly using at home, in the IoT sector, in industry and in our increasingly digitalised cities.

All roads lead to... energy-hungry data centres

Every action, no matter how small, that is carried out online, travels in the form of a data packet through data centres and their servers. Looking at the energy use of data centres therefore gives us an idea of just how energy-hungry digitalisation is. It's impossible to say with any certainty how high the current energy requirements of all data centres worldwide are. Current estimated calculations range from 200 to 500 billion kilowatt hours per year, an estimated 3% of the world's electricity. And future predictions differ considerably too - with figures between 200 billion and 3,000 billion kilowatt hours predicted for the year 2030.

Why do expert opinions differ so much? One reason is that there are no official figures for data centres yet. Another reason is that many operators are reluctant to provide information about their energy consumption due to concerns about security and competition. Researchers can therefore only get close to the real figures via detours, such as sales figures for servers or estimates from surveys.

And what exactly is using all that power?

First and foremost, a lot of power is needed to process the enormous data streams that we constantly send and receive via our devices. And when that data is processed, heat is generated as a waste product. To prevent the servers from overheating, additional energy is required for ventilation and to cool the servers down. On average, mechanical cooling is responsible for around 25 percent of the total power consumption of a data centre. And all that heat that's producted? Usually it's just released into the atmosphere - simply left to go to waste.

How can swimming pools make data centres more energy efficient?

Reducing the energy consumption of data centres is an important step towards making digitalisation more sustainable. There are three main ways to do that:

finding the most efficient ways to cool data centres

One fairly simple-sounding and popular solution is to locate data centres in cooler countries and simply blow the outside air into them. This explains the multiple data centres located near the Arctic. Warmed, piped water is another way to cool banks of high-performance, hot computers, as is immersion cooling. Some companies are even working on using artificial intelligence to tune their cooling systems to match the weather and other fluctuating factors - in a bid to reduce their energy bills.

2. re-using the waste heat

Data centres produce heat throughout the year. Ideally, this heat should be constantly be extracted and reused elsewhere. But finding the right customers to recycle that heat can be a challenge. Many newer data centres use the waste heat within the data centre itself. But, in order to better exploit the potential of waste heat, a more comprehensive approach is needed. While Sweden is one of those countries that is considered an ideal location for data centres because of its cool climate, at the same time, it's also a pioneer when it comes to reusing their waste heat. The country relies heavily on a system of district heating (where heat is distributed via pipes to residential and commercial buildings from a centralised location), which makes it relatively easy to feed the waste heat from data centres into the network, thus heating the apartments tat are connected.

The Elementica facility is the latest example. Fully expanded, the data center is expected to recover up to 112 gigawatt hours of heat per year, covering the heating of tens of thousands of households. Another example is the Stockholm Data Parks initiative, which sees waste heat recycling as playing a key role in the city's goal to be completely fossil fuel free by 2040.

It's also possible to feed the excess heat not only into local and district heating networks, but also into buildings such as swimming pools, laundries or greenhouses - places which permanently require heat. The first examples of this already exist. In Paris, a swimming pool is being supplied with heat from the servers of the animation studio next door. And the Irish company Ecologic Datacentres is currently planning a computer centre that will use the waste heat to help grow vegetables in greenhouses and heat nearby homes.

The EU-funded ReUseHeat project is also working on innovative solutions for waste heat recovery. Nine European countries are to join forces over the next four years to make waste heat available at various locations in Europe.

If data centres are ever to be operated in an environmentally-friendly, maybe even one day carbon-neutral way, they will have to be powered by clean, renewable sources of energy. While most countries' energy mix still only contains a small fraction of renewables, some companies are starting to focus more on sourcing their very own energy - from wind or solar power.

Founded in April 2015 in German North Frisia, the startup start-up uses energy from local wind farms to power its data centres. Its provided 2015, Windcloud has provided IT services from 100 percent locally generated and renewable energy. has a different approach. The webhoster is organised as a cooperative and focuses on resource-saving webhosting using cooperative energy and the use and support of open source software.

We also use a green service provider to host RESET.org. Hetzner Online uses electricity from renewable sources to power the servers in their own data centre parks.

Have your own website? You can check its carbon impact using the online Website Carbon Calculator as well as find tips on how to improve it.

If we're ever going to seriously shrink the carbon footprint of data centres, then we need bring in policy regulations that restrict their energy consumption and incentivise efficiency measures. Right now there is little motivation for data centre operators to do the right thing.

The ecological and social impact of our smart devices

The consequences for people and the environment are fatal. More than half of the electronic trash we produce is shipped cheaply to countries of the global South. There the valuable raw materials are extracted, often under inhumane and unhealthy working conditions, causing pollution in the local environment. At the same time, most of the mineral raw materials used in our smart devices come from countries where there is a disregard not only for labour rights but also for environmental standards. The same applies to the entire manufacturing process.

However, there are a growing number of companies and initiatives that are using sustainable materials, smart recycling methods and a conscious use of raw materials to step away from a purely linear economy, using circular manufacturing methods that conserve resources and ensure fair working conditions.

It's still quite a niche market, and there are no official certifications or political efforts for ethically-made electronics. However, there are a few eco-pioneers: and Shiftphone have set out to show that consumer- and environmentally-friendly design is possible by making smartphones modular and easy to repair. At the same time, the companies pay attention to fair wages and working conditions, do without child labour and focus on resource-conserving production.

The Berlin startup MineSpider is approaching the topic from a slightly different angle: With the help of blockchain technology, MineSpider wants to ensure that no conflict minerals end up in our gadgets - by reliably tracking the supply chain for responsibly-mined minerals and raw materials that end up in manufacturers' mobile phones and laptops.

Monopolisation and Platform Capitalism

While in 2007 50 percent of the traffic on the internet was generated by over a thousand websites, by 2014 it was just 35 websites ("Warum brauchen wir Vielfalt?"/Bits & Bäume, p. 86). And of the 500 most visited websites worldwide, Wikipedia is actually the only one that is not operated commercially. So it's not surprising that six of the world's ten largest companies are now firmly rooted in the digital economy: Apple, Alphabet (Google's parent company), Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook and the Chinese company Tencent. Just a few global corporations holding an incredible amount of social and economic power.

From a socio-ecological perspective, this monopolisation and the increasing dependence on a small number of large platforms that results is cause for concern. In addition, recent studies suggest that digital platforms - with their on-demand culture and personalised online advertising - are accelerating more consumption and even increasing resource consumption through packaging waste and parcel deliveries.

The rise in personalised advertising and offers online - where information is gained about individuals through online data tracking and collection - is another negative aspect of this development: our private lives are increasingly being invaded by the financial interests of commercial companies. Digitalisation can only ever be truly sustainable if it takes not only ecological aspects into account, but also contributes to improving social and economic justice.

But there is another way, as civil society counter-movements to this development show. While they may not have the size and scope of the mainstream commercially-run alternatives, there are a few initiatives where the focus is on social-ecological values rather than profits. An example of this is the Fairbnb platform, which wants to offer a fair alternative to Airbnb. The platform was founded by neighbours and users as a cooperative, not as a company, and proits are driven back into the local neighbourhoods.

Digitalisation - Blessing or Curse for the Environment and Society?

It is tricky to come up with a black and white answer to whether currently, digitalisation has a mostly positive or negative impact on the world around us. Digital technologies can help enable sustainable development by, for example, allowing people to share resources online, enabling innovative, resource-efficient production processes (like 3D printing) and speeding up the switch to renewable energies by opening up access to smart, decentralised energy networks. Digital platforms and apps can also help promote more environmentally-friendly consumption and lifestyle options, for example by sharing tips on sustainable behaviour or simplifying access to environmentally-friendly shared transportation. And sensors and satellites can help to highlight and locate environmental destruction and allow for rapid, targeted action.

However, as this article shows, digitalisation in its form is energy-hungry and resource-intensive. It comes with a mighty carbon footprint that we might not be able to see, but we shouldn't be able to ignore. We will only ever be able to achieve truly sustainable digitalisation if we learn to use digital tools and services in moderation and in the right places. We need to look at the issue of sustainability throughout the entire life cycle too, continue working on optimising our energy use and energy sources, and look more often for alternatives to the big players of our digitalised world. Equally crucial for a sustainable digital future - more manufacturers making ethical technology that respects both society and the environment, and more consumers supporting them by making the right choices.

We need manufacturers, consumers and digital service providers to make the right decisions when it comes to the environmental impact of our increasingly digital lives - and the incentive for that will ultimately come from policies and regulations being made (and respected) at an international level. Without decisive political action, the digital revolution is set to increase our consumption of resources and energy and accelerate the damage we are doing to our planet and our climate. While at the same time, certain unchecked digital developments threaten to undermine crucial pillars of free and democratic societies. Ensuring that digitalisation is placed at the service of sustainable development, and that digitalisation itself is executed and applied in a sustainable way, is an urgent political and social priority.

Sources and links
Authors: Sheena Stolz and Sarah-Indra Jungblut / RESET Editorial (August 2019) Translated by Marisa Pettit (August 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our Digital Carbon Footprint: What's the Environmental Impact of the Online World?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every single search query, every streamed song or video and every email sent, billions of times over all around the world - it all adds up to an ever-increasing global demand for electricity, and to rising CO2 emissions too. Our increasing reliance on digital tools has an environmental impact that's becoming increasingly harder to ignore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We’re drowning in electronic waste because we buy new devices too soon and don’t recycle old stuff fast enough

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discarded electronics are the world’s fastest-growing category of domestic waste and most devices aren’t easy to recycle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Weiterhin sehr hohes Aufkommen von Abfällen in der Umwelt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Das achtlose Entsorgen von Abfällen im öffentlichen Raum, das sogenannte „Littering“, ist ein weit verbreitetes Phänomen und zieht erhebliche ökologische, ästhetische und ökonomische Folgen nach sich. Im Rahmen einer vom UBA beauftragten Studie wurden Daten zu Arten, Mengen und Vorkommen gelitterter…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent visitors have left mounds of rubbish at public spaces and beauty spots across the UK and beyond. What’s driving this behaviour?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
19.03.2022

Der gemeinsame Frühjahrsputz findet am Samstag, 19. März statt

An die Besen, fertig, los!

Am 19. März 2022 findet wieder unser gemeinsamer Frühjahrsputz statt. Unter dem Motto "Werne putzt sich raus" sind möglichst viele engagierte Bürgerinnen und Bürger, Vereine und Institutionen gefragt, mitzuhelfen, damit die Freiluftsaison in unserer Stadt sauber beginnt.

Jeder kann mitmachen. Und sicherlich macht es am meisten Spaß, sich mit Freunden, Kollegen, Nachbarn, der Schulklasse oder dem Verein zu treffen und gemeinsam Werne "herausputzen".

Die notwendigen Utensilien stellt der Bauhof der Stadt Werne selbstverständlich zur Verfügung.

Eine saubere Stadt wünschen wir uns alle und das klappt umso besser, wenn alle zusammenarbeiten - so sind auch der Werner Einzelhandel und die Gastronomie aufgerufen, sich der Aktion anzuschließen und vor ihren Türen für Sauberkeit zu sorgen.

Mit Ihrem bürgerschaftlichen Engagement setzen Sie sich für Sauberkeit und Lebensqualität in Werne ein!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
19.03.2022 Der gemeinsame Frühjahrsputz findet am Samstag, 19. März statt An die Besen, fertig, los! Am 19. März 2022 findet wieder unser gemeinsamer Frühjahrsputz statt. Unter dem Motto "Werne putzt sich raus" sind möglichst viele engagierte Bürgerinnen und Bürger, Vereine und Institutionen gefragt, mitzuhelfen, damit die Freiluftsaison in unserer Stadt sauber beginnt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some parts of modern life are, at this point, widely known to cause environmental harm - flying overseas, using disposable plastic items, and even driving to and from work, for example. But when it comes to our clothes, the impacts are less obvious.

As consumers worldwide buy more clothes, the growing market for cheap items and new styles is taking a toll on the environment. On average, people bought 60% more garments in 2014 than they did in 2000. Fashion production makes up 10% of humanity's carbon emissions, dries up water sources, and pollutes rivers and streams.

What's more, 85% of all textiles go to the dump each year. And washing some types of clothes sends thousands of bits of plastic into the ocean.

Here are the most significant impacts fast fashion has on the planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The fashion industry emits more carbon than international flights and maritime shipping combined. Here are the biggest ways it impacts the planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some parts of modern life are, at this point, widely known to cause environmental harm - flying overseas, using disposable plastic items, and even driving to and from work, for example. But when it comes to our clothes, the impacts are less obvious.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Each year, 5 billion pounds of waste is generated through returns. The solution? Welcome to the world of reverse-logistics.

You’ve ordered a new pair of shoes online. They arrive; you rush to the front door and cradle the box as you lift off the lid. You un-tie the laces, guide them toward your feet and… bummer, they don’t fit.

So, back in the box they go and an hour later you drop them at the local collections store. It’s disappointing, but hey, the shoes have never been worn and they’ll be making their way to a new home soon. Right? Wrong.

So what does happen to our apparel when we order online and then return the items? The reality is that much of it simply ends up in landfill. That is, once its been shipped all over the country, or even the globe, a few times.

Each year in the US alone, customers return approximately 3.5 billion products, of which only 20% are actually defective according to Optoro, a company which specialises in returns logistics.

Many companies simply don’t have the technology in place to handle these nuances in returned goods © Sofie Delauw | Getty

Sarah Needham from the Centre for Sustainable Fashion at University of the Arts London says the flow of goods to customers and back to retailers is flawed both from an economic and environmental perspective.

“We know that many of the products that are returned end up in landfill before we even use them which only adds to the vast amounts of used items already ending up in landfill... These products use precious resources which are becoming scarce and we are throwing them away unnecessarily,” says Needham.

It turns out that returns not only create a giant carbon footprint, but a real headache for companies. That new pair of shoes you sent back, with the open box and the untied laces, needs to be handled differently to, say, a t-shirt with a rip in it. Many companies simply don’t have the technology in place to handle these nuances in returned goods, so it is often most profitable for them to sell them cheaply to discounters via a web of shipping, driving and flying them around the globe, or to simply truck them to the dump.

Optoro believes it has a viable solution. Its software helps retailers and manufacturers resell unsold and excess items more easily. They offer a multitude of options for retailers, including a website to re-sell their goods, called Blinq, as well as helping with re-routing items to donation, store shelves, Amazon or eBay. They estimate their work helps reduce landfill waste by 70%.

“Our tech uses a lot of different data sources to figure out exactly what to do with each different item. For example a pair of shoes that have only been taken out of the box, and are still in perfect condition, we will put straight on the website,” says Llewellyn.

Co-founders Tobin Moore and Adam Vitarello came up with the idea 11 years ago when they were working to help individuals resell one-off items on eBay from a store in their garage.

“They had a lot of retail stores come to them and say, ‘We have all these returned shoes from last season that are excess and we don’t know what to do with them, can you help us resell them,’” says Llewellyn. The pair realised if they started doing the same but for big retailers they could tap into a much bigger market, and so they started building the Optoro software.

Needham is encouraged to see organisations recognise the issue of waste from returns and offer solutions to reduce the flow of clothing and footware to landfill and preserve the energy and resources that go into producing these items.

Yet, despite the obvious environmental issues, the fast fashion business is still rapidly expanding. A 2016 report by Greenpeace shows that, “Clothing production doubled from 2000 to 2014…The average person buys 60 per cent more items of clothing every year”. And, with a booming world population estimated to reach 9 billion people by 2050, solutions that ensure our returns can be reused or recycled are going to be vital.

Ann Starodaj, Senior Director of Sustainability at Optoro, says that while consumer habits might still be harmful, creating a profitable and environmentally friendly fashion model from start to finish is the way forward: “I don’t think people are going to stop buying stuff, but creating a business model where you’re making it easier for them to make sustainable choices is the money shot,” she says.

Featured image © Spyderskidoo | Getty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Your brand new returns end up in landfill | BBC Earth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BBC Earth tells you all about about where your returned goods end up and what can be done to combat this unnecessary and damaging waste.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Vocabulary Globalisation Klett Thematischer Lernwortschatz 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Atacama desert in Chile is home to a mountain of discarded clothing which grows by around 39,000 tons per year as the pollution from the industry of fast fashion continues to pile up.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fight climate change by preventing food waste

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An estimated one-third of all the food produced in the world goes to waste. Food waste is both a humanitarian concern and drives climate change. Here are some tips to prevent food waste.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reducing food waste around the world would help curb emissions of planet-warming gases, lessening some of the impacts of climate change such as more extreme weather and rising seas, scientists said on Thursday.

Up to 14% of emissions from agriculture in 2050 could be avoided by managing food use and distribution better, according to a new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

"Agriculture is a major driver of climate change, accounting for more than 20% of overall global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010," said co-author Prajal Pradhan.

"Avoiding food loss and waste would therefore avoid unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and help mitigate climate change."

Between 30 and 40% of food produced around the world is never eaten, because it is spoiled after harvest and during transportation, or thrown away by shops and consumers.

The share of food wasted is expected to increase drastically if emerging economies like China and India adopt western food habits, including a shift to eating more meat, the researchers warned.

Richer countries tend to consume more food than is healthy or simply waste it, they noted.

As poorer countries develop and the world's population grows, emissions associated with food waste could soar from 0.5 gigatonnes (GT) of carbon dioxide equivalent per year to between 1.9 and 2.5 GT annually by mid-century, showed the study published in the Environmental Science & Technology journal.

It is widely argued that cutting food waste and distributing the world's surplus food where it is needed could help tackle hunger in places that do not have enough - especially given that land to expand farming is limited.

But Jürgen Kropp, another of the study's co-authors and PIK's head of climate change and development, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation the potential for food waste curbs to reduce emissions should be given more attention.

"It is not a strategy of governments at the moment," he said.

The researchers analysed food requirements in the past and for different future scenarios.

They found that while global average food demand per person remains almost constant, in the last five decades food availability has rapidly increased - hiking the emissions related to growing surplus food by more than 300%.

The paper did not look at how food waste could be shrunk, but initiatives to tackle the problem are already on the rise in both developed and developing countries.

In January, for example, 30 company heads, government ministers, and executives with foundations, research groups and charities launched a coalition to work towards cutting food waste by half and reducing food loss significantly by 2030.

The aims are in line with the new global development goals that took effect this year.

"Champions 12.3" - named after the food-waste goal number - includes the bosses of Tesco, Nestle, Rabobank, Unilever, Oxfam America, WWF International and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Andrew Steer, another coalition member who heads the World Resources Institute, noted then that if food loss and waste were a country, it would be the third largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world.

"Food loss and waste hurts people, costs money and harms the planet," he said in a statement. "Cutting (it) is a no-brainer."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reducing food waste would mitigate climate change, study shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reducing food waste around the world would help curb emissions of planet-warming gases, lessening some of the impacts of climate change such as more extreme weather and rising seas, scientists said on Thursday. Up to 14% of emissions from agriculture in 2050 could be avoided by managing food use and distribution better, according to a new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wir retten Lebensmittel vor der Verschwendung

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rette leckeres Essen und bekämpfe die Verschwendung von wertvollen Lebensmittel. Das schont nicht nur die Umwelt, sondern auch deinen Geldbeutel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Detailansicht öffnen

Leihen statt Kaufen - funktioniert nicht nur bei Filmen, auch bei Kleidern.
(Foto: Illustration: Claudia Klein)

Wer kauft noch Musik? Es gibt doch Spotify. Wer stapelt noch DVD-Boxen im Regal? Dafür haben wir jetzt Netflix. Eigenes Auto? Ja, okay, da sind noch ein paar, ist seit Drive Now oder Uber aber eigentlich auch überholt. So viel haben wir in den letzten Jahren gelernt: Besitz war gestern, Zugang ist heute. Man muss die Sachen nicht gleich kaufen, man muss nur wissen, wo man sie leihen oder nutzen kann.

Und dann stehen wir mal wieder vor unserem vollgepackten Kleiderschrank und sehen: Da zumindest ist noch ganz schön viel eigenes Zeug drin. Liegenschaften im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes. Aber Kleidung ist ja auch etwas ganz anderes, viel persönlicher, intimer, mit hautnahen Erinnerungen verbunden. Kein schnöder Gebrauchsgegenstand! Und trotzdem, im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen Dingen, ständig in Gebrauch.

Gut, den Mantel da hinten hat man zwar seit vorvorletztem Winter nicht angehabt. Die Paisley-Bluse höchstens einmal. Die Culottes, wo noch das Preisschild dran hängt - tja, doof, der Trend ist jetzt ja auch schon längst wieder vorbei.

Wäre es vielleicht auch bei Mode schlauer, mal zu leihen, statt zu kaufen? Angebote dazu gibt es jedenfalls immer mehr, und nicht nur für Designer-Handtaschen wie beim Internetunternehmen Bag borrow or steal, das das Geschäftsmodell schon länger betreibt.

Mittlerweile geht es vor allem um sogenannte "Fashion Rentals" wie Girl meets Dress, Chic by Choice, Armarium sowie das größte, aber bislang nur auf dem amerikanischen Markt agierende Rent the Runway. Das Start-up wurde 2009 von zwei Harvard-Absolventinnen gegründet. Seitdem haben sie 126 Millionen Dollar an Risikokapital eingesammelt und mehr als 300 Designer im Programm, darunter Giambattista Valli, Balenciaga oder Paul Smith. Marken, die sich die meisten Frauen normalerweise nie leisten könnten.

Für zehn bis zwanzig Prozent des Verkaufspreises dürfen sie jetzt zumindest so tun als ob. Nach wahlweise vier oder acht Tagen geht das Paket kostenfrei wieder zurück. Wer das Kleid ruiniert, muss den vollen Preis bezahlen, wer für fünf Dollar vorher eine Versicherung abschließt, darf auch mal kleckern.

Mittlerweile hat Rent the Runway mehr als fünf Millionen Mitglieder, die so viel ausleihen, dass das Unternehmen nun die größte chemische Reinigung der USA betreibt. Ein gerade im Logistikzentrum eingetroffenes Kleid kann noch am gleichen Tag zur nächsten Kundin. Die Nachfrage ist so groß, dass momentan angeblich 2000 Kleider gereinigt werden - pro Stunde.

Fashion-Flatrate für 139 Dollar monatlich

Nichts anderes als der alte Kostümverleih, nur eben online, da winkten viele in der Branche in den letzten Jahren immer wieder ab. Vermieten funktioniere allenfalls für Abendgarderobe, die man nur ein paar Mal im Jahr braucht. Wer leiht sich schon Pullover? Jeans? Eine Sommerbluse?

Offenbar mehr Leute, als man denkt. Rent the Runway führte im April den Service "Unlimited" ein. Kurz: Das Netflix für Mode. Abonnenten zahlen 139 Dollar im Monat und dürfen sich dafür drei Teile aussuchen, die sie nach Hause geschickt bekommen. Sind diese einmal zurückgesandt, darf man sich die nächsten drei aussuchen, und so weiter und so fort, unbegrenzt eben. Um Cocktailkleider geht es hier nicht mehr, so viele Abendeinladungen hat nicht mal Amerikas First Lady.

Le Tote, auch aus den USA, bietet ebenfalls bereits eine Fashion-Flatrate an, allerdings kann man die Sachen hier auch kaufen, wenn man sich partout nicht mehr trennen möchte. Außerdem wurde gerade Schwangerschaftskleidung eingeführt; die wird ja ziemlich sicher nicht ewig getragen.

"Sich mit fremden Federn schmücken" könnte man das Prinzip nennen, an das sich die Leute anscheinend allmählich gewöhnen. Weil vor allem die jüngere Generation, die Airbnb und Blablacar nutzt, immer weniger in Besitzständen denkt und viele schon seit Längerem im Freundeskreis alles mögliche tauschen.

Vor allem aber auch, weil der Markt für Second-Hand-Mode gerade boomt, was wiederum damit zu tun hat, dass die Leute zu viele Sachen in ihren Kleiderschränken haben und ständig etwas davon loswerden wollen - um Geld und Platz für Neues zu haben. Selbst die Deutschen kaufen nach Umfragen aktuell bis zu fünf neue Teile pro Monat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sharing-Economy: Mein Kleid ist dein Kleid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wer kauft noch Musik? Es gibt doch Spotify. Wer stapelt noch DVD-Boxen im Regal? Dafür haben wir jetzt Netflix. Eigenes Auto? Ja, okay, da sind noch ein paar, ist seit Drive Now oder Uber aber eigentlich auch überholt. So viel haben wir in den letzten Jahren gelernt: Besitz war gestern, Zugang ist heute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is The Carbon Footprint Of The Internet ? The Impact Of Internet On Our Environment - Cleanfox

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you know how many carbon emissions you are generating by your online activity? Did you even know that you are generating CO2 when you are surfing? The Internet’s carbon footprint is estimated to exceed air travel. If the Internet were a country it would be the 6th biggest electricity consumer in…