#waste

[reasonsforhope]

"California has approved a bill to help address the dark side effects of the externally glitzy fast-fashion sector, putting the onus on manufacturers to implement repair and recycling programs. 

According to CalMatters' Digital Democracy project, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024 on Sept. 28, more than a year after the bill began making its way through the state legislature. 

The act seeks to address the growing problem of waste from the fashion industry. CalMatters notes in its analysis that the Golden State tossed more than 1.3 million tons of textiles in 2018. 

As it stands, the state ships 45% of the items that are donated overseas, which contributes to environmental pollution, and once there, much of it still ends up in landfills, where it produces potent heat-trapping gases such as methane. 

In Ghana, for example, which has seen its beaches polluted by fast-fashion waste, 40% of the 15 million garments received each week are discarded. All in all, despite the fact that 95% of California's materials are recyclable, only 15% of clothing and textiles are reused. 

Democratic state senator Josh Newman, the bill's sponsor, told the Guardian that these concerning figures inspired him to take action.   

"We worked really hard to consult with and eventually to align all of the stakeholders in the life cycle of textiles so that at the end there was no opposition," he explained. "That's an immensely hard thing to do when you consider the magnitude of the problem and all of the very different interests."

According to the Guardian, the program is expected to go into effect in 2028, with its numerous backers anticipating it could create as many as 1,000 jobs in the Golden State. 

Details are still being hammered out. However, garment manufacturers who aren't already participating in eco-friendly programs will have incentives to adopt greener practices, with recycling collection sites and mail-back programs among the possibilities.  

And while some have worried that small businesses and mid-sized brands could be disproportionately impacted by the legislation and end up passing on the prices to consumers, Newman estimates that the cost should be less than 10 cents per garment or textile."

-via The Cool Down, October 3, 2024

[materialsscienceandengineering]

Hazardous Waste Disposal Failures

Proper disposal of all waste is important for health, human safety, environmental safety, and a host of other factors - but hazardous and toxic waste especially need to be treated with care. Throughout history, there are numerous examples of improper disposal of toxic wastes, many of which such examples were legal at the time and led to changing atmospheres - or governmental policies - on the disposal and treatment of similar wastes.

Two such examples of improper hazardous waste disposal include what happened in Love Canal, New York, in the United States, and in Minamata Bay in Kumamoto Prefecture, Japan.

In Love Canal, over decades, the chemical byproducts of industrial manufacturing were dumped by Hooker Chemical Company. In 1953, the dumping stopped and the land was sold for a single dollar. It wasn't until the late 1970s that residents concerns about health issues, odors, and chemicals oozing from the ground finally began to be addressed.

In Minamata Bay, the dumping was largely of one specific chemical: methylmercury. The dumping occurred into the bay during the 1950s and 1960s, with the company responsible, the Chisso Corporation, initially denying any dumping. Because of the high seafood diet of local residents, the resulting mercury poisoning was prevalent enough to get its own name, Minamata disease.

Sources/Further Reading: (Love Canal: Wikipedia, CHEJ) (Minamata Bay: Wikipedia, verywellhealth) (Image source)

[muffinlevelchicanery]

[slack-wise]

Gomi Pit

[iztea]

it just went to waste

[quixoticanarchy]

when my grandfather moved to the us after living through wwii in occupied norway he said the most striking thing he noticed here was the waste. the wastefulness, the sheer amount of excess stuff and the fever for consumption and how blasé people were as they threw it all away. and despite nominal awareness of the issue since then and and sometimes-counterproductive efforts to recycle, overconsumption trends have only gotten worse. trash, like any other ‘flow’ of materials, goods, etc, has gone global, and accumulates unevenly between where it is produced and where its burdens fall

which is a tangible, material disaster for the people living next to incinerators and landfills (in environmental justice communities of the imperial core; or abroad, in the poor countries where the rich ones dump their waste), and for the people doing the also-toxic and dangerous work extracting all the materials and making the things that are destined for the landfill, and it’s also a psychological and paradigmatic disaster for the overconsumers: to be so disconnected from where your stuff comes from and what it really costs, to expect endless cheap varieties of food and consumer goods from all over the world, to think no further than the instant gratification of next-day-delivered fast fashion orders or a new phone every year, to not realize that what you throw out never really goes away. the ‘western consumer lifestyle’, wherever it’s practiced, depends on and enforces the willful ignorance of its consequences and the disinclination to see other people and places as real. and while most waste is industrial, not just your personal household trash, the finished products you throw out have an industrial history too, and are tied to far more waste than you’ll ever personally see. which is to say not just ‘we shouldn’t buy so many things’ or ‘we shouldn’t send our trash to be dumped in other people’s countries’ - true, but also most of these things should never even be made

[probablyasocialecologist]

Plastic producers have known for more than 30 years that recycling is not an economically or technically feasible plastic waste management solution. That has not stopped them from promoting it, according to a new report. “The companies lied,” said Richard Wiles, president of fossil-fuel accountability advocacy group the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), which published the report. “It’s time to hold them accountable for the damage they’ve caused.” Plastic, which is made from oil and gas, is notoriously difficult to recycle. Doing so requires meticulous sorting, since most of the thousands of chemically distinct varieties of plastic cannot be recycled together. That renders an already pricey process even more expensive. Another challenge: the material degrades each time it is reused, meaning it can generally only be reused once or twice. The industry has known for decades about these existential challenges, but obscured that information in its marketing campaigns, the report shows. The research draws on previous investigations as well as newly revealed internal documents illustrating the extent of this decades-long campaign. Industry insiders over the past several decades have variously referred to plastic recycling as “uneconomical”, said it “cannot be considered a permanent solid waste solution”, and said it “cannot go on indefinitely”, the revelations show. The authors say the evidence demonstrates that oil and petrochemical companies, as well as their trade associations, may have broken laws designed to protect the public from misleading marketing and pollution.

[lowcountry-gothic]

The problem is not simply that capitalism produces too much, but that it produces the wrong stuff: SUVs, fast fashion and planned obsolescence instead of public transit, affordable housing and universal healthcare. It overuses resources and still fails to meet even basic needs.

In this respect it is a wildly inefficient system. This is the sort of irrationality you get when production is organized around the interests of corporate profit and elite accumulation, rather than around human well-being and ecology.

Jason Hickel

[reasonsforhope]

It’s an open secret in fashion. Unsold inventory goes to the incinerator; excess handbags are slashed so they can’t be resold; perfectly usable products are sent to the landfill to avoid discounts and flash sales. The European Union wants to put an end to these unsustainable practices. On Monday, [December 4, 2023], it banned the destruction of unsold textiles and footwear.

“It is time to end the model of ‘take, make, dispose’ that is so harmful to our planet, our health and our economy,” MEP Alessandra Moretti said in a statement. “Banning the destruction of unsold textiles and footwear will contribute to a shift in the way fast fashion manufacturers produce their goods.”

This comes as part of a broader push to tighten sustainable fashion legislation, with new policies around ecodesign, greenwashing and textile waste phasing in over the next few years. The ban on destroying unsold goods will be among the longer lead times: large businesses have two years to comply, and SMEs have been granted up to six years. It’s not yet clear on whether the ban applies to companies headquartered in the EU, or any that operate there, as well as how this ban might impact regions outside of Europe.

For many, this is a welcome decision that indirectly tackles the controversial topics of overproduction and degrowth. Policymakers may not be directly telling brands to produce less, or placing limits on how many units they can make each year, but they are penalising those overproducing, which is a step in the right direction, says Eco-Age sustainability consultant Philippa Grogan. “This has been a dirty secret of the fashion industry for so long. The ban won’t end overproduction on its own, but hopefully it will compel brands to be better organised, more responsible and less greedy.”

Clarifications to come

There are some kinks to iron out, says Scott Lipinski, CEO of Fashion Council Germany and the European Fashion Alliance (EFA). The EFA is calling on the EU to clarify what it means by both “unsold goods” and “destruction”. Unsold goods, to the EFA, mean they are fit for consumption or sale (excluding counterfeits, samples or prototypes)...

The question of what happens to these unsold goods if they are not destroyed is yet to be answered. “Will they be shipped around the world? Will they be reused as deadstock or shredded and downcycled? Will outlet stores have an abundance of stock to sell?” asks Grogan.

Large companies will also have to disclose how many unsold consumer products they discard each year and why, a rule the EU is hoping will curb overproduction and destruction...

Could this shift supply chains?

For Dio Kurazawa, founder of sustainable fashion consultancy The Bear Scouts, this is an opportunity for brands to increase supply chain agility and wean themselves off the wholesale model so many rely on. “This is the time to get behind innovations like pre-order and on-demand manufacturing,” he says. “It’s a chance for brands to play with AI to understand the future of forecasting. Technology can help brands be more intentional with what they make, so they have less unsold goods in the first place.”

Grogan is equally optimistic about what this could mean for sustainable fashion in general. “It’s great to see that this is more ambitious than the EU’s original proposal and that it specifically calls out textiles. It demonstrates a willingness from policymakers to create a more robust system,” she says. “Banning the destruction of unsold goods might make brands rethink their production models and possibly better forecast their collections.”

One of the outstanding questions is over enforcement. Time and again, brands have used the lack of supply chain transparency in fashion as an excuse for bad behaviour. Part of the challenge with the EU’s new ban will be proving that brands are destroying unsold goods, not to mention how they’re doing it and to what extent, says Kurazawa. “Someone obviously knows what is happening and where, but will the EU?”"

-via British Vogue, December 7, 2023

[fursasaida]

In just one month, approximately 462 hectares (4.6 million m²) of woodland, "notably pines and oaks, as well as around 20 hectares of centuries-old olive groves," have been destroyed by Israeli airstrikes, said Georges Mitri, Director of the Land and Natural Resources Programme at Balamand University. Since the escalation of tensions between Hezbollah and the Israeli army on Oct. 8, the latter has used white phosphorus to set fire to forests and fields in border areas. The 1980 Geneva Convention, which Israel has not signed, prohibits the use of white phosphorous on civilians and in civilian areas due to its devastating effects on humans, animals and the environment.

[...]

Amid the ongoing economic crisis, the attacks targeting olive groves ahead of harvest season have a major negative impact on the local economy in the area. "Traditionally, people gather around the olive trees, harvest their crops, press their oil together... A big part of their lives is being lost," lamented Younes. “The olive trees being burned are centuries old," he pointed out. “If we were to replant them today, how long would it be before these fields became productive?” Giving an estimate of the economic losses attributed to the daily fires in the South, Mitri put the figure at nearly 20 million dollars. In the long term, Younes is particularly concerned about the environmental impact of the phosphorus bombs. "We have no choice but to wait until the end of hostilities before assessing the situation on the ground," he said. In Younes’ view, the greater the rate of absorption of phosphorus into the soil and water, the greater the risk of dramatic long-term consequences on Lebanon’s environment.

I'll add here that southern Lebanon has never fully recovered from 2006. There are still unexploded cluster bombs in the ground, killing and maiming people. There is still chemical contamination. The economic impact on agriculture has never been fully recouped. The cancer rates are still elevated and unaddressed. The labor structure and which crops are grown changed after 2006 and have never reverted. I remember weeping watching the bombing of Gaza in 2021 as I was in the middle of writing a paper about the long term legacies of the July War in Lebanon, with these additional long-term violences of the bombing at the forefront of my mind along with the immediate deaths and tragedies. This is a horrifying compounding of an existing injury, at a time when Lebanon is in economic free fall and (as the article also explains) in the middle of fire season, and with firefighters unable to do much because the area is. being bombed.

[blackrainbowblade]

Luxor Temple, March 2023

[mapsontheweb]

Most wasteful countries in the world

[lilithism1848]

[materialsscienceandengineering]

New plant-based glitter shows no harm to soil organisms

Plastic pollution is everywhere. Each year, over 368 million metric tons of plastics are produced with over 13 million metric tons of it ending up in the soil where it can be toxic to wildlife. Researchers are particularly worried about the environmental impacts of 'microplastics' which are small plastic particles less than 5 mm in size. Microplastics can be produced from products like glitter or when larger objects, including water bottles, break down into smaller and smaller pieces once they're in the environment. Due to their small size, animals can eat microplastics, mistaking them for food, which can cause starvation and malnutrition as well as abrasions to the gastrointestinal tract.

Read more.

[watermelllonarchive]

Dania and Malak are two young women in Gaza who have been documenting their experiences during the war. In this video, they show the scale of the waste disposal issue in Gaza. The streets in their video are like a maze of rubble and trash. As resistance to the destruction around them, the young women plant seeds.

Malak and Dania are on Instagram @ hervoicegaza

Available Go Fund Me campaigns for people whose stories have been shared on watermelllonarchive can be found in the resources post.