(SMA) WALMART & AVERY - RETAIL SUSTAINABILITY

Walmart and Avery Dennison have joined forces to make radio-frequency identification (RFID) tech work on new categories on shelves, including meat and deli. The United Nations has identified food waste as a US$1tn opportunity for the retail sector.

However, this opportunity can only be realised when there is collaboration and innovation across the value chain.

This collaboration and innovation could be epitomised by a partnership between Walmart and Avery Dennison, which is advancing the use of radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology in fresh categories that were previously not possible.

According to Walmart: "Addressing food waste and ensuring freshness are more important than ever for consumers, producers and retailers. This first to market solution is set to transform inventory processes and enhance associate and customer experiences across fresh departments – particularly bakery, meat and deli."

The retailer adds: "This is practical innovation, bringing RFID technology – once limited by temperature and moisture limitations - to new categories like protein and deli. This is technology connecting the physical and digital to reduce waste, improve labour efficiency, enhance consumer experiences and advance sustainability."

RFID technology in fresh departments

Walmart teams with packaging and containers manufacturer Avery Dennison to create and test sensor technology that brings RFID-enabled labels to the meat department. The solution addresses an enduring challenge for food retailers of using RFID technology in high-moisture, cold environments like meat cases.

Avery Dennison brings the solution to Walmart, gives the retailer the ability to track inventory faster and more accurately, making sure products stay stocked and ready when customers want them.

The solution works for meat, bakery and deli products, gives employees digital use-by dates at their fingertips, boosts their ability to rotate products more efficiently and make smarter markdown decisions, helps cut down on unsold food.

Operational efficiencies for retailers

Leaders at Walmart and Avery Dennison are enthusiastic about the efficiencies and improvements that the RFID solution can bring to Walmart's 11,000-plus stores across the globe. Christyn Keef, VP of Front End Transformation for Walmart US, says: "We believe technology should make things easier for our associates and our customers. By cuts down on manual work, we give our associates more time to focus on what really matters – helping our customers."

Julie Vargas, VP and GM of Avery Dennison Identification Solutions, says: "Supporting Walmart with first to market RFID innovation across multiple fresh food categories demonstrates our mutual commitment to people and the planet.

"By providing each item with its own digital identity, associates instantly know the freshness of the foods they are handling, enables better inventory management and results in less waste." More of this article (Sustainability Magazine) - link - more like this (Walmart) - link - more like this (RFID) - link

(ICN) PENNSYLVANIA'S WESTMORELAND LEGACY

BELLE VERNON, Pa.—Off a back road in the hilly country south of Pittsburgh, a tributary to the Monongahela River runs through overgrown vegetation and beneath an abandoned railroad trestle, downstream from the Westmoreland Sanitary Landfill. On a cool day in late July, it was swollen with rain. Tire tracks through the dense brush were puddled with muddy water.

Environmental scientist Yvonne Sorovacu and local watershed advocate Hannah Hohman, her glasses spattered with raindrops, stood together under an umbrella, watching the tumble of the stream. Both women visit the landfill site regularly to collect water samples and record signs of contamination. The water here, which flows downhill from the landfill’s discharge point, is often coated with stiff globs of foam, Sorovacu said. The water upstream of the outfall is clear.

Over the course of more than a decade, as Pennsylvania’s fracking industry took off, the Westmoreland landfill accepted hundreds of thousands of tons of oil and gas waste and wastewater, toxic and often radioactive byproducts that contain elements and heavy metals from deep inside the earth and synthetic chemicals used in the drilling process. That melange can include radionuclides like radium, uranium and thorium as well as harmful substances like arsenic, lead and benzene.

After years of violations at Westmoreland, scientists and residents are keeping a close watch on the landfill, monitoring for any signs that runoff has made its way into public waterways. But oil and gas waste is going to landfills across the state, often with far less scrutiny. At least twenty-two other landfills currently take Pennsylvania oil and gas waste, and some also accept it from other states.

Oil and gas companies operating in Pennsylvania reported creating nearly 8.8 million tons of solid waste between 2017 and 2024, an Inside Climate News analysis of state records found. In an average year, that tops the waste produced by every resident and commercial enterprise in Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located.

According to Pennsylvania oil and gas operators, about 6.3 million tons of this waste went to landfills in the state. But the true amount of oil and gas waste reaching the state’s landfills is likely much larger, an Inside Climate News investigation found.

And mounting evidence suggests that this ever-increasing volume is harming the streams, creeks and rivers where Pennsylvanians fish, swim, kayak and source drinking water.

In one case, at Max Environmental Technologies Bulger in southwestern Pennsylvania, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified the radioactive element radium, a common contaminant in oil and gas waste, as one of the likely causes of the pollution in nearby creeks. In a 2023 study, scientists from the University of Pittsburgh and Duquesne University found elevated levels of radium in the sediment downstream of the outfall at five of the landfills taking the industry’s waste. Scientists have also discovered radium build-up in freshwater mussels’ bodies and shells downstream of facilities that have treated oil and gas waste.

Four of the landfills taking oil and gas waste are out of compliance with their permits, an Inside Climate News review found. Another seven have been out of compliance with the Clean Water Act for six months or more in the last five years. Thirteen are discharging wastewater or stormwater into waterways the EPA classified as “impaired,” too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet water-quality standards. More of this article (Inside Climate News) - link - more like this (polluted water) - link - more like this (Pennsylvania) - link

(GUF) CLIMATE WARMING - LIGHTEN UP

It should go without saying but these days it rarely does, that recognising some benefits of a changing climate is not the same as celebrating climate change.

• Climate change is real.
• Human activity is a driver.
• Mitigation matters.
• Decarbonisation is essential.

All of that can be true at the same time as another, less fashionable truth - climate change is happening regardless and Britain would be foolish not to adapt intelligently, pragmatically and without endless self flagellation. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, albeit, preferably sustainably sourced gum.

Chapel Down - World-Class Wine from British Vines

One of the most vivid examples of positive climate linked opportunity in Britain’s agricultural landscape is Chapel Down’s official site – England’s leading wine producer, a vineyard and winery based in Kent’s Garden of England. What was once a niche enterprise has become a globally respected producer of both sparkling and still wines with results that challenge centuries old assumptions about where great wine can come from.

Their Rosé English sparkling wine has been named ‘Best in Show’ at the Decanter World Wine Awards, ranking among the top 50 wines in the world; a rare accolade for a UK producer. Multiple wines, including the Kit’s Coty Blanc de Blancs and Coeur de Cuvée have won Gold medals at major competitions like the International Wine Challenge.

Chapel Down isn’t just producing wine, it’s changing perceptions. Their success demonstrates that English terroir, aided by a warming growing season and a focus on quality viticulture can compete on international stages traditionally dominated by France and other warmer regions proving that while climate change poses undeniable risks, there are examples on the ground of Britain adapting and thriving in new ways. English viticulture, exemplified by producers like Chapel Down now earns international acclaim. These successes are not a denial of climate change, they're proof that investment, ingenuity and changing conditions can unlock opportunities that were once unimaginable here.

If we’re serious about food miles, land efficiency and agricultural resilience, this is exactly what adaptation looks like.This isn’t greenwashing or wishful thinking, it’s terroir shifting north and Britain responding competently.

Fruit & Horticulture: Less Importing, More Growing

Warmer average temperatures and longer growing seasons are already reshaping British horticulture. Expanded soft fruit production; strawberries, raspberries, blueberries - improved yields and consistency for apples, pears and cherries - commercial viability where crops once struggled. This matters, because every tonne grown domestically means fewer refrigerated lorries crossing borders; less exposure to global supply shocks and more resilience baked into UK food security. This isn’t pretending that Britain will become Tuscany; more, playing the hand we’ve been dealt, responsibly.

Case Study: Thanet Earth — Britain’s Greenhouse Revolution

Nestled in East Kent, Thanet Earth is the largest greenhouse complex in the UK and a real story of home-grown innovation and resilience. Thanet Earth produces hundreds of millions of fresh vegetables including tomatoes, cucumbers and sweet peppers every year, supplying major supermarkets and significantly boosting domestic salad crop output.

Using cutting edge controlled environment glasshouses and hydroponic systems, the facility maximises efficiency, uses less water and reduces nutrient waste compared to traditional methods.

Combined heat and power (CHP) systems provide necessary heat and light and excess electricity is exported back to the grid, helping power local homes and smooth peak demand.

Thanet Earth continues to grow; a seventh high-tech glasshouse is underway (completion was due late 2025) adding 6.5 hectares (16 acres) of growing space for 150 million extra tomatoes a year at a cost of £20 million taking its total area to over 50 hectares (124 acres).

Partnerships like the new Centre of Excellence in greenhouse growing with Hadlow College are training the next generation of horticultural experts, a tangible investment in British agricultural skills and long term food resilience.

Thanet Earth ticks a lot of the boxes that climate adaptation advocates want to highlight: investment in domestic food production reduces reliance on imports subject to supply shocks - innovative technologies reduce resource use and align with sustainability goals.

It’s not just about crops growing in a warmer world, it’s about Britain building systems that thrive with change rather than just suffer from it and it’s not just wine and tomatoes. Across the UK, a quietly expanding range of sectors is already adapting and in some cases benefitting from changing climatic conditions.

Warmer, more reliable growing seasons are supporting hops and craft brewing, extending soft fruit production, and improving the viability of forestry and large-scale tree planting. At the same time, investment in solar and wind energy continues to strengthen Britain’s energy resilience, while longer flowering periods are aiding beekeeping and pollination services vital to food production. Aquaculture and sustainably managed fisheries are evolving alongside shifting marine conditions and demand is rising for green construction, retrofit and low-carbon building technologies. Improvements in logistics and cold-chain efficiency, alongside the growth of climate-smart and urban greening infrastructure are making towns and cities more resilient, healthier and more liveable.

This isn’t celebrating climate change, it’s celebrating human ingenuity in a changing context and showing that resilient, sustainable British agriculture is not only possible but happening now. Britain endlessly framing itself as a climate victim while refusing to acknowledge adaptive gains does two damaging things:

• It undermines public trust
• It fuels fatigue, cynicism, and disengagement

People don’t stop caring because the problem is hard. They stop caring because the message is relentlessly miserable. The responsible position is not constant alarm — it’s measured adaptation paired with honest mitigation - to celebrate progress where it exists and plan soberly for what’s coming.

Maybe it's time to stop pretending optimism is treason. If climate action is to endure, it must be livable, believable and occasionally allowed to smile because a society that only cries wolf eventually stops listening even when the wolf is real. More like this (wine making) - link - more like this (vegetables) - link - more like this (climate) - link

(MOT) ORBITAL WASTE INCINERATION

On a mid-November evening, at precisely 7:12 p.m., a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on the Florida coast. It appeared to be a perfect launch. At an altitude of about 40 miles, the rocket’s first stage separated and fell back to Earth, eventually alighting in a gentle, controlled landing on a SpaceX ship idling in the Atlantic Ocean.

The mission’s focus then returned to the rocket’s payload: 29 Starlink communication satellites that were to be deployed in low-Earth orbit, about 340 miles above the planet’s surface. With this new fleet of machines, Starlink was expanding its existing mega-constellation so that it numbered over 9,000 satellites, all circling Earth at about 17,000 miles per hour.

Launches like this have become commonplace. As of late November, SpaceX had sent up 152 Falcon 9 missions in 2025—an annual record for the company. And while SpaceX is the undisputed leader in rocket launches, the space economy now ranges beyond American endeavors to involve orbital missions—military, scientific, and corporate—originating from Europe, China, Russia, India, Israel, Japan, and South Korea. This year the global total of orbital launches will near 300 for the first time, and there seems little doubt it will continue to climb.

Starlink has sought permission from the Federal Communications Commission to expand its swarm, which at this point comprises the vast majority of Earth’s active satellites, so that it might within a few years have as many as 42,000 units in orbit. Blue Origin, the rocket company led by Jeff Bezos, is in the early stages of helping to deploy a satellite network for Amazon, a constellation of about 3,000 units known as Amazon Leo. European companies, such as France’s Eutelsat, plan to expand space-based networks, too.

“We’re now at 12,000 active satellites, and it was 1,200 a decade ago, so it’s just incredible,” Jonathan MacDowell, a scientist at Harvard and the Smithsonian who has been tracking space launches for several decades, told me recently. MacDowell notes that based on applications to communications agencies, as well as on corporate projections, the satellite business will continue to grow at an extraordinary rate. By 2040, it’s conceivable that more than 100,000 active satellites would be circling Earth.

But counting the number of launches and satellites has so far proven easier than measuring their impacts. For the past decade, astronomers have been calling attention to whether so much activity high above might compromise their opportunities to study distant objects in the night sky. At the same time, other scientists have concentrated on the physical dangers. Several studies project a growing likelihood of collisions and space debris—debris that could rain down on Earth or, in rare cases, on cruising airplanes.

More recently, however, scientists have become alarmed by two other potential problems: the emissions from rocket fuels, and the emissions from satellites and rocket stages that mostly ablate (that is, burn up) on reentry. “Both of these processes are producing pollutants that are being injected into just about every layer of the atmosphere,” explains Eloise Marais, an atmospheric scientist at University College London, who compiles emissions data on launches and reentries.

As Marais told me, it’s crucial to understand that Starlink’s satellites, as well as those of other commercial ventures, don’t stay up indefinitely. With a lifetime usefulness of about five years, they are regularly deorbited and replaced by others. The new satellite business thus has a cyclical quality: launch, deploy, deorbit, destroy. And then repeat.

The cycle suggests we are using Earth’s mesosphere and stratosphere—the layers above the surface-hugging troposphere—as an incinerator dump for space machinery. Or as Jonathan MacDowell puts it: “We are now in this regime where we are doing something new to the atmosphere that hasn’t been done before.” MacDowell and some of his colleagues seem to agree that we don’t yet understand how—or how much—the reentries and launches will alter the air. As a result, we’re unsure what the impacts may be to Earth’s weather, climate, and (ultimately) its inhabitants. More of this article (Mother Jones) - link - more like this (SpaceX) - link - more like this (space) - link

(GRE) BEYOND MEAT RELEASES CLIMATE IMPACT DATA

Plant-based giant Beyond Meat has revealed the results of its latest LCA on its flagship burger and made its first carbon disclosure submission in November.

Beyond Meat has released the climate impact data of the latest iteration of its plant-based burger, reiterating its environmental superiority over conventional beef.

The Californian company unveiled its Beyond IV platform of products in early 2024, swapping canola and coconut oils for avocado oil and adding fava beans and red lentils to the formulation of its beef mince and burger.

The changes were meant to boost the taste and nutritional credentials of Beyond Meat’s alternatives, but they also altered the product’s environmental footprint.

Beyond Meat has previously released life-cycle assessment (LCA) results for the first and third versions of the Beyond Burger, the latter coming in 2023. The latest study looks at Beyond Burger IV, and reveals similar reductions in emissions, land use, and water consumption compared to beef.

The LCA focused on global warming impact, non-renewable energy use, water consumption, and land use. The data shows that burger manufacturing is the single-largest contributor to the Beyond Burger’s greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 18.6% of the total.

As a category, though, the production of ingredients is the main culprit responsible for the burger’s climate footprint, totalling 34.9% of its emissions, 25% of its non-renewable energy use, 90% of land use, and 75% of water consumption.

Within the ingredients, the highest impact comes from pea protein, which makes up 8.3% of its emissions, 55% of its land use impact, and 8% of its non-renewable energy use. Avocado oil leads the way in terms of water consumption (contributing to 53% of the total), and accounts for 7.7% of the Beyond Burger IV’s emissions, 12% of its land use, and 3.9% of its fossil energy consumption. More of this articles (green queen) - link - more like this (plant based food) - link - more like this (beyond meat) - link

(GUF) WHEN SHOPS CANCEL YOU (PART 2)

If a supermarket is using facial recognition for identification, you are legally entitled to ask a clear and specific set of questions about that processing.

Under Articles 13, 14 and 15 of the UK GDPR, individuals have a right to transparency about how their personal data is used, particularly where high-risk biometric data is involved.

Article 13 applies where data is collected directly from you (for example, in-store facial capture). It requires the organisation to explain the purpose of processing, the legal basis relied upon, retention periods, and your rights.

Article 14 applies where data is obtained indirectly (for example via a watchlist or third-party system), and adds the requirement to explain the source of that data.

Article 15 establishes the Right of Access, commonly exercised via a Subject Access Request (SAR), allowing you to obtain confirmation that your data is being processed and meaningful details about how.

In simple terms, you are entitled to ask:

• What personal data they hold about you
• Why they’re holding it
• Where it came from
• Who it’s shared with (or the categories of recipients)
• How long they plan to keep it

These rights are not optional or discretionary — they are core GDPR obligations.

For clarity, where a shop captures biometric facial recognition data, a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) is mandatory. While the DPIA document itself may remain internal, the outcomes, risks, and safeguards cannot be hidden.

You are therefore fully entitled to ask questions such as:

• Has a DPIA been carried out for this facial recognition system?
• What key risks were identified?
• What safeguards were put in place as a result?
• Is biometric data stored, or merely processed transiently?
• Is it shared with third parties or suppliers?
• What human oversight exists?
• How can an individual challenge or object to the processing?

If an organisation refuses to answer those questions, that is a red flag, not because the DPIA itself must be disclosed but because UK GDPR requires meaningful transparency, particularly where biometric identification is concerned. More like this (GDPR) - link - more like this (digital ID) - link - more like this (supermarkets) - link

(CIR) EU TIGHTENS UP ON PLASTIC IMPORTS

The European Union is planning stricter controls on plastic imports, including tougher documentation requirements, as it seeks to support domestic recycling plants facing rising costs and competition from cheaper overseas material.

The European Commission said it would introduce tougher rules for plastic imports in an effort to help Europe’s recycling industry, which has been hit by high energy prices and low-cost imports.

According to industry group Plastics Recyclers Europe, Europe’s plastics recycling sector lost more capacity in 2025 than in any previous year, with plants closing in countries including the Netherlands as a result of rising costs and competition from cheaper imports.

A key concern, the Commission said, is that virgin plastic — produced from fossil fuels — is being mislabelled as recycled material. This makes it harder for European recyclers to compete, as genuinely recycled plastic is typically more expensive to produce.

In a policy document published on Tuesday, Reuters news agency reports the European Commission said it would propose legal changes in the first half of 2026 requiring stricter documentation for imports of recycled plastics. It also plans to introduce separate customs codes for recycled and virgin plastics to improve import tracking. More of this article (Circular) - link - more like this (plastic) - link - more like this (EU) - link

(RBL) PLEASE DONATE

I donate to the Royal British Legion; not out of nostalgia, not out of obligation and certainly not for a badge or a poppy shaped pat on the back.

I do it because when my grandad was shot on the Somme in the First World War, in the years that followed, they were there. When he needed it, they helped him stand up again. He lived until 1978 and he never forgot who showed up when it actually mattered.

The RBL deals in reality; veterans, widows, families, people who’ve already paid their share and more.

So here’s the ask, without any BS - if you only make one charitable donation in 2026, please make it to the Royal British Legion. If anyone has earned it, the people they help have - link

(TST) TEXTILES - REUSE BEFORE RECYCLE

TOKYO - At a Uniqlo store in Setagaya City, a 45-minute drive away from the Japanese fashion brand’s flagship store in Ginza, Tokyo, a unique section has been set up.

Opposite the usual displays of sweaters, jackets and Heattech innerwear for the autumn-winter season are a number of racks advertising clothes at very affordable prices.

Most items are priced under $20. For example, a pair of men’s shorts costs 790 yen (S$6.55) while a women’s parka retails for 1,990 yen. This is not Uniqlo’s bargain bin, nor is it its foray into a lower-priced fast-fashion space like that of its sister brand Gu.

It is, in fact, the company’s dedicated second-hand clothes section, reselling Uniqlo clothing that has been collected from customer donations at their stores. A number of items in this collection date back to around 20 years ago, with their labels containing an older version of the Uniqlo logo that I have never seen before.

The mix of modern and dated clothing designs is somewhat reminiscent of a thrift store, the ones you would typically find in the hipster districts of Tokyo. Above the racks, a sign in English says “Washed with care”, a statement of quality assurance from one of the world’s most popular casual wear brands.

This pre-owned project is part of Uniqlo’s Re:Uniqlo programme launched in 2020 to expand its sustainability efforts through extending the lifecycle of its products.

Started in March 2024 as an in-store trial and currently running in three Japan stores, Uniqlo said it is assessing the viability of stable procurement and selling a mixed range of clothes, before possibly launching in other cities in Japan as well as international markets.

Next to the pre-owned clothing section at the Setagaya store is a counter which Uniqlo calls its Re:Uniqlo Studio. Here, in addition to basic repair services, customers can have their damaged garments repaired via a traditional Japanese stitching method called sashiko, which uses simple stitches to create beautiful geometric patterns. Other kinds of patches featuring animal and flower designs are also available.

According to Uniqlo, its repair studios can be found at 66 stores across 23 countries and regions, including the global flagship store at Orchard Central. The sashiko service, however, is currently available only in Japan. More of this article (The Straits Times) - link - more like this (textile recycling) - link - more like this (Japan) - link

(GRI) FORD RETREATS FROM EV MARKET

Ford, a century after it launched the modern automotive era, has given up on its early ambitions to charge into the electrified future.

The company announced that it will delete nearly $20 billion in book value to extricate itself from its EV investments, an eye-popping loss that amounts to one of the biggest corporate impairments ever.

The company, of course, views it differently: The move is a ​“decisive redeployment of capital,” it said on Monday, as it rolled out a string of related strategic changes alongside the write-down.

The pivot hits particularly hard in the southeastern Battery Belt, where Ford had invested in multibillion-dollar BlueOval SK plants to produce batteries and electric vehicles. The EV battery facility in Glendale, Kentucky, will lay off about 1,600 employees, and the local outlet Memphis Commercial Appeal reported that a Ford factory in Tennessee will hire around 1,000 fewer workers than previously planned, now that it is making gas trucks instead of electric ones.

As Ford retreats from EVs, though, it’s enthusiastically embracing battery-making — announcing plans to repurpose the Kentucky plant to fuel its entrance into the grid storage market. It expects to spend roughly $2 billion over the next two years to launch production of lithium iron phosphate cells and package them into 20-foot containers that hold at least 5 megawatt-hours of storage capacity, equivalent to a Tesla Megapack. The plan is to ship at least 20 gigawatt-hours annually by the end of 2027. More of this article (Grist) - link - more like this (Ford) - link - more like this (EV to grid) - link

(NAT) AUSTRIAN POWER GIANTS

Nobody likes to see the view being spoiled by power lines, but they're often a necessary part of modern infrastructure. Perhaps if they could be turned from an eyesore into a focal point, even the staunchest opponents could accept them. Such is the thinking behind this creative project that transforms power line pylons into giant animal sculptures.

The concept, called Austrian Power Giants, comes from the Austrian Power Grid and is developed in partnership with GP designpartners and Baucon. The idea is that each of Austria's nine federal states would feature its own style of pylon in the form of an animal symbolic of the region's identity.

"This nature-inspired design is ultimately intended to become a symbol for nature-friendly infrastructure projects, strengthen the economic and tourism location in the regions and ultimately lead to increased acceptance of grid expansion projects by the general public," explains Austria Power Grid, which is in charge of securing the country's power supply.

So far, just two of the nine designs have been explored. The stork was chosen as the symbolic animal of Burgenland, reflecting the bird's well-known annual visits, while the stag represents the densely wooded Alpine foothills of Lower Austria. The images show that the sculptures look really quite impressive and intricate.

The project recently won a Red Dot Design Award and miniature models of the giant beasts are on display at Singapore's Red Dot Museum until October 2026, where they can be viewed in more detail. More of this article (New Atlas) - link - more like this (National Grid) - link - more like this (Austria) - link

(GUF) WHEN SHOPS CANCEL YOU (PART 1)

The image above is AI-generated and does not depict a Morrisons store or any real individual. This post is not about Morrisons specifically, but about the wider use and evolution of facial recognition and in-store surveillance technology across retail.

You can’t help but notice, as you walk into Morrisons in Reading, the facial recognition screen and camera system spotting, highlighting and logging you as you enter the store. My first thought was - so what?

Supermarkets have had CCTV for decades. Theft is a real issue, staff abuse is rising and no one seriously expects modern retail to operate on blind trust and crossed fingers. Cameras, in themselves, aren’t controversial, they’re part of the furniture; but then the questions start - not alarm bells, just questions. What, exactly, is happening to that data?

Is the system doing something relatively simple, scanning faces in real time, checking them against a known list of previous offenders and then discarding everyone else immediately? If so, the interaction is fleeting, functional and largely invisible; a digital equivalent of a security guard clocking your face and moving on; or is something more layered going on?

Is my presence being logged - arrival time, loiter time, frequency of visits and quietly stitched together with other data Morrisons already holds? Morrisons 'More' card, my transaction history, my product preferences. Not to catch me doing something wrong but to understand me doing something normal.

At that point, the technology stops being purely defensive and starts becoming analytical. That isn’t inherently sinister. I realise that retail has always analysed behaviour: footfall counters, heat maps, basket analysis, promotions tied to past purchases etc. Facial recognition simply lowers the friction. The difference is that you no longer opt in with a card or a barcode scan; your face becomes the identifier.

And that’s where curiosity turns into something more legitimate. Facial data isn’t just another data point. Under UK GDPR, biometric data used for identification sits in a special category for a reason. You can change a password, you can cancel a loyalty card, but you can’t easily change your face unless you’re John Travolta or Nicholas Cage.

So the reasonable questions follow naturally:

Is facial data being processed at all or merely analysed transiently? Is any of it stored and if so, for how long? Is it linked even indirectly to other customer data and crucially, what problem is this technology actually being used to solve? Security? Loss prevention? Staff safety? Or insight, optimisation and behavioural modelling?

I appreciate that none of those are illegitimate aims but they are very different purposes, with very different implications for transparency and proportionality. What’s interesting is not that people notice these systems, it’s that when they do, their instinct isn’t outrage, more - uncertainty, a sense that something meaningful is happening just out of view, without an obvious explanation and that’s where the conversation really begins.

From observer to gatekeeper

There’s another aspect to this technology that’s worth exploring; the gatekeeper question. At what point does a system designed to observe quietly begin to decide? Today, the cameras may be there to deter theft or alert staff to genuine risk. Tomorrow, the same infrastructure could just as easily shift from monitoring to permissioning, from observing who enters, to deciding who may enter.

That transition doesn’t require a dramatic policy change. It’s incremental. A tweak to a ruleset. A broader definition of “risk”. A new category quietly added to a watchlist. Once a system exists that can identify individuals in real time at the door, the technical leap from alert to deny is not a large one. That isn’t an accusation; it’s a systems observation.

Supposing a customer writes a blog post questioning facial recognition in supermarkets. It gains a bit of traction. It’s noticed internally. Could that ever feed into a “be on the lookout for” mindset? Not because the individual has stolen anything but because they’re now seen as potentially problematic, disruptive or simply unhelpful?

Fast forward a few weeks. The same customer walks into the store. The system flags them, not as a criminal but as someone who’s 'on a list'. A security colleague is quietly alerted. A polite conversation follows. 'Sorry, you’re not welcome in this store' - no accusation, no appeal, no obvious explanation required or given.

This isn’t a claim that such things are happening. It’s a thought experiment about power asymmetry. When identification systems operate invisibly, the person being identified has no way of knowing whether they’ve been flagged; why, by whom or how to challenge it and that’s where my discomfort creeps in. Not because technology exists, but because its boundaries aren’t always visible.

Most people are comfortable with rules when they’re clear, bounded and accountable. What unsettles them (me) is when systems quietly move from watching behaviour to judging individuals, especially when those judgments happen out of sight and this is why transparency matters so much to me. Not because retailers can’t be trusted (I love Morrisons) but because trust isn’t static. It has to be reinforced as capabilities grow.

If facial recognition systems are limited strictly to loss prevention with clear thresholds, deletion rules and no linkage to opinion, commentary or lawful behaviour, then saying so openly strengthens confidence. If there are hard lines that will never be crossed, articulating them matters because once technology exists that can act as a gatekeeper, the question people naturally ask isn’t “why did you install it?” It’s “what stops it being used differently later?” That isn’t cynicism, it’s systems literacy.

In a world where access decisions can be made in milliseconds by tools we never see, curiosity shouldn’t be mistaken for suspicion.

GDPR NOTE:


Under UK GDPR, facial recognition data counts as biometric data used for identification, which is classed as special category personal data. That puts it in a higher-risk bracket than standard CCTV footage, browsing history, or loyalty card data. In plain terms, it’s treated as sensitive because it’s uniquely tied to who you are. You can reset a password. You can cancel a card. You can’t reset your face. That doesn’t mean facial recognition is banned. It means organisations must meet a higher bar.

They must be able to show:

• a lawful basis for processing
• a specific purpose (not “just in case”)
• necessity and proportionality
• clear retention limits
• strong safeguards against misuse

Crucially, they must also carry out a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) before deploying such systems essentially a formal exercise in asking “should we be doing this, and what could go wrong?” More like this (digital ID) - link - more like this (shopping) - link 

(ENJ) LIVE MUSIC SETTING EMISSIONS STANDARDS

An industry wide report has revealed the carbon cost of gigs and festivals, while also pointing to bands, venues and events as powerful change making forces.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Climate Machine has collaborated with Coldplay, Warner Music Group, Live Nation, and Hope Solutions on the first ever comprehensive analysis of live music emissions.

Focusing on the UK and US, more than 80,000 individual events have been assessed for their greenhouse has output. This includes measuring logistics and haulage, energy, food & beverage concessions, fan travel, water, waste, artist and crew transportation. In the UK, the sector contributed 1.1% of total emissions.

Key takeaways include:

Fan travel is the largest driver of live music emissions, accounting for 77% in the U.K. and 62% in the U.S. across nearly all event types.

Food and beverage ranks next, contributing to 16.9% in the U.S. and 7.6% in the U.K., driven largely by animal-based products. A shift toward plant-based menus could reduce these emissions by 40% or more. When fan travel is excluded, trucking and freight emerge as major contributors–trucking makes up 14% of U.S. emissions, while air freight accounts for nearly 35% in the U.K.

Large-format shows, though fewer in number, generate a disproportionate share of total emissions, making festivals and stadium tours powerful catalysts for innovation and scalable climate solutions.

‘The research and analysis that has now resulted in the total greenhouse gas emissions attributable to live music in the UK and US marks a new anchor for meaningful actions. This detailed accounting of emissions sources and amounts guides a set of recommendations that point to a new era of emissions reductions and sustainability practices across all of live music,’ said Professor John Fernández and Dr. Norhan Bayomi, Co-Founders MIT Climate Machine.

The numbers were glared through a peer-reviewed research, existing industry reports and advanced analytical approaches. An Advisory Committee of more than 50 senior figures, including sustainability experts and music sector leaders, also contributed strategic insight.

‘This report gives the live music industry its clearest, quantified, picture yet of where touring impacts the planet most,’ said – Luke Howell, Founder & Director of Hope Solutions, MSI CEnv FISEP. ‘By taking data and evidence from across the sector, this study helps signal the need for practical, forward-thinking solutions that empower artists, promoters, and venues to focus on both measurement as well as take meaningful action to reduce their environmental impact.’

Image: Magnus Lunay / Unsplash - More from Environment Journal - link - more like this (gigs) - link - more like this (MIT) - link

(GUF) DON'T BLAME IT ON THE PUBLIC

Having wasted over forty years of my life in waste management, I feel broadly qualified, emotionally, operationally and possibly medically to say that when it comes to recycling, the less that’s left to the public, the better.

This is not an attack on people. People are generally well meaning, decent and keen to do the right thing. The problem is that they are also, when faced with a recycling bin, catastrophically unreliable.

The Recycling Station Thought Experiment;

Give the public a recycling station with a forty-foot image of a paper cup, and the words “PAPER CUP RECYCLING” in letters large enough to be seen from space, then stand back and within minutes you'll observe Coca-Cola cans, Evian plastic bottles and napkins that belong elsewhere being rammed in smugly, the depositor walking away quietly chuffed that they’ve just saved a small part of the planet thinking 'That’s my bit done'.

What they’ve actually done is contaminate the stream, increase processing costs and quietly sabotage the very system they believe they’re helping.

Over the years I have personally encountered rocks (actual lumps of stone) in confidential waste paper sacks; dog sh*t in paper and cardboard bins, banana skins in WEEE containers, greasy napkins, half-eaten chicken and biological mysteries in dry mixed recycling - at which point one is tempted to confront the perpetrator and ask 'What, exactly did you imagine we’d recycle this into'?

The public is not malicious, it's just hard-wired to contaminate recycling - not out of spite but because rules are complex, packaging lies, labels are inconsistent and wish-cycling feels virtuous. The greatest myth in modern waste policy is that better behaviour will fix a badly designed system. Shocker - it won’t.

The government, Defra and councils alike prefer to believe recycling fails because the public isn’t trying hard enough. That belief is comforting as it implies the system is sound and only the users are faulty. In reality, we’ve built a system that requires every household to behave like a trained materials technician while deliberately flooding the market with packaging that even professionals struggle to identify. That isn’t behaviour change, it’s abdication.

Do the Heavy Lifting Where It Belongs

The solution is not more posters, not friendlier icons, not interpretive recycling dance routines. The solution is to take the burden off the public entirely. Modern waste systems succeed when the intelligence sits infrastructure-side, not kerbside.

That means:

• Near-infrared scanners
• Optical sorters
• AI-assisted material recognition
• Trommels
• Magnets/Eddy current separators
• Ballistic separators

Robotic pickers don’t get bored, optimistic, pessimistic or distracted. These systems do not guess, improvise or feel proud. They simply sort correctly, relentlessly and without interpreters.

Countries that outperform the UK on recycling do not do so because their citizens are more virtuous. They do it better because the state intervenes upstream, not downstream.

Germany’s success is built on regulatory intolerance: strict producer obligations, fewer permitted materials, high landfill and incineration penalties and deposit systems that hurt if ignored. Compliance follows because ambiguity is designed out.

Japan assumes confusion is inevitable so it eliminates discretion. Standardised packaging, mandatory disassembly and legal responsibility sitting squarely with producers mean recycling works because non-compliance is socially and legally expensive.

South Korea didn’t ask people nicely to waste less food. It charged them for it, tracked it digitally, and enforced it, turning behaviour change into a by-product of system design.

Norway’s deposit return scheme works because it is simple, unavoidable and financially motivating. Return rates exceed 90% not because Norwegians care more but because the system removes the option not to comply.

The Netherlands assumes contamination will happen then engineers around it. High-tech facilities, aggressive material bans and minimal reliance on household perfection mean the public participates while the infrastructure performs.

Where This Leaves Britain

The UK is not hopeless but it remains politely conflicted - the UK government is reluctant to ban, nervous about enforcement, obsessed with nudging behaviour and terrified of upsetting producers. We ask households to compensate for poor packaging decisions made far upstream then act surprised when contamination follows. That's not the public's fault, it's governmental policy cowardice.

Traceability: The Real Prize

Things are, quietly, beginning to move. With digital packaging identification systems emerging and operational R&D being carried out by major waste operators, we are edging toward cradle to grave packaging identification, verified material flows and real funding entering the system. The vast majority of that money will land at council level where it will be least wisely spent but some of it will filter through into Simpler Recycling compliance, MRF upgrades, and expanded sorting capability which is where it actually matters.

Design for Contamination

Good waste systems don’t assume perfect behaviour; they assume distraction, confusion, laziness, optimism and the occasional act of bin-based nihilism; then they engineer around it. If your recycling system collapses because someone put a banana in the wrong bin, it was never robust in the first place.

My Final Thought

Recycling succeeds despite human behaviour, not because of it so let's stop blaming the public; stop pretending signage will save us and start building systems that assume correctly that someone, somewhere will always put the wrong thing in the wrong bin. More like this (the public) - link - more like this (waste sorting) - link

(POL) PESTICIDES - EU FAVOURS LESS EXAMINATION

The European Commission wants to do away with the ritualized examination of pesticides like glyphosate, which seem to pit politics against science every five to 10 years.

At first glance, the proposal to scrap routine expiry dates for most pesticide approvals appears to be a win for farmers and chemical companies alike, reducing uncertainty about continued access to widely used products.

The push is being driven by Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi, whose simplification agenda has drawn scrutiny from health and environmental groups wary of loosening safeguards.

It’s “nothing short of a death sentence for farmers’ health, our children’s health, and the nature our food system depends on,” said Faustine Bas-Defossez, of the European Environmental Bureau. Time-limited approvals have long been a cornerstone of EU pesticide law, requiring substances to be re-evaluated regularly to reflect new scientific evidence on their health and environmental impacts.

The Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus does away with that consistency.

While a small group of particularly high-risk pesticides would still face expiry dates and mandatory reassessments, the majority of chemicals would no longer be subject to routine renewals. The Commission argues that, for most products, the renewal cycle is slow and resource-intensive, tying up regulators who could instead assess newer, greener alternatives. Those delays, the Commission argues, “prevent a transition towards more sustainable active substances.”

A reduced workload for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) would allow the regulators to dedicate resources to products that do need reevaluation, and to alternative products.

“The proposal recognizes that Europe lags behind other geographies and loses competitiveness as a result,” said Adam Sebesta, director of Rud Pedersen Public Affairs’ substance advocacy practice. Defaulting to unlimited approvals, he added, “would be one of the biggest changes to EU pesticide rules in the past 20 years."

Austrian center-right MEP Alexander Bernhuber said the move would give farmers more flexibility. “It cannot be the case that approvals in some countries outside the EU are completed within three years, while our farms have to wait more than ten years for new products,” he said. More of this article (Politico) - link - more like this (pesticides) - link - more like this (ECHA) - link