(IVE) EUROPE'S TOXIC LANDFILLS

Locations of more than 60,000 landfills pinpointed across Europe in first-of-its-kind analysis, uncovering a multitude of potential threats to ecosystems and communities.

Thousands of landfills across Europe lie in flood-risk zones, areas which could endanger drinking water or sensitive conservation sites, Investigate Europe and Watershed Investigations can reveal. The largest landfill mapping exercise ever undertaken across the continent has found that many of these sites risk leaching toxic chemicals into waterways, bringing a potential cocktail of harms to humans and surrounding ecosystems.

There are estimated to be up to 500,000 landfills scattered across the EU and UK, with roughly 90 per cent established before pollution control regulations. Their exact locations, however, remain broadly unknown, largely due to a lack of consistent data and the fact that many sites have been covered over.

Analysis of data obtained from Freedom of Information requests, government agencies and public sources pinpointed the locations of more than 60,000 sites. Many are likely to be historic, pre-dating the European Union’s 1999 Landfills Directive, meaning that they could lack modern-day containment measures, such as the use of protective lining to prevent leakages of harmful waste.

“Europe is obviously ignoring its landfill crisis,” Jutta Paulus, a German MEP with the Green grouping, said in response to the findings. “The hundreds of thousands of legacy sites, many in flood- or erosion-prone zones, remain a dangerous blind spot.”

From the ‘forever chemicals’ seeping out of a former landfill in Greece’s tourist-friendly Taygetos Mountains to the landfill debris crumbling from parts of Britain’s coastlines, the investigation represents a first-of-its-kind study into the state of Europe’s waste sites.


Among those mapped, almost 30 per cent were found to be in areas with a significant risk of flooding, raising the possibility of toxic waste entering water systems and surrounding land. More than 3000 sites exist in protected conservation areas, leaving ecosystems and natural habitats at risk of pollution. Thousands more were found where groundwater has poor chemical status, something that landfills have possibly exacerbated. In addition, almost 10,000 were identified in drinking water zones across France, the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy.

Those most visibly at risk are situated along the coast. The analysis found 346 landfills in coastal erosion zones in England, Wales and France, while more than 250 sites elsewhere across Europe are within 200 metres of the coast, potentially at risk of erosion or exposure from storm surges.

“With increasing frequency and magnitudes of floods and erosion from climate change, there’s a greater risk of these wastes washing into our environment,” said Patrick Byrne of Liverpool John Moores University, adding that harmful materials disseminating from the landfills bring other threats. “We know plastics are accumulating in wildlife, humans and environments and there’s emerging evidence of negative health impacts.” In the UK, it is estimated that 80 per cent of the population live within two kilometres of known landfill sites. More of this article (Investigate Europe) - link - more like this (landfill) - link - more like this (pollution) - link

(YEN) HOOKED ON PLASTIC

Over the decades, scientific studies have highlighted the environmental and human toll of making, using, and discarding disposable plastics, and yet activist campaigns, international treaty negotiations, and government regulations have done very little to curb its use. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development expects plastic production and waste to triple by 2060.

In Saabira Chaudhuri’s recently published Consumed: How Big Brands Got Us Hooked on Plastic, the London-based journalist explains how consumer goods companies have for decades dodged regulation in their efforts to maintain the status quo. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Chaudhuri talks about the plastics industry playbook, which she says stokes fears that a curb on disposables will raise consumer prices and presents false solutions that shift responsibility for plastic litter from producers onto municipalities. She explores the history of manufacturing demand for disposables and offers hope that a critical mass of concerned individuals can turn the plastics tide.

“I do think people are starting to worry about the health impacts from plastics, which could motivate a shift back towards more durable materials,” she says. “Nobody likes the idea of microplastics in our brains and in our lungs. People want to get [this] under control.”

Yale Environment 360: Last month, negotiations on an international agreement to reduce plastic pollution failed, once again, after oil-producing nations refused to cut their plastics production. Will the oil states ever come around?

Saabira Chaudhuri: In 2024, the IEA said 70 percent of the growth from oil had actually come from plastics. And if you look at the future, [those nations] seem to be betting everything on the fact that plastics will continue to grow. So I think any agreement that tried to get the whole world on board was always doomed to fail. But the consensus seems to be that a smaller group of countries can still come together and commit to making big changes, phasing out dangerous chemicals, mandating minimum recycled content, designing for recycling and reuse, things that will naturally cut back on demand for virgin plastic.

e360: Do individuals have a role to play?

Chaudhuri: We have an immense amount of power to influence what consumer goods companies do by either buying or not buying their products, by speaking to them, whether it’s their customer service people or calling them out on social media. If you start to change the culture of what’s acceptable, and it starts to show up in the profit lines of these companies, they will be motivated to make changes that [will] trickle back to this whole very murky world of chemical companies, oil companies, and resin producers.

e360: What is the industry’s playbook? How do companies manage to keep selling plastic, despite all that we know about its threats to our health?

Chaudhuri: The first tactic is to say [that abandoning plastic] will drive up prices for consumers. It’s going to make everything more expensive. You also see them funding lifecycle analyses and studies that generally seem to be drawing conclusions, cherry-picking assumptions, that confirm that disposability is the best option, that plastic is the best option. And if you did anything differently, it would be really terrible for both consumers and the environment. More of this article (Yale Environment 360) - link - Saabira Chaudhuri - link - more like this (plastics) - link - more like this (IEA) - link

(EUN) UN CLIMATE CHANGE LANGUAGE CONFUSING

Researchers warn that current climate change language can make it easier for misinformation to spread.

The UN’s language around climate change risks may be confusing the public and fuelling misinformation.

A new study from the University of Essex, which surveyed more than 4,000 UK residents, found certain words used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) make the public think scientists are “divided” and that predictions are “extreme or implausible”.

The research, published in Nature Climate Change, argues the IPCC – which was established to provide policymakers with neutral, regular scientific assessments on climate change, its impact and potential future risks – may be unintentionally “eroding” public trust in science due to specific phrasing.

How climate language shapes public perception

The IPCC uses the terms “unlikely” or “the likelihood is low” for events like large magnitude sea level rise, where there is a less than 33 per cent chance of them happening. Professor Marie Juanchich from the Department of Psychology found that this frames outcomes in a negative way, and is associated with phrases people use in everyday conversation when disagreeing or doubting the truth of what they’ve heard. As a result, hearing “unlikely” led study participants to think climate scientists are in disagreement with one another, even when they are not.

The risk of climate change misinformation

This misinterpretation can make it easier for climate misinformation to spread, with the study finding that this crosses political orientations and beliefs in climate change. It’s important to remember that misinformation is false or out-of-context information that someone is presenting as fact. This is not the same as disinformation, which is intentionally false and meant to deceive its audience. More of this article (Euro News Green) - link - more like this (climate change) - link - more like this (UN) - link

(IAR) AUCKLAND AIRPORT - MINIMISING WASTE

Airports function as ecosystems, with numerous stakeholders—from airlines to aviation security, retailers, baggage handlers, border agencies, and even construction companies— all playing crucial roles in ensuring smooth operations and a positive customer experience.

They also all, inevitably, generate waste. To effectively manage waste across the airport, a targeted and co-ordinated approach tailored to each stakeholders’ waste profile is essential.

With 18.5 million passengers travelling through Auckland Airport each year, enjoying the opportunity to eat, drink and shop, it is critical to engage all airport stakeholders in our waste minimisation efforts to achieve meaningful reductions in waste through avoidance, reduction, reuse, composting, and recycling.

Terminals

Food waste is one of the largest waste streams at airports. With over 40 food and beverage outlets and six premium lounges in the Auckland Airport terminals, a co-ordinated strategy is necessary to divert food waste from landfills.

This has involved providing separate bins in kitchens to help busy lounge and concessionaire staff easily sort food waste, as well as training food court cleaning staff to identify and remove contamination from public-facing food waste bins. In airside areas extra training was provided to kitchen and wait staff to ensure we keep within the biosecurity requirements and regulations.

As a result, we have doubled the amount of food waste sent to composting year-on-year, achieving a diversion rate of around 12% last year, with 225 tonnes composted in the 12 months to December 2024.

Preventing waste generation is the most effective way to reduce waste. Offering reusable serving ware in eateries is a key part of this effort, with our licensing rules increasingly mandating its use. Currently, 50% of terminal food and beverage outlets provide reusable crockery and cutlery. Where single-use items remain, they are predominantly commercially compostable and can be included in our food waste collections sent for composting.

This additionally eliminates the issues encountered with plastic food packaging often being rendered unsuitable for recycling due to contamination by food waste.

Biosecurity in NZ is regulated by the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) who impose strict controls on waste management in airside areas. In New Zealand it is sent for steam sterilisation and deep burial in landfill. However, we have developed processes in collaboration with MPI to recover recyclable materials from low-risk areas.

We have a purpose-built facility where we separate empty plastic bottles, newspapers, and menu cards from aircraft cabin waste for recycling. We also recover clean recyclables and kitchen food waste from premium lounges in the international terminal.

Our partnerships extend beyond waste diversion. We have collaborated with CAA/Aviation Security and our waste collection provider to repurpose prohibited items removed from traveller checked luggage. A common example is batteries, many of which are still in their original packaging. Since implementing a donation process six months ago, we have redirected over 1,000 kg of alkaline batteries to a local charity who donate them to schools and other charitable purposes.

We work with charitable organisations in other areas too, for instance, unclaimed lost property items such as clothing, prams, blankets, sporting goods, musical instruments and household goods are donated to a local organisation that supports people coming out of rehabilitation facilities, women’s refuge, refugees and families in need of support.

Over the eight years since this initiative began, it has expanded to include contributions from airport hotels and baggage service providers, leading to the donation of 9,000 kg of goods in the past year alone.

To further drive sustainability, we have established a Retailer Sustainability Working Group, where retail tenants attend quarterly workshops to share best practice and explore waste reduction strategies. These well-attended sessions promote collaboration and continuous improvement across terminal businesses. More of this article (International Airport Review) - link - more like this (airports) - link - more like this (food waste) - link

(GUF) PAPER CUP RECYCLING

Paper Cups: The World’s Most Boring Disaster - (and why we need to stop pretending they’re 'recyclable)

Paper cups. The most yawn inducing item in the waste industry until you try to dispose of one. Then they suddenly become the caffeine fuelled embodiment of everything wrong with packaging policy, certification schemes, sorting technology and our collective tolerance for greenwash.

We have a waste industry that can compost almost anything, recycle almost everything and turn yesterday’s sandwich box into next week’s puffer jacket, but hand us a paper cup and it quietly toddles off to a waste-to-energy incinerator or landfill because we still haven’t solved the world’s least sexy puzzle - what on earth is this thing actually made of?

The Paper Cup Problem

On the surface, paper cups look simple. In reality, they’re a three headed monster - starch-lined cups, PE-lined cups and PLA-lined cups; to the naked eye? Identical - to AI, NIR and every sorting technology under the sun? Also identical. To operators trying to hit PAS 100, PAS 110, RAM red lists, Simpler Recycling requirements, and everything else? A migraine shaped like a latte.

Why composting facilities reject them

In-vessel composting (IVC) facilities could process certified EN13432 compostable cups but only if they trust what comes over the weighbridge and typically they don’t, and who can blame them? A packaging rich load of food waste is a hand grenade thrown at their PAS100 compliance. If the liner isn’t certified, if the glue isn’t compliant, if the print contains PFAS, if the board is bleached, they fail; the easier option being to reject the whole load and wave it off to incineration.

Why paper mills reject them

Most paper mills will only accept cups made from unbleached board + PE liner; not starch, not PLA, not 'eco-this' and 'bio-that', just boring, reliable, PE-lined cups and even then, they only want them if they arrive sorted, baled, and pure. If not - reject and incinerate

If the machines can’t tell the difference, the system cannot work

We’ve hit the hard limit of technology. AI, near infrared, optical sorting — none of them can reliably detect cup liners. The waste industry is not going to stop and lovingly inspect each cup like it’s a gemstone in the Crown Jewels. As such, if the sorting line says 'not sure', it hits the ejector plate which means the problem isn’t operational, it’s structural.

We need one cup. One material. One fate.

The solution isn’t more logos, more schemes, more marketing fluff, or more 'compostable-ish' fairy tales. The solution is uniformity. A single UK (or EU) cup standard - either a cup designed only for IVC composting (EN13432 certified, PFAS-free, Starch-based liner, guaranteed 100% acceptance at IVC, mandatory markings, Digital tracking (DRS/EPR compatibility) - or, a cup designed only for closed-loop paper recycling (unbleached board, PE-lined, guaranteed for paper mills, full circularity through facilities like James CropperJames Cropper, collected via a separate stream or RVMs). Either path works

A few countries have made attempts, usually because they made one courageous decision;

Japan limits cup formats heavily and uses strict material specifications. Result? Far fewer variants. Simpler flows. Less chaos.

South Korea has RFID bins, PAYT, incredibly strict sorting rules. Cups are either compostable only or fibre/recyclable only and citizens comply because the system gives them no choice.

France banned certain cup formats outright and pushes aggressively for uniformity in food-contact packaging. Their 'pick a lane and stick in it' attitude is something the UK could definitely use a bit more of.

Germany pushed hard on reuse systems, forcing cafés to supply returnable cup options. It doesn’t solve disposables but it dramatically reduces them.

Between these approaches, the international lesson is clear; nations that pick a single material strategy succeed. Nations that let marketing teams pick the materials fail.

As usual, the UK talks endlessly about Simpler Recycling, PFAS reduction, pEPR, DRS, compostable packaging futures, PAS100 & PAS110 and yet we still allow three incompatible cups to circulate without mandatory, machine readable differentiation.

What the UK should do

1. Mandate ONE compostable standard or ONE recyclable standard, Not optional. Not voluntary. Mandatory.

2. Add digital identifiers (QR/DRS-level coding) so sorting lines don’t have to play cup roulette.

3. Ban PFAS and plastic hybrids in cups; if it isn’t PFAS-free, fibre-recyclable or EN13432-compliant, it shouldn’t exist.

4. Set acceptance obligations - IVC must accept Certified Cup A. Paper mills must accept Certified Cup B. Both need support via EPR fees.

5. Penalise non-standard cups. Make them financially unbearable under pEPR. Belgium does this brilliantly; bonus/malus charges to push uniformity.

6. Require retailers to choose one system and label bins accordingly
No mixed messages. No 'we compost or recycle' - Choose a lane or get fined.

Paper cups aren’t a technological challenge. They’re a policy failure. Until governments mandate one cup type (or two clear streams), we’ll keep burning billions of cups designed to be “eco-friendly” but destined, inevitably, to be fuel. More like this (compostables) - link - more like this (IVC) - link - more like this (cups) - link

(EUN) EU RAW MATERIAL RECYCLING RATE

Raw material recycling rates have been stalling... Will the EU reach its 2030 target? Progress on recycling materials across the European Union hasn't been outstanding in the past decade.

Between 2015 and 2024, the rate of recycling across the bloc increased by only one percentage point: From 11.2% to 12.2%, according to the latest Eurostat data. When it comes to avoiding the extraction of new raw materials, one country, the Netherlands, stands out among all others, with a rate of nearly 33%.

Neighbouring Belgium comes in second place with 22.7%, followed by Italy in third place with almost 22%. At the bottom of the table, with the lowest recycling rate, is Romania, with just 1.3%, followed by Finland and Ireland, both at 2%.

The EU's Circular Economy Plan has set a target of 23.2% for material recycling by 2030. "Circularity is an essential part of a wider transformation of industry towards climate-neutrality and long-term competitiveness", said EU authorities. "It can deliver substantial material savings throughout value chains and production processes, generate extra value and unlock economic opportunities."

However, the goal now seems out of reach, given the slow growth rate in the past 10 years. "The use of primary materials tends to increase more than secondary materials, hampering a proper increase in the circularity rate", Zero Waste's Chemical Recycling officer Lauriane Veillard told Europe in Motion. "While we recycle more tonnes in (absolute) numbers, production goes up quicker, so the resulting percentage is not looking great, resulting in 1% in the last 10 years," she said.

The European Environmental Agency added that "one of the reasons is that in the EU, we have many pieces of legislation targeting the recycling of specific, environmentally relevant waste streams like packaging or electronic waste, but we don't have that for the larger waste streams like mining waste".

On Wednesday, EU industrial strategy chief Stéphane Séjourné said that recycling is going to be crucial to reducing the bloc's dependency on critical raw materials imports from China. more of this article (Euro News) - link - more like this (best at recycling) - link - more like this (Netherlands) - link

(OFF) DENMARK LAUNCHES 2.8 GW WIND TENDERS

The Danish Energy Agency (DEA) has launched tenders for three offshore wind areas that can house a minimum of 2.8 GW of installed capacity. 

The process is based on a Contracts for Difference (CfD) model, which the DEA says will increase the likelihood of qualified bids, following the tender launched last year through which the state did not receive any bids for the first three of the six offered sites.

The sites are North Sea Central (Nordsøen Midt), Hesselø in the Kattegat and North Sea South (Nordsøen Syd). The deadline for bids for the North Sea Central and Hesselø is in the spring of 2026. The deadline for the North Sea South is autumn 2028.

The DEA is offering a two-sided capability-based Contract for Difference (CfD) for each of the three projects, following a dialogue with the industry.

Under the CfD model, the state guarantees the offshore wind power producers a fixed price for the electricity, which reduces the risk of low electricity prices for the developer and provides greater security. The Danish government has set a ceiling of a total of DKK 55.2 billion (around EUR 7.4 billion), including VAT. Mre like ths (offshorewind.biz) - link - are like this (wind) - link - more like this (Denmark) - link

(GUF) RVM MIGHT NOT BE THE ANSWER

I am fortunate to work with a UK university that runs one of the most effective, integrated, low-contamination recycling systems in higher education. If someone asked me how a university can operate as sustainably as possible, my glib answer would always be: do what they do.

Simple on paper, difficult in practice; unless you’re my client, who pull it off with quiet, clinical precision.

For years, I assumed the Deposit Return Scheme and the inevitable Reverse Vending Machines that come with it were a given for universities. It felt obvious. They sell bottled drinks and cans through campus shops, cafés, refectories, vending machines, JCR bars, everywhere.

Why on earth would a university risk inconveniencing students and staff by sending them offsite with empties? And why would any institution willingly give up the weight of all that clean aluminium and PET, only to see their residual waste percentage creep upwards because the recyclables have literally walked off campus?

But the more you unpick it, the more the ‘obvious’ answer stops being the right one. Like all genuinely sustainable organisations, their strategy is built on three core KPIs:

• Reduce overall waste generated per capita
• Increase the percentage recycled per capita
• Reduce landfill input to zero wherever practicable

Waste reduction is always at the top of the waste hierarchy: preventing waste is the most environmentally beneficial action, followed by reuse, recycling, recovery and only then disposal. Avoiding the waste in the first place solves most of the downstream problems before they even exist.

By not having RVMs, a university can avoid two hidden pitfalls: they don’t attract off-campus visitors wandering in to cash their bottles and cans meaning they don’t inherit other people’s waste and anyone buying a drink onsite is subtly encouraged to take the empty off campus to claim their refund elsewhere. The material leaves the system before it can appear in their waste statistics.

There’s also a practical detail in the wider Deposit Return debate: universities aren’t mandated to host RVMs as most campus shops fall under the 100 m² retail exemption, so they are under no legal obligation to install machines. To take part, they must actively opt in and with that comes the cost of buying or renting the equipment.

REUSE IS BETTER VALUE

If you are already performing strongly against your waste KPIs, the question becomes unavoidable: is this really the best use of money? For many institutions, those funds are far better channelled into the interventions that genuinely shift behaviour such as reuse models, take-back schemes and real waste-reduction initiatives rather than installing machines simply because the sector assumes you should.

The result is often a neat reduction in overall waste tonnage, an improvement in per-capita performance, and, inevitably, a welcome reduction in the waste invoice.

Universities shouldn’t reject RVMs because they don’t believe in recycling; they should reject them because their existing systems are already working and adding a new one may only dilute what is already effective.

LIMITED SUCCESS

A study in North Bengaluru found that even where RVMs were installed, their impact was far from guaranteed. Success was limited by four familiar barriers: awareness, convenience, incentives, and user involvement. Unless people know the machine exists, can reach it easily, see clear value in using it and feel part of the process, the shiny box on the wall doesn’t shift behaviour.

RVMs are a tool, not a miracle and like any tool, they only work when the environment is right. Sustainability isn’t about copying what everyone else is doing; it’s about understanding what actually works in your own environment and if a university’s system is already delivering low contamination, high capture rates and solid KPI performance, then the smartest move may not be adding more infrastructure. It should be doubling down on what already works: reducing waste at source, expanding reuse, strengthening take-back models, and making waste prevention the cultural norm rather than an afterthought. Thanks to UOR - link - More like this (DRS) - link - more like this (DRS) - link - more like this (university) - link

(GUF) TO PFAS OR NOT TO PFAS

The UK government has identified over 10,000 high-risk PFAS sites; that’s ten thousand places polluted with forever chemicals. Airports, MoD bases, sewage works, landfills, factories, it’s a roll call of neglect and these aren’t tucked away in some industrial estate in Slough; they’re under our feet, beside our rivers and dangerously close to the groundwater millions of us drink, including, but not limited to: -

• Fire-training grounds and airports - link
• Military bases
• Landfills and illegal dumps
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Chemical and textile factories
• Paper, packaging, and plating works
• Compost and sludge-spreading farms

The Map of Forever Pollution in Europe - link - every one of these is a chemical time bomb, not waiting to go off – they’re already going off - very, very slowly.

PFAS spread in many ways: -

• Water: PFAS leaches into groundwater and rivers straight into the drinking supply. Drinking water is the main route by which people end up swallowing PFAS, the world’s least welcome hydration additive.
• Soil: Sludge and landfill seep into crops.
• Air: Incinerators and dust spread it further.
• Food: Fish, vegetables, teas, pork, sweets, sports drinks, processed meat, butter, chips and bottled water (to name a few) carry it up the food chain
• Occupational: Firefighters, waste workers, and plant operators are on the front line.

Animal based foods especially tend to accumulate PFAS via contaminated water, soil and feed. Once PFAS enter the food chain they can magnify.

PFAS doesn’t stop at the drain. It’s turning up in biosolids, the treated sewage sludge spread on farmland. Several EU countries have banned this practice. The UK? Still reviewing it. We’re literally fertilising fields with chemicals that outlive the crops.

The UK routinely tests for just 47 PFAS compounds, a public-database count (via PubChem) lists about 7 million fluorinated chemical structures that could meet broader definitions of PFAS) – we’re not measuring contamination; we’re quantifying the level of complacency.

The Environment Agency reckons a full PFAS cleanup could cost between £9 and £10 billion a year for decades; and there’s no polluter pays fund, no liability for manufacturers; just us, the taxpayer footing another ‘legacy cost’ cleaning up a problem that corporations have made billions of profits from.

Where we’re coming across these everyday: -

Non-stick pans, waterproof jackets, stain-proof carpets, dental floss, mascara, takeaway boxes, they’re all laced with PFAS. Even so-called eco brands are tainted through supply-chain coatings. Bizarrely we banned lead in paint but still sell lipstick loaded with forever chemicals. Note: PFAS are used for water/oil/smudge resistant ‘wear’ or ‘long-lasting’ formulas (waterproof mascara, long-wear lipstick etc); those may be the higher-risk categories.

From a waste management point of view and someone interested in recycling, PFAS offer a strange, ironic effect in their roll in compostable packaging: -

Mismatch of “compostable” label + forever chemical: PFAS don’t compost/degrade, so packaging labelled as compostable but having PFAS defeats the logic of a circular/biodegradable pathway.

Contamination of compost/residual streams: If packaging with PFAS enters composting or organic recycling, the PFAS can remain, migrate into soil/biota or persist in compost.

Recycling/circular economy risk: Packaging with PFAS may disrupt recycling or result in unwanted chemicals in recycled materials. The presence of PFAS may degrade the quality of recycled output or render it unsuitable for food-contact or certain uses.

Health & environment: Since this involves food contact packaging, migration into food or exposure through packaging becomes a direct risk. Also, the environmental persistence means waste/disposal systems have to contend with it; they don’t.

Green washing risk: ‘Compostable’ or ‘eco-friendly’ packaging may carry PFAS, thus giving a false impression of low risk or full circularity.

What It Does to Us

• Wrecks hormones and thyroid function
• Raises cholesterol and damages the liver
• Weakens immunity
• Harms fertility and child development
• Increases cancer risk; especially kidney, liver and testicular

You can’t see PFAS; you can’t smell it, but you can measure it in human blood almost everywhere on Earth. There’s no ‘safe’ exposure level. PFAS doesn’t flush out - it stays - you can’t wash them out; you can only wait for them to outlive you.

The Rest of the World Has Moved

• USA: legally enforceable drinking-water limit — 4 parts per trillion.
• EU: preparing to ban almost all PFAS under REACH.
• Denmark: banned PFAS in food packaging years ago.
• UK: still “consulting.” Still “scoping.” Still “reviewing.” The UK is a world leader in PowerPoint slides.

The Lawsuits

In the US, 3M and DuPont are facing lawsuits worth tens of billions; 3M alone settled for $10.3 billion. Here in the UK? Nothing - We don’t sue polluters; we invite them to stakeholder workshops.

PFAS don’t kill fast; they corrode quietly. PFAS are the forever chemicals that never leave your water, your soil, or your body and until the government stops hiding behind guidance notes and starts acting like the grown-up in the room, that’s exactly where they’ll stay.

LEST WE FORGET

PTE MONK - ALFRED - 53648 - 1/19th London Regiment - link - more like this - link - more like this - link

(GUF) DIGITAL OVERDOSE

On paper, a digital ID sounds like a godsend - making banking, booking and buying much smoother/easier. Everyone should have the right to one if they choose.

But choice is the key word. Because the same 'gateway app' that promises convenience could just as easily become a gatekeeper — deciding who gets to bank, shop or even claim benefits.

We must defend the right to live and trade offline. Cash isn’t just old-fashioned; it’s freedom with a face value. Passports and driving licences already prove who we are when needed, we simply don’t need a digital leash - link

My concern is simple; give too much control to a centralised ID system, and dissent stops being inconvenient, it becomes impossible.

On 15 July 2025, China launched the National Network Identity Authentication - a system requiring citizens to verify their identity via official ID and facial recognition, linked to their mobile number. Officially, it’s voluntary; in practice, critics say it will become unavoidable.

The system replaces existing real-name and SIM registration requirements, meaning the police and cyber regulators now have unified access to every online identity. As in the UK, authorities claim it helps protect personal data and reduce fraud. Critics, however see it as extending state oversight over everything from online shopping to browsing history, travel and communication.

Those critics haven’t gone unpunished. Law professors Lao Dongyan and Shen Kui, who publicly challenged the plan had their social media accounts muted and posts censored. Lao’s account was silenced for 90 days after criticising the system. The chilling effect is real, tie every digital act to a single ID and dissent becomes traceable.

China’s long-standing Social Credit System already publicly labels 'untrustworthy' citizens; naming and shaming them online to 'encourage moral compliance.' Fail to pay a fine, criticise the wrong policy or default on a loan and your details are published as a warning to others.

Add to this deep dive inspections, facial recognition, predictive policing and cross-linked databases and digital identity becomes less about convenience and more about control.

These examples show that a unified digital ID doesn’t just simplify life; it simplifies surveillance. When anonymity disappears, accountability stops being reciprocal; it flows one way, from citizen to state.

One of the laziest defences of digital ID is, “If you’ve got nothing to hide, why worry?” The answer is another question - do you have anything to hide in your home? No? Then why do you have curtains?

Privacy isn’t secrecy; it’s dignity, the right to decide who gets to look in. The danger of digital ID isn’t the convenience it offers. It’s the power it gives others to pull those curtains back whenever they choose. Make up your own mind - link - Artificial lawyer - link - More like this (ID) - link - more like this (government) - link

(GUF) THE SMART MONEY'S ON DUMB BINS

Every few years, a local council rediscovers a mind numbing ‘new idea’ that will revolutionise waste management. Right now, it’s - smart bins (again); metal boxes that tell you when they’re full.

Brentwood Borough Council is the latest to flirt with the fantasy; talking about kitting out their high street and an A12 lay-by with ‘intelligent’ bins fitted with sensors, Wi-Fi and a monthly software subscription - all for the modest price of up to £4,495 each - or a trial bargain at £95 a month.

The promise is that they’ll send an alert when they’re nearly full. The reality however is that they’ll send a lot of alerts when the signal gets weak, the battery dies, the lid jams shut/open, the app crashes or someone kicks the crap out of them.

This is Britain, not Silicon Valley. Our bins endure rain, grit, foxes, kebab boxes and the occasional seagull with attitude. Electronics don’t tend to thrive in that environment.

Councils like Brentwood already have collection crews driving regular routes, litter-picking and emptying along the way. Those crews have something no sensor has ever achieved - eyeballs. They can see when a bin’s full and when it’s been used as a makeshift ashtray, or worse.

The “smart” idea isn’t new. Dozens of councils have tried them. Some liked the data; most found the maintenance costs and false alerts outweighed the benefits. Several quietly went back to good old fashioned steel bins and common sense.

As one councillor said, this smells like a huge gimmick and he’s right. If this pilot happens at all, it’ll be because the supplier’s offering a free trial and someone fancies looking futuristic for the minutes. The only genuinely smart part would be to stick a QR code on every bin, let residents scan and report an overflow and save the taxpayers a few thousand quid.

Until the day a bin can dodge traffic, sweep up its own litter and pay its own Wi-Fi bill, I’d recommend we stick to the dumb and reliable. link - more like this (bins) - link - more like this (councils) - link

(GUF) HERE WE GO AGAIN

Settle in for your intro to the climate talks, including why they're important and how we can demand climate justice at the upcoming talks in Brazil - link - more like this (COP) - link

( GUF) COUNCIL MALFEASANCE OR GOOD POLICY?

In towns and cities across the UK, environmental enforcement has quietly evolved into an industry. What began as a deterrent against fly-tipping and littering has morphed into a pay-per-fine business model; one that rewards overreach, punishes common sense and undermines public trust.

Councils are legally forbidden from using fines to raise revenue.

DEFRA’s own guidance is unambiguous: 'The purpose of fixed penalty notices is to offer an offender the opportunity to discharge liability for an offence; not to raise revenue' and yet, through outsourcing to private enforcement firms, many councils have found a convenient loophole; subcontract the punishment, pocket the proceeds and throw around the claim that 'it’s all in the name of cleaner streets'.

The illusion of legality lies in the language. Councils don’t “profit” from fines, they reinvest penalty income into enforcement operations and even put disclaimers on their websites 'to prove' it. Private contractors, in turn, are remunerated per offence successfully issued. In plain English, that's fines fund fines.

Professional, highly efficient enforcement companies now patrol public spaces across the UK operating under cost-neutral contracts that tie their *income directly to the number (and value) of fixed penalty notices (FPNs) issued (*the company - the enforcement officers are (apparently) paid a salary that is not determined by the number of FPNs issued according to council websites). The result is a system where enforcement success isn’t measured by cleaner streets, but instead by spreadsheet totals.

It’s a neat cycle, the contractor issues the fine, takes a share and transfers a portion to the council. The council in turn uses that income to 'support environmental services', a category conveniently vague enough to include the contract itself. This circular funding model creates a perverse incentive, more fines mean more funding mean more fines etc, and when every FPN helps justify next year’s budget, overzealous enforcement becomes not just possible, but highly profitable. It’s no coincidence that fine volumes often spike dramatically after a new private enforcement deal begins.

If this all sounds theoretical, ask the people who’ve been caught in it. A non-smoker in Manchester fined £433.00 for dropping a cigarette he never had; a Hertfordshire resident fined £500.00 because an envelope blew out of his bin; a Richmond woman fined £150.00 for pouring her coffee down a drain (later told she should’ve poured it into a litter bin instead).

It’s hard to tell which is more absurd, the enforcement itself or the excuses offered afterwards, and these aren’t isolated incidents; they’re symptoms of a system where 'environmental policing' has become performance-based revenue collection.

When challenged, councils say the fines are issued by private contractors; when pressed, the contractors insist they’re acting under the council’s direction and between them lies an accountability black hole where common sense goes to curl up and die. The Local Government Ombudsman has repeatedly criticised this blurred responsibility, noting that councils can’t outsource legal accountability, only the act of enforcement but that hasn’t stopped the industry growing.

The UK needs real environmental protection, not performative punishment. Enforcement should educate, correct and deter, not intimidate, but when compliance becomes a business model, fairness becomes optional and overreach becomes standard council policy.

Let’s be clear - this isn’t the fault of the enforcement contractors who are only doing exactly what they’ve been hired to do. The real issue lies with the councils themselves who have chosen to introduce and endorse this model. It’s a policy decision, not an accident.

It’s time to ask whether this isn’t just over-enforcement, but malfeasance: a deliberate exploitation of legal grey areas to generate revenue under the guise of regulation because enforcement has become a cash making business and the environment isn’t the one being protected, it’s the council's profit margin.

#WasteManagement #EnvironmentalPolicy #CommonSense #PublicAccountability #RichmondUponKafka - more like this (litter) - link - more like this (fines) - link