(GUF) DEPOSIT RETURN SCHEME - IS IT WORTH IT?

Within the UK waste sector, support for a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) has long been treated as a given. Higher capture rates, cleaner material streams, less litter, the theory is compelling and the international evidence is well established but a quieter question is now beginning to surface across the industry.

Do we actually know what problem DRS is fixing in a post Simpler Recycling world? This isn’t an argument against DRS. We know well designed deposit systems clearly work; the real issue for the UK is one of timing, sequencing and value, and right now, those questions deserve a more honest airing.

Simpler Recycling represents the most significant structural shift in UK collections in my career, in a generation even. Consistent household collections, aligned workplace recycling, mandatory core materials; the direction of travel is clear and in principle welcome but most local authorities are still adjusting; workplace reforms are still bedding in and behaviour change is still evolving. Infrastructure is still being configured.

In other words, we are mid-transition, not at a steady state which raises a perfectly reasonable operational question: should we be layering a major parallel collection system on top of one that has not yet fully stabilised?

Deposit Return Schemes are often discussed primarily in terms of environmental upside. Less frequently examined is the cost required to deliver them. A national DRS is not a light touch intervention. It brings with it three substantial cost centres.

Reverse vending machines/retail take-back arrangements, backhaul logistics and counting centres represent significant fixed investment and these costs exist regardless of whether the UK gains five percentage points of additional capture or twenty.

DRS does not operate in a vacuum. It sits alongside kerbside collections, commercial recycling services and existing materials contracts. The potential for duplication, material leakage between systems and local authority revenue displacement is real and must be carefully managed. International experience shows that mature DRS schemes must invest heavily in scheme integrity: barcode validation, cross-border fraud prevention, audit systems and compliance monitoring. None of this makes DRS unworkable but robust control frameworks are not cost neutral.

Taken together, this is a complex and capital-intensive policy tool.

The most important question for the UK is not ideological, but mathematical. What is the cost per additional tonne captured via DRS compared with what Simpler Recycling may already deliver? If consistent collections and workplace reforms significantly lift the capture of bottles and cans as many expect, then the incremental gain delivered by DRS may be narrower than headline comparisons with other countries suggest.

If current reforms push capture toward the mid-to-high 70% range and DRS pushes that into the high 80s or low 90s, the policy question becomes whether the final tranche of material justifies the full parallel system cost. In a world of constrained public and producer finances, marginal gains matter but so does marginal cost.

None of this is to dismiss the genuine strengths of deposit systems. Evidence consistently shows DRS performs strongly in ‘on-the-go capture’, litter reduction, production of very high quality PET and aluminium and clear consumer signalling around material value. These are real benefits and should be acknowledged openly but recognising strengths does not remove the need for careful sequencing/allowing bedding-in periods.

As stated, the UK is in the middle of the most significant recycling system reform in years. Before committing fully to another major structural intervention, there is a credible case for allowing Simpler Recycling to bed in and for capture data to stabilise.

This is not about delay for its own sake. It’s about designing the right intervention for the actual residual problem rather than the one we assumed several years ago when policy direction was first set, because in waste policy, as in most operational systems, timing is rarely a footnote, it’s often the difference between smart reform and expensive overlap.

The question is no longer simply whether DRS works, the more practical UK question may be - should we implement DRS now or should we first allow Simpler Recycling to settle, measure the true capture gap and only then deploy the intervention that closes it most effectively? That is a debate worth having. More like this (DRS) – link – more like this (recycling) – link – more like this (random) - link

(MON) EARN AS YOU WASTE

OJUELEGBA, Nigeria — On the bustling streets of this central Lagos neighborhood, it’s easy to buy a drink. Hawkers weave between buses and motorcycles with wheelbarrows of bottled water and canned beverages. Finding a bin for the empty container is much harder. Many end up on the ground.

Glass, cardboard, aluminum and — most commonly — plastic collect in piles at busy junctions and in open gutters, mixed with food waste and refuse from nearby shops and homes. Drains clog, and stagnant water lingers.

Bayo Adeolu, proud holder of a degree in plant biology from the University of Lagos, spent months tramping these same streets in search of work. He endured rejection after rejection, then tried selling used phones with a friend, but competition in this saturated market beat them back.

One afternoon, scrolling through social media, a post caught his eye. “Earn-As-You-Waste,” it read, advertising an information session for Pakam, a company promoting recycling as a source of income. At the session, Pakam’s staff explained how participants could earn money by collecting recyclable waste from the company’s clients. Registered collectors, they said, would be trained to sort and weigh the waste, record this shabby bounty digitally, and transport the recovered materials to aggregation points.

The state of Lagos state generates nearly 5.5 million metric tons of solid waste every year, according to the state waste management authority — or roughly 15,000 metric tons a day. A 2024 World Bank study estimated that nearly 40% of this rubbish is recyclable — yet no more than 12% is retrieved from the waste stream. The same report calculated that more than 60% of the state’s solid waste is “unmanaged” — neither recycled nor collected for dumping in one of three official landfills that are fast reaching capacity

The initiative that caught Adeolu’s eye, Earn-As-You-Waste is one of several private efforts aiming to increase collection of recyclables in Lagos. The project’s operator, Pakam Technology Limited, says 18,000 people have made use of its mobile app to schedule collection of plastics, aluminum cans, cardboard and other recyclables by Pakam’s collectors.

Collecting and transporting recyclables in the crowded streets of areas like Ojuelegba is challenging. Pushing wheelbarrows or dragging sacks of crushed cans and plastic bottles through narrow lanes and congested markets, Adeolu and his fellow collectors draw impatient honks from passing motorists and good-natured abuse from pedestrians stepping around them. From Ojuelegba, the waste is taken to Pakam’s aggregation hub in Maryland, 10 kilometers (6 miles) north, for further sorting before being sold to recycling companies.

“The idea is to make recycling accessible and motivate communities to adopt better waste disposal habits,” Pakam’s executive director, Olumide Ajayi, tells Mongabay. He says the initiative has recovered more than 170,000 metric tons of recyclable waste since it launched in 2021.

Pakam’s army of waste pickers includes both collectors, who respond to requests sent in via the app, and others who gather recyclables independently from streets and neighborhoods.

“Our Earn-As-You-Waste program creates real earnings opportunities for Lagos youths whilst coaching them realistic skills in waste sorting, recycling, and logistics,” Ajayi tells Mongabay. “By participating in the program, young people gain experience that not only helps them earn a living today but also improves their employability for future jobs in the environmental and recycling sectors.”

But the work is poorly paid. According to the company, Pakam’s collectors earn around 35,000 naira per week, or about $30, which is less than half what other kinds of manual labor in Lagos would typically pay. But extremely high rates of youth unemployment mean many young people are still willing to take up the opportunity.

Adeolu says his earnings fluctuate depending on the volume and type of recyclables he collects each week. He estimates his average pay at around $35 per week, or double that on a good week. More of this article (Mongabay) - link - more like this (Nigeria) - link - more like this (recycling) - link - more like this (Lagos) - link

(GUF) THE DIRTY SECRET OF PROPORTIONAL SCORING

Every few years, like others, the waste industry goes through the same ritual. A tender lands, the weightings look sensible, the questions look robust; everyone nods earnestly and talks about quality partnerships.

And then someone wins it by being spectacularly cheap. Not efficient, not innovative and definitely not demonstrably better; just cheaper and everyone pretends to be surprised. On paper, most public-sector waste tenders follow a familiar structure:-

• Quality: 60%
• Price: 40%

It looks balanced; it feels responsible and seems to tick all the governance boxes. The theory is sound: reward good service while protecting public money. The reality however can be gamed and often is because proportional price scoring has a mathematical gravity that many procurement teams quietly underestimate.

Under proportional scoring, the lowest price almost always anchors the entire competition. Once that anchor is dropped, everyone else is fighting uphill regardless of how strong their quality submission is. What this creates in practice is a very predictable strategy; submit a compliant (not exceptional) quality response then go aggressively low on price and let the scoring model do the heavy lifting. If the quality questions are not sufficiently discriminating and being honest, many aren’t, the pricing lever becomes disproportionately powerful.

At that point, the tender stops being a question of who will deliver the best service and quietly becomes one of who is most willing to take the commercial risk and those are not the same question.

Inside our industry, most experienced operators recognise the pattern. Broadly speaking, bidders tend to fall into two camps: -

1. The Delivery-Led Bidder

• Prices based on known disposal costs
• Builds in realistic crew assumptions
• Allows for reporting, compliance and account management
• Expects to actually deliver what was written in the quality submission

2. The Margin-Chasing Bidder

• Prices to win first
• Works out the delivery model later
• Relies on operational stretch, variation income, or future renegotiation
• Knows the maths of proportional scoring inside out

When a contract is effectively bought, the consequences rarely appear on day one. The mobilisation looks fine; the launch meeting is full of enthusiasm and everyone posts something optimistic on LinkedIn.

The stress shows up later; typically in the form of service inconsistency, reporting gaps, account management drift, operational shortcuts or the inevitable quiet reappearance of “cost pressures” 12 months in and none of this is inevitable.

Experienced clients know this but many just don’t model for it properly at tender stage. To be clear, this isn’t about blaming procurement teams. Most are working within rigid frameworks and doing their best to balance cost and compliance but there is a recurring blind spot in waste tenders. The scoring model often assumes all compliant bids are operationally equal when they’re definitely not. In waste services, particularly multi-stream, compliance-heavy environments; small pricing gaps can reflect very different delivery assumptions:-

• Crew structure
• Supervision levels
• Data and reporting investment
• Contingency capacity
• Compliance overhead

If the quality questions don’t flush those differences out properly, price becomes a dangerously blunt instrument. More like this (waste) - link - more like this (procurement) - link

(GRE) ALLBIRDS - COW FREE TYRE RICH SHOES

Footwear giant Allbirds has launched what it claims is an “industry-first” collection of shoes made from Modern Meadow’s cow-free leather alternative.

Allbirds may be closing all its US stores, but the global footwear company continues to bet on sustainability.

Its new Terralux collection is built on Innovera, a material made by New Jersey startup Modern Meadow, which turns plant-based proteins, biopolymers, and post-consumer recycled nylon from end-of-life tyres into animal-free leather.

The three-strong Terralux collection includes two of Allbirds’s newest and best-selling styles, Cruiser and Varsity, as well as the Runner NZ, an evolution of the Wool Runner silhouette that launched the brand over a decade ago.

“Terralux marks an important evolution for Allbirds,” said Jason Israel, VP of design at Allbirds. “Innovera allowed us to achieve the look and feel of leather in a bio-based material, opening the door to more elevated, versatile footwear – while still delivering on our comfort and sustainability promise.” More of this article (green queen) - link - More like this (tyres) - link - more like this (shoes) - link

(GUF) FIVE GO RECYCLING

For the first time in decades, the UK has something approaching a coherent legislative roadmap for waste and recycling. Instead of isolated policies and good intentions, we now have five major pieces of legislation that taken together form a joined up path toward a circular economy.

The five are:

• Simpler Recycling
• Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (pEPR)
• Digital Waste Tracking (DWT)
• Deposit Return Scheme (DRS)
• Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for incineration

If you look at them as a system they make a lot of sense. In simple terms they form a logical chain - standardise collections, fund the system, track the waste, capture the most valuable materials then price the carbon.

From a policy perspective, it’s the most structured approach the UK has taken in years but while the direction is coherent, the timelines are not. Each of these measures relies on very different parts of our industry, different behaviours and different levels of infrastructure. The result is that we don’t really have five reforms moving at once; we have five reforms moving at five different speeds and that matters.

1. Simpler Recycling – The Foundation That Unites An Industry 

Out of the five, Simpler Recycling is the most grounded in operational reality.

It sets out a defined list of recyclable materials, a national framework for what must be collected. Greater consistency across local authorities and commercial premises should become the norm. This isn’t a theoretical or technological leap, it’s a procurement and infrastructure adjustment using systems that already exist. Councils already collect recyclables; businesses already separate waste and contractors already operate multi-stream collections.

Simpler Recycling is essentially about saying 'here’s the list, everyone works to it'. There will be friction, there always is but this is the one reform that relies least on new technology, new behaviours or brand-new national infrastructure; it's the baseline reform, the one that sets the tone.

My verdict: It's in, it's working.

2. pEPR – The Funding Engine That Will Drive Change

If Simpler Recycling is the foundation, pEPR is the engine. For years, the UK’s recycling system has relied heavily on council budgets and local taxpayers. pEPR flips that logic. It shifts the cost of managing packaging waste onto the producers who place it on the market. In doing so, it introduces something the system has never really had: a direct financial link between packaging design and disposal cost.

Under pEPR, easy-to-recycle packaging will be cheaper whilst complex or composite materials will cost more and ultimately councils will receive funding from producers. Finally, the overall system will be financially reinforced.

There will be arguments about fee levels. There always are when money changes hands but the basic mechanism is sound and widely used across Europe. In simple terms pEPR is too logical to fail. It has political backing, international precedent and a clear economic rationale.

My Verdict: It's in and it will reshape packaging design over time and everything will come in a can.

3. Digital Waste Tracking – Where Policy Meets Reality

On paper, Digital Waste Tracking is one of the most elegant reforms in the entire package. The vision is simple; no more paper transfer notes, real time tracking of waste from producer to final destination, full transparency across the supply chain, better enforcement and reduced illegal activity.

Technically, it’s all achievable, the software exists, the systems exist and the data flows are well understood but there’s a difference between what is technically possible and what is operationally realistic. The UK waste industry isn’t made up of a few large players. It’s made up of tens of thousands of carriers, brokers and operators. Many are small firms, some are still paper-based, some rely on spreadsheets and a few still rely on memory and a bic biro.

Expecting around 60,000 operators to input accurate data consistently in real time and do it to a national standard is not a technology challenge it’s a behavioural and compliance challenge.

Phases 1 and 2 will happen. Basic digital records will come in and paper will gradually disappear but the final vision of fully automated, real-time national tracking will take longer than the timelines suggest. Not because it’s wrong, because it’s ambitious.

My Verdict: Phase 3 will never happen - only South Korea has ever achieved it.

• The direction is correct.
• The timeline is optimistic.
• Phase three will take years to stabilise and then be dropped.

4. Deposit Return Scheme – The National Logistics Experiment

DRS is often talked about as a policy. In reality, it’s not a policy at all. It’s a national logistics operation disguised as a recycling scheme. To work properly, it needs:

• Reverse vending machines across the country.
• Regional collection networks.
• Counting and sorting centres.
• Fraud prevention systems.
• New vehicle fleets.
• New depots.
• New staff.

All of that has to work from day one. The UK is likely to be divided into multiple regions. Each region will need its own infrastructure, vehicles and operating teams. In reality, what will probably happen is one or two regions will launch smoothly, but others will struggle with infrastructure or staffing. Performance will be uneven at first.

That doesn’t mean DRS will fail, it just means it will mature over time, not overnight. A more realistic timeline would look like:

• Year 1: Mixed performance across regions.
• Years 2–3: Systems stabilise and improve.
• Year 4 onwards: Mature national operation.

DRS will work. But it will take time to find its feet.

My Verdict: It will succeed. It just won’t be uniform from day one - the London region will have serious collection issues forever.

5. ETS for Incineration – The Political Wild Card

Including waste incineration in the Emissions Trading Scheme is, from an economic perspective, entirely logical. It prices the carbon cost of burning waste and encourages recycling over incineration and aligns waste with other carbon-intensive sectors. Within the UK, this is achievable.

The systems already exist, the complication is international alignment. Carbon pricing works best when neighbouring markets have similar rules. Cross-border distortions are minimised. If the UK introduces ETS on incineration and parts of the EU do not, waste could be exported. Price differences could distort markets. Carbon tourism' becomes a real possibility.

The EU is still debating whether to include incineration in its own ETS framework and with geopolitical tensions, energy policy and economic pressures dominating the agenda, waste incineration is unlikely to be at the top of the priority list.

My Verdict: The principle is sound; the UK can implement it but real alignment with the EU may take longer than expected.

One Direction, Five Different Clocks. All five policies are pointing in the same direction:

• More recycling.
• Better product design.
• Transparent waste flows.
• Carbon accountability.

But they are not moving at the same speed. Simpler Recycling is operational and achievable - pEPR is financially logical and politically supported - DWT is technically sound but behaviourally complex - DRS is infrastructure-heavy and will mature over time - ETS is economically correct but politically dependent.

The risk isn’t that these reforms will fail. The real risk is expecting them all to land at once, in perfect synchronisation as if they were parts of the same machine installed on the same day when they’re not. They’re more like five trains leaving the same station, each on a different track with different distances to travel and different speeds. They’re all heading in the right direction. They just won’t arrive at the destination at the same time and anyone working in the real world of bins, vehicles, depots, drivers, procurement teams and overstretched waste Account Managers like myself knows one simple truth - in waste management, direction matters more than deadlines.

If we keep the direction right, the system will get there. It just won’t happen on the timetable in the press release. More like this (legislation) - link - more like this (waste) - link 

(GUF) WHY DO DEPOSIT RETURN SCHEMES FAIL

Deposit Return Schemes are usually presented as simple, common-sense environmental policies. Put a deposit on a bottle or can, people return it, recycling improved, job done; and in fairness, in some countries that’s exactly what happens - return rates climb, litter falls, hoorah.

When a scheme fails, stalls or collapses before it even starts, the obvious question is why and the answer, more often than not, has nothing to do with recycling but has everything to do with politics, logistics and money.

On paper, DRS looks like a waste policy but it’s something very different. It’s a national cash-handling system supporting a retail logistics network employing a data-tracking operation operating around a fraud-sensitive financial model and a recycling system on top of all that.

Once deposits are attached to containers, you’re no longer just moving waste, you’re moving money in the shape of cans and bottles and that changes everything.

Failures

The most obvious example is Scotland. Scotland attempted to launch its own DRS ahead of the rest of the UK. The scheme included glass, had different rules and was set on a different timeline. The result was regulatory conflict with the UK internal market causing delays and industry resistance leading to the eventual collapse before launch with over £100 million in sunk costs.

The environmental idea was sound but the political framework wasn’t aligned. A DRS cannot work properly in a fragmented market because containers can and do cross borders in the form of supply and retail chains. So, if the scheme doesn’t, problems start immediately.

A single DRS region may involve:

• Millions of containers per day
• Thousands of retail return points
• Dozens of vehicles
• Hundreds of staff
• Multiple depots
• Constant collections

And all of it must work every day from day one with absolute financial accuracy

In several countries, early problems have included reverse vending machines full or broken, retailers overwhelmed, poor rural access and site closures after launch. The schemes didn’t fail because people refused to return containers, they struggled because the logistics weren’t ready for the volume.

In some regions of Australia, the deposit has sat at 10 cents for years, the result being that return rates stuck around 60–65% and billions of containers still going to landfill. When the deposit becomes trivial, behaviour doesn’t change; the scheme exists but it underperforms. A deposit system only works if the deposit actually matters.

Many schemes assume that retailers will simply absorb the operational burden but in reality storage space is limited, staff time is limited and hygiene matters; having loads of empty bottles and cans hanging around is simply not permissible.

In some areas, small return sites have closed after launch because volumes were too high which disrupted the business and systems relied too heavily on manual returns. Retailers are not recycling centres and if the system isn’t designed around that fact, friction builds quickly.

Fraud

As soon as a deposit is attached to a container, it becomes a financial instrument and financial instruments attract creative thinking.

Examples seen in various schemes include:

• Cross-border container smuggling
• Barcode cloning
• Bulk industrial returns
• People retrieving containers from bins to claim deposits

One hypothetical scenario illustrates the risk:

• A MRF extracts cans and bottles from mixed recycling.
• Those containers are sold on.
• They are fed into return machines.
• Deposits are claimed.

If unchecked, that becomes a cash-generation loop - scrap value plus the deposit on material that never came through a consumer return point.

Modern schemes rely on:

• Barcode validation
• Return-point monitoring
• Sales-versus-returns checks
• Audits and anomaly detection

The reality is this that the system doesn’t physically stop the first fraudulent return. It relies on data, enforcement and financial controls which means DRS is as much about fraud prevention as it is about recycling.

DRS is expensive to build. For a single region, a realistic start-up might involve:

• 40 - 80 collection vehicles
• 10 - 25 bulk trailers
• Multiple depots
• Hundreds of staff
• IT integration
• Financial systems

Startup costs per region could easily reach £25 - 40 million before the first container is collected.

When those costs hit producers, retailers and hospitality resistance grows and, in several countries, that resistance has delayed schemes often leading to them being watered down or stopped entirely

Across different countries, the same themes keep appearing.

DRS fails when:

• Politics are fragmented
• Logistics are underestimated
• Deposits are too low
• Retailers are overloaded
• Fraud controls are weak
• Costs shock the system

DRS succeeds when the scheme is nationally aligned and deposits are meaningful, logistics are properly funded and fraud controls are strong and that’s why countries like Germany, Norway and Finland consistently achieve return rates above 90%.

The UK scheme will almost certainly work in the long run. Most do, but its success won’t depend on slogans, targets or policy documents.

It will depend on:

• Depots
• Drivers
• Vehicles
• Retail integration
• Fraud control
• And financial discipline

Who’s going to bid?

It’s no secret that two of the UK’s national operators will undoubtedly bid for the collection of DRS in scope containers. I’ll throw in another three and see whether I was right or wrong when they’re announced: -

• Biffa
• Veolia
• Suez
• FCC
• Urbaser

More like this (Biffa) – link – more like this (DRS) - link

ALLAN KEY

I was very sad to hear of the passing of Allan Key over the weekend who will be remembered fondly by those who worked with him.

He leaves behind a gap that won’t easily be filled. My thoughts are with his family, friends and all who had the privilege of knowing him.

Rest well, Allan.

(ICN) BURNING PLASTIC WASTE

Several global trends are colliding with disastrous consequences for health and the environment, new research warns.

Plastic production has skyrocketed since the 1950s, from a few million tons a year to nearly half a billion tons today, and is on track to triple by 2060. And since just a small fraction of plastics is recycled, millions of tons of plastic—derived from fossil fuels and loaded with toxic chemical additives—enter the environment as waste every year. That staggering figure is also likely to triple by midcentury.

For decades, the United States and other high-income countries have exported their plastic waste to low-income countries in the Global South, many ill-equipped to manage the burgeoning waste stream. At the same time, billions of people across sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Latin America lack access to clean cooking fuels, adequate sanitation or waste-management services. As urbanization accelerates at an unprecedented rate across those regions, city dwellers living in extreme poverty often resort to burning debris from the massive mounds of plastic waste that inundate their communities.

Concerned that desperately poor people are increasingly turning to plastic waste as a cheap, convenient fuel, an international team of researchers set out to gauge the prevalence and nature of this emerging public health crisis.

In a survey of more than 1,000 people who work with low-income urban communities across the Global South, the team found that people living in slums without power hookups in more than two dozen countries are burning the plastic waste that surrounds their communities to cook, heat their homes and dispose of garbage.

In a previous paper, a subset of the authors cited anecdotal reports that increasing numbers of poor people living in slums without basic waste-disposal and energy services have resorted to burning plastic trash as an alternative fuel. More of this article (Inside Climate News) - link - more like this (plastic) - link - more like this (sub-Saharan Africa) - link

(OFF) LIONLINK INTERCONNECTOR

National Grid Ventures (NGV) has published updated proposals for the LionLink interconnector, which will connect the future Nederwiek 3 offshore wind farm in the Netherlands to the UK and Dutch grids.

NGV, responsible for building and operating the UK side of LionLink, has now opened an eight-week public consultation for the revised plan that, among other things, names Walberswick as the planned landfall site for the subsea cable.

Following previous consultations on LionLink in 2022 and 2023, NGV announced that the subsea cable for LionLink will be located onshore at Walberswick.

On 19 February 2025, NGV said it selected Walberswick as the preferred landfall location for the new subsea interconnector since the site required a shorter onshore cable route (19.9 kilometres) compared to the alternative Southwold route (32.8 kilometres), reducing the environmental impact and disruption to residents. Walberswick is also less susceptible to coastal erosion and flooding, making it a more sustainable option for the long-term operation of LionLink, NGV says.

NGV stated on 8 January that it was also working closely with local authorities to ensure that no construction takes place on the beach, and that there will be no visible infrastructure once the project is complete. Eighty-four per cent of the UK section of the LionLink cable will be offshore, and all onshore sections will be buried underground. More of this article (offshorewind.biz) - link - more like this (Netherlands) - link - more like this (wind) - link

(NEO) 500,000 MIRRORS

(08/01/25)

Imagine a world where clean energy fuels our homes, industries, and cities, drastically reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. At the heart of this vision lies the largest solar generator on the planet, a monumental structure that harnesses the power of the sun using advanced technology. This is the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS), where 500,000 mirrors diligently work in order to produce renewable energy in the scorching Mojave Desert.

Located in California’s San Bernardino County, ISEGS represents a giant leap forward in solar power technology. Officially operational since December 30, 2013, this 386-megawatt facility consists of three solar thermal power plants, collectively utilizing 173,500 heliostats—mirrors that concentrate sunlight onto power tower receivers.

Developed by BrightSource Energy and constructed by Bechtel, this project was a collaboration that also received significant financial backing from NRG Energy and Google.

The three plants—Power Plant 1, Power Plant 2, and Power Plant 3—operated on a similar principle yet vary in size and capacity. Power Plant 1 produces 120 megawatts with 53,500 heliostats, while the other two plants generate 133 megawatts each with 60,000 heliostats. The expansive facility stretches over 3,500 acres at the base of Clark Mountain, displaying a remarkable engineering feat that is designed to maximize solar energy capture.

The operation of ISEGS hinges on its innovative steam turbine technology. The heliostats track the trajectory of the sun, directing concentrated sunlight to the receivers atop the towers, which absorb the heat to produce steam.

This steam powers Rankine-cycle reheat turbines, generating electricity that feeds into the grid and provides power to approximately 140,000 homes.

To ensure consistent energy production, especially during low sunlight periods, each plant is equipped with natural gas-fired steam boilers. These supplementary systems ensure that operations can continue smoothly, demonstrating the facility’s hybrid approach to energy generation. More of this article (News Ongoing) - link - more like this (solar) - link - more like this (Mojave Desert) - link - more like this (heliostats) - link

(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) WHAT HAPPENS TO SPACE DEBRIS

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