(CGN 09) LITTERING

Littering is often dismissed as a minor nuisance; a dropped can, a cigarette end, a takeaway wrapper left on a wall but in reality, littering sits at the very front line of waste management, public behaviour and environmental responsibility.

Every piece of litter has a cost: someone has to clean it up, someone has to pay for it and somewhere downstream, it impacts communities, wildlife, drainage systems and public perception.

CGN 09 explores the legal and operational framework surrounding littering and fly-tipping in England and Wales, including the legislation commonly used by councils and enforcement officers, the difference between littering and fly-tipping, Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs), enforcement powers and the wider practical implications for businesses, local authorities and the public.

Importantly, this guidance note is intended to inform rather than instruct. As with all CGNs, I have aimed to keep the document grounded in publicly available legislation, guidance and operational practice while remaining accessible to everyday readers. Report littering - link - CGN 08 - link - (still in writing) - CGN 07 - link - more like this (littering) - link - more like this (FPN) - link

(CGN 08) FOOD WASTE

 In writing. 

(CGN 07) - CREAM CHARGERS

CGN 07 focuses on a growing problem quietly making its way through the waste industry: nitrous oxide cream chargers.

Used widely by coffee shops, bakeries, catering outlets and commercial kitchens, these large gas canisters are increasingly being discarded into general waste and recycling streams despite still containing residual pressure and oxidising gas hazards.

The problem is simple: They look empty. They are often not.

Once inside compactors, balers, MRFs or incinerators, these cylinders can cause fires, explosions, equipment damage and significant operational disruption.

This Circular Guidance Note explains:

• why cream chargers remain hazardous after use
• their correct technical classification
• why they should never enter routine waste streams
• and the correct route for compliant treatment

Like all CGNs, the aim is not greenwash or jargon — just practical circular thinking based on real operational realities within the waste industry.

Because pressure vessels belong in specialist treatment - not general waste. RPS 289 - link - More like this (aerosols) - link - more like this (CGN 06) - link

(CGN 06) - COMING SOON - THE CARBON SLEDGEHAMMER

 More like this (CGN 05) - link

(CGN 05) - EPR - THE FULL SET

Over the next few years, a series of new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes will fundamentally change who pays for waste management, how materials are designed, collected and recycled, and ultimately what businesses are allowed to place on the market.

For decades, the true cost of dealing with difficult, non-recyclable and waste heavy products has largely fallen on local authorities, businesses and taxpayers. The new EPR framework aims to reverse that model by shifting the financial and operational responsibility back onto the producers placing materials onto the market in the first place.

Packaging is only the beginning.

The UK is now moving towards wider producer responsibility schemes covering sectors such as batteries, electrical equipment, textiles, tyres, furniture and other hard to recycle waste streams; many of which have historically escaped meaningful end of life accountability.

Alongside Simpler Recycling, Digital Waste Tracking, the Deposit Return Scheme and future carbon legislation, EPR will become one of the defining drivers shaping procurement, packaging design, recycling systems and disposal costs throughout the late 2020s and beyond.

In simple terms:

The era of “someone else will deal with it at the end” is slowly coming to an end.

This document provides an overview of the proposed and emerging UK EPR schemes, what they are intended to achieve and what organisations should now be preparing for. more like this (EPR) - link - more like this (tyres) - link - more like this (CGN 04) - link

(XIN) DEPOSIT RETURN SCHEME - CHINESE STYLE

People work at Huge Recycle, a company handling household waste recovery and recycling, in Hangzhou, east China's Zhejiang Province, Jan. 14, 2026. (Xinhua/Jiang Han)

Scanning a code, opening a hatch, and tossing in bottles, Yuan Meirong completes the recycling process in less than 10 seconds. With a ding, 0.8 yuan (11.6 U.S. cents) is credited to her account.

"It's so convenient," said the resident from Hangzhou, capital of east China's Zhejiang Province, gesturing at a smart recycling bin. "Now I can easily recycle delivery boxes and bottles for a little reward. It's fun."

Operated by the internet recycling firm Lovere, the smart bin is one of 870 units deployed across nearly 400 residential communities in Hangzhou's Xihu District since its July 2024 pilot launch.

Residents can enter a phone number or scan a QR code to recycle items such as plastic bottles, cardboard, old clothes, and takeout containers. The bin automatically weighs the items and pays about 0.6 yuan per kg directly to the user's account.

More than a mere convenience, the bins demonstrate how technology is monetizing waste streams across Chinese cities, transforming passive disposal into people's active participation in the circular economy. Since deploying the smart bins, recyclable-sorting accuracy has reached 98.5 percent, with monthly recycling volume averaging 1,000 tonnes, said Zhang Yixiang, Lovere's Hangzhou chief.

The company has placed over 50,000 bins in 38 cities and has recycled 2 million tonnes for 30 million users. In Xihu District alone, residents have used the bins 2.58 million times, receiving 4.2 million yuan in total. The top user recycled 9 tonnes, earning 5,400 yuan, according to the company. Zhang Kang, Lovere's Hangzhou operations head, said the sensors trigger pickups only when bins are full, and an automated sorting center categorizes materials into more than 80 types for sale.

"With scale, the business is expected to become profitable," he said. The Communist Party of China Central Committee's recommendations for formulating the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-2030) for the country's economic and social development propose promoting a circular economy.

At Xianyu, a leading second-hand trading platform of China's internet giant Alibaba, 7 million used items were listed on average every day in 2025, with daily trading volume up 30 percent year on year. "Every transaction is users' participation in a green lifestyle," said Ding Jian, the platform's CEO.

From April 2024 to March 2025, Xianyu users reduced carbon emissions by 11.8 million tonnes through trading and recycling -- equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of 7.4 million households, Ding said. According to the China Association of Circular Economy, the circular economy accounted for about 30 percent of the country's carbon reduction from 2021 to 2025, and this share is expected to rise to 35 percent by 2030.

In Hangzhou's Yuhang District, resident Chai Yuyong praised "Huge," a door-to-door recycling service, which collected his old sofa and table for free in 20 minutes. Residents place orders via an app, and a worker arrives within an hour to collect, weigh and pay for items such as old appliances. "Living on a high floor, I found it a hassle to dispose of the bulky old furniture by myself. Now, with just a tap on my phone, they come to collect and carry them for free. It's a real relief," Chai said.

Hu Shaoping, vice president of the company Huge Recycle, said that over the past 10 years, the company has built an end-to-end chain from household collection to sorting, dismantling and resource reuse. The service offers transparent pricing for used appliances of different sizes. Residents are paid in "green coins," which can be redeemed for cash or spent at Huge's online mall, further driving green consumption.

To date, the company has issued nearly 500 million yuan in green coins. Xu Lin, a professor at Zhejiang University, noted that smart technology has made recycling and green consumption as simple as a phone scan. These small actions, he said, show how the public has moved from being told what to do to taking the lead in the circular economy. More of this article (XINHUANET) link - more like this (DRS) - link - more like this (China) - link

(BBC) COUNCIL REJECTS ELECTRIC

Wakefield Council has been trialling using an electric rubbish collection truck

A council has announced plans to replace its "ageing" bin lorries with a new fleet of diesel vehicles after attempts to go electric were unsuccessful.

Wakefield Council began trialling an electric rubbish collection vehicle four years ago as part of efforts to become a carbon neutral authority.

But Lou Redpath, the council's service director for environmental services, told a meeting that manufacturers had been unable to find "anything sustainable enough" to allow the council to switch to an electric fleet long-term.

Members of the council's environment scrutiny committee described the move as "disappointing", especially during the ongoing global fuel shortage. The council declared a climate emergency in May 2019 and pledged to be fully carbon neutral by 2030. In 2022, senior councillors agreed to spend £4.9m to introduce zero-emission battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and an additional £1m on charging infrastructure.

At the time, a report said about 12% of the authority's greenhouse gas emissions were produced by its fleet of 1,100 cars, vans and other equipment.

The document also said bin wagons and gritters would continue to use diesel due to "uncertainties with technology and performance" of larger vehicles, but pledged to keep trialling an electric refuse vehicle. More of this article (BBC) - link - more like this (Council waste EVs) - link - more like this (electric waste vehicles) - link - more like this (Carbon Neutral) - link

(CGN 04) - THE WASTE FILES

THE WASTE FILES – THE MANIFESTO - By Guff House

What is this going to be?

Wastipedia (or whatever I end up calling it) is/will be a free, open and evolving library of practical waste management knowledge built from over forty years of real-world experience existing for one simple reason: to make waste management clearer, more accurate and more honest.

• No subscriptions.
• No gatekeeping.
• No pretending theory works when it doesn’t.

Why it's needed

Too much of this industry runs on outdated guidance, misinterpreted legislation (That’s how we’ve always done it”) and the occasional confident guess dressed up as fact. Somewhere between legislation, operations and procurement, things get muddled. Wastipedia (or whatever) will exist to un-muddle them.

What you’ll find here

Documents that answer real questions, such as:

• What is this waste actually classified as?
• Can this really be recycled — or is that wishful thinking?
• What should I be buying if I want to avoid disposal problems later?
• What does the legislation say… and what actually happens on site?

Each document is/will be designed to be practical, clear, usable under pressure and grounded in reality, not theory.

The Principle: Reality Over Rhetoric

Every piece of content will follow one rule - if it doesn’t work in the real world, it doesn’t belong here. Where there’s a gap between guidance and practice, we will say so. Clearly, honestly and without dressing it up.

Open to Correction – Not Open to Chaos

Wastipedia (whatever) will never be static. If something is wrong, outdated, incomplete or could be improved, you are invited to challenge it; and as long as you can back it up (guidance, regs or real operational experience), keeping it practical, constructive, every document will be versioned, reviewed and updated where necessary. Contributors who improve content can be credited (if they wish) because accuracy matters and so does accountability.

What this is not going to be

Wastipedia will not be:

• A marketing exercise
• A compliance box-ticking tool
• A place for vague sustainability claims

Who it’s going to be for

Anyone who has ever stood in front of a bin thinking: “Right… what actually happens to this?”

My aim

To build something people can rely on. Not because it looks good but because it’s right.

Built from experience - Improved by those still doing the job - Open to challenge - closed to nonsense.

If you know something - add to it.
If you see something wrong - fix it.
If you’ve ever questioned how this industry works -  you’re in the right place.

More like this (The Waste Files) - link - more like this (legislation) - link - more like this (knowledge) - link - download 'Bin It Right - Buy It Better' - here

(NAT) WORLD'S LARGEST REDOX FLOW

Energy firm FlexBase is building a giant battery in this pit in northern Switzerland

In northern Switzerland, a construction team is hard at work excavating a hole in the ground that will end up being over 88 ft (27 m) deep, and spanning the length of two soccer pitches. This pit will be home to Switzerland's first redox flow battery for storing clean energy – and it'll be the most powerful of its kind in the world.

The idea is to utilize a storage technology that's nearly 150 years old to prevent blackouts, and help stabilize Swiss and European power grids in times of fluctuating demand. It's being built by Swiss energy company FlexBase, and the project is set to cost over a billion dollars.

"We will be able to inject or absorb up to 1.2 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity in a few milliseconds," FlexBase co-founder Marcel Aumer told Swiss public broadcaster RTS earlier this month. That's equivalent to the output of the Leibstadt nuclear power plant located in the same region, near the German border. The giant battery will be fed with excess energy generated by windmills.

The tech theoretically dates back to 1879, and was modernized through NASA research between the 1950s and 70s. While lithium-ion batteries are more common and have improved and become more affordable, they're mostly suitable for short-term energy storage. Redox flow batteries are a better choice for long-term, grid-scale storage – and FlexBase says the various components needed for them, like tanks, membranes, cell stacks and pumps, have become cheaper as the industry has matured in recent years.

A redox flow battery works by storing energy in liquid electrolytes. Two chemical components that are high in water content are stored in large tanks, and pumped through a cell with a membrane separating them. When the battery is charging, ions transfer through the membrane from the positive to the negative side – changing the oxidation state and storing energy indefinitely. The opposite reaction occurs when it's discharging, and these charge cycles are inert. More of this article from the brilliant (New Atlas) - link - more like this (Redox flow) - link - more like this (Switzerland) - link

(REF) LIFE AFTER THE MANHATTAN PROJECT

The Hanford D and DR Reactors circa 1955, next to the Columbia River

A nuclear production facility in Washington state, called the Hanford site, once forged the plutonium that reshaped the world. Now it’s forging glass; a quiet act of undoing at one of Earth’s most contaminated sites.

Eighty years ago, at the height of World War II, the Hanford site forged the plutonium that would help end the war and usher in a new atomic era. Now the site is forging glass, each glowing canister a quiet reversal of that legacy. After years of anticipation, the US Department of Energy (DOE) has finally begun vitrifying Hanford’s nuclear waste, sealing it forever inside glass logs that mark the first real progress in cleaning one of Earth’s most contaminated nuclear sites.

During World War II and throughout the Cold War, the Hanford reactors along the Columbia River near Richland, Washington produced most of the plutonium in the US arsenal of bombs and missiles, leaving behind 56 million gallons of radioactive sludge stored in 177 aging underground tanks. For decades the waste lingered beneath desert soil, threatening to leach into the river that defines the region.
Now, the new vitrification facility, a US$10-billion engineering project built to immobilize that high-level waste in glass, has turned its first 5,500 liters into inert, permanent canisters.

Growing Up Beside a Closed World

As someone who grew up in the region, the weight of this story lands a little different. The Hanford site was always part of the landscape, even if it rarely came up in conversation. A place marked by long roads, distant fences, and the kind of silence that makes you wonder what has soaked into the ground. For decades, the story of Hanford – its scale, its secrecy, its consequences – was something I felt around the edges without ever fully understanding.

The Manhattan Project, that secret wartime race to develop the first atomic weapon, built Hanford with a speed that only a wartime effort can summon. Its reactors rose from the desert with unprecedented urgency, producing the plutonium that fueled both the Trinity test and the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Plutonium production continued throughout the Cold War into the 1980s, long after World War II ended, leaving behind a legacy far larger and more complex than anyone working behind those fences could have imagined. It was a project defined by speed and secrecy; its waste was never intended for long-term storage. More of this article (refractor) - link - Chelsea Haney (author) - link - more like this (nuclear) - link - More like this (Washington State) - link

(ICN) CORAL REEFS UNDER ATTACK FROM SEWAGE

Researchers survey bleached corals around Koh Tao island in the southern Thai province of Surat Thani on June 14, 2024. Credit: Lillian Suwanrumpha/AFP via Getty Images

Marine protected areas are designed to conserve coral reefs and other ocean ecosystems by restricting human activity within their boundaries. But most don’t account for one of the most severe and widespread threats to marine life that originates on land: sewage.

A new study by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the University of Queensland in Australia found that more than 70 percent of marine protected areas worldwide are contaminated by untreated, or poorly treated, wastewater.

In places with extensive coral reefs, like the Coral Triangle—a 2 million square mile marine area spanning six countries in Southeast Asia, including Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea—contamination is even more widespread.

According to the study, published this month in the journal Ocean & Coastal Management, more than 90 percent of coastal protected areas in the Coral Triangle are affected by high levels of sewage pollution—up to 10 times highter than in nearby unprotected waters.

“What we found was striking,” said David E. Carrasco Rivera, the study’s lead author and a doctoral candidate at the University of Queensland. “In region after region, the areas set aside for conservation were actually receiving more pollution than the areas with no protection at all.”

Many marine protected areas are established near coastlines to help fragile and overburdened ecosystems that people depend on for food, tourism and livelihoods recover, rebuild and thrive. But their nearshore locations make them particularly vulnerable to contamination that can undermine their purpose, said Amelia Wenger, co-author of the study and global water pollution lead at the Wildlife Conservation Society, a global nonprofit dedicated to protecting wildlife, based at the Bronx Zoo in New York.

“Even a perfectly managed marine protected area will fail to achieve benefits for conservation and for people if wastewater keeps flowing in from upstream,” she said. More of this article (Inside Climate News) - link - more like this (reefs) - link - more like this (sewage) - link - more like this (Queensland) - link

(GUF) CIRCULAR GUIDANCE NOTES

Introducing the Circular Guidance Note (CGN) Series

Waste guidance often arrives as dense policy, technical jargon or worthy slogans that tell people what they should do, but rarely explain why it matters in practice.

The Circular Guidance Note (CGN) Series is my attempt to do something simpler. Each CGN takes one practical issue — from reusable pallets, to purchasing decisions, to soft plastics — and strips it back to common sense.

• Not theory
• Not greenwash
• Just practical circular thinking

The idea behind the series is straightforward: Waste does not begin at the bin.

It often begins much earlier; in design, procurement, packaging choices and behaviours that quietly create costs and environmental impacts downstream. The first three Circular Guidance Notes reflect that progression:

CGN 01 – Wooden Pallets Are Reusable Packaging, Not Someone Else’s Waste

A reminder that reusable assets abandoned on site are not “free waste disposal,” but a cost shifted elsewhere in the supply chain - test - link - draft copy for trial only.

CGN 02 – If You Bring It In – We Have To Deal With It 

A challenge to think about waste before it exists, and recognise that purchasing choices shape disposal costs - test - link - draft copy for trial only

CGN 03 – Soft Plastics: The Next Wave

A look ahead at one of the most problematic and important materials in the circular economy transition.

Together they share one simple principle: The bin does not make something recyclable. Buying choices do. These notes are designed to be practical, visual and shareable — for workplaces, campuses, laboratories, public estates or anywhere waste and procurement collide. More like this (biomass) - link - more like this (recycling) - link - more like this (soft plastics) - link

More will follow.

• Less wishcycling.
• More thinking.
• Welcome to the Circular Guidance Note Series.

Coming Soon — Free CGN Downloads

Guff House is building a free download library of Circular Guidance Notes (CGNs) — practical, printable guidance sheets designed to turn circular economy theory into common sense.

From pallets and plastic films to procurement, recycling and greenwash-busting, each CGN is designed to be used, shared and adapted.

• No consultancy jargon.
• No mystical sustainability waffle.
• Just guidance that works.

Free PDF library launching soon.

(MOT) MINNEAPOLIS 'TRASH' HUNGER STRIKE

Minneapolis activists, including Nazir Khan (above), went on hunger strike over burning trash.Courtesy of Geoff Dittberner/Zero Burn Coalition

Is America quietly moving away from waste incineration?

It may be. The number of municipal waste incinerators in the United States has reportedly fallen from nearly 200 in the 1990s to around 73 today — a significant long-term decline driven by cost pressures, tighter emissions controls, environmental justice campaigns and resistance to building new facilities.

Yet the story is more complicated than simple closure numbers suggest. While the number of plants has fallen, burning capacity has not necessarily dropped at the same rate, raising questions about whether America is truly reducing reliance on incineration — or merely concentrating it.

The controversy surrounding Minneapolis’ HERC facility, highlighted in Mother Jones, captures that wider debate: public health, pollution, overcapacity, and whether the future lies in burning waste… or designing it out altogether. Read the article (Mother Jones) - link - more like this (protest) - link - more like this (Minneapolis) - link - more like this (waste incineration) - link

(GUF) THE EIGHT WASTES

We tend to treat waste as something that appears in a bin. Lean thinking says otherwise. Waste begins much earlier; in process design, procurement decisions, unnecessary motion, defects and overproduction.

This first note in the Guff House Circular Thinking Series explores the classic Eight Wastes through a circular economy lens. More like this (circular economy) - link - more like this (containers) - link

(GUF) WHAT IS pEPR SUPPOSED TO DO?

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’s pEPR model is intended to shift costs upstream so producers pay the full net cost of managing packaging waste. The theory is simple - make difficult to recycle packaging more expensive to place on the market through modulated fees; hard-to-recycle composites, laminates, problematic plastics etc. should attract higher charges.

Rewarding better design

Everyone agrees that packaging that's reusable, easily recyclable or designed for disassembly should attract lower fees and push reduction, not just recycling. In theory, once producers face real costs, they should reduce unnecessary packaging and move away from low value single use formats.

Funding better collection and sorting infrastructure

Part of the money from pEPR (£1.5 billion per annum) is meant to support local authority collection systems and recycling performance. The problem is that pEPR mainly acts after packaging exists, not as a hard brake on plastic production itself. Whilst it may improve design for recyclability, it doesn't necessarily cap virgin plastic production, ban problematic polymers outright, force reuse systems at scale or fully address over-packaging and the convenience culture.

pEPR can make bad packaging more expensive but not illegal. If pEPR works properly, it should move policy away from the old fiction that we can recycle our way out of this. It should say instead that if you place unrecyclable or hard-to-recycle packaging on the market, you will pay for the damage - a much more honest mechanism.

But pEPR only works if paired with Simpler Recycling, Digital Waste Tracking, Deposit Return Schemes, Eco-design standards and potentially material bans or production constraints. Otherwise it risks becoming a tax on bad packaging rather than a system that actually prevents bad packaging.

pEPR may make producers pay the piper — but it doesn’t necessarily stop them playing the same old tune. It's early days, but now is the time to analyse it critically; very critically. More like this (pEPR) - link - more like this (EU EPR) - link - more like this (legislation) - link