(GUF) SIMPLER RECYCLING IS RUBBISH

“Simpler Recycling” was pitched as the silver bullet for household confusion: a single, unified list of materials that every household in England could chuck into their bins without needing a PhD in local council policy. Paper, card, plastics, metal, glass, food waste; the same across the board, no matter your postcode. It was supposed to make recycling, “simpler”.

But along the line, the government message morphed. The original concept; (Collection of dry recyclable materials from households and non-household municipal premises) which was written around and concentrated on domestic recycling was muddied by a late-stage legislative remix that now threw businesses into the fold and rather than crafting a parallel or business-friendly framework, the government opted for a knee jerk, dim-witted, clunky bolt-on approach.

The new rules apply to what’s now being called “non-household municipal waste.” That means schools, hospitals, care homes and businesses. Businesses are now expected to separate and present their waste just like households which sounds reasonable in principle, but in practice it's a logistical spaghetti bowl. Different site sizes/containers/scale; infrastructure and waste profiles were never accounted for in the domestic-first design.

Then, to add insult to injury from a private waste management viewpoint: the Compliance Notice clause. Under the updated legislation, not only can producers (businesses) be held to account, but waste collectors can also now be slapped with compliance notices if we fail to toe the line. Except, and here’s the punchline - Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs) for whom the legislation was originally aimed at - are exempt – of course they are.

Essentially, if private waste collectors trying to navigate this labyrinth happen to miss a step, we can face penalties, however if a local authority fails to adhere - no such worry; they're basically wearing the legislative equivalent of an invisibility cloak which, if nothing else creates a wildly uneven playing field. It punishes innovation, stifles private-sector investment, and makes a mockery of the idea that everyone’s pulling in the same direction on sustainability. It's also a sharp reminder that, in waste policy, style often wins out over substance and “simpler” usually just means “simpler to explain in a press release.”

We’re left with legislation that tries to be everything to everyone but ends up being not very clear for anyone instead. This isn't good enough - link - more like this (Simpler Recycling) - link - more like this (rubbish) link

(SIM) AIRLINES GREENWASHING - SHOCKER

The European Commission (EC), an executive part of the European Union (EU), has issued a statement that it sent a letter to 20 European airlines, identifying misleading claims about their sustainability practices. The carriers were given 30 days to respond and amend their practices.

The EC and the EU’s consumer authorities, namely the Network of Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC), focused on claims made by airlines that their CO2 emissions could be offset by climate projects or through the usage of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), which consumers also have to pay extra for.

According to the Commission, the CPC was led by the Belgian Directorate General for Economic Inspection, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets, the Norwegian Consumer Authority, and the Spanish Directorate General of Consumer Affairs. While not part of the EU, Norway is part of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

Nevertheless, the CPC claimed that the practices can be considered misleading, which is prohibited under three different articles of the Unfair Commercial Practises Directive of the EU. The statement added that the airlines have not clarified whether their claims can be based on scientific evidence.

The CPC identified at least six potentially misleading practices by the 20 airlines, including the incorrect impression that paying an additional fee to finance climate projects or using SAF can reduce or counterbalance CO2 emissions. Furthermore, the CPC raised an issue with the term SAF, claiming that the 20 airlines have not justified the impact of the alternative fuel.

Airlines have also allegedly misused several sustainability-linked terms, such as ‘green,’ ‘sustainable,’ and others, using them in absolute terms to imply that their practices are environmentally friendly. In addition, the CPC noted that some airlines have claimed that they are moving toward net-zero emissions without any “clear and verifiable commitments, targets and an independent monitoring system.” More of this article (Simple Flying) - link - more like this (aviation greenwashing) - link - more like this (SAF) - link

(VOG) US ACKNOWLEDGES TEXTILE WASTE

In December last year, the US published its first federal report on textile waste, marking the first time the government has acknowledged  and proposed solutions to one of the biggest issues facing the fashion industry.

Led by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the report found that textile waste volume in the US increased by more than 50 per cent between 2000 and 2018, largely owing to the rise of fast fashion and the lack of coordinated efforts to collect and sort used textiles. It also found that waste is leaching contaminants and microplastics into soil and water as it slowly sits and decomposes in landfills.

The report also made seven recommendations for interventions aimed at curbing textile waste, including advancing textile recycling, reducing textile waste and identifying funding opportunities at the state, local government and federal level.

The GAO also suggested that six government agencies — Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Department of State, Department of Energy, and National Science Foundation — form an interagency mechanism to foster collaboration and help achieve these goals faster. The agencies in question were quick to push back on this, but the GAO says it stands by the recommendation.

This all came about because of Representative Chellie Pingree, a Democrat from Maine who founded the congressional Slow Fashion Caucus in June to curb fast fashion pollution through policy, as Teen Vogue reported. Pingree requested the GAO report to kick-start proceedings. But does it actually achieve anything? 

“The most significant thing about the GAO report isn’t necessarily what it says, it’s that it exists at all. The report reinforces what many in the industry already know, but does so in a coordinated way, directed at the federal government,” says Rachel Kibbe, founder and CEO of Circular Services Group, and CEO of American Circular Textiles. “It formally calls for action, agency coordination and the deployment of federal power to address textile waste and circularity in a focused manner.”

It’s significant that a government agency would acknowledge such a problem, change is unlikely without the proper infrastructure to support it. “While the report does a solid job of laying the groundwork by recommending interagency collaboration and a future national textile recycling strategy, it’s critical that — as this strategy evolves over the next five to 10 years — the focus remains on aligning infrastructure development with a deep understanding of consumer behaviour,” says Brittany Sierra, founder and CEO of the Sustainable Fashion Forum and host of the ‘Green Behavior’ podcast.

Without that infrastructure development, customers can’t be expected to change their behaviours. “Expecting consumers to navigate unclear or inconsistent recycling pathways isn’t just unrealistic — it risks undermining the system’s success,” Sierra says. “Faced with decision fatigue, many default to the simplest option: tossing textiles in the trash. That’s why the design of the recycling system matters just as much as the education campaigns that support it. Systems must make sustainable actions so simple, intuitive and accessible that they become second nature, requiring minimal thought or effort.” More of this article (Vogue Business) - link - more like this (textiles) - link - more like this (USA) - link

(GUF) SIMPLETON RECYCLING

As from 1st April 2025 under the new pile of old pants Simpler Recycling legislation – legally – a waste collector should not collect any residual (general) waste that is contaminated with food.

Legal requirement for waste collectors

Waste collectors have a legal duty to make sure that dry recyclable materials (plastic, metal, glass, paper and card) and food waste are collected separately from residual waste (unless the piece of food waste was placed there by someone who works for a company that collectively employs less than ten people).

Under the bold new vision of Simpler Recycling, anyone with a set of balls big enough to bin a crust of toast must now attach a signed affidavit confirming they work for a company with fewer than 10 employees, written in biodegradable ink on recycled unicorn parchment made by the love child of an indigenous settler under a full moon. 

If no note is found, the food waste will be catapulted back to your office window, accompanied by a sternly worded haiku from DEFRA.

What about the aerosols? 

The aerosols that wrote this stupid legislation forgot that these are hazardous waste when from businesses - ignore this for a while - they'll change the wording in a few places when nobody's looking.

Paper and card must be collected separately from plastic, metal and glass. However, if this is not technically or economically practicable, or has no significant environmental benefit, the waste collector can complete a written co-collection assessment.

Compliance notices can also be issued against a waste collector (excluding a Waste Collection Authority) that is not complying with the rules. Govt - link - more like this (Simpler Recycling) - link

(ENJ) WAITROSE - NET ZERO FARM FUND

The British supermarket chain wants to support agricultural businesses transition to more sustainable, low-carbon practices.

Farming For Nature is Waitrose & Partners established environmental programme, the new net zero farm fund will offer financial support to deliver a range of projects on the ground.

Grants will be available to farmers and growers which supply the retailer and are looking to reduce their environmental footprint. Applications will soon be invited for funding to begin projects that reduce carbon and other emissions which are directly linked to products sold in stores.

‘This is a fantastic announcement from Waitrose. It really highlights the partnership relationship that we have with them; whenever they are backing British farming and supporting my farm, they become more efficient and lower our carbon footprint to support us on our net zero journey,’ said Harry Thompson, Waitrose chicken farmer at Pilgrim’s Europe.

‘This is important at a time when farmers are having a lot thrown at them; all support is greatly appreciated, and it really strengthens the farm to fork connection. Ultimately, moves like this are important, that we are collectively going forward with a strong vision as a strong partnership,’ he continued.

The scheme will contribute to decarbonising the Waitrose supply chain. It is also hoped climate resilience and mitigation efforts will also be improved through the initiative. Small and large scale projects will be considered, from rainwater capture tanks to sustainable fertilisers, low carbon heating to soil friendly machinery. Prior to the announcement, Waitrose had already invested £1million to its Farming For Nature programme.

‘With our commitment to our UK farming supply base reaching net zero by 2035, it’s key that we work closely with our suppliers and farmers and go on this journey with them, by supporting them to reduce the carbon footprint associated with the products they supply to Waitrose,’ said Marija Rompani, Director of Ethics & Sustainability at John Lewis Partnership. ‘We’re proud to work with fantastic British suppliers and farmers and look forward to supporting them through this fund to innovate, scale and deliver the low carbon products our customers want.’ More of this article (environment journal) - link - more like this (supermarkets) - link - more like this (British farms) - link

(GRP) FAVOURITE FOREIGN DESTINATIONS

The UK was the largest exporter of waste to Turkey in 2023, with 140,907 tonnes sent to the nation across the year compared to 87,900 the previous year. Turkey has been the leading destination for plastic waste exports from European countries for the past five years with the UK being the largest contributor for all but one of these years. 

The revelation comes as nations prepare for the final round of negotiations for the Global Plastics Treaty in Busan, South Korea at the end of November. Campaigners hope this treaty will back rules to cut plastic production globally, reducing the amount of plastic waste nations produce.

The scandal of waste exports to Turkey rose to prominence in the UK following a Greenpeace report in 2021 which revealed plastic bags and packaging from the UK being dumped and burned across southern Turkey. Exports from the UK had declined from a peak of 2020 to a low of 87,900 tonnes in 2022. But the rapid increase in 2023 suggests this was a temporary blip, with figures for the first five months of 2024 already showing an acceleration in waste exports..

The rise in plastic waste exports to Turkey began in January 2018, when China banned plastic waste imports. As other countries like Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam imposed similar restrictions, Turkey saw an uncontrolled increase in waste shipments. Greenpeace Türkiye is urging the UK and other European nations to stop sending their plastic waste to Turkey and is calling on Turkey’s Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation, and Climate Change, as well as all relevant authorities, to take urgent action for a robust Global Plastics Treaty More like this (Greenpeace article) - link - more like this (Turkey) - link - more like this (Greenpeace) - link