(GUF) YOU MAKE IT, YOU UNMAKE IT

If you make it, you must unmake it.

We produce approximately 460 million tonnes of plastics a year, most with no credible exit strategy. It's time for a polymer antidote rule - every polymer must ship with a proven, scalable end-of-life “antidote” - a disassembly route, a safe chemical breakdown or a guaranteed reuse loop.

No antidote means no market access. Performance bonds, modulated EPR, Digital Product Passports, audited recovery at real-world scale. It's time the plastics industry stopped designing problems and started designing the solutions. (Science Direct) - link - more like this (plastics) - link - more like this (random) - link

(GUF) THE GENEVA PLASTICS THEATRE

The UN’s plastics summit in Geneva collapsed. The headlines say “failure,” but was there ever really a chance?

On one side, poorer 'politically unimportant' nations, many with little manufacturing, demanding caps on plastic production and curbs on toxic chemicals. On the other, the oil states and petrochemical giants such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, South Korea and the US whose profits are plastics.

That’s not a negotiation; that’s an attempted mugging in broad daylight, and the mugger has the lawyers, the lobbyists, and the money. We shouldn’t be surprised it failed, it was always going to. Asking oil-rich nations to sign away their own profit streams is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. Instead, they offered the usual distraction: “Don’t worry about production, let’s talk about recycling.”

Meanwhile, global plastic output exceeds 470 million tonnes a year - of which approx. 428 million tonnes end up incinerated, landfilled, dumped, or leaked into the environment. Of the 9% allegedly recycled, much is “downcycled” into lower-grade products (hardly circular) -

So while poorer countries choke on the waste, richer oil states bank the cash and the “solution” is to have another round of talks, sometime, somewhere, maybe, yawn.

Unless there’s a mechanism that actually costs the petrochemical powers money when they keep the tap open, this treaty will be talked to death and while we wait, plastic will keep pouring into rivers, oceans, food chains, lungs, and bloodstreams.

This isn’t a treaty on plastics. It’s a treaty on power and until we call it that, we’re kidding ourselves. Flying thousands of delegates around the globe to “negotiate” an outcome that was never politically possible is theatre, not progress. Reappraisal is overdue because as long as we keep pretending these talks are about plastics, the real crisis; production, waste, health, climate, keeps accelerating, unchecked. Who makes plastic - link - plastic recycling - link - more like this (treaty) - link

(GUF) rPET

There simply isn’t enough recycled plastic to match the sky-high marketing claims flooding supermarket shelves. For rPET to be more than a PR badge, it needs to be available, affordable, and allocated strategically- not just to tick ESG boxes, but to serve genuine operational needs.

That means facing an uncomfortable truth: rPET needs more help. The market can’t meet current demand without intervention. If we’re serious about circularity, we need national or international systems to guarantee supply, stabilise prices, and direct rPET where it has the most impact. That may require subsidies, incentives or greater procurement mandates that give recycling infrastructure a fighting chance and make this green promise less of a mirage.

Right now, we’re pretending there’s a river of recycled plastic when it’s closer to a slow trickle and everyone’s fighting to bottle it. Even the most “green” multinationals, from P&G to Unilever, still operate on a volume-driven, high-turnover model that inherently conflicts with sustainability. The maths doesn’t lie: if every brand wants 50% rPET in their packaging, but there’s only enough for 15%, someone is left holding the virgin plastic.

If that means rPET must be artificially cheapened to keep both green credentials and operating budgets intact, so be it. A truly circular economy will never materialise if recycled materials are treated as a boutique option for marketing campaigns rather than a baseline feedstock for global supply chains - more like this (rPET) - link

(GUF) CIRCULARITY

We’ve been talking about the Circular Economy for over a decade, yet in the UK, more than 55% of household waste still ends up in landfill or incineration. It’s in every strategy document, every conference keynote, every corporate ESG report but we’re still stuck in a linear system just with a new green halo - link

A real circular economy means products designed to be dismantled and reused; mandatory recycled content in all key materials (not just PET); repair and remanufacturing as the default, not the niche and 'waste' becoming feedstock, not landfill or ash.

Until it’s more expensive and inconvenient not to be circular, we’re just spinning plates - the same old plates - while our collection vehicles get pricier (now electric @ £420'000 each so we can feel good about the same journey) and yet we're still do nothing fundamentally different with the waste - link

This isn’t good enough - not for the UK, not for the planet, and not for the people working every day to fix a broken system.

Where are the mandatory take-back schemes - the regulated design-for-disassembly standards - the real-time digital tracking of waste flows - the repairability indexes on products that break the minute you glance at them and the procurement policies that ban buying the unfixable, the unrecyclable, the wilfully wasteful?

In the UK (globally) we need systems, rules, return paths and actual consequences for products that are designed to fail the planet.

Look at the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) - mandated by the EU (e.g. product passports, repairability, take-back) - whilst the UK has consulted... again and again - link

Design-for-disassembly - look at France’s AGEC law or Japan’s EPR for electronics - how circularity starts at the screwdriver - link

Right to Repair - which products actually come with parts, manuals, and affordable fixes? not many. The EU’s Right to Repair rules (adopted 2023) directly target premature obsolescence by requiring spare parts, repair information, and design-for-repair in certain products.

Procurement power - if institutions only bought circular, half the products on our company's 'Client Procurement Blacklist' would disappear overnight.

Take-back Schemes - voluntary schemes still dominate in the UK - the incinerators and landfills are very grateful for the steady business.

EPR with teeth - “Modulated fees” and “eco-design incentives” are still all talk without enforcement.

Until the UK stops circling the drain of voluntary pledges and catches up with the enforceable standards already rolling out in the EU, we’re not building a circular economy - we’re just polishing the linear one and pretending it’s round.

The last government/s kicked the cans down the road (a few feet). Several frameworks and reforms exist but without real-world enforcement - they delivered consultations over action, strategy over systems and voluntary flourishes over mandatory change - it time for action - now - the clock is ticking - more like this - link

(GUF) PLASTIC FANTASTIC

In 2023, EU mechanical plastics recycling volumes fell for the first time since 2018.

Major players such as ExxonMobil, Sabic, LyondellBasell, Versalis are reviewing or closing facilities because the market is being distorted by a wave of cheap imported virgin plastics, especially from Asia.

Recycled plastic: even when it’s higher quality and lower carbon is being priced out.

In early 2024, France proposed a ban on counting imported low-grade recyclate towards EU packaging targets. That’s not just policy fine-tuning; that’s the alarm bell ringing.

French recyclers call the influx an “existential threat” to Europe’s circular economy. Plastics Recyclers Europe says over 20% of all polymers used in the EU are now imported, virgin or recycled. Domestic recyclers are seeing volumes drop 5% under pricing pressure and dwindling competitiveness.

The truth is - until recycled content is mandated and cheap virgin imports are taxed back to reality, investing in polymer recycling is like betting on a horse that’s been strapped to the starting gate.

If Europe is serious, we need:

* Mandated recycled content across all polymers, not a PPT
* Plastic Packaging Tax reform – higher rates, wider scope
* Anti-dumping tariffs on under-priced virgin imports
* PRN system overhaul – stop rewarding exports over domestic reprocessing
* Real infrastructure investment tied to guaranteed offtake

Be warned - a petrochemical giant can collapse a foreign recycling market simply by flooding it with ultra-cheap virgin polymer. Sadly, this isn’t a hypothetical - the warning lights are already flashing in neon - plastic fantastic - link - news - link - more like this (plastic) - link

USED VAUXHALL - EDEN MOTOR GROUP - DON’T BOTHER

In 2023, we bought a 2019 Vauxhall from Eden Motor Group in Reading. I wish we hadn't.

□ Low mileage – just 14,000
□ Excellent condition
□ Good deal... or so we thought

Two weeks ago, after filling up with petrol, it leaked straight out all over the petrol station forecourt. A major safety hazard. The cause? A failed fuel tank – something you can’t see, can’t touch, and certainly wouldn’t expect to fail on a six-year-old car.

The part isn’t classified as a 'wear and tear' item – it’s structural and should last the lifetime of the vehicle.

Vauxhall’s response? - £1,665.00 to replace it.

▪︎ No apology - (it's out of warranty)
▪︎ No goodwill - (it's out of warranty)
▪︎ No responsibility - (it's out of warranty)

So if you’re considering a used Vauxhall, especially through Eden Motor Group and Spoticar, ask yourself this:

□ What happens when something goes wrong?
□ Is a manufacturer that shrugs off major faults really worth your money?

In our experience, Vauxhall’s customer care ends the moment your payment clears - this is a recurring fault - link - you'll need this link - where I'm at with this - link