Chemical recycling: what role for the EU’s circularity and decarbonisation objectives | Centre for European Policy Studies
Plastics have enjoyed exceptional growth in production for decades and are used extensively across a multitude of sectors including packaging, construction, electronics, automotive and agriculture. Prompted by concerns over plastic waste generation and impacts on terrestrial and marine ecosystems, in 2018 the European Commission published a strategy on plastics which was followed by legislative actions such as ban of certain single-use plastic items. In 2019 out of about 29 million tonnes of plastic collected in the EU the majority (68%) was either incinerated for energy recovery or ended up in landfills. There has been a debate for some time about whether the concept of chemical recycling can be among the solutions for managing plastic waste. Chemical recycling technologies have not yet reached the market at scale although recently there have been several announcements for the development of new plastic recycling plans in Europe and abroad. Objective of this event will be to bring together stakeholders from the plastics value chain to discuss whether and under what conditions chemical recycling technologiesaviercould make a contribution to the EU’s circularity and decarbonisation objectives.
The UK could become an early mover in the global carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) market and create up to 50,000 jobs if new enabling policies are introduced. More than 50,000 jobs in carbon-intensive industries would also be safeguarded. The Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) published a report on the scaling up of CCUS technologies in the UK over the next decade. With support from engineering consultancy Afry and Cambridge Econometrics, the report explores CCUS opportunities based on the Government’s Ten Point Plan and the Climate Change Committee’s (CCC) Sixth Carbon Budget.
Under the Ten Point Plan, the UK would capture 10 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2030, whereas the CCC’s modelling on the Sixth Carbon Budget recommends capturing 22 million tonnes per year by 2030. As part of the Sixth Carbon Budget, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has agreed to legislate a new target to reduce national emissions by 78% by 2035.
While you can make biodiesel from many different crops, this places a burden on land needed to grow food and could contribute to deforestation and threaten biodiversity. Creating biodiesel from something that would otherwise go to waste, makes it one of the greenest possible alternatives to fossil fuels. Used cooking oils (UCO) and fats are the ideal feedstock to refine into biodiesel. And, because they cannot be recycled into either the human or the animal food supply chains, due to the food safety risks they pose, this is by far the most sustainable way to dispose of them. We are the UK’s leading refiner of used cooking oil and we use it to create biodiesel of the very highest standard. Our biodiesel is ISCC (International Sustainability and Carbon Certification) compliant and exceeds the EN14214 EU specification required for it to be used as the proportion legally required to be blended into diesel fuel sold in the garage forecourts of UK and EU countries.
Nothing lasts forever, so they say — gadgets included. These are usually traded in or discarded for newer and more advanced models. Such behavior, though, has a negative impact on the environment and our health. To address this concern, Globe’s E-Waste Zero program advocates for responsible disposal and recycling of electronic waste. It provides a way for anyone to donate their old, non-working electronic devices. “Recognizing just how irresponsible and unsystematic disposal of e-waste can potentially impact the environment and our lives, we endeavored to proactively find and create more viable solutions that will curb the adverse effects of e-waste,” said Yoly Crisanto, Globe Chief Sustainability Officer and SVP for Corporate Communications.
The basic idea is truth in advertising. We’ve seen a growing number of funds market themselves as “green,” “sustainable,” “low-carbon,” and so on.
While the estimated size of this sector varies, one estimate says there are at least 800 registered investment companies with more than $3 trillion in ESG assets last year. Suffice it to say there are hundreds of funds and potentially trillions of dollars under management in this space.
What information stands behind those claims that a fund is “green” or “sustainable”?
When I think about these questions, I’m reminded of walking down the aisle of a grocery store and seeing a product like fat-free milk.
Read the full article at: www.sec.gov