Recent lawsuits say Arrowhead, Evian, Poland Spring, and other water bottlers are deceiving customers.

By Joseph Winters

Is bottled water really “natural” if it’s contaminated with microplastics? A series of lawsuits recently filed against six bottled water brands claim that it’s deceptive to use labels like “100 percent mountain spring water” and “natural spring water” — not because of the water’s provenance, but because it is likely tainted with tiny plastic fragments.

Reasonable consumers, the suits allege, would read those labels and assume bottled water to be totally free of contaminants; if they knew the truth, they might not have bought it. “Plaintiff would not have purchased, and/or would not have paid a price premium” for bottled water had they known it contained “dangerous substances,” reads the lawsuit filed against the bottled water company Poland Spring. 

The six lawsuits target the companies that own Arrowhead, Crystal Geyser, Evian, Fiji, Ice Mountain, and Poland Spring.  They are variously seeking damages for lost money, wasted time, and “stress, aggravation, frustration, loss of trust, loss of serenity, and loss of confidence in product labeling.”

Experts aren’t sure it’s a winning legal strategy, but it’s a creative new approach for consumers hoping to protect themselves against the ubiquity of microplastics. Research over the past several years has identified these particles — fragments of plastic less than 5 millimeters in diameter — just about everywhere, in nature and in people’s bodies. Studies have linked them to an array of health concerns, including heart disease, reproductive problems, metabolic disorder, and, in one recent landmark study, an increased risk of death from any cause.

Of the six class-action lawsuits, five were filed earlier this year by the law firm of Todd M. Friedman, a consumer protection and employment firm with locations in California, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The sixth was filed by the firm Ahdoot & Wolfson on behalf of a New York City resident.

All about the percentages

Each lawsuit uses the same general argument to make its case, beginning with research on the prevalence of microplastics in bottled water. Several of them cite a 2018 study from Orb Media and the State University of New York in Fredonia that found microplastic contamination in 93 percent of bottles tested across 11 brands in nine countries. In half of the brands tested, researchers found more than 1,000 pieces of microplastic per liter. (A standard bottle can hold about half a liter of water.) More recent research has found that typical water bottles have far higher levels: 240,000 particles per liter on average, taking into account smaller fragments known as “nanoplastics.”

The complaints then go on to argue that bottled water contaminated with microplastics cannot be “natural,” as implied by product labels like “natural artisan water” (Fiji), “100 percent natural spring water” (Poland Spring), and “natural spring water” (Evian). The suit against Poland Spring cites a dictionary definition of natural as “existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.” That lawsuit and the others also point to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which does not strictly regulate the use of the word “natural” but has “a longstanding policy” of considering the term to mean a food is free from synthetic or artificial additives “that would not normally be expected to be in that food.”.

The lawsuit against Arrowhead bottled water, advertised as “100 percent mountain spring water,” argues that it’s the “100 percent” that’s deceptive. “Reasonable consumers do not understand the term ‘100 percent’ to mean ‘99 percent,’ ‘98 percent,’ ‘97 percent,’ or any other percentage except for ‘100 percent,’” the complaint reads. In other words, consumers expect a product that’s labeled as 100 percent water to contain exactly 0 percent microplastics.

Are reasonable consumers really taking labels so literally? Jeff Sovern, a professor of consumer protection law at the University of Maryland, said it’s “plausible” that people would expect bottled water labeled as “natural” to not contain non-natural microplastics, but it’s hard to say without conducting a survey. It will be up to judges to evaluate that argument — if the cases go to trial. One of the lawsuits filed by the firm of Todd M. Friedman against the company that owns Crystal Geyser was withdrawn last month, potentially a sign that the parties reached a settlement.

“A lot of these types of cases get settled,” said Laura Smith, legal director of the nonprofit Truth in Advertising, Inc. This may reflect the strength of the plaintiffs’ arguments, or it could reflect a company’s desire to avoid the expense of going to court.

In response to Grist’s request for comment, Evian — owned by Danone — said it could not comment on active litigation, but that it “denies the allegations and will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit.” 

“Microplastics and nanoplastics are found throughout the environment in our soil, air, and water, and their presence is a complex and evolving area of science,” a spokesperson told Grist, adding that the FDA has not issued regulations for nano- or microplastic particles in food and beverage products.

The companies named in the other lawsuits — BlueTriton Brands Inc., CG Roxane LLC, and The Wonderful Co. LLC — did not respond to requests for comment.

A long-standing, systemic issue

Erica Cirino, a spokesperson for the nonprofit Plastic Pollution Coalition, said the new lawsuits are part of a longstanding effort to hold bottled water companies accountable not only for microplastic contamination, but also for other misleading claims about their products’ purity. A lawsuit against Nestlé in 2017 said its “Pure Life Purified” brand name and labels misrepresented the purity of its water, in violation of the California Legal Remedies Act. That case was dismissed in 2019 for a “failure to allege a cognizable legal theory”; the latest lawsuits’ “natural” claims represent a different tactic.

Perhaps the best-known legal challenges have involved the origin of so-called “spring water.” In 2017, for example, a class-action lawsuit against Nestlé Waters North America, which owned Poland Spring at the time, said the company was fooling customers into buying “ordinary groundwater.” A U.S. district court judge dismissed that suit in 2018 on the grounds that its allegations improperly cited violations of a state law, rather than a federal one. Nestlé settled a similar lawsuit in 2003 for $10 million, though it denied that its practices had been deceptive.

More recent lawsuits have taken aim at bottled water companies’ claims that their products are “carbon neutral,” or that their bottles are “100 percent recyclable.” Only 9 percent of plastics worldwide ever get recycled. 

Many of these lawsuits have yet to be evaluated by a judge, although a 2021 complaint against Niagara Bottling over “100 percent recyclable” labels was tossed out by a U.S. district court judge in New York in the following year.

According to Smith, one hurdle for these lawsuits is that they’re only able to cite research on the microplastics’ potential to damage people’s health, rather than actual damages that they’ve suffered from drinking contaminated bottled water. Even if the plaintiffs did have health problems linked to microplastics, these particles are ubiquitous; it would be nearly impossible to isolate the effects from drinking microplastics in bottled water from those of microplastics found everywhere else.

“It’s a wider systemic issue with our entire food and beverage supply,” Cirino said.

Keeping microplastics out of people’s bodies would require a similarly systemic approach, potentially involving government rules and incentives for companies to replace single-use plastics with reusables made from glass and aluminum — as well as an overall reduction in the amount of plastic the world makes. In the meantime, one recent article in The Dieline floated the idea of putting microplastics warning labels on plastic water bottles. 

Of course, anyone worried about drinking plastic could turn to tap water, which typically has lower concentrations of microplastics and other contaminants, and is hundreds of times cheaper than water from a plastic bottle. Research suggests that more than 96 percent of the United States’ community water systems meet government standards for portability.

This article by Joseph Winters was originally published on Grist. It is republished here as part of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now.

The post With So Many Microplastics, Is Bottled Water Still Natural? appeared first on Green Queen.

Israel is becoming a major hotspot for alternative proteins, accounting for 10% of the sector’s investments last year, and expected to net $2.5B to the national economy by 2030, according to a new report.

A robust research landscape, strong private and public investment pedigree, exceptional infrastructure and high consumer acceptance – these elements have propelled Israel’s alternative protein sector to new heights, according to a new report outlining the country’s food tech potential.

Published by the Israel Innovation Authority (IIA), the World Economic Forum, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution (C4IR) network led by C4IR Israel and the Good Food Institute (GFI) Israel, the research spotlights a remarkable few years for alternative proteins – home to a record 15 new startups (taking the total to 73), Israel attracted 10% of all VC funding ($1.2B) in the sector from 2014-23, trailing only the US.

But this growth isn’t just a one-off. By 2030, the industry is expected to produce 10,000 additional jobs (a third of which would be manufacturing roles), have more than 200 companies and over a dozen manufacturing facilities, and contribute $2.5B to Israel’s economy through exports, local wages, corporate taxes, and more.

“Alternative proteins emerge as the leading solution to various challenges associated with current meat production methods, including climate change, food security, biodiversity, and antimicrobial resistance,” said Alla Voldman, VP of strategy and policy at GFI Israel. “We believe that ongoing technological innovation and the emergence of startups offering business-to-business solutions to address industry challenges will further accelerate growth.”

Cultivated meat progress

Israel made headlines at the start of the year after becoming just the third country to approve the sale of cultivated meat, greenlighting local startup Aleph Farms’ Black Angus Petit Steak. It highlighted the country’s fast-growing cultivated meat sector and favourable regulatory landscape.

In 2022, the IIA established a research consortium for these proteins, investing $18M over three years and comprising 14 companies and 10 academic laboratories to develop cost-effective methods to produce cultivated meat. Meanwhile, contract development and manufacturing organisations that have traditionally served pharmaceutical companies have now begun to expand to the cultivated meat industry.

Such has been the progress that, in 2022, Israeli startups accounted for a quarter of global private investments in cultivated meat. “Israel has a strong venture capital community in the healthcare sector that deeply understands the science behind cultivated meat and provides essential investment, talent and support to these startups,” said Voldman.

“Israel had an initial advantage with some of the first companies in the field, such as Believer, Aleph Farms, and SuperMeat. These companies benefitted from operating in a country renowned for its excellent infrastructure for entrepreneurship, known as the Startup Nation, and robust research in tissue engineering, biochemistry, biotechnology and relative food sciences.”

Strong focus on research and academia

Over 70 researchers are studying alternative proteins in Israel, 10 of whom began to do so last year. Additionally, there are almost 300 researchers working in adjacent areas like biotechnology, microbiology and pharmaceuticals, whose expertise can benefit the alternative protein industry.

Last year, both the Hebrew University and the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology) announced plans to establish dedicated research centres for food systems and alternative proteins. This is expected to significantly bolster the local research and business environment.

“Alternative protein technologies represent deep-tech advancements driven by multidisciplinary academic research. In Israel, over 50% of startups in this field are rooted in prior academic research, showcasing the depth of academic contributions to industry innovation,” said Voldman.

She added that the country’s commitment to applied research, the knowledge exchange borne out of the physical and social proximity of academia to business and industry, and efforts by the state and organizations like GFI to promote research have been instrumental. “GFI Israel, for instance, proudly participates in funding approximately half of the 70 active researchers in the field in Israel, demonstrating a collaborative approach to advancing academic research in alternative proteins,” she said.

A supportive regulatory and public funding landscape

Food tech – specifically alternative protein – has been recognised by the Israeli government as one of its top five priority R&D areas, thanks to the country’s comparative advantages in certain sectors, its strategic needs, its R&D prowess and position as a global innovation hub, and the sector’s need for government support. A potential national security element, the diversity of human capital and talent development, and the possibilities for cross-sector collaboration were also key criteria.

“The Israeli government has provided substantial support to the alternative proteins sector through a variety of initiatives with the consideration of the value chain of development. Research grants by the Israel Innovation Authority (IIA) and the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Technology, are available for proof-of-concept projects for entrepreneurs, fostering early-stage innovation,” Voldman explained.

Through the IIA, the state is developing a comprehensive approach to investing in businesses at various stages and with multiple stakeholders, according to the report. In 2022, the agriculture ministry and the ministry of innovation, science and tech together with GFI Israel published an open call to fund research grants up to $85,000 per project, totalling $1.2M. This resulted in 15 proposals receiving a grant – and, last year, the initiative was renewed.

The IIA also partially sponsors incubator programmes, with the aforementioned cultivated meat consortium one of the most significant initiatives. Plus, the government has set up a precision fermentation facility to address infrastructure challenges.

“On the regulatory front, a pilot programme for the regulation of alternative proteins is being conducted in collaboration with the ministry of health and the IIA,” said Voldman. “These comprehensive support measures underscore the government’s commitment to advancing the alternative proteins sector.”

Israel’s alt-protein limitations

All the progress isn’t to say that there aren’t any constraints for the industry. There’s a major local supply chain gap, with the relatively small and geographically constrained market obstructing widespread industry adoption. Budget constraints – when compared to economies like the US and China – and the absence of major food and pharma conglomerates represent further limitations.

“Like the global industry, many products have not yet reached the taste and price points that consumers expect. Addressing this challenge necessitates additional investment in academic research and venture creation to develop innovative solutions,” outlined Voldman.

She added: “Scaling up manufacturing for Israeli startups is challenging due to infrastructure costs, mirroring challenges encountered by startups worldwide. Consequently, most new Israeli startups tend to focus more on business-to-business (B2B) solutions, aiming to fill these industry gaps and overcome scalability obstacles.”

The horrifying ongoing conflict in Gaza is a more immediate, much broader challenge. “The geopolitical situation is heartbreaking,” said Voldman. “However, the Israeli entrepreneurs proved their resilience in ensuring their companies meet the milestones. We believe that the increasing need for food security solutions locally and across the globe will drive additional private and public investments in this sector toward innovative technological solutions.”

Recommendations for stakeholders

The report suggests investors can take confidence from the IIA’s initiatives to pump significant capital into the sector, and double down on existing investments. This should encourage VCs to increase their financing in the sector.

When it comes to policymakers, bilateral and multinational alliances – including joint R&D and harmonisation of standards – can be vital in creating a global network of expertise and resources to strengthen local stakeholders. Meanwhile, Israel and other countries could leverage proactive assessments of market failures hurting the private sector to devise strategic solutions collaboratively, which would aid the alternative protein category’s evolution.

And what can food companies learn from this? Large conglomerates should kickstart or further explore collaboration opportunities with alternative protein startups as part of their growth strategies. Partnerships among farmers, pharmaceuticals, and food tech startups are also key to helping scale up the production of these novel foods.

Meanwhile, leveraging agricultural sidestreams like corn, soy, wheat, sugarcane, barley, rice, canola and tomatoes can enhance sustainability and circularity in the food chain, which will optimise resources and boost agricultural resilience.

“Israel possesses unique market characteristics and has emerged as a leader in the consumption of alternative protein products in recent years,” said Voldman. “With a considerable share of vegans, vegetarians, and flexitarians, alongside a population known for early adoption of food innovations, the plant-based market now commands approximately 18% of the milk market and accounts for about 6% of the meat market.”

She added that public interest in developing bioeconomy engines and building a sustainable and resilient food system is on the rise, with alternative proteins recognised as a key tool: “Consequently, alternative proteins are poised to gain increasing support and momentum in the coming years.”

The post In Israel, Alternative Proteins Could Create 10,000 Jobs & Contribute $2.5B by 2030: Report appeared first on Green Queen.

Swedish packaging solutions startup Saveggy has raised SEK 20M (€1.76M) to scale up its plastic-free, plant-based coating for fruits and vegetables, starting with cucumbers.

Lund-based Saveggy’s latest funding round of €1.76M was led by Unconventional Ventures, with additional participation from LRF Ventures, Almi Invest GreenTech, and angel investors.

With the twin goal of reducing plastic pollution and food waste, Saveggy will use the funds to produce its edible plant-based coating for fruits and vegetables at an industrial scale. Its first product is called SaveCucumber, which features a thin, invisible layer made from oats and rapeseed oil.

“We believe that freshness, the health of our planet, and the well-being of people should always remain uncompromised,” said co-founder and CEO Arash Fayyazi. “With this financing round, we will launch at industrial scale our first product.”

The pedigree of Fayyazi and his co-founder Vahid Sohrabpour (who is the chief innovation officer) was a major attraction for its lead investor, with Unconventional Ventures general partner Thea Messel saying: “Our investment in Saveggy was driven by the impressive credentials and substantial expertise of its founders. Their innovative technology tackles the significant challenges our food systems face.”

Killing two birds with one coat

Fayyazi and Sohrabpour launched Saveggy in 2020, describing it as a modular, customisable protection technology that can meet the requirements of different fruits and vegetables. According to the UN FAO, 45% of the world’s fruits and vegetables end up going to waste. Globally, we bin a billion household meals every single day, despite 780 million people (just under 10% of the population) facing hunger.

According to the UNEP, food waste contributes to 8-10% of global emissions. Making significant reductions in the amount of food we throw away is crucial to achieving climate and sustainable development goals relating to global heating, food security and biodiversity protection.

Meanwhile, plastic pollution – which relies on petroleum-based products – contributes to 3% of all greenhouse gas emissions (which is higher than the emissions impact of the aviation industry). Single-use plastics like those used in food packaging are devastating to the planet, especially marine life and aquatic systems, which end up back in our food system and present health threats to humans as well.

Plastic packaging is a massive problem for the food industry’s emissions (which account for a third of all emissions). In the US, for example, 63% of all municipal solid waste generated in 2014 comprised packaging materials for food and other purposes – only 35% was recycled or composted. But plastics offer a few key advantages for companies: they’re cheap to produce, they prevent water loss, they keep bacteria out, and they prolong the shelf life of produce.

Clearly, though, better solutions are needed. Saveggy’s offering isn’t a like-for-like substitute for plastic – it’s an altogether packaging-free alternative. It will benefit fruits or vegetables that have edible peels, adding a thin layer of its zero-additive plant-based coating that preserves freshness and shelf life.

Cucumbers, for example, which are 95% water and where moisture retention is crucial for freshness – after all, nobody likes a limp, shrivelled cucumber. Saveggy’s SaveCucumber innovation acts as a protective shield, preserves the water content, and slows down oxidation, extending the shelf life of an uncoated, unpackaged cucumber by three to four times.

Impressing legislators and investors alike

“We are excited and proud to support the team at Saveggy and their innovation in reducing food waste, advancing sustainable agriculture, and proactively complying with upcoming plastic waste regulations,” said LRF Ventures investment director Martin Alexandersson.

In March, the EU agreed to ban single-use plastics for fresh fruit and vegetable packaging (among other applications), in response to the rise in packaging waste in the region. This means all packaging in the bloc must be recyclable by the end of the decade, and starting next year, recyclable packaging will need to be recycled at scale – in 2020, only 38% of plastic packaging waste in the EU ended up being recycled.

Such regulations will raise the stock of startups like Saveggy, which claims to be the only plastic packaging alternative offering the same shelf life extension, and the only company to be given the all-clear from the EU for edible fruit and produce coatings. And the bloc has recognised its potential too, with the European Research Agency and the European Commission providing it with a €440,000 grant under the Eurostars programme last year.

For its SaveCucumber product, cucumbers are harvested, washed and dried, before being coated with the invisible layer. The company is also working on similar coatings for other produce like bananas, bell peppers and aubergines. Its investors will now look to leverage their supply chain networks to extend Saveggy’s presence to more distributors.

“We were particularly impressed by the founders’ perseverance, having refined their formula multiple times to meet the highest standards,” said Messel. “This unwavering commitment to innovation and sustainability aligns perfectly with our mission as impact investors and made our decision to partner with them clear.”

Saveggy is testing its products with partners, and will enter a market populated by the likes of industry leader Apeel (US), Sufresca (Israel), PolyNatural’s Shel-Life (Chile) and Liquidseal (Netherlands), all of which are making plant-based coatings for fruits and vegetables. Boston-based Foodberry (formerly Incredible Foods), meanwhile, is reverse-engineering fruit skins to make edible packaging for snacks.

The post Saveggy Raises €1.76M for Plastic-Free Edible Cucumber Packaging appeared first on Green Queen.

An ESG leader and one of the world’s largest CPG companies, Unilever is pushing back its climate and social pledges amid increased pressure to focus on financial goals above everything else.

Unilever is either abandoning or watering down many of the environmental and social aims that elevated its status as an environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) leader, the company’s CEO Hein Schumacher told Bloomberg last week.

It comes a month after the CPG giant had rolled out updated climate goals amid a backdrop of investor, shareholder and political criticism that non-financial objectives were distracting the company from its financial targets. But sustainability chief Thomas Lingard had told Bloomberg that Unilever’s climate plans were built into its financial growth model.

The company, which has managed to cut its scope 1 and 2 emissions by switching to renewable energy (among other measures), said 98% of its climate footprint comes from outside its own operations (scope 3). And for the first time, it had outlined a goal to lower absolute scope 3 emissions, noting its ambition to lower energy and industrial emissions by 42%, and forest, land and agriculture by 30% (from a 2021 baseline) by 2030.

The company’s eventual goal is to reach net zero by 2039, but its commitments have been criticised for being too vague and hard to measure. Now, it’s dropping or delaying some of its ESG goals, with Schumacher suggesting that people’s focus on climate and social issues was “cyclical”. He told Bloomberg: “When you have a huge drought for a number of months but everything else is going fine, the attention is on climate. These days it’s about wars and rightly so, that’s at the forefront.”

Altering food waste, plastic and labour pledges

Unilever, one of the world’s largest plastic packaging users, had previously aimed to make 100% of its plastic packaging reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025 – but it has pushed this back to 2030 for rigids and 2035 for flexibles. Similarly, it had set a goal to halve its use of virgin plastics by 2025. That has now been revised to one-third by 2026 – that equates to over 100,000 tons of fresh plastic annually.

In terms of social pledges, Unilever’s commitment to pay all direct suppliers a living wage by 2030 now covers just half of the suppliers making up its procurement spending by 2026. Additionally, it has abandoned a commitment to spend €2B each year on diverse businesses globally through to 2025, alongside a target of having 5% of its workforce be comprised of people with disabilities by that year.

It has also dropped pledges to make 100% of ingredients biodegradable by 2030, and halve food waste in its operations by 2025. The company’s aim of sourcing 100% of key crops sustainably has been lowered to 95%, while its promise to protect and regenerate 1.5 million hectares of land, forests and oceans by 2030 has been slashed to a million hectares.

“I’m not going to shout that ‘we’re saving the world’, but I want to make sure that in everything that we do, that it is indeed better,” said Schumacher. “I feel that with the themes that we choose – whether it was climate, plastics, nature, and livelihoods – that given our global presence, given our portfolio, given our footprint, that those were the four areas where we could make a difference.”

Unilever – which is worth £95B on the London Stock Exchange – still has commitments on carbon emissions, but Bloomberg notes that watering down ambition in other areas like biodiversity enhancement and plastic waste reduction could set a precedent of abandoning goals when they’re too hard to meet. Schumacher also noted that the new ESG goals aren’t going to reduce costs, and the company is upping investment to ensure these targets are met.

But it’s a seismic shift in direction for a company that has built its business reputation on ESG, and the scaling back of its promises would be closely watched by industry competitors as financial pressures grow.

Unilever execs should ‘hang their heads in shame’

As can be expected, Unilever’s announcement has attracted criticism from climate groups like Greenpeace UK, whose plastics head Nina Schrank said the company’s executives “should hang their heads in shame”.

“Hein Schumacher and his board are well aware of the ruinous impact of their plastic pollution,” she was quoted as saying by the Guardian. “The tsunami of plastic they produce each year meant their existing targets were already not fit for purpose. We needed much more. And so rather than doubling down, they’re quietly dressing up their backpedalling and low ambition as worthy pragmatism.”

Just last week, Unilever announced the creation of a new eco-friendly laundry detergent called Wonder Wash, made specifically for short laundry cycles. The bottles are made up of 35% recycled material and said to be 100% recyclable, which Unilever claims results in lower plastic weight per bottle and more efficient transportation.

But a 2023 investigation by Greenpeace International found that the company is continuing to use single-use, non-recyclable plastics, selling 1,700 plastic sachets every second and being on track to sell 53 billion by the end of last year. The non-profit revealed that Unilever was on track to miss its original virgin plastics target by nearly a decade.

Schumacher blamed it on external factors: “On plastics, you need governments, you need retailers, you need partners in the petrochemical industry. You need recycling systems that match.”

The news comes a month after Unilever announced it was spinning off its ice-cream division (which includes the likes of Ben & Jerry’s, Magnum, Cornetto, Breyers and Wall’s) and laying off 7,500 employees in a cost-cutting exercise predicted to save the company €800M over the next three years.

Another sustainability commitment it has seemingly fallen short on is its target of introducing carbon labelling for all 75,000 products globally by 2026. “It is possible that some of our brands may wish to communicate product carbon footprints in the future, and for this having accurate data is essential. We also know information must be provided in context to be meaningful to consumers,” a Unilever representative told Green Queen last week.

They added that the company is “committed to improving transparency of GHG emissions” in its value chain: “We are focusing our efforts into programmes such as the Pathfinder for Carbon Transparency, hosted by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, which is working to standardise industry measurement and reporting of product greenhouse gas footprint data. Our collection of more accurate data will help Unilever to make more informed procurement decisions as we work towards our climate targets.”

The post Unilever Scales Back Climate & Social Pledges in Alarming ESG U-Turn appeared first on Green Queen.

There’s a new Bechdel-Wallace Test in Hollywood – but this one focuses on climate change. Which Oscar-nominated movies pass the Climate Reality Check for 2024?

“Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.”

It’s an ancient line that exploded in popularity last year with Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, which is the favourite for this year’s Best Picture Oscar. Of course, the American physicist said this in the grave context of building the world’s first atomic bomb, which would change the course of the world’s history.

One thing changing the course of today’s history (and future) is climate change, which is in its own way a destroyer of worlds – it kills as many as five million people every year. The importance of addressing it cannot be understated, and it’s with that premise that someone has developed a new climate reality test for movies.

For decades, films have been assessed through the Bechdel-Wallace Test for gender representation, which has three stipulations: at least two women are featured in the project; these women talk to each other; and their discussion covers something other than a man.

Now, climate story consultancy Good Energy has partnered with Colby College’s Buck Lab for Climate and Environment to unveil the Climate Reality Check. The environmental version of the Bechdel Test has two simple criteria: climate change exists, and a character knows it.

“The Climate Reality Check is a simple, illuminating, and powerful tool that can be used to evaluate any group of narratives — from films and TV shows to video games and novels — for their reflection of our climate reality. In this way, the Climate Reality Check provides a new and necessary perspective on storytelling in and for a world on fire,” explained Matthew Schneider-Mayerson, associate professor of English at Colby College.

A climate edition of the Bechdel Test

The Climate Reality Test was developed in consultation with over 200 writers, showrunners, executives and communications experts to ensure it was easy, measurable and creatively inspiring. The organisers argue that since the climate crisis touches every aspect of life, it’s only natural for it to show up in movies.

“This is about highlighting authentic stories that reflect the reality we’re all living in and help us navigate what it means to be human in the age of climate change,” they explain, adding that the intention is not to require every story to centre around the crisis, or tell filmmakers what kind of stories to make. “It simply measures whether our current climate reality is being reflected on-screen.”

The idea is to provide writers and industry members with an easy tool to measure whether climate representation is present in stories, and help audiences see if Hollywood is representing the reality on screen.

The first component of the twofold criteria requires that climate change exists in the movie’s world. “When stories erase climate change, they seem increasingly out of touch with reality,” the test’s developers explain. This part of the test can be passed through the portrayal of impacts and solutions – this could mean showing an unprecedented heat wave, a news story about rising sea levels, or climate-related graffiti.

The second section of the Climate Reality Check involves a character being aware of climate change. This could be demonstrated via dialogue, narration, actions or visual imagery. For example, a character’s narration could establish the climate context, they could be shown reading a news article about climate change, or there could be a conversation about extreme weather.

“The Bechdel-Wallace Test debuted in a 1985 comic strip. Four decades later, it still resonates as one of the most effective tools for measuring female representation in film and television,” said Good Energy founder and CEO Anna Jane Joyner. “Good Energy set out to capture that same light-hearted yet incisive quality in measuring climate visibility.”

Which Oscar nominees pass the Climate Reality Test?

To meet the eligibility requirements of the Climate Reality Test, movies must take place on Earth, and be set either in the present or in the near future. This year, a total of 31 movies have been nominated for an Oscar, with the awards set to take place on Sunday, March 8. Of these, 13 were eligible for the test: Barbie, American Fiction, Anatomy of a Fall, Past Lives, May December, Nyad, Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One, The Creator, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Io Capitano, Perfect Days, The Teachers’ Lounge, and Godzilla Minus One.

But only three Academy Award nominees passed this climate version of the Bechdel Test for the 2024 ceremony. These were Barbie, the cultural phenomenon in the running for eight awards, which has a quick mention tying climate change to consumerism (perhaps a nod to the real plastic doll’s plastic issues). Teenager Sasha accuses Margot Robbie’s Barbie of “killing the planet with your glorification of rampant consumerism” – which the researchers claim “connects climate change to one of its root systemic causes”.

In Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One, which is nominated for two Oscars, CIA director Eugene Kittridge warns Ethan Hunt (played by Tom Cruise) that “the next world war isn’t going to be a cold one”. “It’s going to be a ballistic war over a rapidly shrinking ecosystem. It’s going to be a war for the last of our dwindling energy, drinkable water, breathable air,” he explains.

And in Nyad, which is also nominated for two honours, climate change is mentioned explicitly as an obstacle to Diana Nyad’s attempt to swim from Cuba to Florida. On her third try, she is almost killed by a jellyfish sting, after which her coach says: “So the UMiami folks think that the box jellyfish came up off the shallow reef when we left Cuba. Global warming.” Earlier in the film, there is talk about how the box jellyfish “can kill you” and “shouldn’t be” in this part of the ocean – a clear illustration of the threat climate change poses to livelihood.

These three movies represent 23% of the total Oscar-nominated movies eligible for the Climate Reality Check this year. The researchers have expressed their desire to see this mark cross 50% by 2027.

“I’m thrilled to see that several of my favourite Oscar-nominated films from the last year passed the Climate Reality Check,” said Joyner. “It’s a clear demonstration that acknowledging the climate crisis on-screen can be done in entertaining and artful ways that are authentic to the story. More proof that audiences crave seeing their own world and experience, which now universally includes the climate crisis, reflected on screen.”

It’s Oscar night this weekend – might we see some mention of climate change there too?

The post Oscars 2024: Which Nominees Pass the Climate Bechdel Test This Year? appeared first on Green Queen.

From one greenwashing scandal to the next, carbon offsets have developed a notorious reputation over the last few years. As more investigations call out their inflated claims and regulations clamp down on the sector, could the voluntary carbon market be suffering from a loss of faith?

Whether it’s soil, cookstoves, water bottles, or Taylor Swift, carbon offset credits have been the hotrod of climate discourse in the media (and governments). Touted as a way to feel better about your emissions and footprint – whether as an individual or a company – the sector has encountered heavy criticism over the years for its unsubstantiated, overstated and/or misleading claims.

In principle, carbon offsetting involves “cancelling out” emissions by investing in projects that promise to cut carbon elsewhere – think reforestation initiatives, clean energy production, or carbon capture projects. The idea is, by buying these ‘carbon credits’, you can ‘balance out’ the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

But multiple studies and investigations have revealed that a lot of these crediting schemes are engaging in greenwashing, making promises they can’t fulfil and giving high-emitting corporations an easy way out. The $2B voluntary carbon market has also been dented by legislation like the EU’s upcoming greenwashing ban.

Even in the last month or so, there have been a host of stories uncovering how the capabilities of carbon offsets have been overstated, which begs the question: are we finally losing faith in the practice?

Clean cookstoves aren’t really clean

Last week, a study revealed that clean cookstove projects – a class of carbon credits that trade smoky fuels for alternatives like electric cookers – have been overstating their climate impact by around 1,000%. These schemes are presented as “nature-based solutions” that can bring health, social and environmental benefits to people in the developing world by enhancing air quality, reducing the time people spend collecting wood, and slowing forest loss.

Clean cookstove initiatives sell greenhouse gas reductions as carbon credits, allowing many buyers to label their products or services as carbon neutral. With 3.2 million premature deaths happening manually due to household smoke caused by cooking fuels, which cause 2% of global emissions, these are wildly popular too: between May and November last year, 15% of all carbon credits were issued by these cookstove schemes, which also registered the highest number of projects in this period.

But the study, published in the Nature Sustainability journal, revealed that nine in 10 of the 96 million certified cookstove credits don’t avoid the emissions they claim. The project’s sample, which covered 40% of these credits, found that cookstoves were over-credited 9.2 times. Extrapolating to the entire market, this rises to 10.6 times. Such overcrediting comes mostly from exaggerated estimates of stove adoption and use, underestimates of the continued use of the original stove, and high estimates of the impact of fuel collection on forest biomass.

The findings have been disputed by leading carbon certifiers Verra and Gold Standard. The latter, whose credits were found to be the highest-quality ones (over-crediting just 1.5 times), said it had interacted with the authors and taken suggestions. But Verra expressed disappointment over continued attention on the study, saying the findings were “at odds with the wider academic literature and expert view on this subject”.

Carbon angle on regenerative agriculture ‘oversold’

This is just one of a number of different developments hindering the voluntary carbon market. For instance, there has been a spotlight on regenerative agriculture and soil carbon sequestration. The agrifood system already accounts for a third of all global emissions, leading food companies to look for ways to cut their climate footprints: one way of doing so is by adopting regenerative farming practices.

But some say this will not solve the industry’s emissions problems, with questions raised over how much (and for how long) carbon can actually be stored in soils. As the Financial Times reports, scientists warn that “if sequestration seems too good to be true, it probably is”. Only a handful of agrifood companies disclose how much their net-zero goals depend on using land as carbon sinks, but Pete Smith, professor of soils and global change at the University of Aberdeen, told the publication that the numbers “simply won’t stack up” because soil can’t perpetually soak up carbon.

Climate experts have likened this idea of carbon storage in soil for offsetting emissions to the wider carbon offset market, which – as mentioned above – has been “derided by some campaigners as a vehicle for corporate greenwashing”. That still hasn’t stopped startups from selling soil-based carbon credits on the voluntary market. While regenerative agriculture “makes a lot of sense”, Smith feels “the carbon angle has been oversold”.

Danone’s water bottle battle

In the US, Danone is facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly misleading consumers with a ‘carbon neutral’ claim on the packaging of its Evian bottled water. The plaintiffs argue that people “would understand and believe that the term ‘carbon neutral’ means the manufacturing of the product, from materials used, to production, to transportation, is sustainable and does not leave a carbon footprint.”​

In response, Danone stressed that “no reasonable consumer would interpret carbon neutral to mean that the product does not emit any carbon dioxide whatsoever during its entire life cycle”. It added: “One wonders how the plaintiffs think the product magically arrived from the French Alps to their homes without the emission of even a molecule of carbon dioxide.”

It’s a classic greenwashing lawsuit, but illustrates the problems posed by a lack of legal definitions for terms like ‘carbon neutral’. The WWF explained this in a public comment. “Failing to address these misleading claims allows both of the following hypothetical companies to claim carbon neutrality,” it wrote. “Company A: Reduces 99% of scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Buys carbon credits in a volume equal to the remaining 1% of emissions. Company B: Reduces 0% of scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Buys carbon credits in a volume equal to their total emissions.”

Is Taylor Swift burning red?

Carbon offsets aren’t safe from discourse even around the world’s biggest pop star, Taylor Swift. The 34-year-old has been in the news for her private jet emissions since 2022, when she was named the biggest celebrity polluter of the year. But the conversation was amplified recently when a now-defunct Instagram page called Taylor Swift’s Jets tracked her journeys on private jets and calculated her emissions to be 138 tons in just three months.

This equates to the annual emissions of 28 gas-powered cars or 16 homes, but Swift made further headlines after her representative pointed out that before the start of her record-breaking Eras Tour in March 2023, she “purchased more than double the carbon credits needed to offset all tour travel”.

But it’s unclear where the Anti-Hero singer bought these offsets from, and highlights the problem of misconceptions around carbon offsets on a global level. It will be interesting to see if Swift’s carbon credits would be subject to California’s new anti-greenwashing law. “If Swift or her companies have publicly claimed that the tour was carbon neutral or that it produced less climate impact than its actual emissions because of offset credit use, then arguably they have made a claim that is covered under AB 1305,” carbon market expert Danny Cullenward told the New Republic.

Lawmakers clamp down on carbon offsets

On to the regulations, then. Just like Swift’s carbon emissions may be affected by legislation, cases like Danone’s lawsuit would also become much less ambiguous with proper rules and definitions. This is what California has done with AB 1305, which mandates carbon offset sellers to disclose specific information about accountability measures if projects aren’t completed or don’t meet the target objectives.

Plus, businesses who buy these offsets and make claims like ‘net-zero’, ‘carbon-neutral’, etc. are required to be transparent about the accuracy of these claims, their progress, and whether they’re verified by an independent third party. Speaking of which, the bill includes third-party verification of all of the company’s GHG emissions, identification of its science-based targets for emissions cuts, and disclosure of the methodology used for the same.

Passed by governor Gavin Newsom, the aim is to introduce transparency and combat greenwashing, holding businesses accountable for claims they make about their climate impacts. Those found violating the law could be penalised $2,500 for each day that information about carbon offsets is unavailable or inaccurate on their website. This is capped at $500,000, which could potentially be recovered in civil actions.

Across the Atlantic, the EU has passed its own anti-greenwashing law, which will come into effect in 2026. It means companies can’t use terms like ‘carbon neutral’, ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘green’ without providing substantial “proof of recognised excellent environmental performance”. This will heavily impact the voluntary carbon market, as businesses buying these offsets won’t be able to make such claims.

“We are clearing the chaos of environmental claims, which will now have to be substantiated, and claims based on emissions offsetting will be banned,” said Biljana Borzan, a Croatian EU lawmaker.

For instance, airlines allowing travellers to pay a small fee to offset their flying emissions will no longer be allowed to make carbon/climate-neutral claims. “There is no such thing as ‘carbon-neutral’ or ‘CO2-neutral’ cheese, plastic bottles, flights or bank accounts,” said Ursula Pachl, deputy director of consumer advocacy group BEUC. “Carbon-neutral claims are greenwashing, plain and simple. It’s a smoke screen giving the impression companies are taking serious action on their climate impact.”

Gilles Dufrasne, global policy lead at Carbon Market Watch, added: “The EU is sending a powerful signal to the voluntary carbon market: the era of offsetting is over, and carbon credits can’t make up for buyers’ pollution.”

Voluntary carbon’s troubles – or are they?

Such legislation puts into doubt the credibility of carbon offsetting, and it’s crucial. The sector is set to be valued anywhere between $10B and $40B by 2040, but there aren’t enough trees to capture a sufficient amount of carbon to make up for our emissions, especially since it can take about 20 years for tree saplings to become viable for carbon offsetting.

According to one investigation, 85% of offsetting projects commissioned by the EU have failed to reduce emissions, and only 2% of the covered projects and 7% of potential ones would have a high likelihood of reducing emissions. Another outlined how 90% of rainforest offset credits issued by Verra – which is the world’s largest offset provider – are “worthless”. The company claimed to have cut 90.9 million tonnes of carbon emissions, but only delivered 5.5 million tonnes of reductions.

Verra has additionally been accused of highly inflating its projects’ climate impacts, with some projects unsuitable for businesses to use for carbon offsetting as they aren’t equal to fossil fuel emissions. Another investigation revealed that 28 of its 32 projects analysed were essentially “junk”. In fact, 39 of the top 50 carbon offsetting projects (78%) were classed as junk or worthless due to failures undermining the promised cuts, while eight others (16%) looked problematic and were classified as ‘potentially’ junk.

And in November last year, a report suggested that Verra manages 41 plastic collection and recycling projects across 15 countries, but while 11 of its projects have been registered and three approved to issue credits, only one is actually doing so. And a fifth of its schemes are ending plastic to cement kilns for incineration, a charge levied on plastic credit marketplace PCX too. Only 14% of its plastic offsetting credits are generated from recycling, with the rest coming from incineration in cement kills.

All this has left consumers – and, you’d think, companies – disillusioned. But the carbon offset market is set to thrive this year, with only a 3% drop in demand from 2022-23. A bilateral deal between Switzerland and Thailand could open up a new branch of the global market, while some governments in Africa are taxing offsetting revenues to redirect them back into the communities where projects are located. Oil companies like Shell are doubling down – despite indicating a move away from the market: it bought 16 million tonnes of credits last year (twice more than the next on the list), just as the market opened up to a growing number of first-time purchasers.

Serafino Capoferri, analyst at financial firm Macquarie, told Semafor that the “fear of reputational damage may keep some buyers away, and a dip in prices also cut into the supply of new credits last year”, but barring any major scandals, “the carbon market has contracted as much as it is likely to”.

The key lies here: can carbon offsetting avoid any more scandals?

The post With Investigations and Regulations Against the Market, Are Carbon Offsets in Trouble? appeared first on Green Queen.

Vyld, the female-founded Berlin startup making sustainable period products from algae, has secured a seven-figure sum in seed funding that includes a financing instrument they created themselves.

Three years after launch, Vyld has raised funding worth seven figures using a novel financing model, helping its mission to disrupt the feminine care industry. The company will use the investment to launch Kelpon, the world’s first tampon made from seaweed, and accelerate the development of its period diaper.

The investment is a combination of German government and EU funds, and angel and VC capital, leveraging a self-developed sustainable financing instrument, the Future Profit Partnership Agreement (FPPA). Created by co-founder Ines Schiller, the model blends the advantages of equity and debt capital, and aligns with Vyld’s vision of steward ownership and self-sustenance.

The startup will use the funds to launch to market what it claims is the world’s first tampon made from seaweed, while continuing to develop its incontinence pads. It’s part of a long-term vision of creating an Algaeverse of healthy, sustainable and circular products tapping seaweed’s potential to develop a regenerative economy and promote ocean conservation, which helps Vyld contribute to 12 of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Built on a unique regenerative financing model

Crafted by Schiller, a former film producer, Vyld’s mezzanine financial instrument ensures the company remains independent, allowing profits to be reinvested, used to cover capital costs, or funnelled into philanthropic purposes – all the while enabling an appropriate return for investors. Instead of having an exit-based model like traditional VC startups, Vyld focuses on longer-term sustainability.

Steward ownership has two core principles. The first is self-governance, which means the voting rights of the company always remain with active employees, rather than external investors. The second is a profit-for-purpose approach, which means its profits can’t be privatised. So instead of being redistributed to shareholders, they’re reinvested in the company’s mission. It means that Vyld as a business owns itself.

Under the FPPA, the startup offers profit shares instead of a conventional equity round. Once the returns are achieved, the agreement ends. This means new investments can be secured outside of the typical equity round cycle, giving the company financial independence. This model appeals to investors who are interested in regenerative financing and are critics of maximalist financial principles.

“Tackling questions of ownership, power and financing is crucial to me as an entrepreneur. Business models create realities and extractive models do not only threaten the environment and health, but also reproduce exploitative standards and anti-democratic tendencies,” explained Schiller. “We want to counter this with a model that promotes creation instead of consumption, quality instead of quantity and triple top line instead of hypergrowth.”

Kai Viehof, one of Vyld’s investors, added: “Vyld shows that neither shareholder-value-driven venture capital nor unbridled growth is needed to successfully implement sustainable ideas that really make a difference for our planet and our society. However, change can only become possible on a broad scale if investors also rethink and provide the necessary capital fairly and with reasonable return expectations.”

As part of the company’s knowledge-sharing commitment, it is making this financial model available as an open-source case study to encourage other businesses to adopt a similar regenerative approach.

Vyld will release seaweed tampons this year, with diapers in development

Vyld was founded by Schiller and Melanie Schichan in 2021, with the long-term target of creating an entire ecosystem of non-food seaweed products under the Algaeverse, which entails both B2B and B2C offerings. The aim is to transform a menstrual health sector that produces high amounts of waste.

The startup claims that 90% of all period products employed are single-use, and plastic makes up a big chunk of their composition. Plastic comprises 90% of the content in disposable period pads, which is the equivalent of four plastic bags. It means these are not biodegradable and can take up to 600 years to decompose.

The seaweed Vyld uses in its menstrual products, though, biodegrades on land and in water, requires no fertilisers to grow, and doesn’t need to be bleached (unlike conventional tampons). Plus, it sequesters huge amounts of carbon and nitrogen while growing, offers anti-inflammatory benefits during use, and can also be applied across a range of materials, from tampon cores to external packaging.

The startup’s initial products are the Kelpon (a tampon) and Dyper (a diaper). The former was part of a successful trial with over 100 consumers late last year and is now being prepared for market launch. The latter is in pilot phase, part of a Windelwald (‘diaper forest’) project in partnership with German sanitary solutions company Goldeimer.

An algae-based compostable diaper without plastic or superabsorbent polymers, the Dyper is being trialled in 50 households both for everyday use and its potential as a humus fertiliser. The used diapers are composted under controlled conditions, and the fertilisers help plant a forest – hence the name ‘diaper forest’.

It’s an exercise in regeneration, marrying the ethos of the financial model with its product offering. It puts Vyld in pole position to disrupt a $30B market with sustainability and ethics at the heart of things.

The post Kelpon: German Female Founding Duo Raises 7-Figure Seed for World’s First Seaweed Tampon with Self-Created Financial Instrument appeared first on Green Queen.

Exercise can be more sustainable now, thanks to Community Clothing’s new Organic Athletic sportswear line, which is free from plastics and can decompose in your garden in as little as a week.

Community Clothing, the sustainable clothing brand and social enterprise by Scottish fashion designer Patrick Grant, has launched a plastic-free and compostable sportswear line, inspired by clothing materials from the 70s.

Called Organic Athletic, the 13-strong range eschews the typical use of non-biodegradable, oil-based synthetic plastic materials – chiefly polyester, nylon, polyurethane and elastane – in sports clothing, and opts for plant-based textile technology instead.

70s materials inspire new sportswear range

“Roger Bannister broke the four-minute mile wearing cotton shorts, a cotton vest and leather shoes. And I played rugby as a kid wearing clothes made from all natural materials,” Grant told the Financial Times. “None of us thought we were wearing rubbish stuff at the time.”

His childhood inspired him to explore “if it was possible to make good sportswear out of the materials we used until the late 1970s”. The new collection is a result of five years of R&D, comprising shorts, sweatshirts, T-shirts and running vests.

Made from woven or knitted certified organic cotton, as well as natural Austrian woven rubber for the shorts, Grant sourced organic athletic wear from this period on eBay. Finding most of them in Germany, he reverse-engineered each piece to assess its yarn count and durability. He explained that the toughest part was to replace elastic use.

“Elastics are made from elastane, which is synthetic and oil-based,” he said. But it’s a key tool for durability, given cotton threads are susceptible to breakages. “We had to beef up the diameter of the thread.” The resulting collection – for both men and women – is fatter in appearance, but carries a retro look akin to vintage college varsity kits, and is suitable for a variety of sports and training activities.

Sportswear’s plastic problem

Plastics and synthetic fibres like elastane (made from polyurethane), nylon, polyester and acrylic have been used in sportswear for decades for stretchability and breathability, quick-drying and waterproofing capabilities, and thermal protection. While some brands have turned to recycled fibres for eco-friendlier clothing, they still shed microplastics into the oceans and soil.

These are harmful in more ways than one. Scientists suggest that a third of all plastic waste ends up in soil or freshwater, disintegrating into microplastics that enter the food chain. These tiny particles have already been discovered in the human body, and one study estimates that we eat 5g of microplastics per week on average (about the same as eating a credit card’s worth of plastic). In fact, there are 14 million tonnes of microplastics on the ocean floor and 24 trillion pieces of microplastic on the ocean surface.

But there is an awareness issue here. A 2023 survey by global sail racing league SailGP – covering 1,500 people in the UK, US and Switzerland – found that 54% of respondents were unaware of potential toxins hiding in synthetic technical sportswear. Having said that, 72% said they’d prefer plastic-free sportswear if available. It’s these attitudes that prompted plastic-free fashion label Mover to debut a six-piece capsule collection in collaboration with SailGP, made predominantly from organic cotton, merino wool and water-based printing methods.

And while UK-based Stripe & Stare offers a TENCEL Modal-based shirt that it claims is 100% biodegradable, it contains 5% elastane. It makes the Community Clothing Organic Athletic one of the only (if not the only) sportswear ranges that are both plastic-free and compostable. Once they reach the end of life, these clothes can be shredded and added to your compost heap – within a short time, ranging from a week to five months depending on your soil, they will fully decompose and leave no remains.

“Community Clothing Organic Athletic represents the most radical change in sportswear in two generations,” Grant said in a statement. “Moving away from oil-based sports clothes to 100% natural and biodegradable means now you can exercise and play sport and not harm the planet in the process.”

The post Is This the World’s First Compostable, Plastic-Free Sportswear Range? appeared first on Green Queen.

If you’re looking for a New Year’s resolution, here are 10 things you can do in 2024 to curb your footprint and planetary impact and tackle climate change.

“We are heading for environmental disaster unless we change our habits quickly.“

A massive 80% of the 48,579 adults in 50 countries surveyed by Ipsos last year agreed with this statement. It was part of the market research company’s annual global trends report for 2023, published in February.

After a year where we saw floods in New York City, orange skies as a result of Canadian wildfires, food shortages across the world, and a climate conference that brought relief yet despair, it’s fair to say this sentiment will only grow stronger next year.

While it’s on our leaders to implement policy change, we as individuals also have a tremendous responsibility in the fight against the ecological crisis. Here are 10 things we can to help stop the effects of climate change in 2024.

1. Overhaul your wardrobe

Nope, you don’t need that top.

The fashion and textile industry is responsible for 10% of global carbon emissions, and its greenhouse gas emissions will surge by more than 50% by 2030 if current consumption rates continue. In 2022, a report by the Hot or Cool Institute explored the sector’s impact in G20 countries, suggesting that the biggest solution to lighten its impact on the Earth and stay below 1.5°C post-industrial temperature rises is to simply stop buying so many new clothes.

It recommended sticking to a five-piece rule, aimed at limiting new garment purchases to a maximum of five per year. Taking the example of the US, it explained how Americans buy more than 10 new items annually, but 80% are rarely worn. Buying five or fewer garments is four times more effective than the next best solution: reusing clothes.

Keep in mind these guidelines for building a sustainable wardrobe, and check out Tiffanie Darke’s newsletter, Rule of Five, for more tips and to join its five-piece pledge.

2. Do your laundry more sustainably

Our laundry is the biggest source of microplastic pollution, with washing machine residue making up 35% of the total. In a single wash, 700,000 microplastic fibres can be released into the drainage system. A different estimate suggests that each 5kg load of laundry leads to between 600,000 and 17 million microplastic fibres leaching into our waterways. Moreover, 75% of the plastic used in laundry pods enters the environment, while microplastics have been found in 119 popular detergents.

We can do much better. There are products like microfibre-absorbing laundry filters, and though their efficacy can vary greatly, fabric tech innovations to prevent shedding or catching microplastics at wastewater treatment plants aren’t viable solutions just yet. But that’s just one solution: check out our sustainable laundry guide for cleaner and greener clothes in 2024.

3. Quit plastic, packaging and excess waste

Plastics are an environmental nightmare, emitting 3.3% of global emissions across their life cycle (including production and disposal). They leak into the waterways, pollute global soil and the food system, and take centuries to break down.

Plastic is also everywhere. There are alternatives popping up (though not fast enough), but there are many things we can do to cut its use altogether, whether that’s through packaging, groceries, clothing, homewares, dining, or workspaces. And it’s imperative that we do: in 2019, annual production of plastic reached 460 million tonnes, and globally, only 9% of plastic actually gets recycled.

We’ve previously written an extensive list (with 85 tips) that can help you on your plastic reduction journey in your day-to-day life – adopt these in 2024 to bid adieu to plastic and say hello to a greener planet.

4. Consider an EV

Globally, transportation accounts for a fifth of all carbon emissions, 45% of which come from cars, buses and motorbikes. If you’re in a city with a reliable public transport network, that’s a great way to reduce your transport emissions. And once more, buying less is best – but if you are looking to get a new car, consider an electric vehicle (EVs).

More and more are popping up every year, at every price point – you can go for the chic and affordable, or the ultra-luxury. EVs can produce substantially less carbon than gas-powered cars, with estimates ranging from anywhere between 20% to as much as 83% fewer emissions. They’re not perfect, but still an upgrade on the conventional option.

If you’re grappling with the idea, the Washington Post has a guide made just for you.

5. Fly more responsibly

The aviation sector contributes to 4.4–5% of global GHG emissions, and 12% of total transportation emissions. Flying is a huge problem, and while many airlines are trying to develop sustainable aviation fuels, there are questions about their efficacy, viability and true impact.

The best thing here is to just fly less if you can, especially domestically. Choose the most sustainable carrier options – Google Flights can help you find the lowest-emissions itinerary. You can look into offsetting your flying emissions too, though doing your research is key here, as many offsetting programmes are all smoke and no fire.

When you do get to your destination, we have a handy guide to being an eco-friendly tourist.

6. Cut your food waste

Here’s a stat for you: the amount of food we waste per year – worth $1T – could feed a quarter of the world’s population. Let that sink in for a moment.

According to climate action non-profit Project Drawdown, reducing food waste is the single most impactful thing people can do to fight the climate crisis and lower personal GHG emissions. That’s because if food waste were a country, it would be the third-highest emitter on the planet.

There’s really no excuse for wasting food, and tons of things you can do to avoid doing so. Again, buying less and only as much as you need is the best way to start. But you can also use more of each produce – don’t throw out the peels, for example – support companies that upcycle waste, and properly compost whatever does need to be thrown away.

Within the kitchen, there are so many ways you can use up every part of a fruit or vegetable, or turn leftovers into new dishes. Our list of the best zero-waste cookbooks can help you become a more efficient, resourceful and creative cook, all the while cutting your food waste and lowering your climate impact.

7. Grow something

Food production accounts for a third of all GHG emissions, while transportation makes up 19% of the total food system’s emissions. Consider growing your own produce, starting a balcony garden, or volunteering on a farm, which would help you connect more with the food you eat.

Check out our takeaways from urban farming, which highlight the importance and joy of growing your own produce in the city. For an expert’s guide, plant-based chef Moises Mehl has a detailed two-part guide on everything you need to know about urban home gardening.

8. Reduce meat and diary

Of those food production emissions mentioned above, 60% come from meat. Overall, the animal agriculture industry is responsible for 11-19.5% of total GHG emissions. Studies have shown that veganism can slash emissions, water pollution and land use by 75%, while swapping just half of our meat and dairy intake with plant-based alternatives can halt deforestation and double climate benefits.

To help reduce the amount of meat and dairy in your diet in 2024, try Veganuary – you will find strength in the numbers here, with hundreds of thousands taking up the challenge alongside you. We have a list of apps and resources that will make your journey much smoother. Plus, there’s a wonderful piece from Grist’s Caroline Saunders on cooking with climate cookbooks to give you some more culinary inspiration.

9. Become a digital climate activist

As of September 2023, there were over 40 major climate protests worldwide – and these do bring about change, even if it’s slow progress. But if you don’t have the time or aren’t in the position to protest in person, you can still voice your opinion as a digital climate activist.

The internet holds a lot of power in this space, and has already transformed climate activism. Take an online course like the Game Changer Intensive by the Pachamama Alliance, where you will learn about your role in making a difference in this world, how climate change can truly be reversed, what’s required to reach that goal, and why social justice is key.

You can also volunteer your skills for climate work, as many executives, founders and employees of Fortune 500 companies do. Donating your free time to support crucial environmental action is a major way to make your mark.

10. Get educated about climate change

Among all these actions, perhaps the most meaningful way to go about things is to become better informed about climate change. Climate misinformation is rampant – you only need to look as far as the president of the UN climate conference claiming that a fossil fuel phaseout won’t help curb global warming.

A 2021 poll across four EU countries revealed that 53% of consumers can’t identify greenwashing claims on product packaging. Meanwhile, the meat and dairy industry is fuelling the misinformation wars on social media and using their power to censure public bodies and pressurise governments to use more favourable climate metrics.

It can be overwhelming and upsetting – but it’s crucial to look past the sea of misinformation and get educated about what’s really happening. For a wonderful resource, check out Earth.org’s list of the 25 best climate change books to read.

The post Citizen Planet: 10 Things to Do for the Climate in 2024 appeared first on Green Queen.

Researchers have applied artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques to analyse the effect of microplastics on soil properties, with the aim to support decision-making on plastic waste management and help align with ESG goals.

Ocean microplastic pollution is a well-documented issue, but the effect of these teeny fragments of plastic on soil, agriculture and, subsequently, our food system isn’t as talked about – despite the annual release of microplastics in soil being four to 23 times higher than that in oceans.

But a new study is hoping to change that, shedding light on the issue with artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies. The effects of microplastics on soil are complex due to the diversity of the former and heterogeneity of the latter, leading to knowledge gaps over the true implications of plastic pollution on agriculture, and making it harder to predict and mitigate the impact.

“ML is a dynamic and transformative field of artificial intelligence (AI) that uses algorithms and models to learn and make predictions from vast datasets with great accuracy,” explains study author Yong Sik Ok. “Using ML to comprehensively understand the role of MPs in soil systems is time- and resource-efficient and provides a foundation for future research on this subject.”

Microplastics alter acid concentration in soil

The results of the study, published in the Environmental Pollution journal, revealed that different microplastic factors – like type, size, shape and dosage – significantly alter soil properties and concentrations of acids like nitrate nitrogen, phosphorus and DOC. Particularly, the size of microplastics is a major driver.

“This pioneering study contributes essential data to support informed decision-making on plastic waste management, aligning with the global focus on sustainability and ESG principles. It underscores the importance of innovative research in guiding corporate sustainability efforts, where plastic-related issues are a growing concern,” said Ok.

Using ML algorithms allows scientists to move away from complex, resource-intensive prediction analysis methods to interpret the implications. The researchers argue that these insights represent “a breakthrough in comprehending and mitigating the plastic waste dilemma” – a third of all plastic waste ends up in soil or freshwater, disintegrating into microplastics that enter the food chain.

Scientists have already discovered the presence of these particles in the human body, and according to one study, we eat 5g of microplastics per week on average (about the same as eating a credit card’s worth of plastic). In 2019, the global agriculture industry used 12.5 million tonnes of plastic for plant and animal production and 37.3 million tonnes for food packaging, according to a UN FAO report warning of the “disastrous” impacts of plastic in agriculture.

“There is only a finite amount of agricultural land available,” University of Sydney’s Elaine Baker said in a separate UN study last year. “We are starting to understand that the build-up of plastic can have wide-ranging impacts on soil health, biodiversity and productivity, all of which are vital for food security.”

Machine learning can provide solutions to microplastic pollution

“Our ML-based approach for this study underscores the potential of advanced technology to address the challenge of MP pollution in our environment. Such data-driven research could guide informed decision-making on plastic waste management, while aligning with global sustainability goals and the principles of ESG, social responsibility, and community engagement,” said Ok.

The FAO has endorsed what it calls the “6R model” – refuse, redesign, reduce, reuse, recycle and recover – to minimise the effects of plastic pollution on soil and agriculture, with other potential solutions including replacing plastics with biodegradable alternatives, implementing better ways to manage or reuse plastic waste, and even a complete plastic phaseout.

Ok said that the findings of the study “could revolutionise corporate sustainability efforts and pave the way for more green jobs and sustainable development to create a greener and eco-conscious world for current and future generations”.

The report suggests that the link between microplastic pollution and soil health is important for corporate sustainability, notably the environmental aspect of ESG goals, as well as social responsibility, since global corporations are increasingly adopting climate strategies to lighten their impact on the planet and vulnerable communities, and plastic-related concerns at the heart of these initiatives.

Applying ML techniques to tackle microplastic pollution can help businesses build trust with the public, which could, in turn, influence industry standards, create jobs and drive economic growth. “We have consistently addressed global threats posed by plastic pollution and the importance of soil ecosystems,” noted Ok. “The application of ML techniques to this problem demonstrates the potential for advanced technology to drive sustainable practices and create a greener, more eco-conscious future.”

The post Using AI to Explore the Impact of Microplastic Pollution on Soil and Agriculture appeared first on Green Queen.