Max Barnes’ Post

Action plan: 40 shades of grey but no green Our latest selection of articles from New Zealand and around the world on environmental management and sustainability. Click here to subscribe. This issue we examine the Coalition Government’s Q3 Action Plan and its complete absence of any environmental targets, albeit the environment does get a mention in terms of reducing restrictions in order to promote industry. And agriculture is receiving plenty of preferential treatment in terms of its Methane emissions. Nor was there any mention of Nitrous Oxide emissions reduction plans, even when most of this comes from agricultural processes like the use of nitrogen fertiliser and manure management. We also examine the role of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), how it is presently set up and how it could be refined to make it operate better than it is presently (no bids for Units at the Government auctions). Our next set of articles examines how the existing linear production models are too wasteful and inefficient, costing the global economy around $2.6 trillion per year, whereas a shift to a circular economy where product and resources are used time and time again could boost revenue by $1 trillion and reduce GHG emissions. Even recycling with its circular symbol gets in on the act, with the plastics industry believing that it is the magic bullet to solving plastic pollution rather than to place caps on plastic production. Well at least that is what they would like us to believe. We end up with an article on local actions being taken by US farmers to manage the increasingly hot summers and how with the help of the large companies they supply produce to, can improve the safety and welfare of their workers. Looking for a software tool to measure and reduce your emissions? We've got tips to help you choose. https://lnkd.in/gAjmdz2h

Navigating Environmental Responsibility: Unveiling the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) In the ongoing global pursuit of sustainable practices, the European Union has taken a significant step by introducing the EUDR. The new Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 on deforestation-free products is expected to bring down greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss. Understanding the Imperative: On 29 June 2023, the Regulation on deforestation-free products entered into force. The main driver of these processes is the expansion of agricultural land that is linked to the production of (7) commodities that represent the largest share of EU-driven deforestation: Palm oil, Soy, Wood, Cocoa, Coffee, Cattle and Rubber. As a major economy and consumer of these commodities linked to deforestation and forest degradation, the EU is partly responsible for this problem and it wants to lead the way to solving it. Scope and Impact: Under the Regulation, any operator or trader who places these commodities on the EU market, or exports from it, must be able to prove that the products do not originate from recently deforested land or have contributed to forest degradation. The regulation serves as a catalyst for a more sustainable and transparent approach, pushing industries to embrace ethical practices and reduce their ecological footprint. Traceability and Transparency: An integral aspect of compliance is the need for traceability and transparency in supply chains. Businesses are encouraged to implement robust systems that enable the tracking of their products' origins, ensuring that consumers can make informed choices that align with their environmental values. Challenges and Opportunities: While adapting to the EUDR may pose challenges, it also presents opportunities for businesses to lead in sustainability. Companies that are proactively integrate a sustainable supply chain transparency & traceability practices into their operations can not only meet regulatory requirements but also distinguish themselves as responsible stewards of the environment. Global Collaboration for Impact: The reach of the EUDR extends beyond the EU borders, emphasizing the interconnectedness of global supply chains. Collaborative efforts among nations and industries are essential to creating a collective impact on curbing deforestation and fostering a more sustainable future. In conclusion, the EUDR signals a paradigm shift towards a more sustainable and responsible future. Adapting to these regulations is not just a legal requirement but an opportunity for businesses to lead the charge in environmental conservation. #Sustainability #DeforestationRegulation #EnvironmentalResponsibility #SupplyChainTransparency #CorporateSocialResponsibility

PFAS pollution in Australia underlines why we need a new global policy body on chemicals. We’re watching in real-time as Australians are alerted to globally ubiquitous chemical pollution. People are shocked as they discover synthetic chemical contaminants in local waterways. The same chemicals have been reported in the blood of arctic polar bears, snow on the Himalayan mountains, and in rainfall. The focus falls to water since water is easy to measure and easy to impose regulations on. But humans are exposed to these chemicals everywhere, -through the clothes we wear, food we eat, the packaging our food comes in, cosmetics, carpets, furniture, etc. We hear calls for ‘class action’ legal response against chemical manufacturers. But the manufacturers are not based in Australia and generally not subject to Australian law. Their products have been legally imported and used for approved purposes. It is tempting -to me at least- to feel we have no one to blame but ourselves. It was us that failed to mandate sufficient risk assessment on imports, us that failed to effectively restrict approved uses, and us that failed to impose stricter environmental protection standards on those uses. Perhaps the ‘class action’ should be against all Australian governments for the last 50 years. Or maybe the people who elected them. If nothing changes, we should expect this experience to be continually repeated for future chemical products. Or, if we do want change, we need to recognise that change must be on a global scale. Recently, I was a co-author on this paper, calling for a new global body, to provide a global perspective on the science and develop global policy on chemical pollutants. As we described, major challenges for such a body would be: (i) to foster global knowledge production on exposure, impacts and governance going beyond data-rich regions (e.g., Europe and North America), (ii) to cover the entirety of hazardous chemicals, mixtures and wastes, (iii) to follow a one-health perspective considering the risks posed by chemicals and waste on ecosystem and human health, and (iv) to strive for solution-oriented assessments based on systems thinking. I believe it is time for the Australian Government to proactively support the establishment of an intergovernmental body, based on scientific knowledge, for improved regulation and management of chemical contaminants and waste. As this article shows, many others in the global scientific community see it the same way.

Read the Full Article Here: https://lnkd.in/gxsWawf3 Help spread awareness! Share this post and join the conversation on sustainability and environmental responsibility.

Join us in calling on our governments to tackle #EWaste and create a #CircularEconomy for materials. The headlines are stark: - UN Global E-waste Monitor 2024 figures show electronic waste is rising five times faster than the recycling of e-waste. - The UK remains the second biggest contributor of e-waste per head in the world. - On average, 24.5kg of e-waste was generated per person in the UK in 2022. This is up from 23.9kg in 2019. To use resources more sustainably, we need to move to a circular economy model, where resource efficiency is maximised, materials are kept circulating at as high a value as possible and waste and pollution are minimised. Speaking at the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee at Westminster, our Royal Society of Chemistry environment policy adviser, Izzi M., said: “Government should be developing and delivering a clear, coherent strategy that enables a circular economy of materials in the UK. Our unsustainable resource usage globally is driving the triple planetary crisis of climate change, waste and pollution, and biodiversity loss." Find out more from Izzi at: https://rsc.li/EWaste

Natural Capital- who is responsible? https://lnkd.in/gmHddmp7 Very timely report, and one that brings the focus - rightly- to the impact aspect of double materiality. According to the World Economic Forum, more than 50% of global Gross Domestic Product is dependent on nature. While carbon offsets could potentially (and arguably) address some of the damage from GHG emissions, how do you even begin “offsetting” the air, soil and water pollution impacts? Back in 2012, at the Rio+20 conference, the “Natural Capital Declaration” marked a significant commitment by CEOs of over 40 global financial institutions “to the integration of natural capital considerations into financial sector reporting.” The declaration “calls upon the private and public sectors to work together to create the conditions necessary to maintain and enhance natural capital as a critical economic, ecological and social asset.” While the declaration and its accompanying Natural Capital Financial Alliance are now considered legacy projects, it is now up to current efforts, such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), to take on this challenging task. Several other professionals and thought leaders have of course weighed in on this issue. One report I found quite insightful is “How Natural Capital Approaches Can Support Sustainable Investments and Markets”, from the IFC, a member of the World Bank Group, which presents the key concept of “Natural capital as a shared dependency”. This is where natural capital is considered a resource that multiple stakeholders jointly depend on for a range of benefits. To achieve this therefore requires partnerships between businesses, the industry, governments and financial institutions. Not surprisingly, this requires firms to transitioning to longer-term thinking and look at the strategic dependency on the resource or service. They need to invest in solutions today, with the understanding and acceptance of a longer payback period that also yields additional resilience and sustainability. Hhttps://lnkd.in/gW4mjbMq Back to the S&P Global report. While providing great depth and insights, the regional allocation of global environmental damage may merit a deeper dive. Specifically, Eastern Asia is shown as having the highest share at 47%. However, a significant portion of this is likely a result of manufacturing goods for export, so it may perhaps be insightful if that were estimated and apportioned at least to the major consuming regions. 

Yesterday, Florika FINK-HOOIJER, Director-General, Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission, opened the Green Week 2024 in Brussels. The main theme is water management in Europe "What if we saw water differently?" That's the question we are asking at this year's flagship environmental conference, EU Green Week 2024, as we look to help people see water in a completely new way. The May 2024 barometer (https://lnkd.in/e8YzzdwS) showed that more than three-quarters of Europeans (78%) agree that environmental issues have a direct effect on their daily life and their health. Around four in five respondents (84%) agree that EU environmental legislation is necessary for protecting the environment in their country. Citizens are also concerned about the costs of pollution. 92% of Europeans say that companies should pay for the costs of cleaning up their pollution, while 74% agree that public authorities should pay for the costs. Over three quarters (78%) of Europeans consider that the EU should propose additional measures to address water-related problems in Europe. Regarding hazardous chemicals, over half of Europeans (52%) consider that the actual level of protection of human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals is too low and should be increased. When asked about the main threats linked to water issues in their country,  the majority of the  respondents mention pollution and wasting water. When asked if national stakeholders are currently doing enough to use water efficiently, a majority of respondents considered that none of the stakeholders are doing so. More than four in five respondents (84%) are worried about the impact of harmful chemicals present in everyday products on their health, while a similar proportion (84%) are worried about the impact of such chemicals on the environment. 72% of Europeans also state that they take into account the chemical safety of products when making purchases. This conference started to further stimulate intersectoral and transboundary actions to fight water mismanagement. Water pollution by pharmaceuticals is one of the major concerns that needs immediate action. The PREWAPHARM consortium is calling for such action. More than 60 organizations from the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and France working in the water and health sector started collaborations on this topic. #waterwiseEU #medicinewaste Interreg Europe Dr. Florika Fink-Hooijer Claudia Fusco Dr. Miriam Haritz Edouard Boinet Henk Ovink Vlakwa Caroline Moermond TCNN Benoit Deprez Pieter-Jan De Buyck Evelien Wynendaele #pharmaceuticalwaste #sustainablepharmacy

EPI framework *Definition: The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) provides a data-driven summary of the state of sustainability around the world. Using 40 performance indicators across 11 issue categories. The EPI ranks countries upon three main pillars: 1-Climate change performance (38%). 2-Environmental health (20%). 3-Ecosystem vitality (42%). *Aim: EPI indicators provide a way to: 1-Spot problems. 2-Set targets. 3-Track trends. 4-Understand outcomes. 5-Identify best policy practices. Good data and fact-based analysis can also help government officials: 1-Refine their policy agendas. 2-Facilitate communications with key stakeholders. 3-Maximize the return on environmental investments. The EPI offers a powerful policy tool in support of efforts to meet the targets of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and to move society toward a sustainable future. *Environmental performance indicators - 40 indicators: 1- Climate change : This topic reports the GHG growth rates and inventory to: # demonstrate the current status. # Set reduction targets. # Implement a reduction plan. # Revaluate again. 2- Environmental health: This topic reports on four environmental issues: # Air quality: measure and monitor gases and particulate matter that affect human health to ensure that within limits. # Waste management: discuss the waste cycle that starts from the generation rate and how to deal with this waste via different techniques. # Water & Sanitation: discuss the clean water availability and the sanitation treatment plan capabilities. # Heavy metals: discuss lead exposure in air. 3-Ecosystem vitality: This topic reports on four environmental issues: # Biodiversity & Habitat : discuss protected areas whether land or marine, and also the different species in these areas. # Ecosystem services: discuss the loss in tree cover, wetland, and grassland to determine the required initiatives to restore these areas. # Fisheries: discuss fish stock and plans to increase its capacity, and also discuss the effect of trawling and dredging on aqua life. # Agriculture: discuss the sustainable use of nitrogen and pesticides to maintain healthy food free of toxicants and with limited emissions. # Acid rain: discuss SO2 and NOx emissions that have contributed to acid rain formation causing damage to water bodies, aquatic life, agriculture, and construction # Water resources: discuss wastewater treatment plants and their ability to achieve specified environmental law limits.

As countries are gearing up for the fifth session of the intergovernmental Negotiation Committee to develop the draft text of the international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment (UNEP/PP/INC.5/4 ADVANCE) it is important to reflect on the proposed text and how the different provisions can be incorporated into national legislation. South Africa is revising its fishing legislation, and this provides an opportunity to incorporate some (or why not all) proposed provisions to remediate ALDFG (https://lnkd.in/e6rW3tGw) including: ·      Develop new designs of fishing and aquaculture gear to reduce their environmental impacts while enhancing durability, reusability, repairability, and refurbishability and their capacity to be recycled and disposed of in a safe and environmentally safe manner at the end-of-life and minimizing releases and emissions from fishing gears including microplastics to the marine environment. ·      Implement the marking of fishing gear and nets, providing information about the plastic materials used. They are also encouraged to set up a database for the tracing, tracking, and retrieval of ALDFG in line with MARPOL Annex V and multilateral environmental agreements.   ·      Carry out formal risk assessments to support the scope and design of fishing gear marking in line with FAO guidelines. ·      Implement effective measures for the collection and environmentally sound disposal or recycling to ensure environmentally sound end-of-life waste management. ·      Facilitate efforts for fisheries and fishing communities, including artisanal and small-scale fisheries to comply with the provisions of the Treaty. ·      Establish mechanisms and incentives for regular retrieval of derelict gear. ·      Promote and facilitate training on the impacts on ALDFG. Loyiso Phantshwa Stacey Grace Williams Stacey Leigh Webb (PhD) Ben Kneppers