Hong Kong discards between 4-6 million disposable face masks every day. The bulk of these discarded face masks are sent to the landfill along with the general waste. Based on the estimation that each face mask weighs two to three grams, the face masks disposed of at landfills every day would weigh some 10 to 15 tonnes. However, a significant number end up polluting the environment, including drains, streams, and beaches and end up in the sea. According to the Hong Kong Secretary for the Environment, KS Wong, these face masks are not suitable for recycling. She says, “Since disposable face masks, including N95 masks and surgical masks, are made of composite materials of different kinds and metals which are difficult to be separated, they are not suitable for recycling or discarding in recycling bins to avoid contaminating other recyclables.” How can the world achieve a “zero waste” future?

—

The global figures are approximately 1 000 times more at 15 000 tonnes of masks a day. The bulk of the discarded face masks are either incinerated or sent to the landfill along with municipal solid waste (MSW).

The sustainable management of increasing quantities of wastes such as MSW, Industrial Wastes, Agricultural Wastes, Construction Demolition Waste (CDW) etc, is a global challenge. MSW generation will increase to 3.40 billion metric tonnes by 2050 from around 2.01 billion tonnes currently as per a World Bank report. In 2016, 12% of the world’s MSW was plastic, of which the world produced 242 million tonnes. It is estimated that only 13.5% of today’s waste is recycled and 5.5% is composted. 

Plastic waste is choking our oceans, yet our consumption of plastics is only increasing. The COVID-19 pandemic has added significantly to this crisis due to the sudden increase in the consumption of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). An estimated 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide–equivalent (CO2-equivalent) greenhouse gas emissions were generated from solid waste in 2016, which is about 5% of global emissions. Without improvements, solid waste-related emissions are anticipated to increase to 2.6 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent by 2050. 44% of all MSW is food waste (contributing 50% of the GHG emissions from rotting) and 33% of all MSW is disposed of in open dumps and/or burnt. 

The global distribution of population compared to the percentage of waste generation shows China and India to be major contributors (together accounting for 36% of the world’s population and 28% share of MSW generation), followed by the USA (4% world’s population contributing 12% of the waste). Such disparities are likely to be further exacerbated by the pandemic. For example, South Asia is one of the hardest-hit regions by the outbreak, with India recording nearly 9.8 million cases. The pandemic outbreak in the South Asia region is not only harming public health through community transmission but is becoming a huge liability in terms of its environmental impact. The healthcare waste management system of the South Asia region is the least developed among the World Health Organization regions.

Delhi, the capital of India, generated about 371 tons of biomedical waste per day in June 2020. This was an increase of 1 400% from May’s 25 tons per day. Uttar Pradesh, the most populated state in India, generated about 247 tons of infectious medical waste per day in July 2020, but was able to safely handle less than 10 tons per day of it. Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, generated 206 tons of biomedical waste daily in July, a steep increase from 3 tons per day before COVID. Similar trends of infectious medical waste generation due to COVID-19 have been observed in other countries of the South Asia region.

While the prospects of a zero waste future may look utopian in light of the above scenario, it is not as difficult as we are made to believe. Hong Kong has performed abysmally against its own target as per the 2013 Government-issued “Hong Kong Blueprint for Sustainable Use of Resources 2013-2022,” which  set out a comprehensive strategy to reduce waste and increase recovery and recycling. A recycling fund of HKD$1 billion has not made a significant dent yet and the draft mandatory waste charging scheme proposal that was stuck in the legislative process for almost a decade was recently dumped. However, the experience of neighbouring Taiwan and South Korea is highly encouraging. South Korea adopted a waste charging policy back in 1995 and observed that the overall waste disposal rate dropped by 17% by 2001 and by 40% by the year 2010. The recycling rate increased to 60% in 2010 from about 16% in 1995, and the economic benefits of the recycling industry increased from HK$1.7 billion in 2001 to HK$7 billion in 2009. The “Per Bag Trash Collection Fee” system, adopted from Taipei, has worked well in Seoul, which is now a global model for recycling. This illustrates the fact that modern societies driven by rampant consumerism need to pay for their environmental footprint – be it in the form of a carbon tax or waste charging system. The detrimental effect of our lifestyles driving climate change can only be tamed by such a ‘user pay’ model and implementation of circular economy principles by producers and manufacturers.  

For a ‘zero waste’ future to be realised, the first step has to be for policymakers to change their mindsets. Each component of the municipal solid waste stream is recyclable. Food waste and organic matter can be composted, metal, glass, and paper have well-established re-use. Its the waste plastic that has been a big challenge given its volume due to low density and capacity to pollute the environment. While recycling disposable face masks is not easy (nor is plastic waste), it is not impossible. It has been demonstrated that much of such waste plastics can be converted back to fuel oil through catalytic thermal pyrolysis, used in lightweight plastic aggregates for use in concrete, or melted and reshaped into plastic products like bricks, blocks, and plates. Only with such innovative ideas can the world hope to achieve a ‘zero waste’ future. 

You might also like: 6 Things the World Must Do to Tackle Climate Change- Lancet

Figure 1.(a) Composition of Municipality Solid Waste and (b) Methods of disposal (Source: Datatopics.worldbank.org).

Figure 2. Share of Global Population against waste generation (Source: recyclinginternational.com).

The post Op-Ed: How Can We Achieve a ‘Zero Waste’ Future? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Between 2011 and 2013, China consumed 6.6 gigatons of concrete – more than what the US used in the entire 20th century. Since the integration of China in the world economy, the consumption of materials in general and construction material in particular, has been driven by the growth of China’s economy. An indicator of this growth is the consumption of cement. Since 2010, China’s consumption has increased from 2.05 billion tons per year to 2.35 billion tons with a high of 2.7 billion tons in 2014. In the same period, the world consumption of cement has increased from 3.64 billion tons to 4.65 billion tons. How can the construction industry green itself?

—

Interestingly, the global consumption has remained more or less unchanged from around 2014 (including China) with a reduction in China’s consumption being made up by the increase in developing countries. Cement is mainly used in making concrete, which requires about 8-10 times more raw materials in the form of sand and aggregates. Thus, the consumption of 4.65 billion tons of cement implies mining, transportation and use of around 33 billion tons of aggregates per year. This makes concrete by far the most used material at about 35-40% of all material consumption by mankind, second to water. Global consumption of cement is expected to double by 2060 as per a 2018 OECD report, which has significant environmental implications. 

Economic Contraction Due to the Pandemic

Hong Kong just declared its second-quarter figures which show a contraction of the economy of 9.1%, matching that of the first quarter’s contraction year-on-year. Most of the developed countries such as the US, the UK, Japan, Australia and the members of the EU are projected to undergo unprecedented double-digit quarterly contractions in the current calendar year compared to pre-COVID-19 2019. The International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) latest projection for the annual growth rate of world GDP is around -4.9%. The projection for 2021 is 5.4% year-on-year which barely makes up for the overall contraction due to the pandemic.

Besides tackling the immediate health sector demands, the first challenge of the pandemic for governments everywhere was to provide support for those who were affected by lockdowns and lost their jobs. The next task was to kickstart economies. Very early on in the pandemic, many people realised that it presented an opportunity to rebuild the world economy to be more resilient and sustainable. 

After every major disaster, we try to rebuild in such a way to make societies less prone to the damages from similar or worse future shocks. In the case of the pandemic, every country should be looking to invest in its public health system to prevent or mitigate the effect of future events. Clear links have been established between the emergence and spread of new pathogens and anthropogenic causes. 

Therefore it makes sense that actions to address risks of future pandemics take into account those needed to address the climate crisis as per recommendations of experts such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

GDP is Inadequate

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measures the monetary value of all goods and services produced by an economy. It has become the universal measure of the economic prosperity of a country and even the world since after the second world war. 

In a recent article, Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz proposed a dashboard of customisable indicators to guide the economic policy of nations based on his work since the great recession of 2009. He quotes American senator Robert Kennedy who once said “GDP measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile.” A poignant illustration of how badly flawed GDP is as an indicator of social well-being is illustrated by the abject failure of the US in managing the pandemic compared to countries such as Vietnam and New Zealand, both with much lower GDP per capitas. The fact that it doesn’t measure sustainability, the value of community-led non-profit initiatives or wealth inequality makes GDP a deeply flawed measure of overall social wellbeing which is far more important than just income and wealth. 

Stiglitz’s dashboard proposes that indicators can be different for different countries by emphasising the issues most important for the people such as health, education, employment, environment and sense of security, similar to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals identified by the UN. While GDP would be one of such a group of indicators, environmental sustainability would have critical importance as this has a much larger impact on what happens on a planetary level.

Risks of Inaction and the Opportunity for Building Back Better

The World Economic Forum in its 15th Global Risks report highlighted two stark facts. One was that for the first time since the survey started being conducted in 2005, climate change-induced extreme weather, natural disasters, biodiversity loss, climate action failures and man-made environmental disasters were the top five global risks in terms of likelihood. In terms of impact, climate action failure, biodiversity loss, extreme weather and water crises were among the top five risks. The only other non-climate risk was weapons of mass destruction. None of these climate-related events featured in the top global risks a mere 10 years ago in the same survey. 

You might also like: China Moves Ahead With New National Park System

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” said Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff in November 2008 at the beginning of the Great Recession. For some, the pandemic becomes an opportunity to profit while for others it is humanity’s chance to make a strong beginning towards a resilient and sustainable future. EffortsIt will need something akin to the ‘New Deal’ implemented by President Roosevelt after the Great Depression or the ‘Marshall Plan’ implemented to rebuild Europe after World War II will be needed, but with a green agenda that puts sustainability at the heart of all decisions. In the current context, the proposed ‘Green New Deal’ on a global scale will fit that bill.

Green Construction should Lead the Industry

An effective way for economies to create jobs and recover growth is to revive and accelerate the building and construction sector, particularly public-funded large infrastructure projects. This brings us back to the question of the consumption of materials like cement and aggregates and their large carbon footprint and potential damage to the environment. 

The UK has declared a climate emergency and has mandated by law to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, however a Construction News of UK report says that the construction industry is still using conventional ‘dirty’ concrete instead of available low-carbon ‘green’ alternatives. The government must enact regulations and set an example through public infrastructure projects that use these alternatives. 

The existing carbon credit system and a low carbon tax of 16 pounds per ton don’t seem to be incentive enough to get contractors to switch from high carbon ordinary Portland Cement to, for example, blended cement. While a landfill tax and aggregate levy has been beneficial, concrete construction requires the use of low-carbon quotes (estimates used in the tendering process to give bidders who use low-carbon alternatives a chance to compete), Environmental Product Declarations, standard measurements for the carbon in a building, a higher carbon tax, and whole life cycle design for sustainable construction practices to take root. With trillions of dollars being invested in the form of stimulus packages, there couldn’t be a better time to enforce these changes on a global scale that would have profound long-term effects.

Every sector of the world economy holds such opportunities to address the climate crisis.The world is at an important inflection point – a fork in the road. A lot rides on the decisions that are made by policymakers, leaders and the corporate world this year. Building back better led by a more green construction industry and frameworks that measure social welfare and health instead of GDP is the best way not only to get out of the current crisis but create a resilient and sustainable future.

The post Op-Ed: How the Construction Industry Can Green Itself appeared first on Earth.Org.

As the world wrestles with the post-pandemic future, it is clear that the world order cannot follow a business-as-usual approach. As the world’s sixth mass extinction event draws nearer, more economies are beginning to embrace a ‘closed’ or a ‘circular economy’ model: notably, the EU released its Circular Economy Plan that aims to end the ‘throwaway culture’ plaguing society. To make this a reality, the very ideas of growth and consumption need to be challenged. 

—

The Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman famously said, “The only corporate social responsibility a company has is to maximise its profits.” When such an approach drives much of the capitalist world’s business, the natural outcome is a greed-driven, consumerist society that is categorised by the depletion of natural resources, pollution and environmental degradation that has led to humanity experiencing climate tipping points that may irreversibly damage the path of civilisation as we know it.

What is a linear economy?

This economic model has been based on the so-called linear economy philosophy of ‘Take, Make, Use, and Dispose’. In such a model, the true cost of goods and services is hidden due to a lack of accounting for the cost of pollution caused to the air, water, land and sea, as well as the remaining value of the product when it is discarded. It is estimated that the cost of such so-called ‘externalities’ is a significant burden even in purely economic terms. None of the world’s leading corporations would be profitable if they were to account for the natural capital that they use.

The idea of a circular economy (CE) dates back to the 1960s when economist Kenneth Boulding discussed the adoption of a closed economy (imagining the earth to be a space ship) as opposed to the open economy we have now (also called a ‘cow-boy economy’). The ‘throwaway’ nature of the closed economy model was replaced by the ‘Make, Use and Reuse’ model, or the ‘circular economy’ model for the first time in a 1976 report by Walter Stahel and Genevieve Reday for the European Commission. 

Circular Economy: Examples

The best way to understand what a circular economy is is to examine a real-life case study. Take lighting. A lightbulb could be designed to last a lifetime but it would be unprofitable for manufacturers to do that, called ‘planned obsolescence’. Appliance company, Philips, has created a new service called “Circular Lighting,” whereby users pay only for the light, not for the equipment. Phillips will pay for the installation, performance and servicing of the lighting. At the end of the service contract, the lighting system can be upgraded and reused, or all materials and parts can be returned for repurposing or recycling, minimising materials and waste and forcing the manufacturer to take responsibility for the entire life cycle of the product. 

Apple is another example of a company embracing circular economy principles. The company announced in 2017 that it would be making new iPhones, iMacs, and other products from 100% recycled materials. The company currently has a scheme where customers can bring in their old products to get a discount on an upgrade- it estimates that up to a third of those coming into an Apple Store to purchase a new phone are trading in an old one. 

Around 44.7 million tons of e-waste was generated globally in 2016, of which 435 000 tons were mobile phones.

The EU is enshrining the principles of a closed economy into its laws; in early March, the EU released its Circular Economy Action Plan which requires manufacturers to make products that last longer and are easier to repair, use and recycle. Taking effect in 2021, the plan is a part of the EU’s targets to become a climate-neutral economy by 2050 as outlined in its New Green Deal. 

Currently, we are dependent on linear industrial processes where we use finite natural resources to create products with a limited service life that end up in landfills or incinerators. A circular economy is inspired by living systems like organisms that process nutrients that can eventually be fed back into the production cycle. Biomimicry, ‘cradle to cradle’ instead of ‘cradle to grave’,  closed-loop, or regenerative are some of the other terms usually associated with it. 

In 2018, the World Economic Forum (WEF), World Resources Institute (WRI), Philips, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and other partners launched the Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy (PACE) to scale up circular economy innovations. PACE has three focus areas: blended finance (especially for developing countries), policy frameworks, and public-private partnerships. Global corporations like IKEA, Coca-Cola and Alphabet Inc., along with the governments of Denmark, The Netherlands, Finland, Rwanda, UAE, and China, among others, are members of PACE. China’s 11th Five-Year Plan included the promotion of a circular economy as a national policy beginning in 2006. 

The British Standards Institution (BSI) developed and published the first standard for a CE in 2016. A report by McKinsey titled “Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition” has identified significant benefits of implementing a circular economy model across the EU, including net materials cost savings worth up to US$630 billion annually in the manufacturing sector alone.  

A circular economy can also contribute to meeting the emission reduction goals of the Paris Agreement. An analysis by Ecofys and Circle Economy estimates that circular economy strategies can reduce the gap between current commitments and business as usual by about half. 

The Doughnut Model

While a circular economy model can serve as a great model for a progressive economic and business framework, the world needs a broader approach that integrates complex socio-political ideologies that often drives the preference of economical models. In recent times, it has become increasingly clear that a free market-driven open-ended growth model is unsustainable and is the primary driver of global heating leading to the ecological breakdown and climate crisis. In 2012, Kate Raworth, a senior research associate at Oxford University introduced the idea of a Doughnut Economy that aims to make human welfare the basis of economic policy rather than the all-pervading pursuit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth. 

Economic welfare was defined as per the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that provide a set of minimum living standards by the UN for every human being. She extended the basic circular flow of money and goods model of economics by adding the nine planetary boundaries (environmental limits imposed by the planet) on the outside and social boundary consisting of SDGs on the inside – forming a doughnut. In this model, economic progress is measured in terms of the balance between human wellbeing and protection of the life support systems provided by the planet, thus mitigating global warming, ecological break-down and climate change. Since its introduction, this post-growth economic thinking has attracted the attention of a range of actors ranging from the UN General Assembly to Occupy the London movement. As many countries start re-examining prevalent strategies and economic policies in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, the foundations of the Doughnut Model are being explored for the long-term planning and policy development of cities like Amsterdam. 

Sharon Ede, co-founder of the Post-Growth Institute, writes, “A truly circular economy would mean that the circular ethos is also reflected in our social systems, including our financial services, our business structures, and the political frameworks and cultural norms that influence human behavior.” Humanity needs to move away from consuming in excess and shift to consuming only that which is necessary to exist.

The post Op-Ed: Moving to a Circular Economy Model is Vital for the Planet appeared first on Earth.Org.

To ‘flatten the curve’ is a term that has become popular with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It refers to slowing the rate of infection and is being done in a variety of ways around the world, from mandatory lockdowns to restricting travel, with varying levels of success. While governments around the world scramble to contain the virus, there is a more menacing curve that humanity has been unable to flatten and that will threaten humanity long after the virus dissipates – the carbon curve.

—

The SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 has brought the mightiest of nations to their knees. That the majority of those infected show no symptoms while still able to spread the virus adds to the difficulty in controlling it. At the time of going to press, nearly 5 million people have been infected, with over 300 000 deaths.

The more dangerous curve that humanity has been unable to flatten is that of carbon. Known as the Keeling Curve, it records the global atmospheric carbon dioxide. At the turn of the Industrial Revolution in 1760, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide was at 275 parts per million (ppm). Today, it is at around 417 ppm. Calculated from end-2017, the atmosphere can absorb no more than 1 170 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon if we are to keep global average temperature rise below 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures. However, since around 42 Gt of CO2 is emitted globally, this budget will be exhausted in around 26 years. 

You might also like: World Cannot Return to ‘Business As Usual’ Post-COVID-19- City Leaders

Unlike the virus, we already have the tools and the knowledge to mitigate the climate crisis and flatten this carbon curve; the problem lies with governments not committing to plans that will do so. We know within a reasonable range of accuracy the future course of the crisis as we knew in the early 1980s (as per fossil fuel research) what the level of atmospheric carbon would be today. The fact that we have known for a considerable amount of time the major public health challenges stemming from increased temperatures and unpredictable extreme weather shows a lack of accountability from governments. 

Increased air pollution damages hearts and lungs while patients with severe COVID-19 are twice as likely to have had pre-existing respiratory illnesses and three times as likely to have had cardiovascular problems. 

Preliminary studies show a potential link between dirty air and pandemic hotspots; a link between the SARS pandemic of 2003 and dirty air has already been established. While studies conducted for the COVID-19 pandemic in a similar vein have yet to be peer-reviewed or approved, it gives us a good idea as to how best to understand and control the spread of the pandemic. A US study found that air pollution is linked to higher COVID-19 death rates across the nation. Another, looking at European data, concluded that high levels of pollution may be ‘one of the most important contributors’ to coronavirus deaths, while a third hinted at the link in England. In Italy, coronavirus was detected in air pollution samples, although it remains unknown if the virus remains viable on pollution particles. Finally, in China, a study of 324 cities found that places with slightly higher levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution (10 micrograms per cubic metre) in the five years before the pandemic had 22% more COVID-19 cases, while higher levels of small particle pollution saw a 15% rise. 

Air pollution causes up to 7 million premature deaths globally annually. Thanks to lockdown measures as a result of the pandemic, scientists say that a 25% drop in city air pollution may have prevented up to 36 000 early deaths over a month. In Europe, 11 000 deaths were calculated to have been avoided in the month up to April 25 as a result of cleaner air.

These findings make it all the more concerning that the Trump administration is weakening rules which compel auto companies to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. 

There is some early evidence to suggest that the pandemic can be attributed to humans destroying natural habitats, bringing microbes and pathogens in close contact with humans. It is, therefore, only logical to address the severe economic fallout of the pandemic through addressing the climate crisis and strengthening public health infrastructure to build resilience.

The loss of life and health is the most immediate effect of the pandemic, followed by the loss of livelihoods as a result of the devastation to the economy. Economists the world over are devising strategies as to the best way to repair the damage as quickly as possible. These range from monetary packages, such as the multi trillion-dollar stimulus package in the US to the possible implementation of a universal basic income in Spain. Globally, the economic stimulus packages represent more than 5% of the global GDP, with Japan investing close to 21% of its GDP and the USA 11%.

In comparison, if we pursue all of the low-cost abatement opportunities currently available, the total global cost of mitigating the climate crisis would be 200-300 billion euros per year by 2030- less than 1% of the forecasted global GDP in 2030. 

The pandemic could become the opportunity to initiate long-term reforms in our economic system, divesting from fossil fuels and moving towards achieving the goals of the Paris climate agreement that currently, only a handful of countries are achieving. In fact, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) released a report showing that renewable energy could power economic growth post COVID-19 by spurring global GDP gains of almost US$100 trillion between now and 2050. 

Arundhati Roy, the acclaimed writer, said in her recent Financial Times article that the current pandemic represents a portal. It provides humanity with an opportunity to transit through to something radically different and use the tragedy of the COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity to build a resilient future. To flatten the carbon curve is one such way to do this and mitigate the effects of future pandemics. 

The post Op-Ed: The World Needs to Flatten the Carbon Curve Post COVID-19 appeared first on Earth.Org.