By Victoria Corless View the original article here
A flash heating technique breaks down plastic waste and converts it to pure hydrogen and graphene with significantly less emissions and at a low cost.
As the impacts of the ongoing climate crisis and environmental challenges like pollution and ecosystem degradation become increasingly evident, the need for innovative solutions that address these complex issues on multiple fronts grows more urgent.
In a recent study published in Advanced Materials, researchers led by Boris Yakobson and James Tour from the Department of Materials Science and NanoEngineering at Rice University in the US are doing just this with a new technology that converts waste plastic into clean hydrogen gas and high-purity graphene without any carbon dioxide (CO2).
“What if we turned waste plastic into something much more valuable than recycled plastic while at the same time capturing the hydrogen that is locked inside?” asked Kevin Wyss, a chemist at SLB (formerly known as Schlumberger) who completed the project as part of his Ph.D. thesis.
This idea led to a transformative solution that not only mitigates environmental harm but also harnesses untapped value from problematic waste materials.
The desire for hydrogen
Hydrogen stands out as a clean and attractive fuel source due to its ability to yield substantial energy per unit weight while generating water as its sole byproduct.
“This is what makes it sustainable or ‘green’ compared to current gas, coal, or oil fuels, which emit lots of CO2,” said Wyss. “And unlike batteries or renewable power sources, hydrogen can be stored and re-fueled quickly without waiting hours to charge. For this reason, many automobile manufacturers are thinking about transitioning to hydrogen fuel.”
In 2021, the global consumption of hydrogen reached a staggering 94 million tonnes, and demand is projected to surge in the coming decade. However, the dilemma lies in the fact that, despite hydrogen’s reputation as a green fuel, the dominant method of hydrogen production still relies on fossil fuels through a process called steam-methane reforming, which is not only energy intensive, but results in CO2 emissions as a byproduct. “In fact, for every ton of hydrogen made industrially right now, 10-12 tons of CO2 are produced,” said Wyss.
An emerging alternative is to produce hydrogen gas through a process known as electrolysis, where water is split into its constituent elements using electricity. While the electricity source can be renewable, such as solar, wind, or geothermal energy, ensuring this remains a challenge. These processes also require additional materials, such as catalysts, and cost around $3-5 USD per kg of hydrogen, making it difficult to compete with the reforming process at ~$2 USD per kg.
“You can see why we need methods to produce hydrogen in an efficient and low-cost method that does not produce large amounts of CO2,” said Wyss.
The problem with plastics and hydrogen fuels
Wyss explained that the challenges posed by plastic waste pollution and low-carbon hydrogen production are problems that scientists have successfully addressed decades ago.
“In the case of plastic waste pollution, we know how to recycle plastics — the problem lies in the fact that recycling is so expensive, with the high costs of manually separating plastic types, washing the waste, and then re-melting the polymers,” he said. “As a result, recycled plastics often cost more than new plastics, so there is not an economic incentive to recycle and thus, pollution is still a problem decades later.
“In the case of hydrogen production, we know how to make hydrogen fuel without producing CO2, but is two to three times more expensive than methods that produce hydrogen with lots of CO2.”
Hence, the real challenge lies not in solving these problems, but rather finding ways to reduce the cost of their solutions — a challenge Wyss and his colleagues are tackling head on.
Flash Joule heating breaks down plastics
Their approach uses flash Joule heating, a cutting-edge technique for rapidly heating materials to extremely high temperatures. To achieve this, an electric current is run through a material that has electrical resistance, which swiftly converts the electricity into heat, achieving temperatures of thousands of Kelvins in mere seconds.
“We discharge current through the sample of plastic, with a small amount of added ash to make it conductive, and achieve temperatures up to 2,500°C within a tenth of a second, before the sample cools back down within a few seconds,” said Wyss. “This rapid heating reorganizes the chemical bonds in the plastic — the carbon atoms in the plastic convert to the [carbon-carbon] bonds of graphene, and the hydrogen atoms convert to H2 [gas].”
“This process upcycles the waste plastics with high efficiency using no catalyst or other solvents,” he continued. “Once our plastics have undergone the reaction, we also get pure, valuable graphene, used for strengthening cars, cement, or even making flexible electronics and touchscreens, and which currently has a value of $60,000-$200,000 per ton.”
Wyss says that his lab at Rice University has been working on flash Joule heating for the past five years, but their main focus was previously on making graphene from plastics. But he says that, after some time, they realized that many plastic polymers also contain atomic hydrogen. “If we end up with graphene, which is 100% pure carbon, where is all the atomic hydrogen locked in the plastic going?” he asked.
They therefore set about trapping and studying the volatile gases emitted during their flash Joule heating process, and to their surprise discovered they were liberating almost 93% of the atomic hydrogen and were able to recover up to 64% of it as pure hydrogen — yields that are comparable to current industrial methods that emit five to six times more CO2.
“Our method produces 84% less CO2 and greenhouse gases per ton of hydrogen produced, compared to the current popular industrial method of steam methane reforming, […] and uses less energy than current ‘green’ hydrogen production methods, such as electrolysis,” Wyss said.
Making an EarthShot
This aligns with the US Department of Energy’s EarthShot Initiative, modeled after the historic “Moonshot Challenge”, which aimed to put a man on the moon in the 1960s. Similarly, the EarthShot initiative seeks to mobilize resources and creativity to achieve ambitious environmental goals.
These goals are intended to be scalable, achievable, and designed to tackle critical issues related to climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and other environmental crises. “The climate crisis calls for a different kind of moonshot,” they wrote on the website. “Energy Earthshots [such as the Hydrogen Shot] will accelerate breakthroughs of more abundant, affordable, and reliable clean energy solutions within the decade.”
The goal is to make 1kg of clean hydrogen cost $1 USD within the next decade, where clean hydrogen is defined as any that is produced with less then 4 kg of CO2 as a byproduct.
“Our research has shown that we can do that now, if the [flash Joule heating] process is scaled up, converting waste plastics into clean hydrogen and graphene,” said Wyss. “Currently, 95% of hydrogen produced globally results in 10-12 kg of CO2 being produced as a byproduct. Our process produces as little as 1.8 kg of CO2 per kg of hydrogen.”
Before this can happen, Wyss acknowledges that scale-up is still an issue. As hydrogen is a flammable gas, its safe capture and purification requires some careful planning and engineering. But Wyss is hopeful it can be done.
“A company named Universal Matter was started three years ago to scale-up the flash Joule heating process to make graphene,” Wyss said. “In that short time, [they have] scaled from gram-per-day levels to ton-per-day graphene production. So, we are very optimistic that this hydrogen production method can be similarly scaled successfully as the core principles are identical.”
Reference: Boris I. Yakobson, James M. Tour, et al., Synthesis of Clean Hydrogen Gas from Waste Plastic at Zero Net Cost, Advanced Materials (2023). DOI: 10.1002/adma.202306763
The United States is projected to generate 220 million tons of plastic waste in 2024, a 7.11% increase from 2021. Over a third of this waste is expected to be mishandled, contributing significantly to global plastic pollution. With only 19.8% of PET, HDPE, and PP plastics being recycled, the remainder often ends up in landfills, oceans, or incinerators.
The theoretical Plastic Overshoot Day for 2024 is set for this week, September 5, marking when plastic waste production surpasses the planet’s management capacity. A study by EA Earth Action identifies the top offenders in per capita waste generation:
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
The concept of converting plastic waste into hydrogen fuel offers a potential solution to both waste management and energy challenges. This process involves:
Collection
Sorting
Shredding
Pyrolysis
Steam reforming
Each step contributes to a cleaner planet while producing a valuable resource. Hydrogen fuel, a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels, could aid in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensure that plastic waste is put to purposeful use.
Implementing such a system would require carefully designed infrastructure, stringent regulations, and public cooperation. While challenging, the impact on the environment, human health, and biodiversity warrants such an endeavor. Given that 94% of Americans are inclined to recycle plastics and limit single-use plastic, there is potential for such transformative systems to take root.1
Rice University Breakthrough
Researchers at Rice University have pioneered a easy to scale-up method to convert mixed plastic waste into high-yield hydrogen gas and graphene through rapid flash Joule heating. This breakthrough not only generates clean hydrogen but also creates valuable graphene.
Summary of How it Works and Benefits of Their Process:
Flash Joule heating is a process used to convert plastic waste into hydrogen gas and graphene.
The method rapidly heats plastic waste to high temperatures, causing hydrogen to vaporize and leaving behind graphene.
This process is scalable, low in complexity, and environmentally friendly.
The production of graphene helps offset the costs of hydrogen production, making it economically viable.
Flash Joule heating can produce high-value nanomaterials efficiently and at a low cost.
The process results in reduced carbon emissions compared to traditional methods.
It can synthesize various graphitic materials, such as holey and wrinkled graphene, which have increased surface areas for applications in energy storage and water purification.
The method demonstrates high yields of hydrogen gas from common consumer waste plastics.
Life-cycle assessments show this method releases less CO2 than most current hydrogen production methods.
The approach supports sustainable energy transitions and addresses plastic waste effectively.
Nanyang Technological University Innovation
NTU in Singapore has developed an energy-efficient method using light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and a commercially available vanadium catalyst. This process operates at room temperature, drastically reducing the energy footprint compared to traditional heat-driven recycling methods.3
Combining these cutting-edge technologies into a unified system could yield significant environmental and economic benefits. By deploying LED-based pyrolysis followed by advanced steam reforming techniques, the process efficiency can be maximized while minimizing greenhouse gas emissions.
“Integrating these technologies into a circular economy framework, where waste is treated as a resource rather than a disposal problem, will also drive market acceptance and investment.”
This approach reduces the plastic burden on landfills and oceans, and addresses energy security issues by providing an alternative, sustainable fuel source.
Environmental and Economic Impact
Upcycling plastic waste into hydrogen fuel offers significant environmental and economic benefits. By diverting plastic waste from landfills and oceans, this process can mitigate:
Soil contamination
Leachate production
Marine pollution
The reduction in microplastics entering the food chain would have positive implications for both marine life and human health.
Economic Benefits
Creating and operating hydrogen production facilities from plastic waste would generate new jobs across various sectors, from engineering to facility management. The demand for specialized skills in pyrolysis, steam reforming, and hydrogen purification would foster new educational and vocational opportunities.
The shift to hydrogen fuel derived from plastic waste can offer a competitive edge in the face of increasing regulatory pressures to reduce carbon footprints and fluctuating fossil fuel prices. Advancements in technology promise to reduce the cost and energy requirements of hydrogen production, enhancing the feasibility and affordability of scaling up these processes.
In Summary, converting plastic waste into hydrogen and graphene offers a multitude of environmental benefits. This innovative process drastically reduces the amount of plastic ending up in landfills and oceans, where it can leach harmful substances into the ground and marine ecosystems.
By transforming plastic waste, not only is pollution minimized, but valuable graphene is produced, which can be used across various industries, from electronics to materials science. Furthermore, the hydrogen generated serves as a clean energy source, as it emits only water when used as fuel, contributing to a sustainable energy future. This water emission is so clean that some consider it drinkable, showcasing the immense potential of this technology to support environmental and energy goals.
Exploring the full potential of upcycling plastic waste into hydrogen fuel allows the United States to address both environmental sustainability and economic viability. With strategic investments, supportive regulations, and public engagement, this approach can mitigate plastic pollution, foster a circular economy, and position the nation on a sustainable path towards energy transition and environmental stewardship.
Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv. 2017;3(7):e1700782.
Wyss B, Luong DX, Tour JM. Recycling plastic waste into graphene and clean hydrogen. Carbon Energy. 2021;3(3):475-485.
Salehzadeh Einabad M, Dehghani H, Nagarajan D, et al. Light-driven plastic waste valorisation to hydrogen fuel and carbon nanomaterials. Nat Catal. 2022;5:706-716.
Written By: Namrata Sengupta View the original article here
Getty
The global surge in electronic waste (e-waste) poses a critical environmental and health challenge. In fact, according to the UN’s recent Global E-Waste Monitor Report, “The world’s generation of electronic waste is rising five times faster than documented e-waste recycling.”
The report estimates that in “only 12 years, the amount of e-waste generated per year worldwide almost doubled, to 62 billion kilograms in 2022. It is projected to increase to 120 billion kilograms in 2030.”Most of the e-waste ends up in landfills, as currently, only 22.3% of e-waste is collected and recycled. The problem here is that e-waste is nonbiodegradable. It also poses a significant health hazard and pollutes land, water and air.
The primary factors behind e-waste growth are the ever-expanding global data sphere, rapidly evolving technology, shorter device refresh cycles, increased appetite for electronic devices and insufficient recycling of e-waste.
Businesses, in their bid to safeguard data privacy, also contribute significantly to the e-waste crisis by employing traditional physical device-destruction methods like shredding, degaussing or burning to protect data when retiring or disposing of IT assets.
Many of these devices could have been reused after repair and refurbishing. If we talk about e-waste generated due to the physical destruction of potentially usable drives, the numbers are astonishing.
Device reuse will be an important factor in mitigating the hazardous effects of e-waste on the environment and human health.
Device reuse is the practice of prolonging the life of IT devices by refurbishing and repairing them for reuse rather than disposing of them physically. It plays a major role in reducing the generation of e-waste and its impact on the environment.
Organizations should practice secure media sanitization over device destruction to promote device reuse. Global bodies like NIST with their Special Publication 800-88 and the IEEE with Standard for Sanitizing Storage have stated that media sanitization techniques like overwriting, cryptographic erasure, block erasure, etc., are sufficient for permanent data removal beyond the scope of recovery, eliminating the need for physical destruction. Erased devices can be reused without the fear of compromising data confidentiality.
There are several ways that device reuse addresses the e-waste crisis. Here are a few to consider:
• Reduction Of E-Waste In Landfills: Repairing and refurbishing increases the life span of IT devices, and they can be used for longer durations. This helps prevent operational devices from ending up in landfills and stops the leaching of hazardous material into soil and water resources.
• Reduction Of Dependency On Mining: When IT devices are used for longer, they reduce the dependency on mining for new raw materials. It helps reduce the ecological impact of mining, like deforestation, loss of natural habitat and environmental degradation.
• Energy Conservation And Reduction In Emission: A significant portion of the energy consumed by a laptop in its entire life cycle is used during the manufacturing process. Reusing devices significantly cut down on energy consumption and carbon emissions during manufacturing and transportation. It thereby reduces the carbon footprint of an organization and helps diminish the effects of e-waste.
• Promotes A Circular Economy: Reuse is a crucial component of a circular economy. It supports circularity by keeping devices and materials in use for longer durations, creating a sustainable business model that prioritizes refurbishment and recycling over physical destruction.
Ways To Implement Effective Device Reuse Strategies
As e-waste reaches alarming levels, the need for sustainable practices is more urgent than ever. Merely destroying devices worsens the crisis, endangering both the environment and human health. Embracing device reuse not only mitigates the adverse effects of e-waste but also fosters a circular economy, advocating sustainability and mindful consumption.
Implementing an effective device reuse strategy requires careful consideration. Based on the considerations above, organizations should adopt a holistic approach to ensure their strategies are in line with their organizational sustainability goals and that their device reuse practices can be easily integrated with their ongoing operations.
Here are a few ways that businesses can implement device reuse within their organization:
1. Create a device reuse policy. An organizational device reuse policy should establish clear parameters for selecting IT assets that can be reused. This policy should consider parameters like devices’ computing power, feasibility of repurposing, cost of repair, upgrades required, device refresh cycles, etc.
2. Perform data erasure. Removing sensitive data from the devices before they are reused is a must to ensure data confidentiality and comply with data privacy laws. Use a certified data wiping tool to ensure permanent data removal and also generate proof of destruction for audit purposes.
3. Repair or refurbish. Perform hardware diagnostics to get a real-time picture of the device’s health. Repair or replace the parts that are faulty and reuse the device to its fullest extent.
4. Repurpose devices. Older devices should be repurposed for different roles. For example, a laptop previously used by the R&D team for high computing tasks can be reassigned to the admin department, where only basic computing power is needed.
5. Recycle faulty parts. Computer components that have stopped working or are faulty should be responsibly recycled to ensure that they don’t end up in landfills. Recycling conserves resources and reduces the environmental impact of mining for new raw materials, reducing Scope 3 emissions and thereby promoting sustainability.
The time has come to prioritize reuse over destruction and proactively tackle the e-waste challenge. With these best practices, organizations can take the necessary proactive steps to help effectively address the e-waste crisis.
Published By: Geneva Environment Network View the original article here
About E-Waste
E-waste, electronic waste, e-scrap and end-of-life electronics are terms often used to describe used electronics that are nearing the end of their useful life, and are discarded, donated or given to a recycler. The UN defines e-waste as any discarded products with a battery or plug, and features toxic and hazardous substances such as mercury, that can pose severe risk to human and environmental health.
According to the UN, in 2021 each person on the planet will produce on average 7.6 kg of e-waste, meaning that a massive 57.4 million tons will be generated worldwide. Only 17.4% of this electronic waste, containing a mixture of harmful substances and precious materials, will be recorded as being properly collected, treated and recycled. Many initiatives are undertaken to tackle this growing concern, but none of them can be fully effective without the active role and correct education of consumers.
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) also indicates that e-waste is one of the largest and most complex waste streams in the world. According to the Global E-waste Monitor 2020, the world generated 53.6 Mt of e-waste in 2019, only 9.3 Mt (17%) of which was recorded as being collected and recycled. The fourth version of the Global E-waste Monitor 2024 shows an increasing trend in the generation of e-waste as by 2022, the world generated 62 billion kg of e-waste, (7.8 kg per capita). Only 22.3 percent (13.8 billion kg) of the e-waste generated was documented as properly collected and recycled.
E-waste contains valuable materials, as well as hazardous toxins, which make the efficient material recovery and safe recycling of e-waste extremely important for economic value as well as environmental and human health. The discrepancy in the amount of e-waste produced and the amount of e-waste that is properly recycled reflects an urgent need for all stakeholders including the youth to address this issue.
Tne United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) also estimated in a 2015 report “Waste Crimes, Waste Risks: Gaps and Challenges in the Waste Sector” that 60-90 per cent of the world’s electronic waste, worth nearly USD 19 billion, is illegally traded or dumped each year.
Environmental Risks
E-waste can be toxic, is not biodegradable and accumulates in the environment, in the soil, air, water and living things. For example, open-air burning and acid baths being used to recover valuable materials from electronic components release toxic materials leaching into the environment. These practices can also expose workers to high levels of contaminants such as lead, mercury, beryllium, thallium, cadmium and arsenic, and also brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and polychlorinated biphenyls, which can lead to irreversible health effects, including cancers, miscarriages, neurological damage and diminished IQs.
A 2019 joint report “A New Circular Vision for Electronics – Time for a Global Reboot” calls for a new vision for e-waste based on the circular economy concept, whereby a regenerative system can minimize waste and energy leakage. The report supports the work of the E-waste Coalition, which includes the ILO, ITU, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, UNU and Secretariats of the Basel and Stockholm Conventions.
According to the report, the improper handling of e-waste is resulting in a significant loss of scarce and valuable raw materials, including such precious metals as neodymium (vital for magnets in motors), indium (used in flat panel TVs) and cobalt (for batteries). Almost no rare earth minerals are extracted from informal recycling; these are polluting to mine. Yet metals in e-waste are difficult to extract; for example, total recovery rates for cobalt are only 30% (despite technology existing that could recycle 95%). The metal is, however, in great demand for laptop, smartphone and electric car batteries. Recycled metals are also two to 10 times more energy efficient than metals smelted from virgin ore. Furthermore, mining discarded electronics produces 80% less emissions of carbon dioxide per unit of gold compared with mining it from the ground.
In 2015, the extraction of raw materials accounted for 7% of the world’s energy consumption. This means that moving towards the use of more secondary raw materials in electronic goods could help considerably in reaching the targets set out in the Paris Agreement on climate change.
Climate Change
It is also worth considering the effects electronic goods have on climate change. Every device ever produced has a carbon footprint and is contributing to human-made global warming. Manufacture a tonne of laptops and potentially 10 tonnes of CO2 are emitted. When the carbon dioxide released over a device’s lifetime is considered, it predominantly occurs during production, before consumers buy a product. This makes lower carbon processes and inputs at the manufacturing stage (such as use recycled raw materials) and product lifetime key determinants of overall environmental impact.
Lack of Recycling
Recycling rates globally are low. Even in the EU, which leads the world in e-waste recycling, just 35% of e-waste is officially reported as properly collected and recycled. Globally, the average is 20%; the remaining 80% is undocumented, with much ending up buried under the ground for centuries as landfill. E-waste is not biodegradable. The lack of recycling weighs heavily on the global electronic industry and as devices become more numerous, smaller and more complex, the issue escalates. Currently, recycling some types of e-waste and recovering materials and metals is an expensive process. The remaining mass of e-waste – mainly plastics laced with metals and chemicals – poses a more intractable problem.
Circular Approach for Electronics
A new vision for the production and consumption of electronic and electrical goods is needed. It is easy for e-waste to be framed as a post-consumer problem, but the issue encompasses the lifecycle of the devices everyone uses. Designers, manufacturers, investors, traders, miners, raw material producers, consumers, policy-makers and others have a crucial role to play in reducing waste, retaining value within the system, extending the economic and physical life of an item, as well as its ability to be repaired, recycled and reused.
Changes in technology such as cloud computing and the internet of things (IoT) could hold the potential to “dematerialize” the electronics industry. The rise of service business models and better product tracking and takeback could lead to global circular value chains. Material efficiency, recycling infrastructure and scaling up the volume and quality of recycled materials to meet the needs of electronics supply chains will all be essential. If the sector is supported with the right policy mix and managed in the right way, it could also lead to the creation of millions of decent jobs worldwide.
International E-Waste Day
Each year, International E-Waste Day is held on 14 October, an opportunity to reflect on the impacts of e-waste and the necessary actions to enhance circularity for e-products. International E-Waste Day was developed in 2018 by the WEEE Forum to raise the public profile of waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling and encourage consumers to recycle. Learn more about the activities for each edition below:
International E-Waste Day 2023
International E-Waste Day 2022
International E-Waste Day 2021
Role of Geneva
Organizations are listed in alphabetical order
Basel Convention
The overarching objective of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal is to protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects of hazardous wastes. E-waste is categorized as hazardous waste due to the presence of toxic materials such as mercury, lead and brominated flame retardants are considered as hazardous waste according to the Basel Convention. In addition, transboundary movements of hazardous and other wastes, including e-waste ending up in dumps, are deemed to be illegal traffic under the Basel Convention, Article 9.
As part of the Convention, the Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE) was launched at the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention, on 23-27 June 2008. PACE is a multi-stakeholder partnership for governments, industry leaders, non-governmental organizations and academia to tackle the environmentally sound management, refurbishment, recycling and disposal of used and end-of-life computing equipment, taking into account social responsibility and the concept of sustainable development, and promoting the sharing of information on life cycle thinking.
Furthermore, the Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI) was launched in 2002 on the environmentally sound management of end-of-life mobile telephones. Under the MPPI five technical guidelines (awareness raising – design considerations, collection of used and end-of-life mobile phones, transboundary movement of collected mobile phones, refurbishment of used mobile phones, and material recovery/recycling of end-of-life mobile phones) were developed.
Under the Basel Convention, Parties and other stakeholders have also been working on a set of global policies on specific challenges related to the trade of WEEE and used equipment through the technical guidelines on transboundary movements of electrical and electronic waste and used electrical and electronic equipment, in particular regarding the distinction between waste and non waste, which was adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention, on an interim basis, in 2019. The guidelines focus on clarifying aspects related to transboundary movements of e-waste and used equipment that may or may not be waste.
E-Waste Coalition
In addition, on 21 March 2018 at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum, seven United Nations entities signed a Letter of Intent paving the way for greater collaboration in the area of e-waste management in developing a UN E-Waste Coalition. Its aims include a commitment by the signatories to increase collaboration, building partnership and supporting Member States to address the global WEEE challenge. Further to this, at the 2019 WSIS Forum, three new UN entities signed the Letter of Intent.
The coalition brings together the following organizations, the majority based in Geneva:
ILO
ITC
ITU
UNEP
UNU
United Nations Human Settlement (UN Habitat)
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
World Health Organization (WHO)
Secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions
The coalition is supported by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the World Economic Forum, and was coordinated, until 31 October 2020, by the Secretariat of the UN Environment Management Group (UNEMG). UNEP is now hosting the temporary secretariat of the coalition.
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
Founded in 1906, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is the world’s leading organization for the preparation and publication of International Standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies, known collectively as “electrotechnology.”
IEC provides a platform to companies, industries and governments for meeting, discussing and developing the International Standards they require. All IEC International Standards are fully consensus-based and represent the needs of key stakeholders of every nation participating in IEC work.
International Labour Organization (ILO)
The only tripartite U.N. agency, since 1919 the International Labour Organization (ILO) brings together governments, employers and workers of 187 member States, to set labour standards, develop policies and devise programmes promoting decent work for all women and men. More than 1.2 billion jobs depend on a stable environment and ecosystems. ILO’s Green Initiative aims to scale up the its knowledge, policy response and capacity to manage a just transition toward greener economies and a sustainable future.
In addition, the Green Jobs Programme signals ILO’s commitment to act on climate change and to promote resource efficient and low-carbon societies. Decent work is a cornerstone for effective policies to green economies for achieving sustainable development. This implies that efforts to reduce adverse environmental impact must lead to socially just outcomes with employment opportunities for all.
International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
Founded in 1865 to facilitate international connectivity in communications networks, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is the United Nations specialized agency for information and communication technologies – ICTs. ITU’s Development Bureau (ITU-D) has been given a mandate to “assist developing countries in undertaking proper assessment of the size of e-waste and in initiating pilot projects to achieve environmentally sound management of e-waste through e-waste collection, dismantling, refurbishing and recycling.” (WTDC Resolution 66). To this end ITU-D is developing e-waste guidelines to help countries identify best policies. It is also carrying out an electronic waste management project, and recently launched a new partnership to help improve global e-waste statistics.
ITU, in cooperation with the United Nations University (UNU), have joined forces to form the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership (GESP). Its main objectives are to improve and collect worldwide statistics on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). The GESP also raises visibility on the importance of compiling WEEE statistics and delivers capacity building workshops using an internationally recognized, harmonized measurement framework. The initiative informs policy makers, industries, academia, media and the general public by enhancing the understanding and interpretation of global WEEE data and its relation to the SDGs.
The publication of the Global and Regional E-Waste Monitors are key achievements of the GESP which highlight global growth in the generation of WEEE. These reports also introduce the wider public to the global WEEE challenge and include national analysis on WEEE.
International Trade Centre (ITC)
The transition to a digital world is offering unprecedented opportunities for innovation, entrepreneurship and growth, and how the global consumption of electrical and electronic equipment is generating extraordinary amounts of e-waste. Large dumps sites around the world have been created due to the e-waste generated.
One of the key challenges for the more environmentally sound management of e-waste in developing countries is linking the informal and formal e-waste processors and providing coaching opportunities to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
SMEs and industry associations can play a key role in unlocking collaboration within values chains to ensure more circular and sustainable approaches. The International Trade Centre (ITC), in collaboration with other signatories of the E-Waste Coalition will use their expertise to help solve these pressing issues.
The ITC has a growing focus on environmental sustainability and social inclusion as important elements for SME competitiveness and for fostering Good Trade. ITC will contribute with these experiences to the important work of the e-waste coalition.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
UNEP has provided several reports and guidance manuals on dealing with e-waste. The Chemicals and Health Branch is leading UNEP’s activities on chemicals and waste and is the main catalytic force in the UN system for concerted global action on the environmentally sound management of chemicals and waste.
World Health Organization (WHO)
A WHO report on e-waste and child health Children and Digital Dumpsites, released in June 2021, calls for urgent effective and binding action to protect the millions of children, adolescents and expectant mothers worldwide whose health is jeopardized by the informal processing of discarded electrical or electronic devices.
As many as 12.9 million women are working in the informal waste sector, which potentially exposes them to toxic e-waste and puts them and their unborn children at risk.
Meanwhile more than 18 million children and adolescents, some as young as 5 years of age, are actively engaged in the informal industrial sector, of which waste processing is a sub-sector. Children are often engaged by parents or caregivers in e-waste recycling because their small hands are more dexterous than those of adults. Other children live, go to school and play near e-waste recycling centers where high levels of toxic chemicals, mostly lead and mercury, can damage their intellectual abilities
Children exposed to e-waste are particularly vulnerable to the toxic chemicals they contain due to their smaller size, less developed organs and rapid rate of growth and development. They absorb more pollutants relative to their size and are less able to metabolize or eradicate toxic substances from their bodies.
Switzerland and the Canton of Geneva
Retailers, manufacturers and importers are obliged to accept used items of electrical and electronic equipment, in which they deal, free of charge. This obligation also applies if the customer does not purchase a new device or appliance. Consumers, in turn, are obliged to return equipment. The disposal of used equipment through municipal solid waste or bulk waste collections is prohibited. These regulations are contained in the Ordinance on the Return, Taking Back and Disposal of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (ORDEE).
Specialized disposal companies dismantle the electrical and electronic equipment partly manually and then process it mechanically. Problematic components (mercury switches, PCB capacitators, batteries) are dismantled or separated and undergo special disposal. The remaining fragments are separated. Fractions that can undergo material recycling are produced in this way: plastics, iron, aluminium and tin, zinc, nickel and precious metal alloys.
The dismantling and separation of equipment into fractions is mainly carried out in Switzerland. The other processing stages are often carried out abroad because non-ferrous metals processing systems, in particular, are not available in Switzerland.
In accordance with the Ordinance on Movements of Waste (OMW), electrical and electronic equipment is classified as “other controlled waste”. Waste disposal companies in Switzerland that accept such equipment require the authorization of the canton in which the equipment is located. The export and import of such waste requires the authorization of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). Export to states that are not members of the OECD or EU is prohibited.
In the Canton of Geneva, electronic waste should also be sorted separately by consumers and businesses, in addition to various actors from Recycleurs de Genève.
Brands are adopting a circular economy to promote sustainability and economic benefits, thus meeting consumer demand. Here, we pick out the top 10 of 2023
More brands have been embracing the concept of a circular economy over the past few years as a way of promoting sustainable development and reducing the impact of human activity on the environment.
A circular economy is an economic model that emphasises the efficient use and reuse of resources, products and materials in order to minimise waste and pollution. By prioritising circular economies, brands are able to capitalise on economic benefits, while also meeting the ever-rising demand for sustainable strategists from consumers.
That’s why, we’ve rounded up our top 10 brands embracing the circular economy in 2023.
Patagonia has been at the forefront of the circular economy movement since first making a sustainability commitment in 1986. The apparel brand aims to reduce its environmental impact through a number of different initiatives, including The Worn Wear programme, which encourages customers to repair, reuse, and recycle their garments. The programme offers a repair service that addresses any damages to the clothing, as well as a trade-in option where customers are provided with store credits for used Patagonia clothing. Through this initiative, Patagonia has successfully prolonged the lifespan of its products while also minimising waste.
The brand also introduced a line of clothing that incorporates recycled materials and uses organic cotton and other sustainable fibres. By adopting sustainable materials, Patagonia is making strides to reduce the environmental impact of its products and promote a circular economy.
Swedish home-retail conglomerate IKEA has made strides towards a circular economy and sustainability initiatives with three main commitments: The take-back programme, circular services and investing in sustainable materials.
Firstly, the Take-Back programme allows IKEA customers to return their furniture to be either repurposed or recycled, helping to promote a circular economy. The company also allows customers to rent items or buy refurbished furniture to promote the reuse of products and encourage customers to practise sustainable shopping habits. Finally, many products are made from FSC-certified wood and recycled plastic to reduce the company’s impact.
Unilever, a multinational consumer goods corporation, has prioritised sustainability and circular economy goals by undertaking various measures to advance its objectives. For example, all products use sustainable ingredients, such as ethically-sourced palm oil, to mitigate their environmental impact. The company has also pledged to reduce packaging waste by 2025 by 2025, while also establishing a recycling programme to increase education and enhance recycling rates.
Accenture is a company that utilises advanced technologies and partners with leading organisations like Mastercard, Amazon Web Services, Everledger, and Mercy Corps to advance its circular supply chain capability. The aim of this capability is to enhance financial inclusion, promote sustainable practices, and empower consumers. With this approach, Accenture ensures that its clients achieve their corporate sustainability goals through better resource planning and utilisation.
Fashion giant H&M has made a significant commitment to its ESG initiatives, such as reducing waste and promoting sustainable practices. One of these initiatives is its garment collection programme, which enables customers to return used clothing for recycling or repurposing. Additionally, H&M is dedicated to utilising sustainable materials like organic cotton and recycled polyester in its products, which has reduced the environmental impact of its products while promoting the circular economy.
Adidas is a prime example of how a big business can change and take responsibility for its role in the plastic problem and pledge to use its influence to make a positive impact. The sportswear giant launched the ‘Three Loop Strategy’ consisting of three interrelated initiatives. The first loop involves recycling plastic waste, the second involves designing shoes that can be remade and the third loop focuses on regeneration, where Adidas aims to use biodegradable materials that will disintegrate naturally into their surroundings.
Flooring company Interface has taken a strong stance towards sustainability and promoting a circular economy by initiating various measures to achieve its goal. One of their significant approaches is adopting a closed-loop manufacturing process, using recycled materials to make their carpet tiles. When tiles have reached the end of their life, they are collected and recycled into new products, reducing waste and fostering a circular economy.
HP has been incorporating circular practices into its operations for nearly two decades by collecting used ink cartridges. In recent years, the company has further intensified its recycling efforts, by launching the world’s first monitor and an entire PC made from ocean-bound plastics. The company’s overall goal is to become net-zero by 2040, with 100% renewable energy.
TrusTrace is on a mission to introduce transparency to both producers and consumers in the fashion industry, which accounts for 10% of humanity’s carbon emissions. With its cutting-edge digital platform, the company aims to raise awareness about individual responsibilities and promote best practices, having already attracted over 10,000 users. The company’s exceptional dedication to sustainability and circular economy has earned it the prestigious Solar Impulse label.
Mud Jean uses recycled denim to make new pairs of jeans, which customers can lease for just under €10 per month. This initiative allows customers to avoid buying jeans they will rarely wear, thus contributing to a closed-material loop. To participate in the Mud Jeans leasing programme, customers can send in an old pair of jeans and receive their first month of leasing for free. From there, customers can choose to continue their subscription and receive a new pair of Muds each month or end their subscription after the initial month.
By: Inogen Alliance View the original article here
Modern industry has long perpetuated a linear economy. This model relies on the continued extraction of new materials and ultimately leads to an accumulation of waste. A circular economy, on the other hand, strives to function in ways that reduce waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in circulation for longer.
Read on to learn more about the practices and principles of a circular economy, and its economic, environmental, and social benefits.
The 4 Rs That Underpin a Circular Economy
Before we examine the core principles of a circular economy, let’s first revisit the basics. It’s fair to say that most people are familiar with the concept of “reduce, reuse, recycle.” What is less commonly discussed – yet extremely important to developing a true circular economy – is the fourth R: recover.
Here is what each of these practices means when applied to business:
Reduce: Minimizing waste before it’s even created by engaging in design and production processes that prioritize lifespan and sustainability.
Reuse: Finding new ways to use products or materials, extending the functional lifespan of the item and enabling it to circulate within the economy for as long as possible.
Recycle: Breaking down products into their raw materials and manufacturing new items from them. While this is by far the most publicized, recycling is often seen as a last resort in the hierarchy of circular practices.
Recover: Reclaiming materials or energy from products that can no longer be reused or recycled. This can mean everything from composting organic materials to capturing energy from waste.
The 3 Core Principles of a Circular Economy
The following three principles are central to establishing a circular economy within your business.
Eliminating waste
This principle involves rethinking how resources are used at every stage of a product’s lifecycle, from design to disposal.
For businesses, this could mean:
Using recycled material in manufacturing rather than raw materials.
Designing products with modularity, allowing for easy repair or upgrade.
Choosing manufacturing processes that minimize offcuts and scrap.
Keeping materials in use
To break the cycle of the use-and-dispose economy, keeping materials in use as long as possible is crucial.
Here are examples of how you can apply this principle:
Developing take-back schemes or leasing models where products are returned to you after use, ensuring they are either reused, refurbished, or responsibly recycled.
Facilitating a secondary market for your products or materials, extending their lifecycle beyond initial use.
Regenerating natural systems
Engaging in the circular economy isn’t simply about reducing negative impacts on the environment – it focuses on using regenerative practices to restore natural systems and enhance biodiversity.
In practice, this may look like:
Investing in technologies or processes that restore soil health, clean water, and air quality through your business operations.
Partnering with organizations working towards reforestation or ocean clean-ups to offset the ecological footprint of your operations.
Circular Economy Benefits and Advantages
Embracing a circular economy presents many benefits that span environmental, economic, and social spheres.
Environmental benefits
Through engaging in the practices of reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover, your company can have a net-positive impact on the environment. In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, businesses can also contribute to better soil and water conditions by reducing waste across all product lifecycle touchpoints, such as material extraction, manufacturing and packaging.
In terms of regenerative efforts, businesses that proactively design campuses with restoration in mind can have a hand in expanding natural habitats, contributing to cleaner water sheds, and promoting soil health.
Economic benefits
Reducing material costs through reuse, recycling, and recovery can lead to significant financial savings. Additionally, circular economy models like product-as-a-service offer new revenue streams and financial incentives that challenge traditional business models.
Following the principles of a circular economy can also appeal to investors, who are continuing to prioritize sustainability. A recent report by Morgan Stanley found that “A majority of investors … believe that companies should address environmental and social issues.” These investors reported being motivated by the financial performance of sustainable investments and new climate science findings.
Social benefits
Circular economy initiatives often involve collaboration between businesses, local governments, and communities. These joint efforts help each party better understand the needs and challenges of the other, and can lead to stronger community relationships.
The principles of circular economy do not allow for planned obsolescence, meaning products are built to be more durable and long-lasting, offering consumers a break from having to replace important items every few years.
Implementing Circular Economy Principles
While organizational needs can vary greatly from industry to industry, there are some key steps that must be taken in order to effectively implement circular economy principles.
1. Conduct a thorough assessment
Begin by evaluating your current operations, supply chain, and products or services to identify areas where circular economy principles can be applied. This assessment will help you understand the potential impact and feasibility of implementing circular practices within your business.
2. Set clear goals and targets
Establish specific, measurable, and achievable goals for your circular economy initiatives. Whether it’s reducing waste, increasing resource efficiency, or designing products for reuse and recycling, having clear targets will enable you to track progress and adjust goals as needed as well as promote your progress to customers.
3. Collaborate with stakeholders
Engage with suppliers, customers, industry partners, and other stakeholders to gain a broader perspective of your organization’s impact. Building partnerships can help overcome challenges, access resources, and drive innovation in implementing circular economy practices.
Embrace the Circular Economy: Begin a New Cycle
The benefits of a circular economy are clear – and the need is urgent. As the human and financial toll of climate change continues to grow around the world, governments, businesses, and social institutions are collaborating to reduce impact and improve well-being. The circular economy model is a significant step toward these goals.
Google’s model showing ‘before and after’ components of its packages including paper-stay tape, silicon adhesive, and a tray made from pulp rather than polystyrene plastic. Source: Heather Clancy/GreenBiz
Google will eliminate plastic from its consumer electronics packaging six months ahead of its self-imposed 2025 deadline. Google made its “plastic-free” pledge in October 2020.
The search giant will publish a 70-page guide in June so that other companies can see how it was done, said David Bourne, lead sustainability strategist for Google, during a session last week at Circularity 24, a GreenBiz event.
The company’s Pixel 8 smartphone, launched in October, was the first product under the new approach.
“You might think it’s sort of strange to enable other companies, potentially to enable other competitors,” Bourne said. “But our point of view on sustainability is that it really should be a collaborative endeavor. Innovation should be shared in sustainability, because if we sincerely want to create a sustainable future, then just a handful of companies being more sustainable isn’t going to achieve that.”
Google is encouraging those who use the guide to offer feedback.
Making sure design changes don’t frustrate consumers
The idea for the guide originated with the Google team working on the heaviest of its consumer products, TVs. They can weigh up to 40 pounds, said Katy Bolan, Google’s lead for environmental sustainability.
Google doesn’t make televisions, so it worked with manufacturing partners to deliver the goal, she said.
A major issue was ensuring that design changes weren’t frustrating for consumers, that they met Google’s aesthetic requirements and that they could be disposed of within existing recycling systems, said Miguel Arevalo, packaging innovation lead at Google. “It’s a bad experience if you have to think about it,” he said.
Google’s key design considerations
The new packaging is predominantly paper- and fiber-based, so it can be recycled easily. It required Google engineers, designers and suppliers to rethink lamination and coatings, box assembly, enclosures and labels, among other factors.
The company’s biggest challenges were:
Assessing how the elimination of plastic shrinkwrap would affect the durability and reliability of packages.
Determining whether size or shapes needed adjustments to accommodate “drop dynamics,” or what happens when an item is dropped.
Selecting new coatings and inks that met Google’s branding requirements: At least 50 solutions were reviewed. Suppliers that weren’t transparent about their impacts were eliminated quickly.
New ways to seal and waterproof the box, and to make sure it stays closed.
The reliability of closure labels and how easy they are to remove.
Weighing the future implications of substitutions, particularly for chemicals that could inadvertently result in higher greenhouse gas emissions.
One way to justify the extra cost
New paper-based packaging is likely to be more expensive than plastic, since they aren’t produced at the same scale. “When you first achieve something, it will be the most expensive version,” said Bourne.
That increase can be easier to support when considered as part of the total cost or if the expense is likely to decrease over time, the Google executives said. “We also see this as an investment,” Bourne said. “We are looking at sustainability as an augmentation of the consumer experience.”
Plastic is a very useful material for getting our products to consumers safely and efficiently. It’s often the lowest carbon footprint option compared to other materials. However, plastic is ending up in our environment. This has to stop.
Global research has shown that without action, twice as much virgin plastic will be created and three times more plastic could flow into our oceans by 2040. The plastic we produce is our responsibility. It’s clear we must reduce the amount of virgin plastic we use and completely rethink our approach to packaging. We must also keep plastic in use for as long as possible in a circular loop system. That means we need much better systems to collect, process and repeatedly reuse it.
We’re working hard to make progress in our business, but we can’t turn the tide on plastic pollution alone. To achieve a circular economy for plastics, we need strong commitments to be supported by systems-level change. Policy and regulation can play a critical role in tackling plastic waste, improving waste management infrastructure, and creating the right enabling environment for a circular economy. That’s why we’re calling for a global UN treaty with legally binding targets.
We also support policies like Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), where companies pay for the collection of packaging – a key ask of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty. We believe that well-designed EPR schemes are a game-changer in tackling plastic pollution. They ensure money is invested back into waste management and packaging innovation, and hold businesses to account for the packaging choices they make. In 2021, we signed a public statement with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation calling for the implementation of well-designed EPR policies, recognising that, without EPR, packaging collection and recycling is unlikely to be meaningfully scaled. Read more about how we’re using our voice to fix the broken plastic system through our advocacy and partnerships.
Our mantra and framework: Less plastic. Better plastic. No plastic.
We’re making progress towards our ambitious plastics goals, guided by the following framework:
Less plastic: cutting down how much plastic we use in the first place through lighter designs, reuse and refill formats, and concentrated products which use less packaging.
Better plastic: making sure the plastic we use is designed to be recycled and that our products use recycled plastic.
No plastic: using refill stations and formats to cut out new plastic completely and switching to alternative packaging materials such as paper, glass or aluminium.
Our actions on all three are key to delivering our virgin plastic reduction goal. Due to our step up on recycled plastic, we’ve reduced our virgin plastic footprint since 2019 by 18%.
Our plastic packaging footprint
We use a variety of different plastic packaging types for our products.
Our total plastic packaging footprint – including virgin and recycled plastic – is made up of 68% rigid packaging materials, with bottles, such as those used for fabric cleaning liquid, shampoo and body wash, being the biggest contributor. Flexible packaging makes up 31% of our footprint, with sealed flexible packs and pouches, such as laundry detergent bags, contributing the most. The remaining 1% is made up of tubes, for example, those used for toothpaste
Less plastic
Sometimes a complete rethink of how we design and package products is the best way to reduce plastic. Reducing the amount of material in a product by just a few grams can make a huge difference across an entire product range. Over the last decade we’ve already cut the weight of our packaging by a fifth through better and lighter designs.
We’re encouraging consumers to think of bottles of our cleaning and laundry products as a ‘bottle for life’ – just like a ‘bag for life’ they might use for shopping. For instance, our OMO laundry customers can use their 3-litre bottles for life.
Ultra concentrated products help us give consumers the same products but with much less plastic and smaller packaging. Comfort’s ultra concentrated laundry formulas offer a smaller dosage than any other product on the market. Our Love Beauty and Planet concentred shampoos and conditioners provide the same number of uses with half the plastic.
Our Beauty & Personal Care brands are challenging our throwaway culture too. Dove has started a beauty ‘refillution’ with its first-ever durable, stainless steel refillable deodorant case which is designed to be used for life.
Better plastic
Whenever we use plastic, we make sure we’re choosing better options – that means recycled and recyclable plastics. Currently, 53% of our packaging is recyclable, reusable or compostable[c]. This is our actual recyclability rate, which is significantly less than the 72% of our packaging portfolio that is technically recyclable with existing technology. This gap is an industry-wide challenge and is primarily driven by a lack of collection and recycling infrastructure. We’re working with local governments and partners to close this gap, while we continue to deploy new materials and technologies.
We’re keeping plastics in the system, and out of the environment, by buying recycled plastic – sometimes called post-consumer recycled plastic (PCR). We’re ramping up how much recycled plastic we use. We’ve increased our use of recycled plastic to 22% of our total plastic footprint. This puts us on track to meet our commitment of at least 25% recycled plastic by 2025.
For instance, in 2021 Hellmann’s launched 100% recycled packaging in two-thirds of its markets, Knorr launched 100% recycled plastic bouillon tubs and lids in Europe, and Swedish Glace’s plant-based ice cream comes in recycled plastic tubs. Our Dove beauty brand uses 100% recycled plastic bottles in Europe and North America (where technically feasible) and 98% of its new refillable deodorant packaging in the US is made from recycled plastic. Our Love Beauty and Planet hair and skin care brand, is also working to incorporate recycled plastic in bottle caps and pumps.
There are plenty of technical challenges that we’re tackling in our better plastic journey. We’re developing new solutions, including chemical recycling for plastics which are hardest to recycle such as multi-layered and flexible packaging. We’re also aware that not all packaging that’s technically recyclable will actually be recycled. It’s technically possible to recycle around 72% of our product portfolio. However, what is actually recycled is lower because of the lack of infrastructure in communities.
Recycled plastic packaging also has to meet the same technical and safety standards as virgin plastic – standards which are higher for food packaging. Our Magnum ice cream brand worked with a supplier to overcome this challenge and launch recycled plastic ice cream tubs (see case study below).
In our Home Care division, our dilutable laundry detergents in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay are made with recycled plastic and cost less than undiluted detergents.
Collecting and processing plastic
We can’t reach our ‘better plastic’ goals unless there’s enough high-quality recycled plastic available. There’s no shortage of plastic in the system – but there are some big challenges. Turning plastic waste and pollution into usable material relies on local collection and sorting facilities. There also needs to be technical innovation and new solutions to make collecting and reprocessing materials commercially viable.
Our business in India was one of the first to help collect and process more plastic than it sold, and we have roadmaps for achieving this in other markets including Brazil, India, Indonesia, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, UK and US.
However, we have more work to do to scale up our collection efforts. This includes direct investments, such as in the US where we’ve made a $15 million investment in the Closed Loop Partners’ Leadership Fund to help improve recycling. Partnerships in waste collection and processing, building capacity by buying recycled plastics, and supporting extended producer-responsibility schemes will also be critical to drive progress.
We’re developing technology-led solutions too. For instance in Indonesia, we’re supporting urban communities to develop systems to collect and sell waste. A digital platform called ‘Google My Business’ enables consumers to find their nearest waste banks via Google Maps. In China we’re using artificial intelligence to increase recycling rates (see case study below). And together with partners in the UK and US, we’re working to tackle the challenge of black plastic, which typically can’t be detected by waste sorting and recycling machines (see case study below).
We also need to consider the impact of the plastic system on people’s livelihoods, as plastic is frequently collected by waste collectors in the informal economy, often working under dirty and dangerous conditions and without earning adequate wages or receiving social benefits. These individuals and their communities are an integral part of the plastics solution, because without them we will not be able to scale up our collection efforts to meet our goals for a waste-free world.
This issue is a priority for Unilever, and we’ve been busy developing a global framework on how we approach and include human rights in our plastic value chain, especially for informal waste collectors who are involved in collection and processing in a number of developing markets. We’ve also been working with our peers and expert NGOs to build a common approach across industry – most notably through the Fair Circularity Initiative, which we co-founded and launched in November 2022 alongside Coca-Cola, Nestlé, PepsiCo and the NGO Tearfund. Together, we have agreed to advance and adopt the initiative’s 10 Fair Circularity Principles and are now working towards implementing them.
In India, for example, we’re working with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to create a circular economy for plastic and support the social inclusion of thousands of workers within the informal waste sector – also known as waste pickers and Safai Saathis (which translates to ‘invisible environmentalists’) – in recognition of the critical role they play.
Finding new solutions for flexible packaging
Plastic sachets allow low-income consumers to buy small amounts of products – often ones that provide hygiene or nutrition benefits like shampoo, food and toothpaste – that they would otherwise not be able to afford. However, flexible packaging, such as sachets and pouches, is particularly difficult to improve. In the long-term, we want to transition from using multi-layered sachets to mono-material sachets that are technically recyclable, and improve their collection and recyclability, particularly in our markets across Asia, where we sell more products in sachets. We’re learning there are no easy solutions. It’s a technical challenge, made more difficult by different local regulations on collection, sorting and recycling.
We’re developing new business models to reuse packaging and increase collection. For example, in the Philippines we have a sachet recovery programme to incentivise collection of post-consumer sachet waste in and around Manila. We’re also exploring how we can make sachets from single materials instead of multiple layers, making them easier to recycle. In Vietnam, we launched a trial for recyclable mono-material sachets of CLEAR shampoo. The recycled material is reused for items like refuse bags and containers, but with scale there’s potential to return it to our supply chain as recycled plastic. In Indonesia we’re testing solutions to eliminate the need for plastic by offering refill stations.
In Europe we’re members of CEFLEX, a consortium aiming to make flexible packaging in Europe circular by 2025. We contributed to an industry roadmap and guidelines exploring solutions.
We are committed to finding a solution for flexible packaging and we’re partnering with others to make progress.For instance in the UK we’ve partnered with other brands to launch the Flexible Plastic Fund to improve flexible plastic recycling rates. We’re working with Mars, Mondelēz, Nestlé, PepsiCo and UK retailers to incentivise the recycling of flexible packaging.
No plastic
No plastic means rethinking how we design products, developing whole new business models, and new shopping experiences for our consumers. It also means switching out plastic for alternative options such as metals, paper and glass.
The reuse-refill revolution
We want to help bring about a reuse-refill revolution. That’s why we’re working hard to find new ways for people to shop and use our products – for example, by buying one container and refilling it over and over again. Refills can be bought online or in a shop, or through in-store dispensing machines. A service could pick up empty containers, replenish them and deliver them back. Alternatively, people could return packaging at a store or drop-off point, as part of a deposit-return scheme (DRS).
We’ve been trialling a variety of reuse-refill models across our broad portfolio since 2018. We’ve conducted around 50 pilots across the world – testing and scaling different approaches, with the goal of making refilling our products as convenient, affordable and desirable as possible for consumers. Read more about the lessons that we’ve learnt along the way.
As we move beyond our initial ‘test and learn’ approach, we are working with partners, sharing our learnings and focusing our efforts to support an industry-wide shift towards reusable and refillable packaging at scale, in addition to scaling our own successful models. Collaboration is essential if we are going to get reuse-refill models working economically at scale.
Plastic-free packaging and products
We’re finding ways to remove plastic entirely from some of our products and packaging.
Our brands are using a range of alternative materials. Plastic-free packaging innovations include bamboo toothbrushes from Signal, fully recyclable paper food sachets for Colman’s, recyclable glass soup bottles from Knorr and paper ice cream tubs from Carte D’Or, Ben & Jerry’s and Wall’s. Persil laundry capsules now come in plastic-free boxes that can be fully recycled as paper in France. Dove’s single-bar soaps now come plastic-free and Seventh Generation also has a zero-plastic range on eCommerce channels in the US, using packaging made from steel.
We’re taking plastic out of our products too. Simple’s biodegradable facial cleansing wipes are made from sustainably sourced wood pulp and plant fibre.
EV charging company Voltpost‘s “first-of-a-kind” lamppost EV charger is now commercially available in major US metro areas.
The New York and San Francisco-based company is developing and deploying EV charging projects in US cities like New York, Chicago, Detroit, and others this spring.
Voltpost retrofits lampposts into a modular and upgradable Level 2 EV charging platform powered by a mobile app. The company says its platform provides EV drivers convenient and affordable charging while reducing installation costs, time, maintenance, and chargers’ footprint.
Voltpost can install a lamppost charger inexpensively in one to two hours without construction, trenching, or extensive permitting processes. The ease of installation helps bring more EV charging to underserved communities and high-density areas.
Last year, Voltpost participated in the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT) Studio program, a collaboration between the NYC DOT and Newlab. In its pilot, Voltpost installed chargers on lampposts at Newlab in Brooklyn and in a DOT parking lot. The chargers were installed in an hour, operated with a high uptime, and got positive feedback from EV drivers.
The lamppost EV chargers feature 20 feet of retractable cable and a charge plug with a pulsing light that routes the cable at a 90-degree angle to the car socket so the cable doesn’t become a hazard to pedestrians and traffic.
The system can accommodate either two or four charging ports. There’s a Voltpost mobile app so drivers can manage charging, and it also features a map of available and in-use Voltpost chargers. Users can make reservations, track charging, pay based on electricity consumed, and see stats on financial and environmental savings.
The lamppost EV chargers also have a Charge Station Management System that provides charging analytics for public and private stakeholders. Site hosts can set charger features, including pricing, and remotely monitor chargers.
Even zealots of the electric vehicle will tell you that public charging can be a fraught affair. If all goes well, and it often doesn’t, your charging session will likely entail sitting in a dark corner of a parking lot for upwards of an hour. You might have to stand in the rain or snow to operate the charger because most stations lack awnings. You might have to go hungry because many lack access to food. And, perhaps worst of all, your session may be made extra uncomfortable by a typical lack of restrooms.
But hopefully that’s changing. This year, Electrify America opened an indoor flagship location in San Francisco. Situated at 928 Harrison Street, this bank of 20 high-speed chargers is unique not only for its location—occupying some very expensive real estate—but also for its amenities. While charging, you can grab a drink from a vending machine, host a meeting from one of the lounges, and, yes, even use the bathroom.
Electrify America’s new flagship location in San Francisco. ELECTRIFY AMERICA
It’s a massive upgrade from what many EV early adopters have become accustomed to, but it’s just the beginning. With familiar roadside refuges such as Love’s Travel Stops and Buc-ee’s getting in on the game, the future is finally looking a bit brighter when it comes to electrification’s infrastructure.
Just as with buying a new house, the three most important factors in EV charging are location, location, and location. After all, the fastest, most reliable charger in the world is worthless if it isn’t where you need it. The good news? If you have off-street parking, you can likely put a charger in the best possible spot: your home. More than 90 percent of EV owners charge where they live. While slower than the high-speed units at public stations, at-home chargers more than make up for it in convenience.
The latter can typically bring an empty car to full in under ten hours, which is plenty of time for most folks to replenish their EV’s battery pack between returning from work and heading out again the next day. That potentially means a full charge every morning, so public installations take a back seat for many who use an EV as their daily commuter. That’s why we need far fewer of them than we do gas stations. However, whether road-tripping or just going for an extended Sunday cruise, most EV owners will still need to replenish their batteries in the wild at some point. And while location is still crucial, other factors are gaining significance.
The fastest, most reliable charger in the world is worthless if it isn’t where you need it. KENA BETANCUR/VIEW PRESS/GETTY IMAGES
Amaiya Khardenavis, an analyst of EV Charging Infrastructure at the energy-research firm Wood Mackenzie, says that there was a lot of “land grabbing” by the larger networks in the early days of EVs. That is, just throwing down chargers as close to major highways as possible with little regard for amenities. According to Khardenavis, today’s locations are more “customer-centric” than before. “The landscape in 2020 was dominated by only a few players in the market,” he says, “and these were all pure providers, like of course Tesla, but EVgo, Electrify America, ChargePoint, and that’s about it.”
Tesla gained an early advantage with its Supercharger network in 2012. Now, with more than 2,000 domestic locations, it’s the largest operator of fast chargers in the United States. But it wasn’t the first. ChargePoint is the nation’s largest network in general, launching back in 2007 and offering over 30,000 locations. Others weren’t far behind, including EVgo, which has about 3,000 chargers spread across 35 states.
“We’re addressing a lot of our legacy equipment . . . some of our chargers are getting close to a decade old,” says Katie Wallace, EVgo’s director of communications. Yet some newer players are helping to raise the bar. One of those is EV manufacturer Rivian, which launched its Adventure Network just 18 months ago and has since deployed 433 fast chargers across 71 locations. “We’re opening sites each week,” says Sara Eslinger, director of the program for Rivian.
The EVgo network comprises about 3,000 chargers across 35 states. JUSTIN SULLIVAN/GETTY IMAGES
While the name “Adventure Network” infers that these chargers are at off-road trailheads, and indeed Rivian offers some of those, Eslinger says the company is still focused on serving major transportation corridors, while ensuring availability of amenities like 24-hour food services and restrooms, even going so far as to bring in their own lighting if necessary. As increased EV adoption pulls new investment from some familiar names, features like these are becoming the next battleground.
According to Khardenavis, “More retail stores, retail chains, and travel centers [are] entering the space—Walmart, Pilot, and Flying J, as well as Love’s, everyone is trying to be involved in this space to some extent.” Though many of these partnerships are still developing (Mercedes-Benz just announced a deal with Buc-ee’s in November, for example), the net result should be a significantly improved charging experience.
The CEO of Rivian, Robert Scaringe, talks about the automaker’s Adventure Network plan at a presentation last month. PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
Why are all these players getting into the market now? The money is starting to flow. In the beginning, running an EV-charging business was brutally complicated and expensive, and served only a small segment of early adopters. Today, utilization rates for public chargers are surging, and so is revenue.
“In our last earnings call, we reported that EVgo’s network throughout was growing five times faster than EVs in operation,” Wallace says. She adds that people are getting more comfortable driving their EVs, relying on chargers further afield.
Anthony Lambkin, vice president of operations at Electrify America, sees the same trend: “Some of our sites, especially in parts of California, are routinely over 50 percent utilization.” Lambkin refers to this as “massive growth,” and that it has driven the company to redesign some of its chargers, which were not up to surviving that intensity of use. Higher utilization means more money, and more money means more profits. But, as volume increases, so does the opportunity for other revenue streams.
Unlike these chargers in Oyster Bay, N.Y., an increasing number of future stations may have a retail-store component. ALEJANDRA VILLA LOARCA/NEWSDAY RM VIA GETTY IMAGES
“In today’s gas-station business model, over 60 percent of the revenue really comes from store purchases, not from fuel retail,” Khardenavis says. “The future of the EV-charging model will be some sort of co-located retail-store presence.” More chargers at nicer locations, though, means nothing if they’re constantly broken. “The bigger question is going to be how reliable are these chargers?” Khardenavis says. A 2022 study out of the University of California, Berkeley, found that roughly one out of four chargers evaluated in the Greater Bay Area was non-functional (Tesla stations were not included). More troublingly, when the researchers visited those sites a week later, nearly all of them were still not fixed.
Khardenavis says that such historically poor reliability is directly related to profitability: “I think with that kind of cash flow coming in . . . there is now an impetus to develop this model, which is more customer-centric than just earlier focusing on expanding to locations.”
More chargers at nicer locations means nothing if they’re constantly broken. JOHN TLUMACKI/THE BOSTON GLOBE VIA GETTY IMAGES
In the world of public charging, there’s Tesla’s Supercharger network, and then there’s everybody else. Tesla’s network not only earned a reputation for being the most readily available and reliable, but using a single plug across every new Tesla model meant owners only had to show up, plug in, and wait while the electrons flowed.
Various plug standards have come and gone for other manufacturers, but that too is changing. Virtually every major manufacturer has agreed to use what’s being called the North American Charging Standard. It’s essentially the same plug that Tesla uses.
Soon EVs from Ford, Rivian, and plenty of others will not only use the same plug, but will be able to easily charge at Tesla’s Supercharger stations across the nation. That’s the good news. The bad news is that all the non-Teslas on the road today use a combination of different plugs, most featuring the Combined Charging System, or CCS. While Tesla is updating some of its Supercharger installations to support CCS, it’s going to be a slow transition. “We’re going to be in a land of adapters for a while, because the soonest that any non-Tesla OEM is going to come out with the NACS port is probably the fall of 2025,” says Wallace.
Soon other EVs will not only have the same plug as Tesla models, but will be able to use Tesla’s Supercharger stations across the nation. CELAL GUNES/ANADOLU AGENCY VIA GETTY IMAGES
Rivian has updated its vehicles to show the location of all Superchargers on its integrated navigation, routing drivers appropriately depending on whether they have an adapter. Yet Khardenavis is concerned that this transition could slow down EV adoption further, with some buyers deciding to wait for the port transition to be completed before investing in a new EV. He fears that EVs with the “now-obsolete” CCS port could sit on dealership lots for longer.
Increased utilization raises the potential for long lines at chargers, but the process of building new stations entails dodging numerous roadblocks. One of those is working with local municipalities, which often aren’t used to moving at the pace of a startup. Electrify America’s Lambkin says that processes are improving, but it’s still a challenge. “Permitting is going much better for us now than it was five years ago because there are far more cities and towns and municipalities that are used to seeing this type of equipment,” Lambkin says. “Back in the day, it was like alien technology.”
The federal government is helping as well. The 2021 National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program provides funding to help cover planning, construction, and even maintenance of chargers. “Folks are going to see a lot more stations coming online in the next year and a half,” says Wallace, who attributes this to the various Department of Transportation outposts at the state level becoming “more comfortable and more familiar with how to implement the NEVI program.”
U.S. President Joe Biden gets a demonstration of an EV charging setup at the White House. JIM WATSON/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
Another issue is grid capacity. Khardenavis notes that, for a larger installation, it can take upwards of a year just for the necessary upgrades to power the site. “Project delays are a very common theme in the fast-charging space especially,” he says. But the charging companies are finding ways around this, too. According to Lambkin, Electrify America routinely uses on-site batteries to offset energy usage during peak times and has a so-called “mega pack” in Baker, Calif. “That’s actually to allow us to build that site well in advance of when the utility, SCE in this case, had the capacity to be able to serve the number of dispensers and the amount of power that we needed.”
And finally, there’s construction. It takes time to design a given charger layout, run the conduit, lay out the chargers themselves, and wait for all that concrete to cure. Even that process is changing. “We just deployed our very first station using prefabrication in Texas,” says EVgo’s Wallace. “It’s just a more efficient way to deploy because everything is assembled off-site, in an assembly facility, and then dropped into a skid-frame. So this construction timeline is much shorter.”
Tesla owners line up for an available charger in Utah. GEORGE FREY/GETTY IMAGES
According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), current growth and demand for EVs will require 1.2 million U.S. public chargers by 2030. As to the current reality, Khardenavis notes that there are about 165,000 available today, and he’s skeptical about that 2030 target. “It’s almost ten-X growth, which is extremely challenging in today’s environment,” he says, adding that predicting the need for six years in the future is itself difficult given the unpredictability of consumer behavior. “I don’t see us reaching that number anytime in the next four- to five-year timeframe. But I think it’s a target that we need to have in mind before we deploy and make plans around making EV charging more ubiquitous.”
A couple wait on their EV to charge in Texas. SHELBY TAUBER FOR THE WASHINGTON POST VIA GETTY IMAGES
But merely adding more chargers isn’t enough. It’ll take a better all-around charging experience to meet the needs of a new generation of luxury EV owners, such as drivers of the Mercedes-Benz EQS and the Rolls-Royce Spectre, for example. Meeting those standards will take more installations like Electrify America’s indoor flagship. “We’re really competing with the traditional fueling industry, and that’s been around for 100 years,” says Lambkin. “If you think about where we are today and where we’ve come in just five years, think about the levels of improvement that we can expect to see over the next five years.”
While that dingy charger in the back of the shopping-mall parking lot is still the norm for now, there’s work underway to make it the outlier. The real issue remains whether public adoption of EVs and the requisite infrastructure expansion will both maintain enough juice.
