Milk cartons are waterproofed with a thin layer of plastic, usually polyethylene. This coating provides a better moisture barrier than the wax coating used on older style milk cartons. 

From traditional cow milk to vegan options like hemp milk, a wide variety of milk is available these days. Milk comes in three main types of packaging: the carton, the plastic jug and the glass bottle. Let’s go through the pros and cons of each of these packaging options to determine which is friendliest to our planet.

Pros:

• Milk cartons are lightweight, which minimizes greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to transportation. Less weight also means less material used in creating new cartons. On average a carton is 94% product and 6% container by weight.
• Recycled cartons are used to make office paper, tissue paper, and building materials.

Cons:

• Paper cartons can’t be recycled into new cartons. This means all milk cartons must be made from virgin materials.

Pros:

• Plastic jugs are made of a single material and therefore can be recycled.
• Plastic jugs are the lightest weight option of the three most common container types. On average a plastic jug is 96% product and 4% container by weight. This means they have the lowest GHG emissions related to transportation.

Cons:

• Plastic jugs are not recycled into new plastic jugs due to sanitary concerns. Plastic jugs are typically “downcycled” into materials such as composite lumber. This means virgin plastic is used for all plastic jugs.
• Plastic is made from fossil fuels.

Pros:

• Glass bottles are highly recyclable. Recycled bottles can be made into new bottles.
• Some brands such as Straus reuse bottles through a deposit system. This eliminates the energy needed to remanufacture bottles.

Cons:

• Glass is heavy. On average a glass bottle is 75% product and 25% container by weight. Transporting milk in glass results in higher GHG emissions than transporting milk in cartons or plastic jugs.
• Extracting new materials for new glass is energy-intensive.

While each type of container has its pros and cons, glass bottles are the most environmentally friendly option. This is due to the fact that extraction and manufacturing require the most energy in a milk container’s lifecycle. Glass bottles have a clear advantage over cartons and plastic jugs because they can be easily recycled into new bottles or even reused without remanufacturing. However, milk sold in glass bottles is usually more expensive than milk sold in cartons or plastic jugs. If milk sold in glass is too expensive, reach for the plastic jug instead. Remember to recycle your glass bottles, plastic jugs and cartons completely empty.

https://sanjoserecycles.org/environmental-footprint-of-milk-containers/

-------------------------------

Should we focus on the plastic or the pollution to eliminate plastic pollution? How to ensure that climate action produces a fairer, more inclusive, healthier world. Brush turkey urban population takes off.  

Eliminating plastic pollution by 2040

The growth in the production and use of plastic since the 1950s has been remarkable and is predicted under business-as-usual scenarios to continue for the next twenty years at roughly the same rate as the last thirty...

The growth has been faster than human population growth but, let’s be honest, plastic’s lightness, flexibility and versatility make it incredibly useful. So, it is no surprise that there is almost no aspect of the economy or our everyday lives that does not make extensive use of plastic in one of its forms...

In fact, as the two figures above demonstrate, the growth is predicted to continue across almost the entire world and all parts of the economy, particularly packaging.

The consequences for Earth’s land, marine and air environments of all this plastic and its disposal are enormous. For instance, every day, 400 tonnes of plastic leaks (great euphemism – like felling native forests and calling it ‘harvesting’) into Australia’s natural environment and 30,000 tonnes leaks into the world’s oceans.

Plastic accounts for about 5% of current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and this could increase to 20-25% by 2050 if production keeps increasing and if total GHG emissions fall in line with keeping global warming under 1.5-2oC. Most of the emissions associated with plastic production, use and subsequent mismanagement arise during the extraction and refining of the original oil and gas and the early (before it becomes polymerised plastic) stages of the plastic production processes.

The OECD has examined a range of policy scenarios for eliminating plastic pollution by 2040. In very broad terms, their conclusion is that partial measures such as a focus on better waste management rather than reducing waste generation, limiting stringent policies only to advanced economies and low policy stringency across the world won’t do the job. Only comprehensive, stringent, strictly applied policies in all countries can (almost) eliminate plastic leakage into the environment by 2040. Policies such as:

• Curbing production and demand: e.g., taxes to reduce primary production and some uses (such as packaging), changes to fossil fuel subsidies, bans on some uses.
• Designing for circularity: e.g., eco-design standards for reuse and repair, bans on single-use plastics, finding suitable substitutes.
• Enhancing recycling: e.g., recycling targets, enhanced collection and sorting, extended producer responsibility for packaging, landfill and incineration taxes.
• Closing leakage pathways: e.g., improved waste collection, sorting and management, improved litter management, reducing the loss of fishing gear into the oceans.

That may be what the OECD wants but it does not reflect the wishes of all nations. The fifth and intended final round of UN negotiations to establish a global treaty to end plastic pollution closed earlier this month with no treaty despite the support of the vast majority of nations. Australia was on the right side of history but a treaty containing ambitious goals and comprehensive policies was opposed by many business interests and blocked by a coalition of oil- and plastic-producing nations led by Saudi Arabia, other Gulf States, Russia and Iran who are against limits on production. The treaty’s opponents argue that the problem is pollution, not plastic – very similar to the same people’s anti-climate action argument that we need to control CO2, not fossil fuels. The USA was in favour of a treaty but that seems likely to change in 2025.

Who produces ‘primary plastics’?

The vast majority of plastic is made from oil and gas, and plastic production currently accounts for around 12% and 9% of the total demand for each respectively. The nations producing the most ‘primary plastics’, or ‘virgin polymers’, from which the various different plastics are manufactured, are USA, China, Saudi Arabia and South Korea. The major companies producing primary plastics for single-use plastics are shown [SEE GRAPH].

The petrochemical companies may be nefarious but they aren’t stupid. They can see the writing on the wall for oil and gas as fuels in the longer term. Consequently, they are keen to expand the production and uses of plastic to maintain their income stream and profits. Their ideal would be no treaty at all but if there has to be one they will delay it as long as possible and try to avoid a whole of lifecycle approach and any controls on upstream plastic production and use. They will try to limit negotiations to controlling the downstream plastic pollution. Petro-states and -companies also want participation in the various elements of any treaty to be optional, not mandatory and certainly not enforceable.

Sex in the City – Brush turkey style

Brush (not ‘bush’ as is commonly heard) turkeys are not our favourite birds. I can’t understand why myself. They are attractive and resourceful and have a very unusual and sophisticated method of incubating their eggs.

In recent decades, Brush turkeys have rapidly learnt to take advantage of the urban environments created by humans. So what if they muck up some people’s gardens, we’ve destroyed their habitats.

Between 1994 and 2019, the number of Sydney suburbs reporting the presence of Brush turkeys has increased a hundred-fold from about three to three hundred, with a similar but slightly less dramatic increase in Brisbane. One even made its home in affluent Darling Point 3-4 years ago – the cheek of it – but moved on, I suspect when it failed to find a mate.

Brush turkeys and their active egg-incubation mounds are, like (almost) all native species protected by law, so don’t be tempted to harm them or their mounds even if they are in the middle of your pristine lawn. If you see anyone else harming them, please report it to the police. The linked article provides some ideas for how to deter them building a nesting mound in your garden, which you are permitted to do.

Rather ungenerously, Brush turkeys are described by a vet in the article as ‘… very heavy, and they don’t fly amazingly well — they’re also not particularly smart.’ The same might be said of some of our politicians who aren’t anywhere near as … well, I’ll let you incubate that one.

Miners 4 – Labor’s environmental credentials 0

In the last Parliamentary sitting week for 2024, Labor’s plans to create a national environmental protection agency (firmly stated as recently as November 24th) were booted out of play by the Prime Minister who has a focus on not conceding goals rather than scoring any.

Also that week, the government opened the way to approving three new coal mines at Boggabri northwest of Tamworth in NSW, and Lake Vermont  and Caval Ridge, both between Rockhampton and Townsville in Queensland. The combined area of the three mines is almost as large as Greater Sydney.

Not even a contest. A simple walkover for the miners.

Fair, fast and inclusive climate action

Solving the world’s climate change problem is all too often seen as a technical-financial-political issue. Which, bearing in mind that we already have the technology and finances to be getting on with the job, means that the major reason that global warming is soaring is political – governments and intergovernmental organisations lack the will (and public support it must be said) to take the necessary action.

Missing from this definition of the problem, however, are the social dimensions of climate change and climate action or, to spell it out, the need to ensure that as we move towards an environmentally sustainable global society we also tackle the longstanding intra- and inter-national social problems of, for instance, inequality, poverty and extreme wealth, homelessness and luxurious lifestyles, political power and powerlessness, and exploitation and abuses of human rights.

The admirable Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) has developed ‘Fair, Fast and Inclusive Climate Change Action Blueprint Framework’, a guide for ensuring that the Australian government’s climate change policies promote a more equitable and inclusive Australia, support people and communities experiencing disadvantage, and increase communities’ resilience to climate change impacts … as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, of course. ACOSS’s goal is to achieve improved outcomes for all people, communities and the environment, concurrently with reaching net zero emissions.

The Framework is underpinned by seven principles which ACOSS argues should be incorporated into the Climate Change Act 2022:

1. Reduce emissions fast.
2. Promote good health and wellbeing.
3. Promote human rights, fairness and equity.
4. Promote inclusion and representation.
5. Uphold First Nations’ rights to sovereignty and self-determination.
6. Ensure a fair employment transition.
7. Promote ecological sustainability and nature repair.

ACOSS identifies twelve strategic policy areas for action including homes, affordable energy, renewable energy, food and water, urban planning, employment, and ensuring all Australians have the resources to meet their basic needs.

I am strongly of the view that ensuring that everyone has a decent standard of living and that societies are characterised by equity and social justice are essential components of achieving environmental sustainability, not optional extras to be worked on later. And let’s not forget peace.

USA’s 12 richest billionaires

The collective net worth of the USA’s richest twelve billionaires exceeds US$2 trillion. It has trebled since 2020. Some of the twelve have used their money to purchase media outlets and become major political players, not just behind-the-scenes influencers. All twelve have interests in AI. Only three are pushed out of the list of the 12 richest billionaires in the world.

https://johnmenadue.com/environment-global-plastic-pollution-treaty-talks-collapse/

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.