News Feeds

Keep up to date with May 2024’s news with our digest of daily updated headlines about the business, regulation and campaigns around UK fracking, shale, and onshore oil and gas.

Singleton oil site in the South Downs National Park in West Sussex. Photo: DrillOrDrop

For headlines from previous months, click here. Please let us know if we’ve missed something important  contact@DrillOrDrop.com

Wednesday 8 May 2024

Balcombe villagers head to appeal court. DrillOrDrop reports that a judge has granted residents of Balcombe in West Sussex the right to challenge a High Court decision to allow oil exploration in their village.

Tuesday 7 May 2024

UJO’s Oklahoma well update. Union Jack Oil announces that the Andrews 1-17 well, in which it has a 45% interest, has been declared a commercial discovery. Installation of permanent production facilities has begun.

Friday 3 May 2024

Breaking: Government’s “inadequate” climate action plan ruled unlawful – again. DrillOrDrop report on the High Court ruling for the second time in less than two years that the government’s plan to meet climate targets is unlawful.

31 North Sea licences in offered in offshore wind zones. DrillOrDrop report on latest licence awards for the North Sea.

UK onshore oil and gas production in charts – February 2024. DrillOrDrop analysis of the latest UK onshore oil and gas production data

Thursday 2 May 2024

Methane emissions from gas flaring being hidden from satellite monitors. The Guardian reports on a satellite image investigation which found that oil and gas equipment intended to cut methane emissions is preventing scientists from accurately detecting greenhouse gases and pollutants.

Wednesday 1 May 2024

UKOG gets help to farm out Loxley drilling project. DrillOrDrop reports on UKOG’s announcement that it has appointed a company to facilitate the farm out of its Loxley gas drilling and test work in Surrey.

How to fix the finance flows that are pushing our planet to the brink. Teresa Anderson, global lead on climate justice for ActionAid International, reports for Climate Change News that we can’t address the climate crisis unless we fix the finance flows that are failing the planet. She says banks like Barclays, HSBC and Citibank are pumping billions into fossil fuel expansion, knowing full well that their decisions directly lead to climate chaos and devastating local pollution, particularly for communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.

Over the last year, Spring has continued to organize to build movements. We launched our annual fundraising drive on May Day and we’re asking readers to consider making a donation to help Spring continue this important work.

The post Donate to the Spring fund drive first appeared on Spring.

During the 2024 Two Sessions in China, relevant civil society organizations supported the draft of two comprehensive proposals for the management of plastic pollution in the coffee and new tea drink industries as well as the takeaway sector, aimed at reducing plastic pollution and promoting environmental protection and sustainable development. Notably, these two proposals were adopted by the relevant government departments and have been officially filed.

The first proposal focuses on the issue of single-use plastic in the coffee and new tea drink industries, pointing out that the rapid growth of these sectors has led to extensive use of single-use plastic packaging, putting severe pressure on the environment. To address this issue, the proposal suggests that the government introduce policies to encourage coffee and new tea drink enterprises to reduce the use of single-use plastics, develop a roadmap for plastic reduction, and explore sustainable packaging solutions. These recommendations not only involve assessing the current situation of plastic use but also include promoting the adoption of circular use schemes, simplifying packaging, and providing non-disposable drink cups, among other measures, thereby supporting enterprises to achieve these goals through incentives such as tax breaks.

Photo from: https://tao.hvcis.com/

The second proposal is focused on the comprehensive governance of plastic pollution in the takeaway sector. With the booming development of China's takeaway market, it is projected that by 2025, the number of orders will reach 33.9 billion, with an economic scale exceeding 1.5 trillion. This growth has led to a surge in the use of disposable plastic containers and other single-use plastic products, along with subsequent environmental pollution issues. The proposal emphasizes the importance of systemic change, covering the entire process from source reduction to end management in the governance of takeaway packaging pollution. Drawing on the successful experience of greening express packaging, it proposes a plastic reduction strategy that follows the principles of "reduce use - reuse - recycle," aiming to establish a lead department for the governance of plastic pollution in takeaway packaging, coordinate cooperation among multiple departments, enforce platform responsibility, and achieve the goals of plastic reduction and resource recycling.

Photo from: https://web.shobserver.com/

The submission of these two proposals not only demonstrates society's high regard for environmental protection issues but also reflects the government's and all sectors' determination to make progress in the management of plastic pollution. With the adoption of these proposals, it is hoped that tangible effects can be achieved in reducing plastic pollution and protecting the environment, driving the industry towards a more sustainable direction.

Teresa Anderson is global lead on climate justice for ActionAid International.

Last month, from Bangladesh to Kenya to Washington DC, over 40,000 activists in nearly 20 countries hit the streets calling on banks, governments and financial institutions to “#FixTheFinance” pushing the planet to the brink. 

It’s clear that we can’t address the climate crisis unless we fix the finance flows that are failing the planet. When we know that we have hardly any time left to avoid runaway climate breakdown, it’s absurd that so much of the world’s money is still being poured into fuelling climate change, while barely any is going to the solutions. 

Let’s face it – the climate crisis is really about money, and our choices to use it and make it in really stupid ways.  

G7 offers tepid response to appeal for “bolder” climate action

Many of the world’s most powerful private banks are holding their Annual General Meetings over the next weeks. Banks like Barclays, HSBC and Citibank are pumping billions into fossil fuel expansion, knowing full well that their decisions directly lead to climate chaos and devastating local pollution, particularly for communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America. At their AGMs they will undoubtedly celebrate their profits, self-congratulate on miniscule policy tweaks, and try to ignore the clamour of climate criticism.   

ActionAid research last year showed that these banks are financing an astonishing amount of fossil-fuel and industrial agriculture activities in the Global South, causing land grabs, deforestation, water and soil pollution and loss of livelihoods – all compounding the injustice to communities also getting routinely hit by droughts, floods and cyclones thanks to climate change.  

HSBC, for example, is the largest European financer of fossil fuels and agribusiness in the Global South. Barclays is the largest European bank financier to fossil fuels around the world. And Citibank is the largest US financier of fossil fuels in the Global South. The banks have so much power, and so much culpability, much more than most people realise. But they want us to forget the fact that they are working hand in hand with, and profiting from, the industries that are wrecking the planet.  

The banks can actually turn off the taps. They can end the finance flows that are fuelling the climate crisis. So to avert catastrophic climate change, the fossil-financing banks must start saying no to the corporations destroying the planet.  

But it’s not only private finance that is flawed – public funds are being misused as well. Governments are using far more of their public funds to provide subsidies or tax breaks for fossil fuels and industrial agriculture corporations, than they are for climate action. This is ridiculous – it’s hurting the planet, and its hurting people.  

Public funds instead need to be redirected towards just transitions that address climate change and inequality.  

There is growing appetite for climate action. But this just isn’t yet matched by willingness to pay for it. Or even to stop profiting from climate destruction. 

COP29 finance goal

This year’s COP29 climate talks will be a critical test of rich countries’ commitment to securing a liveable planet. The world’s poorest countries are already bearing the spiralling costs of a warming planet. So far they have only received begrudging, tokenistic pennies from the rich polluting countries to help them cope. The offer of loans instead of grants in the name of climate finance is just rubbing salt into the wounds. 

If we want to unleash climate action on a scale to save the planet, rich countries at COP29 will need to agree a far more ambitious new climate finance goal based on grants, not loans. 

Because if we want to save our planet, we will actually need to cover the costs. 

Tensions rise over who will contribute to new climate finance goal

Last month the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank held their Spring meetings in Washington DC. These institutions are powerful symbols of the planet’s dysfunctional finance systems which urgently need fixing. The World Bank is financing fossil fuels yet being extremely secretive about it. The IMF is pushing climate-devastated countries deeper into debt that often requires further fossil extraction for repayment.

Even as they brand themselves as responsible channels for climate finance, the world’s most powerful financial institutions are pushing our planet to the brink. Their stated aim to get “bigger and better” really amounts to all-out push to get “bigger” but only token tweaks to get “better”.  The Spring meetings ended with business-as-usual backslapping. But if they were taking climate change and its consequences seriously, at the very least, the IMF and World Bank would stop financing fossil fuels and cancel the debts that are pushing climate-vulnerable countries into a vicious cycle.  

Will blossom of reform bear fruit? Spring Meetings leave too much to do

All of these finance flows need fixing. At the moment, the global financial system is better designed to escalate – rather than address – climate change, vulnerability and inequality. The activists, youth and frontline communities who filled the streets last month hope that their calls to stop financing destruction will be heard in the boardrooms and conferences on the other side of the world. 

They say that money talks. This is the year that the climate movement is going to make sure it listens.  

The post How to fix the finance flows that are pushing our planet to the brink appeared first on Climate Home News.

Mythbuster 1. “Phew! What a scorcher!” Overheating is good for you?

Image by G.C. from Pixabay

As we move into a period in which the powers that be will be retreating and retrenching on climate policy, we can expect discredited arguments and factoids to be churned out with dreary regularity; so that anyone who does not want to confront the realities we face has a set of one liners to trot out to deflect thought and effort.

This series of blogs is aimed at giving workers and activists the information we need to debunk these claims if a workmate, friend or relative comes out with one of them.

These arguments will be useful in the context of “Phew! What a scorcher!” and “Hotter than Morocco!” headlines in the tabloids. For those who can absorb anecdotes more easily than statistics, a useful question is, “Have you noticed how, until a few years ago, every time we had a heatwave people used to go out and sunbathe, but now, have you noticed how people go out and sit in the shade under the trees because the heat is becoming uncomfortable?”

A recently distributed leaflet, very glossy but with no publisher acknowledged, makes the claim that Humans thrive in warm climates straight after arguing that the world is not heating up; stating Humans have always thrived in warm climates. Even if the world were warming, warmth is by no means a threat, ice ages ARE. Every year many more people die in the colder winter months, even in the UK, see ONS data”.

The key word here is “warm”. We are already getting well beyond that. Here’s some examples, with thanks to Simon Erskine for compiling them.

• Zimbabwe’s president Emmerson Mnangagwa has declared a national disaster amid a prolonged drought that has destroyed about half the country’s maize crop, BBC News reports. He joins neighbouring nations in southern Africa, Zambia and Malawi, both of which have recently declared similar states of emergency, the article adds.
• “Unprecedented” temperatures are being reached across south-east Asia, including in parts of Vietnam, Thailandand Myanmar, according to the Guardian. It points to lengthy spells of dry weather in Indonesia driving up rice prices and fears that coral is under threat in Thailand due to high water temperatures. The newspaper says the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) has “attributed the scorching weather to human-induced climate change, as well as the El Niño event, which brings hotter, drier conditions to the region”.
• In Santiago, Chile, an 11-day heatwave has ended, becoming “the longest in history,”according to Raúl Cordero, a climatologist at the University of Santiago, La Tercera reports.
• The UKmay face water shortages and hosepipe bans this summer, despite recording record-breaking rainfall over the past 18 months, the Times reports. The i newspaper notes that the UK population has increased by 10 million over the past three decades, while “climate change has put pressure on existing reserves”.The Guardian reports that the Environment Agency released a report last week, which “predicts a growing shortfall of water in coming years, leading to a deficit of almost 5bn litres of water a day by 2050”. The National Farmers Union has warned that flooding and other extreme weather linked to climate change will undermine UK food production, BBC News reports. The article says this comes after “record-breaking rain over the past few months”, which “has left fields of crops under water and livestock’s health at risk”.
• Russiaand Kazakhstanhave ordered more than 100,000 people to evacuate after melting snow swelled rivers beyond bursting point, leading to the worst flooding in the area for at least 70 years, reports Reuters.
• The United Arab Emirateshas been hit by an intense storm, with the country experiencing its heaviest rains in 75 years, according to meteorological authorities, reports the Financial Times. Almost 6 inches (152mm) of rain fell on the capital Dubai on Tuesday, a year and a half’s worth of rain in a single day, causing travel disruptions, reports the Independent. In related news, the death toll from flooding in Pakistan has risen to 63, the Associated Press reports.
• The deadly heatwave that hit West Africaand the Sahelover recent weeks would have been “impossible” without human-induced climate change, scientists have said, reports BBC News. Temperatures in Mali soared to above 48C, with one hospital linking hundreds of deaths to the extreme heat, it continues. Researchers found that human activities such as burning fossil fuels made temperatures up to 1.4C hotter than normal, the article adds. On 3 April, temperatures hit 48.5C in the south-western city of Kayes in Mali, with intense heat continuing for more than five days and nights, giving no time for vulnerable people to recover, reports the Guardian.
• The “unprecedented”warming of the oceansover the past year has had widespread repercussions on marine life, an EU environment chief has warned, reports the Financial Times. This includes impacting already dwindling native fish species such as Baltic Sea Cod, the European commissioner for the environment, oceans and fisheries Virginijus Sinkevičius said, citing the migration of the cod towards colder waters near Russia and Norway as an example of the impact on biodiversity of rising temperatures, it adds.
• The past 10 months have all set new all-time monthly global temperature records, with April 2024 on track to extend this streak to 11, wrote Dr Zeke Hausfather in his latest quarterly “state of the climate” report for Carbon Brief. The graph at the end of this email shows monthly temperatures over 1940-2024, plotted with respect to a 1850-1900 baseline. Based on the year so far and the current El Niño forecast, Carbon Brief estimates that global temperatures in 2024 are likely to average out at around 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
• The Independent reports that a “punishing heatwave”has forced the government in Bangladesh to shut schools for 33 million children “as the country battles the hottest April in three decades”. The Guardian has an article with the headline, “Wave of exceptionally hot weather scorches south and south-east Asia”. It says millions of people across the Philippines, Thailand, Bangladesh and India are facing dangerous temperatures as the hottest months of the year are made worse by El Niño.
• Mexico: Drought spreads to almost 80% of the country; there are 10 states with 100% of municipalities affected.
• As Indiaheads to polls amid 45C heat, fears mount over voters’ safety. Bloomberg columnist David Fickling asks: “How can India hold elections when it’s too hot to vote?”
• The Washington Post carries a feature headlined: “Earth’s record hot streak might be a sign of a new climate era.”It says Nasa’s Dr Gavin Schmidt indicates that what happens in the next few months…could indicate whether Earth’s climate has undergone a fundamental shift – a quantum leap in warming that is confounding climate models and stoking ever more dangerous weather extremes”.

Now that this is the trend, unions are developing stronger guidelines for working in extreme heat. This is a serious matter as some right-wing

TUC guidelines are here. Individual unions will also have their own polices. Joint guidelines for the education sector are here.

← A Different Approach – A Green Transition (Part 2) Myth busters 2. Was it really hotter in the Medieval Warm Period? →

The post Mythbuster 1. “Phew! What a scorcher!” Overheating is good for you? first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

TORONTO — Meena Bibra, senior policy advisor at Clean Energy Canada, made the following statement on Clean Energy Canada and CALSTART’s release of a Canadian zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (ZEMHDV) model availability catalogue:

“We’re excited to be launching a first-of-its-kind zero-emission van, bus, and truck models catalogue at the Electric Autonomy EV Charging Expo today that can help Canadian businesses and fleets more easily make the switch. 

“This comprehensive new catalogue lays out the specs of more than 150 models from 34 manufacturers already available for purchase in Canada and includes vehicle use cases, range, price, and wait times where available. It also summarizes the federal and provincial incentives available to help make zero-emission options even more attractive.

“With zero-emission options ready to go across all vehicle and weight classes, fleets can start saving money on fuel while cutting emissions today. Companies in the market for a zero-emission cargo van, shuttle bus, school bus, transit bus, yard tractor, straight truck, box truck, or tractor-trailer should definitely have a read.”

View the full catalogue

The post New clean bus and truck catalogue will help Canadian fleets go electric appeared first on Clean Energy Canada.

For several months last year, patrons of a Seattle coffee shop called Tailwind Cafe had the option of ordering their Americanos and lattes in returnable metal to-go cups. Customers could simply borrow a cup from Tailwind, go on their way, and then at some point — perhaps a few hours later, perhaps on another day that week — return the cup to the shop, which would clean it and refill it for the next person. If it wasn’t returned within 14 days, the customer would be charged a $15 deposit, though even that was ultimately refundable if the cup was returned by the end of 45 days.

Tailwind’s head chef, Kayla Tekautz, said her cafe started the program out of a desire to address the environmental scourge of disposable plastic foodware and other packaging, the vast majority of which cannot be recycled. It was a partnership with a reusable packaging and logistics company called Reusables.com, which provided Tailwind and another Seattle area store, Cloud City Coffee, with branded cups and a QR code-operated drop-off receptacle. 

But the cafe quickly ran into trouble. It was “overwhelming” to explain the return system to every interested customer, Tekautz said. Many were hesitant to participate after learning that they could only return the cups to Tailwind or the other drop-off location, 6 miles away. Plus, Tailwind’s QR code reader kept malfunctioning, requiring repeated visits from a mechanic. At the end of last summer, Tailwind quietly ended the return program. “It just didn’t work,” Tekautz said. (Reusables.com didn’t respond to Grist’s request for comment.)

In an effort to reduce consumption of single-use plastic, Seattle has spent the past several years encouraging local businesses to offer reusable cups, dishes, utensils, and packaging. It has made some laudable progress. Concertgoers at the Paramount Theater and attendees of the Northwest Folklife Festival, for example, can now order their libations in reusable polypropylene cups. And since 2022, students at the University of Washington have been able to check out bright green reusable food containers from a company called Ozzi.

Reusable cups offered at the Northwest Folklife Festival in Seattle. Courtesy of Reuse Seattle

These programs are helping Seattle avoid single-use plastic and create a “waste-free future,” according to the city’s reuse website. It’s a target that’s being pursued by many American cities, and at the global level too. Disposable plastic foodware and packaging — which accounts for nearly 40 percent of all plastic production — can only be phased out if there are robust, efficient reuse systems to replace them. 

But some businesses, like Tailwind, have struggled to get reusable containers off the ground, often because of the small scale and disconnected nature of existing reuse programs. Instead of pooling resources and employing just one or two large cleaning and logistics services, businesses have so far chosen among several competing initiatives — or in some cases, have created and run their own programs. The result is a slew of incompatible containers, specific to just a few stores or locations, and inefficient systems for gathering, washing, and transporting between customers’ homes, sanitation facilities, and storefronts.

Read Next How the ‘circular economy’ went from environmentalist dream to marketing buzzword Joseph Winters

Having so many companies creating their own designs and logistics can be expensive, causing them to miss out on economies of scale that could make reuse more affordable and easily adoptable. According to Ashima Sukhdev, a policy adviser for the city of Seattle, she should be able to “pick up a coffee from my local cafe, and then drop it off in the lobby of my office building. Or drop it off at the library, or at a bus stop.”

What Sukhdev is describing would represent a highly unusual level of coordination across company lines. At coffee shops, this would mean reusable mugs shared not only between Tailwind and Cloud City, but also Starbucks and Peets. For grocery stores, it could mean picking up a jar of olives at Safeway, dropping off the empty container at Walgreens, and then having the same jar refilled with jam and sold at Whole Foods. Achieving this would require companies to rethink the way they compete with each other and differentiate their products. It would also require big changes from consumers, who have been trained for 70 years to expect disposability in just about every aspect of daily life.

Pat Kaufman, right, with Reuse Seattle team members. Courtesy of Reuse Seattle

Experts say these changes are necessary. “For this solution to become a reality, you’re gonna need standards,” said Pat Kaufman, manager of Seattle Public Utilities’ composting, recycling, and reuse program. 

Kaufman is currently on a yearlong sabbatical working for a nonprofit called PR3, which is trying to create those standards. The questions they’re facing are: What will standardized reusable packaging systems look like — and what will it take to get companies, and consumers, to adopt them?

Every year, the world produces about 400 million metric tons of plastic — almost entirely out of fossil fuels like oil and gas. Some of this is used in essential products like contact lenses and medical equipment, but a much greater fraction goes toward sporks, cups, bags, takeout containers, and other items that get thrown away after just a few minutes of use. Most of this plastic will never be recycled due to technical and economic restraints; more than 90 percent of all plastics get sent to a landfill or incinerator, or turn up as litter in the environment, where they degrade into microplastics and leach hazardous chemicals. Plastics manufacturing causes additional harms, including air pollution that disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color living nearby. 

For all of these reasons, public pressure to cut back on single-use plastics has escalated dramatically in recent years. Many companies have responded by launching trials and pilot programs allowing customers to borrow and return reusable cups, bottles, trays, jars, and other containers. These include small players like Ozzi, as well as behemoth brands like Walmart and Coca-Cola. There have been “more trials than Donald Trump,” said Stuart Chidley, co-founder of a reusable packaging company called Reposit.

Returnable containers from Reposit are offered at Mark & Spencer grocery stores in the U.K. Courtesy of Reposit

As in Seattle, however, their efforts have been siloed, making it hard for the reuse sector to grow. According to a recent report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, or EMF — a nonprofit that advocates for a “circular economy” that conserves resources — even companies that have pledged to dramatically scale down their use of plastics have only replaced 2 percent or less of their single-use containers with reusables.

“To realize the full benefits of return systems, a fundamentally new approach is required,” the authors concluded.

The four types of reuse systems

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation has identified four broad categories of reuse systems, based on who owns the containers and where they’re refilled or returned: refill on the go, refill at home, return on the go, return from home.

Refill on the go: Consumers bring their own reusable containers to grocery stores and other locations, and refill them there — think the bulk section of a supermarket, where shoppers refill their own jars or bags with nuts, grains, and other foods.

Refill at home: Consumers own their own reusable containers but instead of refilling them at a store, they order refills in the mail. For example, you order concentrated dish soap tablets and then dissolve them in a dispenser you already own.

Return on the go: Businesses own containers and let consumers borrow them — often by charging a deposit that is refunded when the container is returned. This system involves container drop-off points at grocery stores, coffee shops, and other designated locations outside the home.

Return from home: Businesses own the reusable containers, which logistics providers pick up from people’s homes and then transport to a washing facility so they can be used again — much like milkmen of old.

The EMF report focuses on reusable containers that you can return to the coffee shop, grocery store, or another drop-off point — known as “return on the go” — as opposed to those that consumers own and bring with them to stores. It says that three things need to happen to make reuse mainstream. First, companies have to achieve high return rates, so they don’t lose inventory when people steal or forget to return their containers. Second, they have to share infrastructure for washing, collecting, sorting, and delivery in order to achieve economies of scale. Third, reusable containers must be standardized. The third pillar makes the other two much easier to achieve, since it’s simpler to share logistics, scale up, and familiarize customers with reuse systems if they share common characteristics — for instance, if containers are designed with similar shapes, sizes, and materials. 

To that end, PR3 has spent the past four years drafting standards for reuse systems, with a particular focus on container design. Through a “consensus body” composed of members from big business, the advocacy world, and government, PR3 is hoping to eventually certify the world’s first reuse standards under the International Organization for Standardization (known as ISO, to prevent confusion around different acronyms in different languages). This would lend legitimacy to the PR3 proposals, as the ISO maintains one of the world’s most widely accepted catalogs of standards. Others within its portfolio cover everything from food safety to the manufacturing of medical devices, and have been voluntarily adopted by many large companies and government bodies. 

PR3 released a draft of its standards last year, and it’s been updating them behind closed doors since then. Specific standards on washing protocols are set to be published for public review this week, and the nonprofit hopes that its consensus body will vote to finalize standards for container design later this year.

A worker from Taiwan’s Blue Ocean, an environmental protection company, cleans reusable mugs in Taoyuan. Sam Yeh / AFP via Getty Images

So, what makes a good reusable container system? It’s complicated. Containers have to hold up under the stresses of logistics and transportation. They have to be relatively inexpensive. Perhaps most intangibly, they have to seem reusable, so customers don’t accidentally throw them in the trash. This can be accomplished through design elements — like containers’ color, texture, shape, and weight — or through other means, like easily recognizable drop-off boxes for used containers. Some reuse advocates support deposit fees, in which customers pay a small amount, usually just a dollar or two, in order to borrow a reusable container. They get the deposit back once they’ve returned the container.

None of these features is guaranteed to work. In designing draft standards, PR3 has often had to make educated predictions about which ones consumers will respond to. And those predictions can have far-reaching implications. If you assume customers will frequently lose or forget to return their containers, for example, then it probably won’t make sense to design thick containers that are capable of withstanding hundreds of uses.

“In the real world, return rates vary wildly,” Claudette Juska, PR3’s technical director and one of its co-founders, told Grist. “You don’t want to design a container for 400 uses if it’s only going to be used four times.” The most recent version of PR3’s standards say containers must be designed to withstand at least 20 uses and reused in practice at least 10 times.

On the other hand, it may be counterproductive to design containers with the expectation that they won’t be returned. According to Chidley, with Reposit, cheap-looking and -feeling containers could actually cause low return rates, since people might be more careless with them. His philosophy is to use features like color, weight, and shape to communicate containers’ reusability, making it less plausible that people will confuse them for disposables.

Read Next In France, zero-waste experiments tackle a tough problem: People’s habits Joseph Winters

PR3 doesn’t have much specific advice on these characteristics, but some entrepreneurs Grist spoke with said they’ve hit higher return rates through particular design choices. For Chidley, this means making containers “beautiful” through high-quality, heavier materials with stylish branding. His containers are available at Marks & Spencer grocery stores across England and Scotland. Lindsey Hoell, founder of a reusable container logistics company called Dispatch Goods and a member of PR3’s standards panel, has forgone sharp-edged takeout food containers in favor of ones with smoother edges that “feel fancier.” And because so many single-use plastics are either black or white, her containers are bright red. “There’s a lot of soft science of what makes a consumer feel like something is durable,” she told Grist. Her containers are available across most of the U.S., mostly through grocery and meal delivery programs like Blue Apron and Imperfect Foods.

To some extent, the discussion about expected use cycles and perceived quality is really just another way of asking what kinds of materials reusable containers should be made of: durable plastic or something else? Answering that question can bring into conflict businesses’ economic interests with concerns about health and the environment. 

In the published draft of its standards from last year, PR3 recommended that reusable containers be “plastic-free,” citing plastic additives’ wide-ranging impacts on human health and ecosystems. Plastic can be cheap, light, and durable, but plastic-related chemicals have been shown to build up in people’s bodies and the environment, where they may contribute to hormone disruption, cancer, and reproductive harm.

PR3 panel members like Jane Muncke, chief scientific officer for the nonprofit Food Packaging Forum, supported the recommendation. “I don’t think plastics are suitable materials for reusable packaging,” she told Grist. She’s concerned about chemicals migrating into foods and beverages — especially hot, acidic, or fatty foods, which are better at soaking up some plastic additives. Durable plastics are also largely nonrecyclable; after being turned into new products a few times, they have to be thrown away or “downcycled” into lower-quality products like carpeting.

Read Next Plastic chemicals are inescapable — and they’re messing with our hormones Joseph Winters

Still, many entrepreneurs and even the PR3 founders themselves have moved away from a hard-line stance against plastics. Hoell, for example, originally got into reuse because she was frustrated by plastic-strewn beaches in California — “I’m a surfer and I hate plastics,” she told Grist. She started out making stainless steel containers but soon discovered that rigid plastics had much lower up-front costs, giving her more wiggle room to deal with lower return rates. She didn’t have to worry as much about frequently lost, stolen, or damaged containers. 

Plastic was also easier to transport because of its light weight, Hoell added, and she cited some analyses suggesting that it has a lower carbon footprint than alternatives like steel. (These findings are controversial, however; critics say it’s misleading to focus only on plastic-related carbon emissions and not the materials’ other dangers, like toxic chemicals leaching from landfills.)Dispatch Goods now only makes its containers out of polypropylene, a kind of plastic that’s generally considered more inert than others (although it can still leach hazardous chemicals). Other reuse logistics companies like R.world, which operates in Seattle and is also represented on the PR3 panel, have similarly opted for polypropylene containers instead of metal or glass.

At Seattle Pacific University, a reusable container program for students eating at the Gwinn Commons dining hall also uses rigid plastic. The containers’ low cost allows Sodexo, the school’s foodservice provider, to charge students just $5 to participate in its reuse system all year, without tracking return rates or worrying too much about lost inventory. “We don’t have a list of subscribers,” said Andrew Chaplin, the dining team’s general manager. The program “runs itself.”

Representatives from PR3 told Grist that plastic has been a hot topic of debate among consensus body members, and that the final version of the standards is likely to move away from the “plastic-free” recommendation. “The standards are going to address this with the understanding that if the world can move away from plastic, great, but in the meantime, before that’s feasible, we’d better move where we can,” said Amy Larkin, PR3’s co-founder and director, who pointed out that moving to reusable plastics will still make a huge dent in overall plastic demand. “Let’s get rid of 90 to 95 percent of the production of single-use packaging.”

Rather than calling for specific container shapes and sizes, PR3 has drafted a few broad requirements — like that containers be designed to “optimize durability,” and that they follow “best practices for recyclability.” They must comply with existing food-safety regulations. Optionally, companies may label products with a universal symbol — kind of like the ubiquitous “chasing arrows” used to indicate recyclability. Such a symbol doesn’t yet exist for reuse, but PR3 has proposed one: a black, white, or orange rose-like pictogram along with the word “reuse.”

More specific design elements are included only as recommendations. To make washing easier, for instance, PR3’s draft says reusable containers should have interior angles no smaller than 90 degrees, as well as “feet” to maximize airflow during drying. They also say containers should “nest” to save storage space and make transportation easier.

A stack of reusable plastic to-go containers at a restaurant in Denver. Hyoung Chang / The Denver Post via Getty Images

This flexible approach fits into a category that EMF calls “bespoke with shared standards,” where containers can vary from brand to brand while still sharing common characteristics — like where labels are placed, or the width of a bottle’s mouth. This leaves big brands free to design their own unique packaging if they want to. 

PR3’s approach aims to appease big businesses by allowing them to keep using containers that look and feel very different, so long as they conform to a set of broad requirements. “Product companies want that kind of autonomy,” Juska told Grist.

Coca-Cola, for example, sets itself apart with its iconic — and patented — hourglass-shaped Coke bottle. And beauty companies are notorious for differentiated packaging: Walking down the perfume aisle, you might see bottles shaped like everything from a high-heeled shoe to a kitten.

Many reuse advocates want to do away with those unique container designs, going even further than what PR3 has suggested in order to enable sharing among different companies — a situation where packaging is considered “pooled” within a market. So instead of an extravagant diversity of perfume bottles, all fragrances might come in interchangeable cylindrical jars.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation envisions a system in which the same containers are “pooled” so they can be used across company lines. Courtesy of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation / JDO

A small number of companies — especially in Europe — already do this. For example, through a German program called Mach Mehrweg Pool (roughly translated to “Make Reuse Pool”), brands share a collection of identical glass jars that can be filled with different foods. When consumers return the empty containers to a supermarket, a logistics provider picks them up and brings them back to food producers for cleaning. Another organization called the German Wells Cooperative runs a similar program for reusable soda and water bottles, counting more than 150 beverage makers as members.

Other companies that have experimented with pooling, however, have only done so within the brands they control. Coca-Cola, for instance, has a “universal bottle” initiative in South America in which a single, standardized reusable bottle can be used for all of its beverage brands — Fanta, Sprite, Coke, and others. But the initiative is not universal across company lines; you couldn’t refill a Coke bottle with Pepsi. 

Tom Szaky, founder and CEO of Loop, a “global reuse platform” that is represented on the PR3 panel, said standard-setters shouldn’t try to resist companies’ impulses to differentiate. Brands should be allowed to experiment with both unique and standardized reusable packaging and then “let the market decide” which is preferable, he told Grist. He raised concerns that pooling might not make sense for some particular products — like baby food, since shared containers can increase the risk of contamination, and babies are more vulnerable to illness.

There is already evidence, however, that companies are leaving money on the table by choosing not to pool their containers. According to EMF’s direct comparison of pooled and nonpooled standardized packaging, pooling containers reduces the cost of reusable packaging systems by up to 28 percent.

Plus, at least some intervention — perhaps regulation or financial incentives — is likely required to create conditions that are more favorable to reusables; a hands-off, market-led approach is what has led to today’s proliferation of throwaway plastics. EMF’s modeling suggests that only reuse systems “built collaboratively from the outset” can reach cost parity with single-use. Exactly what that collaboration will look like, however, is unclear, since the kinds of government regulations that could help foster it might be incompatible with the United States’ free market ethos and antitrust laws. Internationally, some cities and countries have done more than the U.S. to promote reuse, but none has gone as far as what EMF is suggesting.

Even in the absence of robust regulations, PR3’s standards are likely to nudge the country — and the world — in the right direction. Once they’re finalized, PR3 plans to submit them to the American National Standards Institute, the U.S. member organization of the ISO. From there, the standards would be opened up to public comment, potential revisions, and then final approval. PR3 would have to go through a separate submission and review process to get the standards approved by member countries of the ISO. 

What would happen next is unclear. Other ISO standards — like for information security and energy efficiency — have been voluntarily adopted by individual companies or industry groups, either because they contain genuinely useful guidance on a complicated issue or because they increase businesses’ perceived trustworthiness. 

ISO standards can also inform government regulations and international agreements. According to Juska, PR3 is already in talks with Canada’s environment ministry to shape new rules on reusable packaging, and the same thing could happen in any number of other jurisdictions. Juska is also hopeful that PR3’s standards will be acknowledged by or incorporated into the United Nations’ global treaty to end plastic pollution. The latest draft of the treaty mentions the need for standards — including for reusable packaging systems — some three dozen times, which Juska said is indicative of how “desperately needed” they are.

“If we want everyone to move in the same direction, we need to set some design parameters for how we want the system to function,” she said.

*Correction: This story originally misattributed Szaky’s comment about baby food to a different person.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What will it take to get companies to embrace reusable packaging? on May 1, 2024.

UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) has appointed a company to help farmout up to half its interest in the Loxley gas project in Surrey.

View of High Billinghurst Farm, whose boundary lies less than 100m from the proposed Loxley site. Photo: High Billinghurst Farm

UKOG has planning permission to build a wellsite and drill and test one exploratory borehole and a side track near the village of Dunsfold.

The project also includes construction of a new access track, a new road junction and highway improvements.

UKOG announced this morning it had appointed Envoi, an oil and gas divestment and marketing specialist, to facilitate the farmout.

The farmout seeks to fund fully the Loxley drilling and testing programme, UKOG said, with its share of the costs carried by the farminee.

UKOG first announced a farmout at Loxley in July 2022.  It said this morning that “active discussions” were also ongoing on a farmout with two energy companies, separately from Envoi’s work.

UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson, said if the farmout process were successful it would “remove the requirement for the company to raise additional funds for its share of costs” for the Loxley project.

Local people have opposed drilling at Loxley.

The scheme was twice refused by Surrey County Council in 2020 but overturned on appeal by the then housing minister, Stuart Andrew in 2022.

A legal challenge by Waverley Borough Council and Protect Dunsfold, backed by the Good Law Project, was  dismissed at the High Court in 2023.

DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.

Last week, the EPA released a suite of long-awaited rules meant to cut down the carbon that the U.S. emits when generating electricity. The rules primarily target existing coal plants and new natural gas facilities, in many cases requiring dramatic emissions cuts that won’t be possible without an unprecedented deployment of carbon capture. (The new EPA proposals are part of an ongoing flurry of federal regulatory actions that must be issued by May 22 to minimize the possibility that they’ll be rolled back if Republican Donald Trump defeats President Joe Biden in November’s election.)

The EPA’s new power sector rules have been widely scrutinized for their potential impact on the country’s electric utilities, which have lately been drawing up plans to expand natural gas capacity in response to the growing electricity demand promised by new industrial facilities, AI-supporting data centers, and electric vehicle adoption. However, last week’s rules also contained substantial new controls on the pollution generated by the nation’s aging fleet of coal-fired power plants — as well as the toxins left behind by the many that have already shuttered — including a proposal that closes a longstanding loophole in federal regulations governing the cleanup of coal ash, a toxic waste byproduct of the coal-fired power process.

The new rule builds on a landmark 2015 rule prohibiting coal ash from being permanently stored in places where it comes into contact with groundwater. This was meant to reform the widespread practice of creating so-called coal ash ponds where the toxin is stored in a wet slurry. While at that time the EPA only applied the rule to coal plants in active use, the new rule will require the cleanup of hundreds of “legacy” coal ash ponds.

“EPA’s new rule is aimed at cleaning up coal plants once and for all,” said Lisa Evans, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, in a press briefing last week. “Coal plants will have to monitor each of these toxic dumps, stop the leaking of hazardous chemicals, and clean up groundwater when contamination is found. This is a watershed moment. For decades, utilities fought coal ash regulation every step of the way with legislation, lawsuits, and lobbying.”

Chris Bowers, an attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, noted that coal ash cleanup is an important environmental justice issue, in part because coal plants have been disproportionately located near poor communities and people of color; some 78 percent of all Black Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant.

“Coal ash continues to be one of the largest, if not the largest, by-volume sources of industrial solid waste that is generated annually. Massive amounts are generated because we’re still burning coal for energy,” said Bowers.

But whether or not the new coal ash regulation brings relief to communities grappling with groundwater contamination may well depend on political will and the agency’s appetite for enforcing its own rules — especially when it means overriding the authority of states that have their own ideas about how strict the rules actually are.

Environmental advocates say that the enforcement of the earlier coal ash rule established a concerning precedent: Rather than implementing the 2015 rule, some states and utilities are effectively waiting out the clock on the Biden administration in the hopes that a potential Trump administration will be friendlier to the power industry. Some utilities are suing the EPA in federal court over interpretations of the rule, while in Georgia and Alabama, state regulators have issued permits that the EPA says are in plain violation of the requirement — leaving the Biden EPA a limited window within which to decisively establish where utilities are allowed to dump coal ash.

“It’s been a pitched battle among the power industry to try to close the chapter on this and do as little as possible,” said Bowers.

Coal plants are usually built near bodies of water because they use turbines powered with steam that must be continuously cooled. For decades, power plants across America dumped coal ash in pits conveniently dug between the plant and a nearby river or lake. Frank Holleman, coordinator of the Southern Environmental Law Center’s regional coal ash initiative, told Grist that this storage method would normally be impermissible for any other kind of waste. Had the 2015 rules been imposed earlier, the ash would have had to be moved to a landfill that was lined to prevent the waste from leaking into its surroundings.

An aerial view of a coal-fired power plant in Juliette, Georgia. Gautama Mehta

“That’s the way all kinds of other waste, including municipal garbage, is stored, but instead of doing that, these utilities — which have tremendous financial resources and tremendous engineering expertise — dug unlined pits between their coal-fired plants and the neighboring water body,” said Holleman.

“When you dig a hole next to a river or lake, you will quickly hit the water table,” Holleman added. That means the water becomes at risk of being contaminated by various toxins, because coal ash contains high concentrations of elements like arsenic, lead, mercury, and selenium, which are hazardous to human and animal health.

Research had long established these dangers to groundwater, but it took two disastrous spills — one at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Fossil coal plant in 2008, and a second at Duke Energy’s Dan River Steam Station in North Carolina in 2014 — for the EPA to issue its landmark 2015 rule. That rule gave the EPA control of the permitting process for coal ash disposal, but it also allowed individual states to apply for delegated authority to administer their own coal ash programs, on the condition that their standards for the cleanup be at least as restrictive as the federal rule.

The 2015 rule went largely unchallenged by utilities until the EPA, under President Biden, ramped up enforcement. Now, in Georgia and Alabama, the federal government is at loggerheads with state agencies over its interpretation of the 2015 rule — leaving environmental advocates concerned that last week’s extension of that rule to cover legacy ponds could suffer the same fate. Meanwhile, a group of utilities is suing the EPA in the D.C. Circuit court over its heightened enforcement of the 2015 rule, which the utilities say amounts to an actual change to the rule itself.

Georgia was among a handful of states to be granted its own permitting program. Fletcher Sams, executive director of the Altamaha Riverkeeper, a conservation organization in Georgia, has spent the last five years advocating for residents of the town of Juliette, which is home to what was once the nation’s largest coal plant. The state’s dominant utility company plans to close a massive coal ash pond that has come into contact with groundwater there; residents allege that the pond previously contaminated drinking water drawn from wells in the town, sickening locals.

Sams told Grist that he is “very excited about new rules for legacy ponds that would regulate them the same as 2015 ponds. However, if they’re going to enforce them in Georgia like they’re enforcing the 2015 rule, they’re not worth the paper they’re printed on.”

Georgia’s state environmental agency recently approved a pond closure plan at another coal plant in northwest Georgia, where 1.1 million tons of coal ash will be stored permanently in an unlined pit. The EPA issued a letter in February declaring that this plan violated the federal standard, but the agency has not yet directly intervened to contravene the state’s authority.

In Alabama, however, the EPA took the more drastic step last summer of proposing to deny the state’s request for a delegated program similar to Georgia’s, due to the state’s planned approval of coal ash permits that violate the 2015 rule. (A spokesperson for the Alabama Department of Environmental Management said that the EPA’s denial was “unwarranted” and that the state has complied and continues to comply with federal requirements in its coal ash permitting, which it says is “protective of human health and the environment.”)

The debate between the EPA and the utilities opposing it — as well as the state of Georgia — hinges on the definition of the word “infiltration.” The EPA and environmental advocates argue that the 2015 rule prohibits a coal ash storage site from being infiltrated by water in any direction, while utilities and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division say the word “infiltration” refers only to rainwater seeping into coal ash from above, rather than groundwater from below.

At sites where coal ash is in direct contact with groundwater, the EPA expects utilities to dig it up and install a liner separating it from the water table underneath. But many utilities only want to put a “cap” above the ash ponds to prevent rainwater infiltration — and nothing below.

Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline EPA finally takes on abandoned coal ash ponds — but it might be too late on May 1, 2024.

Headline News:

• “Eurostar Pledges To Power Trains With 100% Renewable Energy By 2030” • Eurostar, the high-speed rail network in the northwest of Europe, announced a goal of enabling 30 million passengers to travel sustainably while lowering carbon emissions. Eurostar’s objective is to power its trains using 100% renewable energy by 2030. [Rail Business Daily]

Eurostar train (Eurostar image)

• “Data Reveals Big Milestones For California’s Wind, Water And Solar Power Production” • According to data at the California Independent System Operator’s website, during the past 52 days wind, water, and solar power have provided an average of 61.5% of the state’s electricity demand. And renewables meet 100% of demand for at least 15 minutes of 44 days. [MSN]
• “G7 Energy Ministers Agree To Close Coal-Fired Generating Stations By 2035” • Energy ministers from the G7 countries – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, the US and the EU – agreed at a meeting in Turin to close all of their coal-fired generating stations by 2035, exceptions are Germany, which has until 2038, and Japan. [CleanTechnica]
• “Buh-Bye, Conflict Minerals: US Gets First Sodium-Ion Battery Factory” • In the latest sodium-ion battery news, the US startup Natron Energy staked out its claim to the first commercial-scale production of a sodium-ion battery in the US when it hit the start button on its factory in Michigan. It plans to make 600 MW of sodium batteries per year. [CleanTechnica]
• “New Jersey Seeks Fourth Round Of Offshore Wind Farm Proposals As Foes Push Back” • New Jersey’s Board of Public Utilities opened a fourth round of proposals to build wind farms off its coastline, forging ahead with its clean energy goals. Local opposition and challenging economics, however, are creating blowback to the effort. [ABC News]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

Diversifying the climate movement Channel Comment Yasmin 1st May 2024 Teaser Media

Attn. Reds & Greens: Eight recent books for people who want to change the world

Source

Thank you for joining our 50th anniversary celebration! We are honored to be on this journey with you and are grateful for your continued support.

While we commemorate our birthday of May 1, 1974, a milestone like this is too big to confine to one day. Restoring power to local communities to build vibrant, resilient, equitable cities and towns takes sustained effort. Holding corporate giants accountable and walking with communities in search of a better way takes determined commitment. Today marks a completed chapter in this 50-year story of ours and a fresh page for writing what comes next. Propel us into the next 50 years.

 

Small Together Now Donate

Make a one-time gift or, better yet, a recurring contribution to support our research, advocacy, and technical assistance that puts power back into the hands of local communities.

• Click here to donate.

You can also buy merchandise from our online store and wear your support on your sleeve (or head, or ankles…)

Celebrating Champions and a Lifetime of Achievement

We are only successful in our work because of the relentlessness of individuals in communities fighting for fairness and freedom from corporate dominance. We are honored to recognize the following recipients of our 50th-anniversary awards for championing justice, corporate accountability, and a lifetime of achievement:

• Jim Baller: Local Self-Reliance Lifetime Achievement
• Linnea Jackson: Local Self-Reliance Connectivity Champion
• Michael Martinez: Composting for Community Groundbreaker
• Benny Erez: Local Self-Reliance Lifetime Achievement
• Mariel Nanasi: Corporate Accountability and Energy Justice Champion
• Jacqui Patterson: Corporate Accountability and Energy Justice Champion
• Vanessa Hall-Harper: Economic Justice Champion

Our award is a triangle planter box made from reclaimed wood, reflecting our vision of sustainable communities that breed new life when nurtured.

ILSR Beginnings and Founders Recognition

David Morris, Gil Friend, and Neil Seldman formed the foundation of the movement to build local power and fight corporate control, and 50 years later, the story grows more remarkable by the day. From a three-story townhouse in DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood, what started as an incubator for the founders’ theories about community self-determination and local self-reliance quickly blossomed into the work ILSR would become known for 50 years later. The journey to get here is one worth telling and celebrating.

The short film debuting at ILSR’s 50th-anniversary gala was directed by Dario Carrasco.

Reflections on the Necessity of Local from Alec MacGillis

The keynote speaker at our anniversary gala connects economic concentration to the plight of the postindustrial Midwest while highlighting the importance of local media as seen through his hometown of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and his current place of residence, Baltimore.

• Read about Alec and his writing on these topics and more here.

Stay Connected

• Receive newsletters from our initiatives.
• Engage on your favorite social platforms.
• Subscribe to our podcasts.

 

Happy May Day Tender Comrades!   Here is a repost of our May Day episode from 2021. In it, we talk about the history of May Day from pagan rituals…

Our partner, Alliance for Housing Justice, breaks down the concept of Social Housing and how it can be the answer to America’s deepening housing crisis. Watch and join us in ensuring housing is built for everyone, and designed so nobody’s left behind.

Watch Social Housing 101 | The Answer to America’s Housing Crisis

The post Video: Social Housing: Addressing America’s Housing Crisis | Video by Alliance for Housing Justice appeared first on Public Advocates.

Earth Month 2024 brought big conservation wins at the White House and Congress -- and new campaigns to protect the lands and waters that are critical to our communities, our wildlife, and our future...

Today the Biden administration finalized a rule implementing changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the bedrock law that guides how federal agencies assess the potential...

The Biden administration has taken some bold moves to rein in big tech and to challenge market concentration more broadly. Who is winning this battle and why? What are the possibilities for and constraints on a fundamental shift in market power in America?

In April, Stacy Mitchell joined a panel, hosted by the Berkeley Economy and Society Initiative at UC Berkeley, exploring these questions and more, bringing together scholars who study the history, theory, and practice of antitrust with advocates directly engaged in policy debates today.

The panel also featured Gerald Berk, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Oregon; AnnaLee Saxenian, Professor in the School of Information, UC Berkeley; Matt Stoller, Director of Research at the American Economic Liberties Project; and Steven Vogel, Professor of Political Science and Political Economy, UC Berkeley. Isabella Mariani, a graduate student in the Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program, moderated.

You can watch “Has US Antitrust Reached A Turning Point?” here or below.

If you like this post, be sure to sign up for the monthly Hometown Advantage newsletter for our latest reporting and research.

Since it was first signed into law in 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has been one of the most important statutes for protecting birds, other wildlife, and communities from the...

What you need to know about international sunscreens rcoleman April 30, 2024

In the age of beauty influencers, skin care is taking center stage, with more than a million posts about sunscreen on TikTok alone. The quest for the safest and most effective sunscreen seems to be on everyone’s mind, but finding the right one can be challenging.

A growing number of beauty influencers are touting the benefits of sunscreens sold outside the U.S. with features and options that aren’t available here. As a result, more Americans are exploring buying sunscreens made in the European Union and Asia. 

Before jumping on this sunscreen trend, though, do your research. Reliable information can be scarce online, and some myths about sunscreen might influence your decision. 

EWG’s 2024 Guide to Sunscreens provides all you need to find the SPF product that best fits your sun protection needs.

What makes international sunscreens different?

The U.S. is unlike most of the world in that the Food and Drug Administration regulates sunscreen as an over-the-counter drug instead of as a cosmetic. So U.S. sunscreen ingredients must meet the same strict standards as any over-the-counter drug, like Advil and Tylenol. 

In the EU, Australia and most of Asia, sunscreen is classified as a cosmetic. This allows companies to identify and gain approval for safer sunscreen ingredients quicker than in the U.S. These companies have greater access to newer ingredients, which offer more effective protection against the sun’s ultraviolet A and B, or UVA and UVB, radiation.

Both UVA and UVB rays can damage skin cells. So UV filters are essential to sunscreen formulations, because they protect against the sun's harmful rays. UVA rays penetrate farther into the skin and cause wrinkles and increase the risk of skin cancer. UVB rays primarily cause sunburns.

According to EWG scientists, most sunscreens sold in the U.S. would not meet international standards. The standard for UVA protection is higher, and many U.S. sunscreens don’t filter UVA rays as effectively. 

The EU has 34 approved UV filters but the U.S. only has 16.

The FDA hasn’t approved a sunscreen filter for use since 1996. In 2014, the agency rejected eight new sunscreen filters, all of which are used internationally. According to the agency, sunscreen manufacturers did not provide sufficient safety data to support their use. 

Only two ingredients currently used in U.S. products, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, have adequate safety data and are generally recognized as safe and effective for use in sunscreens. The FDA has repeatedly asked sunscreen manufacturers to provide additional safety data for the chemicals used to filter UVA and UVB rays in non-mineral sunscreens.

Despite its attempt to protect public health, the FDA’s regulation of sunscreen as an over-the-counter drug denies Americans access to newer, more effective, ingredients used internationally. 

Looking for products sold abroad

Buying international sunscreens comes with some risk. 

It is illegal to buy and sell non-FDA-approved products, even if they’ve been approved by international agencies. It’s also possible to inadvertently buy potentially unsafe counterfeit products online. And customs will likely confiscate sunscreen products if brought into the U.S. in bulk. 

Finding safer U.S. sunscreens

In 2021, the FDA proposed an update to its sunscreen regulations that would include improved UVA protection, better labeling and a limit to the range of SPF values. But the agency has yet to adopt these new standards. 

Despite the FDA’s inaction and companies’ failure to provide safety data about additional ingredients, the U.S. still has a number of effective sunscreen options without hazardous ingredients. 

EWG's sunscreen ratings factor in stability, UVA and UVB protection and balance, and ingredient health hazards. 

Last year, EWG introduced EWG Verified®: Sunscreens. Products that carry the mark meet our strict scientific standards for transparency and health.

EWG Verified sunscreens do not contain ingredients banned in Canada or the EU, and ingredients must meet international government restrictions.

Many of EWG’s sunscreen recommendations contain the ingredient mineral zinc oxide, which offers good UVA protection and does not absorb into the skin. 

Detailed information on sunscreens for babies and kids, recreation and daily use, is available through our website.

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics Family Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Disqus Comments Guest Authors Alexandra Hopkins, EWG Communications Intern May 1, 2024