Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

If plastic manufacturing goes up 10%, plastic pollution goes up 10% – and we’re set for a huge surge in production

News Feed
Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Xavier Boulenger/ShutterstockIn the two decades to 2019, global plastic production doubled. By 2040, plastic manufacturing and processing could consume as much as 20% of global oil production and use up 15% of the annual carbon emissions budget. Most of the plastic we make ends up as waste. As plastic manufacturers increase production, more and more of it will end up in our landfills, rivers and oceans. Plastic waste is set to triple by 2060. Producers often put the onus back on consumers by pointing to recycling schemes as a solution to plastic pollution. If we recycle our plastics, it shouldn’t matter how much we produce – right? Not quite. The key question here is how close the is relationship between plastic production and pollution. Our new research found the relationship is direct – a 1% increase in plastic production leads to a 1% increase in plastic pollution, meaning unmanaged waste such as bottles in rivers and floating plastic in the oceans. Not only that, but over half of branded plastic pollution is linked to just 56 companies worldwide. The Coca-Cola Company accounts for 11% of branded waste and PepsiCo 5%. If these companies introduce effective plastic reduction plans, we could see a measurable reduction in plastic in the environment. The problem is only going to get more urgent. By the end of the current decade, experts estimate another 53 million tons will end up in the oceans every single year. That’s bad for us, and for other species. Plastics can cause real damage to our health. Our first exposure to them starts in the womb. In the seas, plastics can choke turtles and seabirds. On land, they can poison groundwater. Socially and economically, plastic pollution now costs us about A$3.8 trillion a year. This week, negotiators are gathered in Canada to continue developing a legally binding global plastics treaty. Plastic fantastic? In the 1960s and 70s, plastics were seen as a modern wonder. Soon, they became common – and then ubiquitous. Single-use plastics appeared everywhere. After being tossed onto roadsides or in rivers, these plastics can make their way to the ocean. Today, about 36% of all the world’s plastic pollution comes from the packaging sector in the form of single-use plastics. To find out how plastic production influences waste, we turned to global data from litter audits, surveys of waste in the environment. Data from these audits is useful to understand changes in types and volumes of plastic waste. We used five years of audit data from more than 1,500 audits across 84 countries. The audits showed 48% of the litter had a brand name, and 52% was unbranded. To assess production levels, we used data reported to a circular economy organisation by major plastics companies and compared it against levels of branded plastic pollution. We expected more production would mean more waste, but not such a direct correlation. The fact it’s a 1:1 ratio is eye-opening. What this means is as plastic-packaging producing companies scale up their operations, they directly contribute more waste to the environment. We found just 13 companies individually contributed 1% or more of the total branded plastic observed. All of these companies produce food, beverage, or tobacco products, usually packaged in single-use plastic. The Coca-Cola Company products were the top source of branded plastic pollution, representing 11% of all branded litter. Right now, companies get to sell their products in single-use plastics and the onus is on consumers to recycle or bin the plastic. This in turn creates high costs for local governments, who run the waste services. There’s also the cost of a degraded environment we all bear. Many major companies have made voluntary commitments to reduce plastic. However, many of these companies are missing their targets, suggesting these voluntary measures are proving ineffective. There’s a better alternative. Producer responsibility schemes could help to shift the costs and responsibility away from consumers and back to the producers. This is in line with the “polluter pays” principle – companies making products that become waste have the responsibility to ensure it’s appropriately managed. Where these schemes are up and running, such as in the European Union, companies often respond by changing how they package products. If it costs them money, they will act. The problem of single-use plastics Even when collected, single-use plastics are a difficult waste stream to manage as they have little or no recycling value. Sometimes these plastics are burned as fuel for cement kilns or used in waste-to-energy facilities. Recycling can be a surprisingly large source of microplastics, as mechanical recycling methods chew up bottles into tiny bits. Then there’s the fact recycling is not a circle, as the famous logo might suggest. The more we recycle plastic, the more degraded it becomes. Eventually, this plastic becomes waste. Read more: Plastic pollution: campaigners around the world are using the courts to clean up – but manufacturers are fighting back To stop plastic waste, stop making more plastic If recycling and landfilling can only go so far, the missing piece of the puzzle has to be capping plastic production. What would that look like? It would involve requiring manufacturers to steadily reduce the amount of plastic used in their products over time and adopt safe, sustainable plastic alternatives as they become available. Countries could: set measurable targets to phase out non-essential, hazardous and unsustainable single-use products, such as take-away containers, plastic cutlery and single-use plastic bags work to design safe and sustainable products to cut global demand for new plastic while increasing reuse, refilling, repairing, and recycling invest in non-plastic alternatives and substitutes with better social, economic and environmental profiles, such as old-fashioned reusables. What about the 52% of unbranded plastic waste? To tackle this requires better data and accountability, such as through an international open-access database of plastic producers or through international standards for package branding. Australia is moving towards this with its planned reforms for packaging. One thing is certain – current trends mean ever more plastic, and more plastic means more plastic pollution. Read more: The climate impact of plastic pollution is negligible – the production of new plastics is the real problem Britta Denise Hardesty receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and from The United Nations Environment Programme and in the past has received philanthropic funding. None of the funding received in any way relates to the work discussed or highlighted in this article. Win Cowger receives funding from Possibility Lab, Break Free From Plastic, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and McPike Zima Charitable Foundation. He is affiliated with the Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research. Kathryn Willis and Katie Conlon, Ph.D. do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The more plastic, the more waste we produce. It sounds simple, but this discovery could help us find ways of ending plastic pollution.

Xavier Boulenger/Shutterstock

In the two decades to 2019, global plastic production doubled. By 2040, plastic manufacturing and processing could consume as much as 20% of global oil production and use up 15% of the annual carbon emissions budget.

Most of the plastic we make ends up as waste. As plastic manufacturers increase production, more and more of it will end up in our landfills, rivers and oceans. Plastic waste is set to triple by 2060.

Producers often put the onus back on consumers by pointing to recycling schemes as a solution to plastic pollution. If we recycle our plastics, it shouldn’t matter how much we produce – right?

Not quite. The key question here is how close the is relationship between plastic production and pollution. Our new research found the relationship is direct – a 1% increase in plastic production leads to a 1% increase in plastic pollution, meaning unmanaged waste such as bottles in rivers and floating plastic in the oceans.

Not only that, but over half of branded plastic pollution is linked to just 56 companies worldwide. The Coca-Cola Company accounts for 11% of branded waste and PepsiCo 5%. If these companies introduce effective plastic reduction plans, we could see a measurable reduction in plastic in the environment.

The problem is only going to get more urgent. By the end of the current decade, experts estimate another 53 million tons will end up in the oceans every single year. That’s bad for us, and for other species. Plastics can cause real damage to our health. Our first exposure to them starts in the womb. In the seas, plastics can choke turtles and seabirds. On land, they can poison groundwater. Socially and economically, plastic pollution now costs us about A$3.8 trillion a year.

This week, negotiators are gathered in Canada to continue developing a legally binding global plastics treaty.

Plastic fantastic?

In the 1960s and 70s, plastics were seen as a modern wonder. Soon, they became common – and then ubiquitous. Single-use plastics appeared everywhere. After being tossed onto roadsides or in rivers, these plastics can make their way to the ocean.

Today, about 36% of all the world’s plastic pollution comes from the packaging sector in the form of single-use plastics.

To find out how plastic production influences waste, we turned to global data from litter audits, surveys of waste in the environment. Data from these audits is useful to understand changes in types and volumes of plastic waste. We used five years of audit data from more than 1,500 audits across 84 countries. The audits showed 48% of the litter had a brand name, and 52% was unbranded.

To assess production levels, we used data reported to a circular economy organisation by major plastics companies and compared it against levels of branded plastic pollution.

We expected more production would mean more waste, but not such a direct correlation. The fact it’s a 1:1 ratio is eye-opening. What this means is as plastic-packaging producing companies scale up their operations, they directly contribute more waste to the environment.

We found just 13 companies individually contributed 1% or more of the total branded plastic observed. All of these companies produce food, beverage, or tobacco products, usually packaged in single-use plastic.

The Coca-Cola Company products were the top source of branded plastic pollution, representing 11% of all branded litter.

Right now, companies get to sell their products in single-use plastics and the onus is on consumers to recycle or bin the plastic. This in turn creates high costs for local governments, who run the waste services. There’s also the cost of a degraded environment we all bear.

Many major companies have made voluntary commitments to reduce plastic. However, many of these companies are missing their targets, suggesting these voluntary measures are proving ineffective.

There’s a better alternative. Producer responsibility schemes could help to shift the costs and responsibility away from consumers and back to the producers. This is in line with the “polluter pays” principle – companies making products that become waste have the responsibility to ensure it’s appropriately managed.

Where these schemes are up and running, such as in the European Union, companies often respond by changing how they package products. If it costs them money, they will act.

The problem of single-use plastics

Even when collected, single-use plastics are a difficult waste stream to manage as they have little or no recycling value. Sometimes these plastics are burned as fuel for cement kilns or used in waste-to-energy facilities.

Recycling can be a surprisingly large source of microplastics, as mechanical recycling methods chew up bottles into tiny bits.

Then there’s the fact recycling is not a circle, as the famous logo might suggest. The more we recycle plastic, the more degraded it becomes. Eventually, this plastic becomes waste.


Read more: Plastic pollution: campaigners around the world are using the courts to clean up – but manufacturers are fighting back


To stop plastic waste, stop making more plastic

If recycling and landfilling can only go so far, the missing piece of the puzzle has to be capping plastic production.

What would that look like?

It would involve requiring manufacturers to steadily reduce the amount of plastic used in their products over time and adopt safe, sustainable plastic alternatives as they become available.

Countries could:

  • set measurable targets to phase out non-essential, hazardous and unsustainable single-use products, such as take-away containers, plastic cutlery and single-use plastic bags

  • work to design safe and sustainable products to cut global demand for new plastic while increasing reuse, refilling, repairing, and recycling

  • invest in non-plastic alternatives and substitutes with better social, economic and environmental profiles, such as old-fashioned reusables.

What about the 52% of unbranded plastic waste? To tackle this requires better data and accountability, such as through an international open-access database of plastic producers or through international standards for package branding. Australia is moving towards this with its planned reforms for packaging.

One thing is certain – current trends mean ever more plastic, and more plastic means more plastic pollution.


Read more: The climate impact of plastic pollution is negligible – the production of new plastics is the real problem


The Conversation

Britta Denise Hardesty receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and from The United Nations Environment Programme and in the past has received philanthropic funding. None of the funding received in any way relates to the work discussed or highlighted in this article.

Win Cowger receives funding from Possibility Lab, Break Free From Plastic, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and McPike Zima Charitable Foundation. He is affiliated with the Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research.

Kathryn Willis and Katie Conlon, Ph.D. do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Ministers lose appeal against Yorkshire anglers’ river pollution ruling

Appeal court finds in favour of Pickering Fishery Association members who wanted river to be cleanedA group of anglers trying to restore the ecosystem of a river have seen off a challenge by the environment secretary, Steve Reed, who claimed that cleaning up their waterway was administratively unworkable.Reed took an appeal against a group of anglers from North Yorkshire, who had won a legal case arguing that the government and the Environment Agency’s plans to clean up the Upper Costa Beck, a former trout stream devastated by sewage pollution and runoff, were so vague they were ineffectual. Continue reading...

A group of anglers trying to restore the ecosystem of a river have seen off a challenge by the environment secretary, Steve Reed, who claimed that cleaning up their waterway was administratively unworkable.Reed took an appeal against a group of anglers from North Yorkshire, who had won a legal case arguing that the government and the Environment Agency’s plans to clean up the Upper Costa Beck, a former trout stream devastated by sewage pollution and runoff, were so vague they were ineffectual.The environment secretary decided, after Labour won the election last year, to continue the challenge which had begun under the previous Conservative government.On Wednesday, the appeal court found in favour of the anglers, the Pickering Fishery Association.The judges dismissed Reed’s argument that it is administratively unworkable to develop specific measures to clean up individual rivers, lakes and streams as is required by law under the Water Framework Directive – legislation which aims to improve the quality of rivers, lakes and coastal waters.Andrew Kelton, solicitor from Fish Legal which represented the anglers, said: “This case goes to the heart of why the government has failed to make progress towards improving the health of rivers and lakes in England.“Only 16% of waterbodies – 14% of rivers – are currently achieving ‘good ecological status’, with no improvement for at least a decade, which comes as no surprise to us having seen how the Environment Agency at first proposed, but then for some reason failed to follow through with, the tough action needed against polluters in this case.”He said the Upper Costa Beck was just one of 4,929 waterbodies, but was a case study in regulatory inaction in the face of evidence of declining river health.The Costa Beck is failing to achieve good ecological status under the Water Framework Directive regulations partly because of sewage pollution and runoff from farms.The anglers, who have spent more than 10 years trying to get the authorities to clean up the river, took the government and the EA to court in an attempt to force action. They successfully argued that the plan by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the EA to improve the stream lacked the legally required measures necessary to restore it – for example, it did not include the tightening of discharge permits for sewage treatment works.The judge in the high court found that the government had unlawfully failed to assess and identify specific measures to achieve the legally mandatory targets for the waterbody. That ruling was on Wednesday upheld by the appeal court.Penelope Gane, head of practice at Fish Legal, said Reed could now show a real commitment to restoring rivers and lakes.“What we need is meaningful action to clean up rivers,” she said. “Anything short of that will be a tacit admission that the government has abandoned its environmental ambitions for water.”Defra have been approached for comment.

The bid to make Illinois a leader on electric trucking

A coalition of environmental justice advocates is pushing Illinois to become the first Midwest state to adopt California’s Advanced Clean Trucks standards designed to spur a transition to zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles over the next decade. “Air pollution is an equity issue,” Griselda Chavez, an environmental…

A coalition of environmental justice advocates is pushing Illinois to become the first Midwest state to adopt California’s Advanced Clean Trucks standards designed to spur a transition to zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles over the next decade. “Air pollution is an equity issue,” Griselda Chavez, an environmental justice organizer with Warehouse Workers for Justice, said at a recent press conference. The group represents workers and residents in communities heavily impacted by warehouses, including the Chicago-area town of Joliet, a major logistics hub. “Black, brown, and low-income communities in and around Joliet are disproportionately affected by diesel pollution, large amounts of truck traffic, and increasing growth of the warehouse industry,” Chavez said. ​“Those workers also go home to their families and go to schools that are surrounded by large amounts of truck traffic and poor air quality.” The Illinois Pollution Control Board is considering adopting not only California’s clean truck standards but also the Golden State’s Advanced Clean Cars II program, which would phase out the sale of most non-electric passenger vehicles by 2035, and its stricter nitrogen oxide limits on heavy-duty vehicles. The deliberations are happening as the Trump administration seeks to block California’s unique authority to set vehicle emission standards that exceed federal rules. Illinois advocates have focused mostly on the clean trucks program because of the health and environmental justice implications of diesel-powered trucks throughout the state. They are especially concerned about places like Joliet and Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood, a largely immigrant community where warehouses have also proliferated. In 2023, the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization worked with the Center for Neighborhood Technology on a truck-counting study that showed on one June day, an average of 1.5 heavy-duty trucks per minute drove along a residential street in the heart of the community. Sally Burgess, downstate lead organizing representative for Sierra Club’s Illinois chapter, told the Pollution Control Board during a March 10 hearing that she counted more than 300 diesel-burning semi-trucks during the 65-mile drive between her home in central Illinois and the state’s capitol. “All along our route, on both sides of the highway, farm fields, rustic barns, cows and other farm animals, some homes,” said Burgess. ​“Some would refer to it as a bucolic rural setting — clogged with diesel trucks.” Stimulating Illinois’ EV markets The Advanced Clean Trucks program would require manufacturers selling in Illinois to ensure that between 40% and 75% of their heavy-duty vehicle sales are zero-emissions by 2035, with the percentage depending on type of vehicle. They would have to sell higher percentages of electric medium-sized non-tractor trucks than pickup trucks and vans as well as larger tractor-trailers. Manufacturers could also comply by purchasing credits from other companies that go beyond those targets, or by shifting credits from types of vehicles where they exceed the mandates. “If, for example, a truck-maker sells a lot of zero-emission delivery vans but doesn’t offer a zero-emission version of their box trucks, they can convert their extra [pickup and van] credits into [midsize truck] credits and still maintain compliance,” said Trisha DelloIacono, head of policy for Calstart, a national nonprofit focused on clean transportation policy and market development, by email. DelloIacono said demand for zero-emissions heavy-duty vehicles is so high that manufacturers should not have trouble meeting the sales targets if they make the inventory available. After a certain number of years, those that don’t comply either through electric vehicle sales or credit purchases could be fined. Advocates say that the state mandates benefit people nationwide since they motivate manufacturers to increase their EV offerings.

Could electric drones you can sit in take off?

Skyfly's aircraft promises the flexibility of a helicopter without the cost, noise or emissions.

Could electric drones you can sit in take off?Katharine Da CostaReporting fromOxfordshireBBCThe Skyfly Axe can take off vertically like a helicopter or land on a runwayImagine an electric drone mixed with a fixed wing plane - that is the concept behind a new two-seater aircraft being developed by start-up company, Skyfly.The Axe promises the flexibility of a helicopter but without the cost, noise pollution or carbon emissions.It is a vertically capable aircraft, or Electric Vertical Take-off and Landing (eVTOL) aircraft, which means it can take off like a helicopter.It also has two fixed wings that allows it to take off and land from a runway.The company claims the Axe has a top speed of 100mph, it can carry up to 172kg - approximately the weight of two 13.5st adults - and has a range of 100 miles, about the distance from Oxford to the Isle of Wight.Michael Thompson, CEO of Skyfly, is optimistic the new model will be delivered to customers early next yearThe team, based near Banbury in Oxfordshire, has taken five years to fine tune the design."Compared to a conventional aircraft it's got eight motors which is very strange," says Dr Bill Brooks, Skyfly's chief technical engineer."And it's a tail-first layout called a canard so it's got the tail at the front. The all up weight is 750kg but 240kg of that are batteries so all the structure is carbon fibre to keep it as light as possible," Dr Brooks says.Safety is an important part of the design too. 'Environmental benefits'The large wings help it to glide in the event of power failure and there are two motors at the end of each wing so that if one fails the other can compensate.It is also equipped with an emergency ballistic parachute to bring the aircraft and passengers down safely.As well as being safer and cleaner than conventional aircraft, Michael Thompson, Skyfly's chief executive, says electric models are significantly quieter too."When you're taking off, you're no longer annoying everyone around you from a noise perspective, so I do think electric propulsion brings not only environmental benefits but from a noise pollution point of view, it's a huge benefit as well," he says.Dr Bill Brooks is the chief engineer and test pilot at SkyflyWho is it marketed at?Other eVTOLs under development include those looking to provide an electric flying-taxi service like Bristol-based Vertical Aerospace (VA) . VA, as well as Archer and Joby in the US, are designing electric powered aircraft to carry up to four passengers.Skyfly's Axe, by comparison, is more compact and aimed at the private market.The do-it-youself kit-plane comes with a price tag of £250,000.It is aimed at existing pilots who want to transition away from diesel piston engines.Jason Pritchard, executive editor of eVTOL Insights, says it is also likely to appeal to flying clubs in order to train new members:"The eVTOL aircraft industry is still in its infancy with initial operations a few years away, but it also needs to train large numbers of pilots in the coming years," he says."Additionally, the Axe's design can also train pilots with the skills and controls necessary to land an aircraft without power, which is a necessary tool."SkyflyThe two-seater light aircraft has a range of around 100 milesWhat about charging infrastructure?While the Axe can be charged up overnight with a conventional three-pin plug, just like EV cars, electric aircraft will need the charging infrastructure to be scaled up. Aerovolt, based in West Sussex, has installed rapid chargers at seven UK airports with 40 more in the pipeline.Its founder, Philip Kingsley-Dobson, says demand is growing. "A lot of piston aircraft can't use leaded fuel in the future so they're looking for alternatives and ways we can decarbonise the lower end of aviation," he says.'Cutting edge'There are no eVTOL aircraft currently permitted to fly in the UK.Skyfly's Axe has successfully completed manned test flights in both hover and forward flight modes but still needs to be certified by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).With 40 pre-orders from buyers all over the world, the company hopes to deliver the new model to customers early next year.A CAA spokesperson said: "We are working with innovators to test and fly brand new forms of aviation that keeps the UK at the cutting edge of flight technology and supports the sector to grow."New technology comes with new challenges and safety remains our priority in all this work."

Record number of illegal sewage spills in Windermere last year

Campaigners identified 140 illegal spill days into the beauty spot in 2024

Record number of illegal sewage spills in Windermere last yearJonah FisherBBC environment correspondentReutersSewage spilled illegally into Britain's largest lake on a record number of days last year, an analysis of water company data by campaigners suggests.The analysis, which the BBC had exclusive access to, used United Utilities operational data to establish when the company was discharging sewage into Windermere when it should by law have been treating some of it.The campaigners from Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (WASP) and Save Windermere identified 140 illegal spill days in 2024, more than in any of the three previous years. United Utilities told BBC News that the campaigners' findings were "inaccurate" and some of the data "erroneous". The company declined to put in writing, despite repeated requests, any specific examples of mistakes or omissions. Regulators Ofwat and the Environment Agency are both currently investigating United Utilities operations. PAWindermere is one of Britain's most loved beauty spotsLast week the Environment Agency said United Utilities had spilled 77,817 times in 2024, the highest figure of all England's water companies. Many of the spills will have been legal. All water companies are legally allowed to discharge raw sewage to stop the network getting overwhelmed and this now happens regularly during periods of heavy rain.But almost all pumping stations and treatment plants operate under an environmental permit which specify that they must process or "pass forward" a certain amount of sewage and rainwater before spilling starts.The campaigners cross-referenced United Utilities datasets showing when an asset was spilling against how much sewage it was treating at the time. The campaigners' analysis – which has been shared with and scrutinised by the BBC - found days when illegal spills appear to have occurred at each of six sewage facilities around the lake, which combined to 140 days in 2024. That's more than in any of the previous three years, as the chart below shows.The longest illegal spill the analysis identified was for 10 days from Hawkshead pumping station, which flows into Windermere via Cunsey Beck."This is an indication that their works have not been maintained properly or they're not being watched over properly," says Prof Peter Hammond, a mathematican and retired academic from campaign group Windrush Against Sewage Pollution. Prof Hammond's analysis of water company data has been cited by regulators and he has been praised in Parliament by water company executives for bringing problems to light they were previously unaware of. The latest analysis covers four years of data from six sites that discharge sewage into the Lake Windermere catchment.Comparisons over a longer time period are impossible as United Utilities has only had made full data sets available since 2021.Prof Hammond's analysis of water company data has been praised in ParliamentThe regulators Ofwat and the Environment Agency have since 2021 been investigating whether the water companies have been treating enough sewage before they start to spill. The EA call it a "major criminal investigation" while Ofwat call it "the largest and most complex Ofwat has ever undertaken". Last week Yorkshire Water agreed to a £40m "enforcement action" after Ofwat uncovered "serious failures" in how it operated its treatment plant and network. Ofwat declined to comment on the campaigner's findings as their investigation into United Utilities is ongoing. In response to concerns about United Utilities the Environment Agency last year reviewed all of its environmental permits in the Windermere catchment and says this led directly to the water company tripling its investment plans for the area to £200m."We are currently carrying out investigations into suspected pollution incidents on the Windermere catchment and are unable to comment on these in detail until they have reached a conclusion," an EA spokesperson said when the campaigners' analysis was shared with them."Where we find breaches of environmental permits, we will take the appropriate enforcement action up to and including a criminal prosecution."Save WindermereSewage has been blamed for turning parts of the lake green – so called "algal blooming"United Utilities, which provides services to more than seven million people across north-west England, is more than £9bn in debt. Its chief executive Louise Beardmore confirmed to parliament in February that she was last year paid £1.4m including a bonus of £420,000."The methodology used by the campaigners is different to that used by the Environment Agency for its compliance assessments," the water company said in a statement."On top of that, erroneous data has been used, tags and naming conventions in data sets appear to have been misunderstood, and assumptions seem to have been made on whether different types of flow meters have been installed.""The methodology fails to use other corroborating information from the sites which would prove that spills did not occur. As a result, the numbers quoted are inaccurate."BBC News presented United Utilities with five examples of illegal spills the campaigners' analysis had identified using the company's data and asked for any evidence or explanation as to why they were not illegal. United Utilities repeatedly declined to do so in writing or on camera."What we're seeing is the failure of privatisation. We're seeing a prioritisation of dividend returns over the long-term environmental protection of places like Windermere" says Matt Staniek from Save Windermere."The bill payer has paid for a service that has never fully been provided, and the illegality demonstrates that for all to see."Over the next five years bills in the United Utilities area will go up by 32% above the rate of inflation. On average that will mean a rise of £86 for the year that starts in April. Louise Beardmore said the rises will fund the "largest investment in water and wastewater infrastructure in over 100 years". For Windermere that's set to mean nine wastewater treatment works, including two that were included in the campaigners' analysis being upgraded and a reduction in the number of overflows discharging into the lake.

Cadia goldmine operators fined $350,000 for breaches of NSW clean-air laws

Testing had previously revealed the mine was emitting more than 11 times the legal limit of dust containing heavy metalsElection 2025 live updates: Australia federal election campaignGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe operators of Cadia goldmine have been ordered to pay $350,000 in fines and convicted of three offences after a prosecution by the New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority.Cadia Holdings Limited, trading as Cadia Valley Operations, pleaded guilty to three offences under the environmental protection act relating to breaches of clean air regulations at the mine in central west NSW.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email Continue reading...

The operators of Cadia goldmine have been ordered to pay $350,000 in fines and convicted of three offences after a prosecution by the New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority.Cadia Holdings Limited, trading as Cadia Valley Operations, pleaded guilty to three offences under the environmental protection act relating to breaches of clean air regulations at the mine in central west NSW.Justice Sarah Pritchard handed down her judgment in the land and environment court on Monday.The mine operator was fined $150,000 for offences in November 2021 and March 2022, and $200,000 for an offence in May 2023, but given a reduction in its penalty because of its guilty plea and other mitigating factors.It must also pay the EPA’s legal costs, and cover the cost of installing a new “dust tracking system” in Mudgee.Pritchard ordered that Newmont Australia, the owner of the mine, also had to publicise the ruling in a print advertisement in three newspapers, and on its Facebook and X accounts.Newmont acquired the previous owner, Newcrest, in November 2023.The EPA began investigating the central-west mine in 2023 after a community-driven water testing program that found elevated levels of heavy metals in the rainwater tanks of some nearby residences.It subsequently found that these levels were caused by dust emissions. The mine operator was exceeding the standard concentration for solid particles being emitted from mine surface exhaust fans at its main vent, known as Ventilation Rise 8 (VR8).In June 2023, the head of the NSW EPA criticised the operators of Australia’s largest goldmine for “completely unacceptable” levels of air pollution after testing revealed it was emitting more than 11 times the legal limit of dust containing heavy metals.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe EPA ordered the operators to take immediate action to reduce air pollution after they had provided preliminary air pollution test results to the EPA.That report found that VR8, also known as the “crusher vent” because it extracts contaminated air from where the ore is crushed deep underground, was expelling between 200 and 570 milligrams per cubic metre of dust – more than 11 times the regulatory limit for air pollution.This was despite a new ventilation system that included installing a bag house, which catches 1 tonne of dust an hour.The EPA chief executive officer, Tony Chappel, said at the time that the level of pollution recorded in those test results was “completely unacceptable” and that the mine had fallen well short of its legal obligations to meet clean air standards.“The clean air regulation states that for any point source of pollution, which that vent is, the maximum allowable standard of dust is 50 milligrams per cubic metre,” he said. “That’s the standard we’re talking about when we say they have to immediately comply.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.