Waste

About: <h1>Waste, refuse, recycle: towards a circulair economy</h1> <p>Waste is something unwanted or are materials we cannot use anymore. Waste is any material or product which is worthless, defect or of any use. In the near past it had hardly any economic value anymore but nowadays there are plenty people and organisations which are recycling waste and make from the regained parts again valuable material for reuse. The Circular Economy at work.</p> <p>Even better is a zero waste environment. That means no waste send to landfills. A zero waste lifestyle means: using less resources, eating healthier, saving money and less negative impact on the environment. Go for the 5 R&rsquo;s: refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle and rot.</p> <p>By reducing waste we can make a big difference. If there was an urge to come up with waste reduction ideas and sustainable recycle solutions and share these topics globally it&rsquo;s now! WhatsOrb Global Sustainability X-change Platform is for you, storytellers and influencers to write about waste reduction your experiences and expectations for the future at home and globally.&nbsp;</p> <p>Global Sustainability X-change, that&rsquo;s what you can do together with WhatsOrb.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whatsorb.com/blog/your-shared-sustainable-ideas-make-our-earth-a-better-place">What's in for me?</a></p>
Close Welcome writers, influencers and dreamers, make the world a greener place
Register here
Forgot password
Forgot password
or
or

Close
Close Inspiration on environmental sustainability, every month.

Currently 5,988 people are getting new inspiration every month from our global sustainability exchange. Do you want to stay informed? Fill in your e-mail address below:

Close For sustainability news hunters! The WhatsOrb newsletter!

Receive monthly the newest updates about sustainability from influencers and fellow writers. Cutting edge innovations and global environmental developments.

Close Reset password
your profile is 33% complete:
33%
Update profile Close
Close WhatsOrb Global Sustainability X-Change

For writers, influencers and dreamers who want to make the world a greener place.

WhatsOrb reaches monthly about 7000 thousand visitors who want - like you - to make the world a greener place. Share your expertise and all can benefit.

Become an influencer and write and share sustainable news and innovations globally
Are you a writer or do you have ideas about sustainability which you want to share? Register and share your green knowledge and news. WhatsOrb offers you global exposure for your article.

If your article meets certain standards, you receive promotional gains like Facebook promotions and Google Ads advertising.



Waste categorybanner General

MenuMenu
Fireworks: Undermines Your New Year
New Year’s Eve. While most of us will have plenty of activities on the night itself, sipping champagne, watching the traditional tv-shows and playing games with family, there are quite a number of people who enjoy another recurring tradition: watching the fireworks. Whether you opt for looking out from behind the relative safety of your window, gawking at the professional show amidst thousands of others in a crowded square, or going out to light up the sky yourself. Fireworks are mesmerizing, dreamy, and very romantic. But at the same time, they are not exactly great for the environment. Photo by: Gregie Bertaud Watching the fireworks And while it will not be a thing most of us are wanting to hear, because ‘it is tradition and a symbolic way of welcoming the new year…’ Well, just hear me out if you want to optimize the number of new years that future generations will get to enjoy as well. The colorful, artistic lights flickering in the sky, accompanied by rhythmic booms reverberating in our hearts, will fill us with joy. With happy and perhaps not so happy memories of the year that we just said goodbye to. With hope and anticipation for the year to come. It will fill us with love and with good intentions.  And with harmful particulates and elements. U nfortunately all the things that make fireworks so pretty and attractive are exactly those things that make them so bad for us. Gunpowder will help it lift off and reach the sky. Metallic compounds give it its gorgeous colors. All of these elements are made up of carcinogenic and hormone-disrupting substances, that can make its way into our soil, air, and water . Some of those really bad guys that are present in commonly used fireworks include perchlorates. These are responsible for the explosion, as they feed oxygen in the charcoal-sulfur fuel that powers up the explosive, serving as the so-called oxidizers. The pyrotechnics industry is particularly looking at two types of perchlorates for this: potassium perchlorate and ammonium perchlorate.   Fancy names for something so inherently bad, as they can cause all kind of health problems, most significantly hypothyroidism: an illness that limits the thyroid’s ability to ingest iodine, which will lead to a lack of hormones in the human body - hindering all kind of bodily functions and potentially giving rise to all kind of disorders, especially in children.   Then there are particulates. These can be found in the smoke resulting from the burned charcoal and sulfur and will make their way to our lungs. This could pose an instant danger for those suffering from asthma-related diseases. Merely looking at an air-quality monitor spiking out in the hours after a fireworks show should get you concerned about the air that you are breathing.   There are even more rather ominous sounding elements that can be found in your firecrackers, flares and Roman candles. Strontium, aluminum, copper, barium, rubidium, cadmium: terms that you might remember from your chem class as being rather delicate and dangerous substances, yet that are freely used to color our fireworks. All of them carry nasty side-effects when ingested in high doses, including impairment of bone growth, mental disorders, Alzheimer’s, cancer, skin diseases, paralysis, heart problems and - in the worst case - death.   Translation? For the next few days or weeks, you will be eating, drinking, and breathing all kind of highly toxic and destructive particles. You’re welcome. Some will object at this point, claiming that it cannot be that bad. Fireworks are, after all, not an everyday event (that is, unless you work in Disney World). And are those one or two days per year that we shoot all kinds of garbage up in the atmosphere really something worth worrying over? Especially as the industrial sector keeps on regurgitating substances that are seemingly identical on a daily basis?   Admittedly, the chances of attracting any of the diseases given above for the volumes going up in the air on New Years are so small that they could be considered insignificant. Yet we should not just think about ourselves (which might coincidentally just be another of your New Year’s resolutions), but consider the impact on our environment as well. Some cities will experience more smog and air pollution on New Year’s Day alone than in the previous year as a whole. That is a fact.   These toxins will get in the atmosphere, in the soil, in the water. Aquatic life will suffer , cows eating polluted grass will pass it on to us through our hamburgers. With every piece of firework launched, a toxic rain will fall down on our lands that will impact all living beings. And the worst part? The majority of these chemicals are persistent, which means that they will not break down in nature, but stay in our ecosystems indefinitely.   And no, there has not been enough research performed yet to be able to state with certainty that fireworks do actually pose an instant, immediate danger to us and the world around us. But the evidence as given above will, if anything, make perfectly clear that it cannot possibly be any good.   Only clinging onto it for the sake of tradition, would be silly - and hugely negligent. Cover photo by: Mervyn Chan https://www.whatsorb.com/category/waste
New Year’s Eve. While most of us will have plenty of activities on the night itself, sipping champagne, watching the traditional tv-shows and playing games with family, there are quite a number of people who enjoy another recurring tradition: watching the fireworks. Whether you opt for looking out from behind the relative safety of your window, gawking at the professional show amidst thousands of others in a crowded square, or going out to light up the sky yourself. Fireworks are mesmerizing, dreamy, and very romantic. But at the same time, they are not exactly great for the environment. Photo by: Gregie Bertaud Watching the fireworks And while it will not be a thing most of us are wanting to hear, because ‘it is tradition and a symbolic way of welcoming the new year…’ Well, just hear me out if you want to optimize the number of new years that future generations will get to enjoy as well. The colorful, artistic lights flickering in the sky, accompanied by rhythmic booms reverberating in our hearts, will fill us with joy. With happy and perhaps not so happy memories of the year that we just said goodbye to. With hope and anticipation for the year to come. It will fill us with love and with good intentions.  And with harmful particulates and elements. U nfortunately all the things that make fireworks so pretty and attractive are exactly those things that make them so bad for us. Gunpowder will help it lift off and reach the sky. Metallic compounds give it its gorgeous colors. All of these elements are made up of carcinogenic and hormone-disrupting substances, that can make its way into our soil, air, and water . Some of those really bad guys that are present in commonly used fireworks include perchlorates. These are responsible for the explosion, as they feed oxygen in the charcoal-sulfur fuel that powers up the explosive, serving as the so-called oxidizers. The pyrotechnics industry is particularly looking at two types of perchlorates for this: potassium perchlorate and ammonium perchlorate.   Fancy names for something so inherently bad, as they can cause all kind of health problems, most significantly hypothyroidism: an illness that limits the thyroid’s ability to ingest iodine, which will lead to a lack of hormones in the human body - hindering all kind of bodily functions and potentially giving rise to all kind of disorders, especially in children.   Then there are particulates. These can be found in the smoke resulting from the burned charcoal and sulfur and will make their way to our lungs. This could pose an instant danger for those suffering from asthma-related diseases. Merely looking at an air-quality monitor spiking out in the hours after a fireworks show should get you concerned about the air that you are breathing.   There are even more rather ominous sounding elements that can be found in your firecrackers, flares and Roman candles. Strontium, aluminum, copper, barium, rubidium, cadmium: terms that you might remember from your chem class as being rather delicate and dangerous substances, yet that are freely used to color our fireworks. All of them carry nasty side-effects when ingested in high doses, including impairment of bone growth, mental disorders, Alzheimer’s, cancer, skin diseases, paralysis, heart problems and - in the worst case - death.   Translation? For the next few days or weeks, you will be eating, drinking, and breathing all kind of highly toxic and destructive particles. You’re welcome. Some will object at this point, claiming that it cannot be that bad. Fireworks are, after all, not an everyday event (that is, unless you work in Disney World). And are those one or two days per year that we shoot all kinds of garbage up in the atmosphere really something worth worrying over? Especially as the industrial sector keeps on regurgitating substances that are seemingly identical on a daily basis?   Admittedly, the chances of attracting any of the diseases given above for the volumes going up in the air on New Years are so small that they could be considered insignificant. Yet we should not just think about ourselves (which might coincidentally just be another of your New Year’s resolutions), but consider the impact on our environment as well. Some cities will experience more smog and air pollution on New Year’s Day alone than in the previous year as a whole. That is a fact.   These toxins will get in the atmosphere, in the soil, in the water. Aquatic life will suffer , cows eating polluted grass will pass it on to us through our hamburgers. With every piece of firework launched, a toxic rain will fall down on our lands that will impact all living beings. And the worst part? The majority of these chemicals are persistent, which means that they will not break down in nature, but stay in our ecosystems indefinitely.   And no, there has not been enough research performed yet to be able to state with certainty that fireworks do actually pose an instant, immediate danger to us and the world around us. But the evidence as given above will, if anything, make perfectly clear that it cannot possibly be any good.   Only clinging onto it for the sake of tradition, would be silly - and hugely negligent. Cover photo by: Mervyn Chan https://www.whatsorb.com/category/waste
Fireworks: Undermines Your New Year's Good Intentions
Deaths on Mount Everest And Garbage Problem Reached Its Peak
Mount Everest – the highest mountain above sea level, a lifelong goal for many climbers and one of the Seven Wonders of the Natural World. But it turns out these days it isn’t quite as magnificent up close and humans are the ones to blame. In 1953, a famed explorer Sir Edmund Hillary was the first to reach the 8,848-metre peak. Since then, thousands of people have attempted the journey and it has led to a real tragedy – the once pure nature is now littered with trash and excrement that were left behind. And not only waste is left behind! Up till now in 2019 around 200 dead bodies can be found scattered along the trail to the summit of the Mount Everest. Nepal has climbers pick up trash on Everest. Photo: NBC News Garbage policies and fines The situation is so dire that Tibet and Nepal have introduced special policies and fines to encourage the climbers to not only clean up their own trash, but also help collect what adventurers before them left behind. Both require each of the climbers to collect at least 8kgs(17,4 lbs) of trash and human waste, with Tibet fining those who fell short $100 for each kilogram not collected and Nepal retaining a $4,000 per team deposit that was paid before the climb. While these penalties seem substantial, they are not substantial enough – many clumbers pay up to $100,000 for their journey and these fines just don’t make a significant dent in the budget. Another important aspect is that Mount Everest is one of the most challenging treks in the world where many have perished. This can make some climbers face a choice between spending their energy on getting down safely or bringing back their own garbage and it is hard to argue for the latter. While we’d think that things like discarded food packaging and gear would be the main problem, it is actually the faeces that are making the biggest stink. The excrements that were left behind in unlined ice pits get washed down by the melting snow and then start running down the slope. This not only creates foul-smelling piles of human waste, but also poses a health risk to those dependent on water from rivers that are fed by the glaciers. Unfortunately, even the human waste collected responsibly ends up in dumpsites that are only marginally safer. {youtube} Long-term solutions are in sight Luckily, the problem of the 'highest trash dump in the world' is not being taken lightly and while Eco Everest expeditions and teams of locals venture out to clean up the mountain, experts around the world are looking for better long-term solutions. Mount Everest Biogas Project is hoping to create a biogas plant that will convert human waste into renewable fuel. This will help clean up the dumpsites, minimize health risks for locals and provide them with a new, clean fuel for cooking and heating to reduce dependence on wood and thus curtail deforestation . This will certainly help make this area much more sustainable and preserve the beauty of one of the most breath-taking sights in the world (and will make it smell a lot nicer too!). Have you heard of any other initiatives that are focused on cleaning up Mt. Everest? Or are there perhaps other mountains that are in dire need of attention? Share your thoughts with us in the comments! Cover photo by: Mari Partyka https://www.whatsorb.com/category/waste
Mount Everest – the highest mountain above sea level, a lifelong goal for many climbers and one of the Seven Wonders of the Natural World. But it turns out these days it isn’t quite as magnificent up close and humans are the ones to blame. In 1953, a famed explorer Sir Edmund Hillary was the first to reach the 8,848-metre peak. Since then, thousands of people have attempted the journey and it has led to a real tragedy – the once pure nature is now littered with trash and excrement that were left behind. And not only waste is left behind! Up till now in 2019 around 200 dead bodies can be found scattered along the trail to the summit of the Mount Everest. Nepal has climbers pick up trash on Everest. Photo: NBC News Garbage policies and fines The situation is so dire that Tibet and Nepal have introduced special policies and fines to encourage the climbers to not only clean up their own trash, but also help collect what adventurers before them left behind. Both require each of the climbers to collect at least 8kgs(17,4 lbs) of trash and human waste, with Tibet fining those who fell short $100 for each kilogram not collected and Nepal retaining a $4,000 per team deposit that was paid before the climb. While these penalties seem substantial, they are not substantial enough – many clumbers pay up to $100,000 for their journey and these fines just don’t make a significant dent in the budget. Another important aspect is that Mount Everest is one of the most challenging treks in the world where many have perished. This can make some climbers face a choice between spending their energy on getting down safely or bringing back their own garbage and it is hard to argue for the latter. While we’d think that things like discarded food packaging and gear would be the main problem, it is actually the faeces that are making the biggest stink. The excrements that were left behind in unlined ice pits get washed down by the melting snow and then start running down the slope. This not only creates foul-smelling piles of human waste, but also poses a health risk to those dependent on water from rivers that are fed by the glaciers. Unfortunately, even the human waste collected responsibly ends up in dumpsites that are only marginally safer. {youtube} Long-term solutions are in sight Luckily, the problem of the 'highest trash dump in the world' is not being taken lightly and while Eco Everest expeditions and teams of locals venture out to clean up the mountain, experts around the world are looking for better long-term solutions. Mount Everest Biogas Project is hoping to create a biogas plant that will convert human waste into renewable fuel. This will help clean up the dumpsites, minimize health risks for locals and provide them with a new, clean fuel for cooking and heating to reduce dependence on wood and thus curtail deforestation . This will certainly help make this area much more sustainable and preserve the beauty of one of the most breath-taking sights in the world (and will make it smell a lot nicer too!). Have you heard of any other initiatives that are focused on cleaning up Mt. Everest? Or are there perhaps other mountains that are in dire need of attention? Share your thoughts with us in the comments! Cover photo by: Mari Partyka https://www.whatsorb.com/category/waste
Deaths on Mount Everest And Garbage Problem Reached Its Peak
Deaths on Mount Everest And Garbage Problem Reached Its Peak
Ozone Destroying Chemical (CFC) Shocks Scientists: Worldwide
A sharp and mysterious rise in emissions of a key ozone-destroying chemical has been detected by scientists, despite its production being banned around the world. Unless the culprit is found and stopped, the recovery of the ozone layer, which protects life on Earth from damaging UV radiation, could be delayed by a decade. The source of the new emissions has been tracked to east Asia, but finding a more precise location requires further investigation. CFCs have been outlawed for years but researchers have detected new production somewhere in east Asia CFC chemicals were used in making foams for furniture and buildings, in aerosols and as refrigerants. But they were banned under the global Montreal protocol after the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica in the 1980s. Since 2007, there has been essentially zero reported production of CFC-11, the second most damaging of all CFCs. The rise in CFC-11 was revealed by Stephen Montzka, at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Colorado, and colleagues who monitor chemicals in the atmosphere. “I have been doing this for 27 years and this is the most surprising thing I’ve ever seen,” he said. “I was just shocked by it.” We are acting as detectives searching for atmospheric  waste Erik Solheim, head of UN Environment, said: “If these emissions continue unabated, they have the potential to slow down the recovery of the ozone layer. It’s therefore critical that we identify the precise causes of these emissions and take the necessary action.” CFCs used in buildings and appliances before the ban came into force still leak into the air today. The rate of leakage was declining steadily until 2013, when an abrupt slowing of the decline was detected at research stations from Greenland to the South Pole. Scientists then embarked on an investigation, published in the journal Nature, to find out the cause. The detective work began by assessing whether there had been changes in how the atmosphere distributes and destroys CFC-11 that could explain the changed measurements. But this factor was mostly ruled out and in the most recent data – 2017 – it appears to have played no role at all. Next, the researchers looked at whether the release of CFC from older materials could have doubled, as required to explain the data. “But we don’t know of any folks who are destroying buildings at a much more dramatic rate than they were before,” said Montzka. Lastly, the team considered whether the new CFC-11 was being produced as a by-product of some other chemical manufacturing process. But they ruled this out too, as the quantities involved are too high, representing a 25% rise in global emissions. You are left with; "boy, it really looks like somebody is making it new!"  “If the increased emissions were to go away (soon), it’s influence on the recovery date for the ozone layer would be minor,” he said. “If it doesn’t go away, there could be a 10-year delay, and if it continued to increase, the delay would be even longer.” The last option is a possibility, as if the new CFC-11 is being used in foams, then only a small fraction will have made it to the atmosphere so far and more could leak out for many years into the future. Michaela Hegglin, at the University of Reading, UK, and not part of the research team said researchers had taken rigorous steps to rule out alternative explanations for the rise in CFC-11 when reaching their conclusion that new production must be occurring. She said: “The study highlights that environmental regulations cannot be taken for granted and must be safe-guarded, and that monitoring is required to ensure compliance.” Prof Piers Forster, at the University of Leeds, UK, said: “This new study is atmospheric detective work at its finest.” Paul Young, at Lancaster University, UK, said: “The Montreal Protocol has been rightly hailed as our most successful international environmental treaty, so the suggestion that there are possibly continued, unreported emissions of CFCs is certainly troubling and needs further investigation.” Montzka said the world’s nations are committed to its enforcement. “I have a feeling that we will find out fairly quickly what exactly is going on and that the situation will be remedied,” he said. Even just the publicity about the new CFC-11 production could lead to its shutdown, he said: “Somebody who was maybe doing it purposefully will realise – oh, someone is paying attention – and stop doing it.” On the 22th of May 2019 an article appeared in BBC News, Science that banned CFCs were traced back to China. By: Damian Carrington  https://www.whatsorb.com/category/waste
A sharp and mysterious rise in emissions of a key ozone-destroying chemical has been detected by scientists, despite its production being banned around the world. Unless the culprit is found and stopped, the recovery of the ozone layer, which protects life on Earth from damaging UV radiation, could be delayed by a decade. The source of the new emissions has been tracked to east Asia, but finding a more precise location requires further investigation. CFCs have been outlawed for years but researchers have detected new production somewhere in east Asia CFC chemicals were used in making foams for furniture and buildings, in aerosols and as refrigerants. But they were banned under the global Montreal protocol after the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica in the 1980s. Since 2007, there has been essentially zero reported production of CFC-11, the second most damaging of all CFCs. The rise in CFC-11 was revealed by Stephen Montzka, at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Colorado, and colleagues who monitor chemicals in the atmosphere. “I have been doing this for 27 years and this is the most surprising thing I’ve ever seen,” he said. “I was just shocked by it.” We are acting as detectives searching for atmospheric  waste Erik Solheim, head of UN Environment, said: “If these emissions continue unabated, they have the potential to slow down the recovery of the ozone layer. It’s therefore critical that we identify the precise causes of these emissions and take the necessary action.” CFCs used in buildings and appliances before the ban came into force still leak into the air today. The rate of leakage was declining steadily until 2013, when an abrupt slowing of the decline was detected at research stations from Greenland to the South Pole. Scientists then embarked on an investigation, published in the journal Nature, to find out the cause. The detective work began by assessing whether there had been changes in how the atmosphere distributes and destroys CFC-11 that could explain the changed measurements. But this factor was mostly ruled out and in the most recent data – 2017 – it appears to have played no role at all. Next, the researchers looked at whether the release of CFC from older materials could have doubled, as required to explain the data. “But we don’t know of any folks who are destroying buildings at a much more dramatic rate than they were before,” said Montzka. Lastly, the team considered whether the new CFC-11 was being produced as a by-product of some other chemical manufacturing process. But they ruled this out too, as the quantities involved are too high, representing a 25% rise in global emissions. You are left with; "boy, it really looks like somebody is making it new!"  “If the increased emissions were to go away (soon), it’s influence on the recovery date for the ozone layer would be minor,” he said. “If it doesn’t go away, there could be a 10-year delay, and if it continued to increase, the delay would be even longer.” The last option is a possibility, as if the new CFC-11 is being used in foams, then only a small fraction will have made it to the atmosphere so far and more could leak out for many years into the future. Michaela Hegglin, at the University of Reading, UK, and not part of the research team said researchers had taken rigorous steps to rule out alternative explanations for the rise in CFC-11 when reaching their conclusion that new production must be occurring. She said: “The study highlights that environmental regulations cannot be taken for granted and must be safe-guarded, and that monitoring is required to ensure compliance.” Prof Piers Forster, at the University of Leeds, UK, said: “This new study is atmospheric detective work at its finest.” Paul Young, at Lancaster University, UK, said: “The Montreal Protocol has been rightly hailed as our most successful international environmental treaty, so the suggestion that there are possibly continued, unreported emissions of CFCs is certainly troubling and needs further investigation.” Montzka said the world’s nations are committed to its enforcement. “I have a feeling that we will find out fairly quickly what exactly is going on and that the situation will be remedied,” he said. Even just the publicity about the new CFC-11 production could lead to its shutdown, he said: “Somebody who was maybe doing it purposefully will realise – oh, someone is paying attention – and stop doing it.” On the 22th of May 2019 an article appeared in BBC News, Science that banned CFCs were traced back to China. By: Damian Carrington  https://www.whatsorb.com/category/waste
Ozone Destroying Chemical (CFC) Shocks Scientists: Worldwide
Ozone Destroying Chemical (CFC) Shocks Scientists: Worldwide
Oil Pollution Is The Dirty Secret Behind Green Norway
Norway is widely regarded as the most developed, happy and democratic country in the world and is also labeled as one of the leaders of the sustainable economy of the future. However, this environmentally friendly image conceals a reality where the country should be criticized as a symbol of global pollution. That's what James Watkins, a journalist at the Ozy news site, says. In the rich countries, only Sweden and Switzerland have an economy that operates less intensively on carbon dioxide, but at the same time Norway must be one of the largest exporters of oil and gas. Norway is not sustainable at all if export of oil would be intergrated in its ecological footprint  If one would integrate the export of fossil fuels into the ecological footprint of Norway, the sustainable image of the country does not have much left. At present, the country is one of the nations with the lowest levels of carbon dioxide on the entire planet, but including exports, the country would become by far the largest producer in the rich world. The Norwegian export of oil and gas causes about 500 million carbon dioxide annually. The domestic economy barely shows a level of 50 million tons. Per gross domestic product, Norway would even achieve the highest score in terms of emissions within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). "Of course, the other OECD countries also export fossil fuels, but that relationship shows much less extreme scores," writes James Watkins. "In Canada, the ecological footprint would increase by 115 percent, while Australia would register a tripling. In Norway, however, there is a tenfold increase. " According to Watkins, these differences can have a major impact, since they have a direct influence on the way in which parties are thought to have the greatest moral duty to deal with  climate change most intensively. Responsibility "Norway accepts no responsibility for its exported emissions," says Robbie Andrew, researcher at the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo. "This can be compared to the sale of weapons to a country that is at war and committed to atrocities and the supplier. not take responsibility because you do not leave the trigger yourself. " According to Watkins, the Norwegian example shows that in a globalized economy there is no point in working solely with national emission data. According to him, this can also be determined in the United States. "Norway is faced with a unique paradox," acknowledges the journalist. "A large part of the enormous wealth of the country is built on the export of its fossil fuel. The Norwegian Oljefondet is the largest state fund in the world with a portfolio of more than 1 trillion dollars. " "This richness is also one of the elements that has led Norway to be one of the best welfare states in the world, and that does not want to endanger most people, so it's almost impossible to find a majority in Norway the production of fossil fuels wants to stop. "Defenders of the Norwegian economy also point out that the country also invests hundreds of millions of dollars in sustainable programs elsewhere in the world. "The moral dilemma can ultimately become an existential crisis for the Norwegian economy," warns Christoffer Ringnes Klyve, chairman of the environmental association Future in Our Hands. "After all, Norway is worldwide leader in electric cars, but is also one of the engines of a trend that will eventually undermine the market for its most important export product - oil. That is a huge national dilemma." By: Marc Horckmans https://www.whatsorb.com/category/waste
Norway is widely regarded as the most developed, happy and democratic country in the world and is also labeled as one of the leaders of the sustainable economy of the future. However, this environmentally friendly image conceals a reality where the country should be criticized as a symbol of global pollution. That's what James Watkins, a journalist at the Ozy news site, says. In the rich countries, only Sweden and Switzerland have an economy that operates less intensively on carbon dioxide, but at the same time Norway must be one of the largest exporters of oil and gas. Norway is not sustainable at all if export of oil would be intergrated in its ecological footprint  If one would integrate the export of fossil fuels into the ecological footprint of Norway, the sustainable image of the country does not have much left. At present, the country is one of the nations with the lowest levels of carbon dioxide on the entire planet, but including exports, the country would become by far the largest producer in the rich world. The Norwegian export of oil and gas causes about 500 million carbon dioxide annually. The domestic economy barely shows a level of 50 million tons. Per gross domestic product, Norway would even achieve the highest score in terms of emissions within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). "Of course, the other OECD countries also export fossil fuels, but that relationship shows much less extreme scores," writes James Watkins. "In Canada, the ecological footprint would increase by 115 percent, while Australia would register a tripling. In Norway, however, there is a tenfold increase. " According to Watkins, these differences can have a major impact, since they have a direct influence on the way in which parties are thought to have the greatest moral duty to deal with  climate change most intensively. Responsibility "Norway accepts no responsibility for its exported emissions," says Robbie Andrew, researcher at the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo. "This can be compared to the sale of weapons to a country that is at war and committed to atrocities and the supplier. not take responsibility because you do not leave the trigger yourself. " According to Watkins, the Norwegian example shows that in a globalized economy there is no point in working solely with national emission data. According to him, this can also be determined in the United States. "Norway is faced with a unique paradox," acknowledges the journalist. "A large part of the enormous wealth of the country is built on the export of its fossil fuel. The Norwegian Oljefondet is the largest state fund in the world with a portfolio of more than 1 trillion dollars. " "This richness is also one of the elements that has led Norway to be one of the best welfare states in the world, and that does not want to endanger most people, so it's almost impossible to find a majority in Norway the production of fossil fuels wants to stop. "Defenders of the Norwegian economy also point out that the country also invests hundreds of millions of dollars in sustainable programs elsewhere in the world. "The moral dilemma can ultimately become an existential crisis for the Norwegian economy," warns Christoffer Ringnes Klyve, chairman of the environmental association Future in Our Hands. "After all, Norway is worldwide leader in electric cars, but is also one of the engines of a trend that will eventually undermine the market for its most important export product - oil. That is a huge national dilemma." By: Marc Horckmans https://www.whatsorb.com/category/waste
Oil Pollution Is The Dirty Secret Behind Green Norway
Oil Pollution Is The Dirty Secret Behind Green Norway
Nuclear Floating Power Plants: A Floating Chernobyl: Russia
The only floating nuclear power plant in the world has gone up the sea for the first time. The Russian Akademik Lomonosov left St. Petersburg, where it was built. It is towed through the Baltic Sea, around the northern tip of Norway to Murmansk, where the reactors are filled with nuclear fuel. The Akademik Lomonosov was built in nine years and will be operational this year 2019 off the coast of Chukotka in the far east of Russia. There, the power plant must provide energy to remote factories, port cities and oil platforms. It will replace two nuclear reactors which, according to the Russian nuclear power company Rosatom, are technologically outdated. Russian floating nuclear power plant makes its maiden voyage Shocking The project is heavily criticized by environmentalists. Greenpeace calls it a floating Chernobyl. "Nuclear reactors that float in the Arctic Ocean are a shockingly obvious threat to a fragile environment that is already under enormous pressure from climate change," says Jan Haverkamp, ​​nuclear expert at the environmental club. Nuclear energy is not safe at all The atomic lobby deliberately omits the enormous risks of nuclear power plants, says Els de Groen, writer, journalist and former MEP for the Greens / European Free Alliance. Now that coal, oil and gas consumption is warming up or shaking the earth, the call for nuclear energy is getting louder. Complete with the old mantra: major accidents, small opportunities. Hydropower, particulate matter and natural gas production are all much more dangerous than nuclear energy ... Chernobyl was the fault of the Russians and Fukushima was hit by a tsunami, and the numbers of victims are based on speculation. It is time to put an end to the demagoguery of nuclear lobbyists as emeritus professor Jan Goudriaan. The expertise they carry out does not sink in anything that they conceal. Never do they mention the  waste problem and the long-term consequences. During uranium extraction, during reprocessing and decommissioning, large quantities of waste occur that remain highly radioactive for hundreds of years (cesium) to tens of thousands of years (plutonium) and even billions of years (uranium). On that scale we are one-day flies, although it is with a footprint that no dinosaur can match. Experts never tell us that the calculation of 'safe' doses is always based on an average person. The four to ten times greater radiation sensitivity of women, children and unborn babies is not taken into account. For the Netherlands this means that three-fifths of the population may be exposed to unacceptable radiation levels. The annual dose of 1 millisievert experiences a fetus as 10 millisievert or half the annual dose of a radiological worker! Moreover, the sensitivity of tissues and organs, expressed as a percentage, is cast into a system that does not allow any correction. If we discover tomorrow that our lungs are more sensitive than has always been assumed, then we must lower the sensitivity of another organ, because the sensitivity of all organs must remain 100%. However, this inadequate system is used to calculate the permissible burden on, for example, the bladder and then to decide whether or not to send workers an infected space or to evacuate members of the population or not. Last year, all Dutch people received a iodine tablet in a radius of 100 km. If saturated in time, the thyroid gland, causing the radioactive iodine-131 is no longer absorbed. What experts do not tell you is that there is more to it: strontium, for example, that accumulates in our bones, or plutonium that seeks out the red bone marrow. There are no pills against that. The sensitivity of the thyroid is only a fraction of the total sensitivity. After a service period of thirty years, most nuclear energy stations are gone. In Doel, Tihange and Borssele there are power stations of forty years old. There are thousands of cracks in various reactor vessels, so-called hydrogen flakes. This leads to a dilemma: the fuel rods have to be cooled permanently, but the cracks force us to drastically increase the temperature of the emergency cooling water. Nevertheless, the power stations remain open. There is no budget for demolition, no premium was paid for accident insurance or the costs of evacuations. There is not one insurance company that dares to run the risks. If a  nuclear power plant had four wheels, it would be taken directly from the road. Why does not that happen? I would like to quote Einstein: "The unchained atomic force has changed everything, except our way of thinking ... The solution of that problem lies in the heart of the people. Had I known that, then I would have become a watchmaker. Not everything we discover is good, but apparently it takes courage to admit mistakes". By: Els de Groen. Cover photo Фото: greenpeace.org/russia https://www.whatsorb.com/category/energy
The only floating nuclear power plant in the world has gone up the sea for the first time. The Russian Akademik Lomonosov left St. Petersburg, where it was built. It is towed through the Baltic Sea, around the northern tip of Norway to Murmansk, where the reactors are filled with nuclear fuel. The Akademik Lomonosov was built in nine years and will be operational this year 2019 off the coast of Chukotka in the far east of Russia. There, the power plant must provide energy to remote factories, port cities and oil platforms. It will replace two nuclear reactors which, according to the Russian nuclear power company Rosatom, are technologically outdated. Russian floating nuclear power plant makes its maiden voyage Shocking The project is heavily criticized by environmentalists. Greenpeace calls it a floating Chernobyl. "Nuclear reactors that float in the Arctic Ocean are a shockingly obvious threat to a fragile environment that is already under enormous pressure from climate change," says Jan Haverkamp, ​​nuclear expert at the environmental club. Nuclear energy is not safe at all The atomic lobby deliberately omits the enormous risks of nuclear power plants, says Els de Groen, writer, journalist and former MEP for the Greens / European Free Alliance. Now that coal, oil and gas consumption is warming up or shaking the earth, the call for nuclear energy is getting louder. Complete with the old mantra: major accidents, small opportunities. Hydropower, particulate matter and natural gas production are all much more dangerous than nuclear energy ... Chernobyl was the fault of the Russians and Fukushima was hit by a tsunami, and the numbers of victims are based on speculation. It is time to put an end to the demagoguery of nuclear lobbyists as emeritus professor Jan Goudriaan. The expertise they carry out does not sink in anything that they conceal. Never do they mention the  waste problem and the long-term consequences. During uranium extraction, during reprocessing and decommissioning, large quantities of waste occur that remain highly radioactive for hundreds of years (cesium) to tens of thousands of years (plutonium) and even billions of years (uranium). On that scale we are one-day flies, although it is with a footprint that no dinosaur can match. Experts never tell us that the calculation of 'safe' doses is always based on an average person. The four to ten times greater radiation sensitivity of women, children and unborn babies is not taken into account. For the Netherlands this means that three-fifths of the population may be exposed to unacceptable radiation levels. The annual dose of 1 millisievert experiences a fetus as 10 millisievert or half the annual dose of a radiological worker! Moreover, the sensitivity of tissues and organs, expressed as a percentage, is cast into a system that does not allow any correction. If we discover tomorrow that our lungs are more sensitive than has always been assumed, then we must lower the sensitivity of another organ, because the sensitivity of all organs must remain 100%. However, this inadequate system is used to calculate the permissible burden on, for example, the bladder and then to decide whether or not to send workers an infected space or to evacuate members of the population or not. Last year, all Dutch people received a iodine tablet in a radius of 100 km. If saturated in time, the thyroid gland, causing the radioactive iodine-131 is no longer absorbed. What experts do not tell you is that there is more to it: strontium, for example, that accumulates in our bones, or plutonium that seeks out the red bone marrow. There are no pills against that. The sensitivity of the thyroid is only a fraction of the total sensitivity. After a service period of thirty years, most nuclear energy stations are gone. In Doel, Tihange and Borssele there are power stations of forty years old. There are thousands of cracks in various reactor vessels, so-called hydrogen flakes. This leads to a dilemma: the fuel rods have to be cooled permanently, but the cracks force us to drastically increase the temperature of the emergency cooling water. Nevertheless, the power stations remain open. There is no budget for demolition, no premium was paid for accident insurance or the costs of evacuations. There is not one insurance company that dares to run the risks. If a  nuclear power plant had four wheels, it would be taken directly from the road. Why does not that happen? I would like to quote Einstein: "The unchained atomic force has changed everything, except our way of thinking ... The solution of that problem lies in the heart of the people. Had I known that, then I would have become a watchmaker. Not everything we discover is good, but apparently it takes courage to admit mistakes". By: Els de Groen. Cover photo Фото: greenpeace.org/russia https://www.whatsorb.com/category/energy
Nuclear Floating Power Plants: A Floating Chernobyl: Russia
Nuclear Floating Power Plants: A Floating Chernobyl: Russia
Waste

Waste, refuse, recycle: towards a circulair economy

Waste is something unwanted or are materials we cannot use anymore. Waste is any material or product which is worthless, defect or of any use. In the near past it had hardly any economic value anymore but nowadays there are plenty people and organisations which are recycling waste and make from the regained parts again valuable material for reuse. The Circular Economy at work.

Even better is a zero waste environment. That means no waste send to landfills. A zero waste lifestyle means: using less resources, eating healthier, saving money and less negative impact on the environment. Go for the 5 R’s: refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle and rot.

By reducing waste we can make a big difference. If there was an urge to come up with waste reduction ideas and sustainable recycle solutions and share these topics globally it’s now! WhatsOrb Global Sustainability X-change Platform is for you, storytellers and influencers to write about waste reduction your experiences and expectations for the future at home and globally. 

Global Sustainability X-change, that’s what you can do together with WhatsOrb. What's in for me?

Get updates on environmental sustainability in your mailbox every month.