World Environment Day 2025: Real Solutions To Beat Plastic Pollution
June 5th marks World Environment Day, and this year's theme, 'Beat Plastic Pollution,' is pertinent as global plastic production has ballooned from 2 million tons in 1950 to a staggering 430 million ton annually today, according to the United Nations Environment Program. The World Economic Forum further shares stark data that 350 million tons of plastic waste is generated each year and of that 19 million leaks in the environment with 13 million onto land and 6 million into rivers and coastlines. The In 2022 the OECD warned that if current trends continue, plastic waste could nearly triple by 2060, with half ending up in landfills and less than a fifth recycled.
A vendor arranges paper bags at Kimironko market in Kigali, Rwanda, July 14, 2022. TO GO WITH ... More "Feature: Rwanda makes strides in plastic ban" (Photo by Cyril Ndegeya/Xinhua via Getty Images)
At the recycling center, plastic bottles are collected and packed for recycling
Tackling plastic pollution requires systemic change that addresses the full lifecycle of plastic products. The journey to 'beat plastic pollution' has to start with strong policy frameworks such as Extended Producer Responsibility laws which are critical to shifting accountability onto companies and ensuring that environmental impacts are managed from production through to disposal.
However, legislation alone is not enough. Consumer awareness must move beyond marketing claims like 'recyclable,' especially as most plastics are not truly recycled and end up in landfills and oceans. Consumers must focus on reducing unnecessary plastics through reuse and refill systems, supporting companies committed to genuine sustainability, and demanding greater transparency and accountability. These are powerful actions that individuals can take to drive the market transformation needed to create a future where plastic pollution is no longer inevitable but preventable. Ultimately, collective action from policymakers, businesses, and consumers is essential. On this World Environment Day, the call is clear: it is time to move beyond promises and take decisive action for a cleaner, more sustainable planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Which Carbon Credits Work And Which Are Just Climate Placeholders?
Carbon Credit Market As the voluntary carbon market expands, not all carbon credits are created equal. In a climate economy increasingly scrutinized for greenwashing and impact-washing, the integrity of carbon credits matters more than ever. When executed with care and transparency, carbon credits can deliver real benefits for the climate, local communities, and the broader sustainable development agenda. However when the quality is compromised, carbon credits become little more than accounting tricks and attempts at bolstering ESG claims. This final article in the series on carbon credits and carbon capture highlights five high-integrity carbon credit types to watch, three types to approach with caution, and what it all means for the planet. Carbon Credits to Watch Carbon Credits to Approach with Caution Reforestation is a powerful tool for climate action, but only when implemented with ecological integrity. While trees naturally absorb and store carbon, poorly designed tree planting efforts can do more harm than good. Fast-growing, non-native species like eucalyptus and pine are often favored for their rapid carbon uptake but can deplete groundwater, reduce biodiversity, and increase wildfire risk. Similarly, planting trees in historically non-forested areas like grasslands or peatlands can disrupt local ecosystems. To ensure reforestation efforts are truly beneficial, projects must prioritize native species, local biodiversity, and long-term ecosystem health, not just carbon numbers. Typically, they may show short-term gains but are unsustainable long-term. According to the June 2025 report "Built to Fail?" by climate watchdog groups using the AlliedOffsets Database, the Voluntary Carbon Market, a system where organizations voluntarily buy carbon credits to offset emissions, retired approximately 207.8 million credits in 2024. Shockingly, more than 47.7 million of these were classified as 'problematic,' meaning they are unlikely to deliver the promised emissions reductions. The study analyzed 47 of the top 100 global offset projects and found that 80 percent of their retired credits were flawed. Key issues included non-additionality (when a project would have occurred without carbon finance), impermanence (when stored carbon may be re-released), leakage (when emissions are displaced rather than reduced), and over-crediting (when a project's actual impact is overstated). An alarming 93 percent of these problematic projects were located in the Global South, which includes regions such as Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. These areas have historically contributed the least to climate change but are already experiencing its most severe impacts. The report also found that over 90 percent of the flawed credits were issued by Verra, the world's largest carbon registry, with additional problematic credits verified under Gold Standard, Climate Action Reserve, and ACR. Even projects rated by BeZero, an independent verifier, were found to carry moderate to high risks of fundamental findings raise a serious question: Why do major companies continue to depend on a carbon market that consistently fails to guarantee real climate outcomes? Quality Over Quantity In Carbon Credit Market The voluntary carbon market holds real potential, but only when the focus is on integrity, not volume. High-quality carbon credits, whether from cookstove initiatives or mangrove restoration, deliver measurable climate benefits and often support social equity. However, the proliferation of low-quality or poorly verified offsets dilutes the market's credibility and undermines climate goals. As the world leans into net-zero targets, companies and countries alike must prioritize credits that are additional, permanent, and independently verified. In carbon markets, as in climate action, quality is not optional. It is the difference between real progress and smoke and mirrors.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Top Democrat questions ‘special treatment' for Alaska, Hawaii in GOP SNAP proposal
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, questioned why only two states should receive 'special treatment' in a GOP-backed plan to reduce federal dollars for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the coming years. As part of a major package being considered in the Senate to advance President Trump's tax priorities, Republicans also include a major change that would require some states to cover a share of SNAP benefit costs, which are currently funded by the federal government, for the first time. Republicans are floating changes to that plan that would create special carve-outs for Alaska and Hawaii amid internal GOP pushback. But senators signal the exemption could be at risk as Democrats question 'special treatment' for the states. 'On the SNAP side, as you know, they've shifted $64 billion to the states, of which 44 have balanced budget amendments,' Klobuchar argued Monday. 'And we tried to stop that, because the states aren't going to be able to do this.' 'Two states — they threw in Hawaii — two states get this special treatment, and no one else, and so I just figure, if they get that treatment, maybe every other state should, you know? Maybe we should be doing that for Wisconsin,' she told The Hill. 'Maybe we should be doing that for Iowa.' 'This cost shift to the states is the biggest cost shift in the bill,' she also said. Republicans are still waiting on a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian to see if the reworked proposal passes muster with the chamber's Byrd Rule. That decision, in turn, could be instrumental in whether Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) will support the bill. Her comments come as Alaska's other senator, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R), is pointing fingers at Democrats. He says the exemption — which is aimed at helping shield Alaska from steep cuts to federal dollars for food assistance — hangs in the balance because of pushback from the other side of the aisle. Politico was first to report the news. '[Senate Democratic Leader] Chuck Schumer and the Democrats are trying, once again, to strip a provision that helps Hawaii and Alaska's most vulnerable,' Sullivan told The Hill on Monday. 'Everything that we're trying to do for Alaska and Hawaii, Schumer and the Democrats strip it,' Sullivan said, urging his Democratic colleagues to call to tell their leadership, 'Don't screw our provision that's just trying to make it a little less difficult on challenging communities to implement their SNAP requirements.' As part of the SNAP proposal, some states will cover a share of the cost of SNAP benefits if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent beginning in fiscal 2028. But in a change from a previous version of the SNAP proposal assembled by the Senate Agriculture Committee, the bill also includes a 'waiver authority' section that could allow for the noncontiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii to see the requirements waived if they're found to be 'actively implementing a corrective action plan' and carrying out other activities to reduce their error rate. The update came after Alaska Republicans raised concerns over the GOP-crafted proposal. Republicans say the proposal is aimed at incentivizing states to get their payment error rates down, while Democrats have argued the measure could lead to states having to cut benefits. Figures recently unveiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found Alaska's payment error rate — which factors in overpayment and underpayment error rates — hit 24.66 percent in fiscal 2024, the highest of any state. The national average in the new reporting was 10.93 percent. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Klobuchar ‘very disappointed' in Murkowski over ‘big, beautiful bill' support
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is criticizing Sen. Lisa Murkowski for the Alaska Republican's decisive vote to advance the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill' last week. 'I was very disappointed, putting it mildly,' Klobuchar told MSNBC host Jen Psaki. Klobuchar also attacked a provision in the bill that will delay federal cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for states with high payment error rates, which includes Alaska. 'They wanted to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse? They're actually encouraging it,' she said. 'If I'm a governor in a state, I'm like, 'get my error rate up,' because it could save me a billion dollars a year on a state budget.' Murkowski extracted several concessions — many of them specific to her state — from GOP leadership over an agonizing and overnight Senate session last week. It took several attempts to design a change to SNAP funding that would blunt the impact to Alaska, at least temporarily. An earlier provision that carved out exemptions for Alaska and Hawaii as noncontiguous states came under fire from Democrats, including Klobuchar, and was ultimately axed by the Senate parliamentarian. GOP leaders instead settled on the use of error rates in order to comply with the Senate's rules around budget reconciliation. Still, after voting to advance the bill, Murkowski signaled that she was not wholly satisfied, calling on the House to improve it. However, in the face of potential defections from their side over the size of the national debt and insistence from the White House that it should pass, House Republicans elected to ram the bill through unamended. Klobuchar and Murkowski have worked together on occasion, introducing legislation to combat fetal alcohol disorders and regulate content generated by artificial intelligence in political ads. The Alaska senator is known for her independent streak and has broken with her party on key votes such as the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which she opposed. Klobuchar said people will lose Medicaid coverage as a result of the legislation. 'I think the people that are going to be really upset are the people who are going to be thrown off their health care,' Klobuchar said, citing an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office that 17 million Americans could lose their health insurance over 10 years. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
